Sean Hannity Show - O'Reilly on Trump - February 28th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 29, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

27:12

O'Reilly on Trump - February 28th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Leonard Skinner's Simple Man, and that can only mean one thing on this radio program, all things self-proclaimed simple man.
	That means all things Bill O'Reilly, all things O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
	Mr. O'Reilly, sir, happy Wednesday.
	How are you?
	You know, I'm delirious.
	It's like eight.
	You know, I never know what I'm going to get out of you.
	Go ahead.
	You know, stories all over the place here.
	I want to ask you about the election today before you tell me what you want to talk about, because I really have not spoken to you about where we are.
	We had the primary in Michigan.
	We had the primary Saturday in South Carolina.
	Not just Nikki Haley.
	I think one of the interesting things to come out last night at a Michigan is over 100,000 Michigan voters marked uncommitted on their ballots in the Democratic primary.
	That accounts for nearly 14% of the vote, far more than either President Joe Biden's longshot challengers, Mary Ann Williamson, who's back in, apparently.
	She changed her mind, Bill.
	And Dean Phillips of Minnesota.
	And then Trump wins by over 40.
	And Nikki Haley's home state, he won by 21.
	Why is she still in the race?
	A lot of people are asking.
	A lot of Republicans that I'm listening to are angry about it.
	Well, I can straighten everybody out right now, Hannity.
	It's lucky you have me on.
	Really, go ahead.
	I'm just loving the confidence that you exude.
	Go ahead.
	I mean, that's what I saw.
	So Michigan last night, half of the no confidence in Biden vote was generated by anti-Israel people.
	So that's not a big factor.
	I don't think Biden's position in Michigan is particularly strong.
	I think Trump could win that state.
	But most of that is a single issue because there's heavy Arab Democratic registration there.
	That's what that was all about.
	Trump's got a lockdown.
	He knows it.
	He'd be smart not to even mention Nikki Haley's name again because Nikki Haley does have some Republican supporters and Trump needs those people.
	Why is Nikki Haley still in the race?
	I get lots of mail.
	I bet you get lots of mail about this too.
	There are two reasons she's in the race.
	Number one, she's going for 2028 and she wants to get as much name recognition as possible.
	So why not hang in if people are going to give me millions of dollars, which they are.
	Can I stop you on that point?
	Because if I was the campaign manager for Nikki Haley, prior to even going into South Carolina, after coming in third in Iowa, losing by double digits in a state that I would have expected that she would do well in New Hampshire.
	She lost badly there.
	Then Nevada was a disaster when in the caucus, what she, or the primary, she lost, what, two to one to none of the above, and then 21 in her home state.
	Now, if I was advising her, I'd say, okay, odds are you're not going to win your home state.
	Polls aren't looking good.
	Why don't you bail out now and regroup and come back in 2028?
	Four years from now, it's an open primary.
	Well, and that was, that's a rational position.
	But they're looking at it like we can raise another $5 to $10 million.
	And remember, once you donate to a political action committee that represents Haley or to Haley herself, she gets to keep that money on infinitum.
	She keeps it forever.
	Bill, she's been outspending Trump 20-something percent.
	I'm sorry, like 20 to 1.
	And it's not getting her anywhere.
	I mean, you've got to build that war chest up as much as she can.
	Nikki Haley will drop out a week from today.
	In fact, when you're talking to me today, you'll run this clip that I'm giving you.
	Do you get the feeling are you hearing from people like I'm hearing that, wait a minute, she doesn't have a shot.
	Now she's forcing the frontrunner and eventual nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, to spend money on a primary that is basically over, although I don't think he's going to spend a lot of that money and money that would otherwise be used to, you know, be used in the general election.
	Trump should take out ads right now about the Georgia, the poor young woman in Georgia was killed.
	He should be pivoting right into the general election now.
	He didn't have to worry about Nikki Haley anywhere.
	But look, it's all going to come in.
	Haley's going to endorse Trump.
	Mitch McConnell, who is not going to be the leader, and I am so happy about that.
	You and me both.
	That's been a long time coming.
	Turtle, I'm telling you, man.
	He's done a lot of damage.
