All Episodes
Previous Next
March 5, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
32:20
Trump On Ballot - March 4th, Hour 1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
All right.
Thank you, Scott Shannon, and thanks to all of you for being with us.
Here's our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
The big court decision of the day, 9-0, the justices concluding that Donald Trump uh can and should remain on the ballot.
It's not up to the states to decide.
I'll get you a lot of details in this.
President Trump will be joining us at the bottom of the half hour to talk about and we'll get his reaction.
He did speak earlier today.
We'll play some of that later.
By the way, two other suits.
Uh one we'll talk about later in the program with Ken Paxson, and that is a federal appeals court is now allowed the state of Texas to allow their immigration law to take effect, meaning law enforcement officers in Texas are now legal and authorized to arrest and jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border.
Probably have a profound impact.
When I was down at Eagles Pass, Shelby Park in Texas the other day with President Trump and Governor Abbott, uh it was very, very clear uh that the razor wire and the containers that they put up and taken Texas National Guard and the people of Texas are plant paying a fortune for this.
Uh it's had a profound impact, and now the illegal emigration activity is has moved out of the area to places like Arizona and California.
I mean, it's it's pretty unbelievable.
So that was that was part of what has happened today.
Uh let me get into this.
Former President Donald Trump, this was the Colorado case.
Uh anyway, the Supreme Court unanimously reversing this Colorado Supreme Court ruling that barred President Trump from appearing on the state's Republican presidential primary ballot uh cited in this particular case because of a provision in the U.S. Constitution relating to people who engage in quote insurrection.
I do need to remind everybody that even the DC case, which is January 6th related, does not even charge.
There is a criminal code for quote insurrection, and and that wasn't even brought up.
Uh, but it means that no other state can bar Donald Trump or any other candidate from now on from a presidential ballot or election for Congress by invoking, quote, the insurrection clause.
Uh this is what we told you would happen.
I did predict, I I thought this would be a nine-zero decision, although it's it's always a little iffy when you try to predict, just listening to arguments put forth by the Supreme Court and the questioning of justices to the varying attorneys which way they're gonna go.
Um you can be misled by that, but I I thought this was a slam dunk case.
It was and what they said is they were very clear.
We conclude the states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.
But the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing section three against federal office holders and candidates rests with Congress and not the states.
The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court, therefore cannot stand.
That was a nine-zero decision.
And as he pointed out and on a truth social post immediately thereafter, a big win for America, which I would agree with.
And what that means is that votes that he will garner.
There's what, fifteen states tomorrow, uh, which is super Tuesday on the ballot.
They will count for the former president.
It was this was for me not a surprise.
Um we have some of the oral arguments back from February eighth.
Many of the courts' nine justices did appear skeptical of the Colorado Supreme Court's rationale in the in the process.
That was clear from their questioning.
And but they can do what they want with a state election, but not a not a federal election.
Uh what was interesting is uh a couple of concurring opinions that were issued here.
And uh look, it's when you have an ananimous unanimous verdict.
We'll also hear from Jay Sekulo, He is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
They were involved in the case.
They represented the Colorado Republican Party in this case.
Jay himself has argued some 16 or 17 Supreme Court cases and been involved in, I think like I think this was his 24th or 25th case.
But anyway, you know, the states have no business in this in the first place.
And then you get into the more interesting nuances, and when you look at the concurring opinions, like for example, the three most liberal justices on the court, Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Justice uh uh Kintanji Brown Jackson wrote they disagreed with the finding of five conservative justices because there was another concurring opinion by Amy Coney Barrett,
which I'll get to in a second, that a disqualification for insurrection can only occur when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
And what they say is in doing so, the majority shutting the door on other potential means of federal enforcement, they wrote, we cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.
In other words, they're just they're agreeing with the decision, but they don't want to weigh in on the reasons, the whys, the how comes, the rationales, and some of the other arguments that that some conservative justices were making.
Uh Justice Amy Coney Barrett, uh, in her own concurring opinion, agreed with a lot of that analysis that the case did not require, and I think this gets to the heart of the matter, the Supreme Court to rule that only congressional legislation could enforce the insurrection clause.