	So it's a good day for Trump because Trump has no use for McConnell.
	And it's a good day for him in the sense that.
	So you got three guys that are the frontrunners, so we hear Barasso, John Thune, and John Cornyn as replacements.
	Any one of those you prefer?
	Because people I'm hearing from are like more of the same.
	Party guy.
	I don't have an interest in either party.
	I know the guys that you mentioned.
	All of them could do the job.
	Cornyn's probably got the most juice on the Hill of all three of them because he's the biggest state.
	So I'd probably say it's going to be Cornyn, but I don't.
	I'd bet it's going to be Thune.
	Thune is a good guy, a small state.
	But you never hear from the guy.
	I mean, the guy never does television.
	He's very quiet, seemed to be the loyalist of soldiers for Mitch.
	Makes me worry that he might be like Mitch.
	Well, he's not going to get it because he's not a big Trump guy.
	So that's why I don't think he's going to get it.
	I think that's why Cornyn will get it.
	Well, that's going to be interesting to watch.
	All right.
	So we're watching a lot unfold.
	We apparently have the Alvin Bragg, you know, ridiculous lost, well, I guess, criminal trial as it relates to payments to Stormy Daniels.
	I don't think many Americans will care what Alvin Bragg, what a jury in New York decides about Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels.
	That's my opinion.
	Well, I think the Georgia thing with Fanny is over.
	I mean, she's discredited herself and the whole prosecution there.
	So you're right about that.
	That's not going to come to fruition.
	In New York, I pulled the New York Times editorial of two years ago, which is very interesting, where the Times, of course, using anonymous sources, which is what they always do all day, every day, said that Bragg didn't want to bring the case.
	Remember that?
	This is February 23rd, 2022.
	New York Times report: prosecutors Carrie Dunn, Mark Palmer, had submit their resignations because the new Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, indicated to them that he had doubts about moving forward with the case against Mr. Trump.
	That's what the New York Times printed two years ago.
	But the reason that Bragg brought it is because of Letitia James.
	The Attorney General of New York ordered him to do it, so he did it.
	Now, New York jury, not good.
	Not good.
	Not good.
	I think the odds of Donald Trump getting a fair trial in New York or D.C., or if the Fulton County, Georgia one goes forward, probably next to zero, especially in New York and D.C.
	I don't think he can get a fair trial in those venues, and I think most Americans see that as well.
	You know, the civil case that won against Trump is so flawed, and I do believe he will get that reversed on appeal, and he thinks he will, too.
	Well, all you got to do is play tapes of candidate Letitia James, the AG in New York, saying she's going to go after one man, one organization, and one family, and she fulfilled her campaign promise.
	Is there a certain date point, month, week, even, where if any case is actually brought into a courtroom that you really have a strong case to make that this is election interference?
	For example, let's say if the Supreme Court in some way deals with the immunity issue, which I think they really have to.
	That's my opinion.
	They may be leaning against it, but I think they really do need to.
	I think it's such an important constitutional issue.
	If that puts off any decision as it relates to D.C. or even Florida, that would mean at what point do we hit a tipping point where it just becomes so transparent that this is designed to impact the upcoming election?
	For example, if you start a case, a criminal case in July, the month of the Republican National Convention, at that point, Bill, do you say this is so transparently political that it's just fundamentally unfair and people just reject it?
	I think these cases are going to be delayed until after the presidential election.
	I think that the appeals process is going to slow it down.
	And there's going to be appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal, because you've got a variety of federal courts.
	So there's a good chance that this Stormy Daniels thing starting March 26th will be the last one before the presidential vote.
	I think that's probably going to happen, Hannity.
	Could be wrong on that, though.
	I think it's a good guess.
	That's where I'm at right now.
	But if you get to July and you get to the point where the Republican convention is about to happen, and then you bring a criminal case like this, how can you possibly make the case that that is in any way fair to a top-tier presidential candidate of one of the top parties in the country?
	Yeah, but remember, it has all got to go to the Supremes, and that takes a long time.
	I mean, we're still waiting for the ballot question in Colorado and Maine, and it's not.
	I expect that may happen.
	We may get an answer on that this week or early next.
	We might get an answer on what they're going to do on the immunity just as quickly.
	Well, I would assume that before Super Tuesday, you've got to have that straightened out.
	So, you know, it's a murky thing.
	I tell my viewers and listeners on billorelly.com and the Notice Ben News, I said, the justice system, unfortunately, both criminal and civil in the United States is corrupt.
	It's corrupt on every level.
	And we're seeing it and seeing it and seeing it now, putting people in danger.
	If somebody sues you, you better have a million dollars to protect yourself.
	I mean, that's not justice.
	I mean, anybody can ruin anybody now with a lawsuit.
	Is that justice?
	Is that what we're here to do?
	Well, that's called, we have a term for it now.
	It's called lawfare or the criminalization of political differences or the weaponization of the Justice Department, for example, all of which I think we're living through at this time.
	I think the double standard is also transparent.
	You had some interesting comments, I thought, on your, I guess, daily commentary, and that it's really difficult to get an accurate, fair assessment of Donald Trump.
	And you discuss in detail how the liberal media, I call them the mob because they have a mob mindset, despises him.
	And you write in a cartoonish degree, and some on the right have elevated him to cult leader status.
	I don't know about that part.
	Maybe some have.
	I just viewed Trump's policies as successful and better for America.
	And I think Joe is cognitively just a wreck.
	Well, you can't really argue with that, but when the president of ABC News comes out and says that Donald Trump's a racist like she did yesterday, I mean, you have hysteria now.
	It's absolutely absurd.
	Now, how can ABC News cover Donald Trump's campaign when the president says he's a racist?
	How can that happen?
	When did that ever happen before?
	You worked for ABC years ago.
	Never happened, not even close to.
	So we're in a whole different world now.
	And that was the theme of the column, the Trump dilemma, is that no matter what Trump does, he's going to be bad from the people who hate Trump.
	And no matter what on the other side Trump does, the other side, the MAGA people, are going to go, we don't believe it.
	All things, simple man, Bill O'Reilly, all things O'Reilly, billo'reilly.com.
	Mr. O'Reilly, sir, thank you.
	All the best.
	800-941 Sean, our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Want to go to the hearings today.
	Hunter Biden on Capitol Hill.
	Not sure why the Judiciary and the House Oversight Committee agree to not allow this to be videotaped.
	We do expect the deposition will be released in short order almost immediately.
	You know, in the first break, out come the predictable characters like Jamie Raskin and Dan Goldman trying to defend Hunter Biden and Jamie Raskin saying, well, David Weiss filings give a strong whiff of a Russian intelligence operation.
	As I've been pointing out to everybody, that is but a small part, the 1023 form, of the evidence of influence peddling against this family.
	That does not negate Joe lying when he said he never talked to his son, brother, or anybody about their foreign business deals.
	It doesn't negate the WhatsApp message, I'm sitting here with my father.
	It doesn't negate that he took official action in Ukraine against Obama administration policy at the time, and he leveraged $1 billion taxpayer dollars, gave the Ukrainians six hours to fire a prosecutor.
	As a result of that firing, they had to fire him.
	They wanted the money, the loan guarantees.
	His son got to continue on a board, Burisma.
	He admits in his own words, he had no experience in energy, oil, in any way, shape, manner, or form.
	I'm not sure what he offered Burisma.
	And sure enough, this is a time that he admits that he was addicted to drugs, hard drugs, crack cocaine.
	The same with CEFC.
	That's the Chinese energy conglomerate.
	Remember the WhatsApp message?
	I'm sitting here with my father, and you didn't fulfill your obligation.
	And based on everybody he knows of my ability to hold a grudge, you're going to regret it.
	And then according to James Comer, millions of dollars flow into the Biden family coffers in the months after.
	None of these issues involving Smirnoff negate the fact that a Russian oligarch, Elena Batarina, and I believe there are going to be others that we will be hearing about sooner rather than later, that she, in fact, gave $3.5 million to the operation, according to Devin Archer, invested another $120 million in Rosemont Seneca properties, the real estate that they invested in.
	And this was one of the foreign business partners that Joe Biden himself met with at Cafe Milano as he met with other foreign business partners of Hunter.