But but again, I've got to go back.
We've got to stand back here and remember one thing.
Now, Donald Trump is facing a lot of legal issues moving forward, starting with this ridiculous Stormy Daniels case in in New York, a case that the former DA of New York, Cyrus Vance, decided not to get into.
And anyway, so she actually agreed uh with a lot of this that this was not a Supreme Court ruling that only congressional legislation can enforce the insurrection clause.
She agreed with that.
But anyway, what she said is this, though.
She said this suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in a state court.
And then she wrote, it does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
Barrett added, in my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.
And then she said this.
She said the court has settled a politically charged issue in a volatile season of a presidential election, particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down and not up.
And for present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity in this case, and all nine of justices agree on the outcome of the case.
So that is the message that Americans should take home.
The fact that a justice acknowledges the political environment, especially with a divided country in a presidential election year, uh I found pretty fascinating to me.
And anyway, so if it will also reverse the decisions by two other states.
Last week it was Illinois, but prior to that, it was one person, one elected official to Maine, uh, which acted after the Colorado Supreme Court trying to bar uh Trump from the primary ballots.
Uh in this case in in Colorado, it was the the Secretary of State.
And um, anyway, all three state decisions were based on an interpretation of section three that are now voided because of this Supreme Court decision today.
This was the right decision.
I I thought it was a slam dunk.
Um what's going to be more fascinating, and we'll get into this in more detail later, is on the issue uh involving presidential immunity.
And I Felt that Donald Trump was addressing that when he went out and spoke today, and we'll ask him about it at the bottom of the hour.
But section three says that no person can serve as an officer of the U.S. who has previously taken an oath of federal office, engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Donald Trump's not been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of insurrection.
And I believe it was Justice Kavanaugh that brought up the issue well, well, how do we determine such?
Which happens to be a great point and a good question.
Um anyway, uh the states had no business in this in the first place.
Everybody agrees with that.
And all three liberal justices agreed with that.
And allowing Colorado to do this would create chaos, is as one of the justices said.
And they had, you know, that it to me it was just such a slam dunk.
What is very, very alarming, however, is the left's reaction to all of this, because we have a few lunatic Democrats in the House.
Now they want Congress to pass a Trump ballot ban, led by people like Jamie Raskin, saying on fake news CNN that the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to overturn Colorado's Trump ballot ban means that Congress should now take action.
Now, he said the court didn't actually disagree with it.
They just said that they're not the ones to figure it out.
I disagree with that interpretation just because the other parts of the 14th Amendment are self-executing, but any event the Supreme Court punted and said it's up to Congress to act.
That's not exactly what they were saying.
And now then he goes on to say, and and this is now the level of desperation that the left in this country now finds itself in.
They're using lawfare, they're using rogue prosecutors.
I would argue a weaponized and politicized Department of Justice of Joe Biden.
Remember, in both cases, what have we learned with Nefani Willis case?
What have we learned in the case in New York is that there is coordination with the Biden White House?
How many times did Fonnie Willis and Nathan Wade make their way to Washington to meet with people in the Biden administration?
And I'd love to know what those conversations were about.
And I'd love to know if there was coordination with with whoever within the administration.
And remember it's Biden's Justice Department that rightly is being investigated by the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of weaponization of the Justice Department.
But anyway, the House already impeached Donald Trump for you know there's they're saying no, they did not impeach.
That is meaningless.
The RNC has now weighed in, and they have said that this effort to kick Trump off the ballot in Colorado was pure quote election interference, the RNC said in a statement.
Today's ruling confirms what Republicans have been arguing.
The American people get to pick the candidates, not activists, not bureaucrats.
The effort to kick Donald Trump Trump off the ballot was pure election interference from the left, they said, and the RNC was proud to fight in the Supreme Court alongside President Trump's campaign and other Republican partners to preserve voters' right to make their voices heard.
We look forward to continuing the fight, beat Democrats in court over the coming months.
And in other news, you had one fake news CNN guest, you know, basically hitting the panic button over this, you know, the court nixing the Trump ballot ban.
And anyway, literally sharing exasperation.
You can't save the people from themselves.