	Again, focusing in on his lie that he never once discussed these issues with anybody in his family.
	Anyway, Raskin goes on to give his explanations.
	What did Joe do?
	Nobody can tell us.
	Well, yeah, Joe called into 20 meetings, according to Devin Archer.
	And then Dan Goldman, remember, he was the guy that said, well, when Joe calls in, he's probably just talking about the weather.
	Listen to these two.
	Their most recent star witness, Alexander Smirnoff, is now in jail, being held as a flight risk after being indicted by the special counsel who was named by Donald Trump, David Weiss, for lying to the FBI and creating a false documentary record.
	So this has been a comedy of errors from the beginning.
	All of the revelations that are in the legal pleadings filed by David Weiss now give a very strong whiff of a Russian intelligence operation.
	Nobody can tell us what is the high crime misdemeanor.
	We told them, sir, you know, that Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection and we mobilized all of the public evidence.
	And then there was all kinds of evidence that came out later in the bipartisan January 6th committee that documented exactly what Donald Trump had done.
	What did Joe Biden do?
	Nobody can tell us.
	I want to be very clear.
	That first hour of this much-anticipated testimony was the nail in the coffin to what is a complete bogus and sham impeachment inquiry.
	Not only were they unable to show any connection between Hunter Biden's business and President Biden, but Hunter Biden gave very detailed and clear explanations as to what his arm's length business transactions were with private parties in foreign countries who are investors and business people, like many people would have.
	He went through a laundry list of board seats and jobs that he has had over his 30-year career after he left Yale Law School, and he withstood some inappropriate attacks even in the first hour.
	So it is not simply there's no connection to the president, which we've known all along and which was made clear again, but there is a very understandable, coherent business explanation for every single thing that they asked for.
	And now that all of this China stuff or Romania or Kazakhstan is clearly, clearly baseless and bogus, the only thing that the Republicans have left are these barisma allegations.
	All right, joining us now with analysis on this, Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard law professor, and Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, both best-selling authors.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	Greg, sure, they can bring up the issue that what Christopher Ray described, this guy Smirnoff, as one of the most trusted people that they've ever had as an informant.
	Turns out that he was anything but.
	He'd worked for the FBI since 2010.
	And just like Christopher Steele, they screw up in terms of the integrity of people that are on their payroll, people that they say are credible informants.
	In the case of Christopher Steele, that resulted in four Pfizer warrants that later on the people that signed them said knowing what we know now, he wouldn't have signed them.
	This isn't a black eye on the committee at all.
	They relied on Christopher Wray.
	This is the fault and an embarrassment, a humiliation yet again of Christopher Wray's FBI.
	But naturally, you know, Democrats led by Jamie Raskin claim that, you know, oh, the recent indictment of this paid informant Smirnoff ends the case against the Bidens.
	That is, of course, utterly absurd because the charges against Smirnov deal with only, as you point out, Sean, one aspect of the case involving bereavement in Ukraine.
	But there's other damning evidence without Smirnov, take him out of the equation, and you still have China and Russia and Romania and Mexico and Kazakhstan and the millions of dollars they paid for access to Joe Biden promises of future influence.
	So, you know, that is, it falls under 18 USC 201.
	It is a crime.
	You use your public office to confer promises of benefit in exchange for money to yourself or your family.
	And, of course, that bribery statute is also essentially included in the Constitution, which makes it an impeachable offense.
	Let's get your take, Professor Dershowitz.
	Well, first of all, we, the American public, should be watching all of this real-time live instead of having to watch it through the filter of CNN, the New York Times.
	Both CNN and the New York Times have said, there is nothing here at all.
	There is no even evidence.
	There's no suggestion of anything wrong.
	And then, of course, other media say, well, there's enough here for an impeachment.
	And others say, well, they're smoking guns.
	There may be fire.
	Let's see it.
	Let's see it with our own eyes.
	Why should anything ever be kept from the American public?
	Who are you going to believe?
	You're lying eyes or what CNN tells you.
	There's never been a time when it's more important to have transparency.
	Thank God you bring transparency to a lot of these issues by focusing on them.
	But it's even better if we see it with our own eyes.
	And then brilliant people like the commentators you have on your show and Jared and others can help explain it to lay people.
	But let them see it with their own eyes.
	I think of the Tony Willis.
	Professor, let me ask you this, though.
	I want to really dial into this topic.
	When you see tens of millions of dollars funneled into the family coffers, and you see direct evidence and even implications on Hunter's very real laptop of his own father and Hunter saying, oh, half my income goes to Pops.
	And what account should I pay for Pops' home repairs on this bill and that bill and this bill and that bill?
	And then you find out that he lied when he said he never talked to his son, brother, or anybody.
	And Devin Archer contradicted Joe's comments, and so did Tony Bobolinski.
	And then you see the sheer amount of money going to a young son of a vice president, and he has no experience in the field in which he's being brought into, and at a time when he's addicted to drugs.
	You tell me, does that meet your smell test?
	Because it doesn't meet mine.
	No, it doesn't.
	And that's why, you know, when I used to teach my students how to advocate in front of a jury, I would always give them one lesson.
	Don't tell the jury how to decide the case.
	Let them have the aha moment.
	Show them everything and then let them decide, oh my God, this guy is clearly guilty or not guilty.
	And if you tell them, then somebody else is going to tell them the opposite in the jury room and they'll change their mind.
	But if they come to their own conclusion based on looking at the hard evidence, you're never ever going to change their mind.
	That's why transparency is so important.
	That's why the public ought to see all these documents, ought to hear the testimony, ought to see what people... I mentioned before the funny Willis...
	Well, why would Joe Biden lie to the American people if, in fact, he knew he was on calls with these foreign business partners?
	He knew he met with Elena Botterina.
	Put on television what he said, juxtapose it with showing us the evidence of what was said in the calls.
	Then we'll make our own decisions.
	That's so much better.
	Let me just make one little point about Tony Willis.
	You have this witness who testifies yesterday.
	CNN and the Times say, oh my God, there's nothing there.
	He completely exculpates them.
	But any of us who saw it on television knew this guy was lying through his teeth.
	And it was so important to view it on your own.
	And then we all could say to ourselves, oh my God, why do we ever believe CNN and the New York Times?
	That's why it's so much more valuable, not necessarily to be told by us what's going on, but to be shown the evidence and let us come to our own conclusions.
	And I think anybody seeing the evidence would come to the conclusion that this smells bad.
	We have to pursue it much further.
	All right, quick break more with Professor Dershowitz and Greg Jarrett on the other side.
	And then we'll get to your calls and Rand Paul.
	All right, we continue now with Professor Alan Dershowitz and Greg Jarrett.
	Hunter Biden appearing before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee today.
	By the way, those chairmen will be on Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	Let's get your take, Greg Jarrett.
	I think the case is overwhelming.
	I think the evidence is incontrovertible.
	I think that Joe's lying about it is even further evidence that, in fact, he knew damn well what was going on and he participated in it.
	The evidence is incriminating.
	Joe Biden's role is shown by his documented actions.
	He was, in essence, the closer.
	And I wrote a column about this on FoxNews.com today.
	Hunter and his cohort would solicit these foreign deals with China, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Kazakhstan.
	Joe would then attend meetings or show up at the dinners arranged with the benefactors.
	Sometimes he'd simply join in a telephone call.
	But this is the important part: his presence was vital because it signified to the foreign buyers Joe Biden's assent, his participation in these schemes that netted millions of dollars.
	And then immediately thereafter, the deals would close.
	And within days, sometimes, enormous sums of cash would flow into Hunter-controlled accounts where the payola was funneled through a complex web of shell companies, some of it distributed to Biden family members.
	So that makes Joe a witting accessory, aiding and abetting his son's influence peddling schemes.
	Well, I can tell you this: we're going to have Jim Jordan and James Comer and Jason Smith on Hannity tonight.
	We'll get the inside scoop of what actually happened in that room, and hopefully, we'll get the transcript any day now.
	But we always appreciate your input.
	Thank you, Professor Dershowitz.
	Thank you, Greg Jarrett.

▲