And of course they bring in fake news Jim Acosta complaining that Trump continues to gin up insurrectionist like rhetoric.
Okay, when has he ever been charged with it?
He's not.
And he's talking to Larry Sabado, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, UVA, uh, who said, of course he does.
And then he continued, he'll never change because it worked for him and it may work again.
You know, in the end, Jim, you can save the people from themselves.
What do these people say?
Do you care about the issue of the rule of law, the constitutionality of this question?
Because that is what the heart of all of this gets down to.
I mean, you really you really have to, there's a real stretch here.
Colorado's Secretary of State, Kenneth Griswold issued a statement that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the states do not have the authority to enforce Section three of the fourteenth amendment for federal candidates in accordance with the decision.
Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado's 2024 presidential primary.
So that that shouldn't surprise anybody either.
Here's what Kavanaugh said.
There are difficult questions and you look right at section five of the fourteenth amendment that tells you Congress has the primary role here, he says, I think what's different is the the processes, the definition who decides questions really jump out when you look at section three.
Justice Roberts questioned the Colorado's attorneys Jason Murray about the consequences of the state's position.
What do you do with the consequences of your position?
That there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some will succeed in very quick order.
And I would expect a a a good lead number of straight states will say whoever the Democrat is you're off the ballot.
It would then come down to a small number of states deciding the election.
That's a pretty severe consequence Justice Alito saying pressing Murray to grapple with some with what some people have seen as the consequences of the argument you're advancing which is there will be conflicts in decisions among states and the different states will disqualify different candidates but I'm not getting into getting a whole lot of help from you as how this would not be an unimagin unmanageable situation.
And questions are what does that mean?
How do you define it?
Who decides?
Who decides whether someone engaged in it or not?
I mean 25 to the top of the hour in what will certainly be a landmark case the Supreme Court nine zero unanimous decision ruling that states like Colorado, Maine, Illinois cannot remove Donald Trump from the presidential election ballot.
Quote, we conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency for the reasons given responsibility for enforcing Section three against federal officeholders and candidates rest with Congress not the states the ruling said and the judgment of the Colorado state uh Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
President Trump reacted immediately thereafter with a post on Truth Social that literally said the ruling was a big win for America.
He gave a a sh a statement at Mar a Lago in a speech or that he that he held there and went on to say that this decision uh will help unify the country and former President Trump now joins us.
Sir How are you?
I bet you're pretty happy today.
Well I am it was a great decision.
We're very honored by it and it basically said you have to win by getting the votes as opposed to some other way and that's really uh what we wanted and it was a very powerful decision very well crafted and uh very well respected I must say thank you.
Let's talk a little bit more about this.
I mean, you did have concurring opinions.
For example, Judge Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her concurring opinion agreed with even the three liberals on this case.
But you had even even the three liberals on on the court case, although they wrote a concurring opinion that they disagree with some aspects of it, but not on the main issue in question here.
And that is that that states can just randomly say, oh, we're going to kick you off the court.
And that had been argued by people like Sam Alito and others.
No, this would create nothing but chaos around the country.
Well, it would have been chaos.
You'd have some secretary of state or assistant secretary of state saying we're not going to accept him as a candidate and him.
Maybe I'm not talking about me.
I'm saying somebody running for president.
And it could be in the case of me, I'm leading both the Republican Party.
And I think she's probably gone now from what I hear.
hear but uh you're leading the Republican Party and then you hear you're leading the Democrat you're leading Biden by a lot according to the New York Times and every other poll that's come out uh that we're leading and then you're gonna take that person off the ballot it would seem to be a quite an undemocratic thing to do Sean and uh the opinion was very strong it was very forthright and uh I think it's been very well reviewed.
I mean I've just seen some of the great legal scholars are agreeing with it.
I think a lot of people have have said that, you know, that's really the option that that really they did the right thing.
And I think it unifies the country.
Because otherwise you would have had all these people if they were your opponent, if they were, let's say, in this case if they were a Democrat state, uh or a blue state as they call it affectionately.
But if they were Democrats or something, they would just challenge you and you'd have a a lot of states challenging you couldn't you couldn't run a country that way.
So they took everything off the table, a very strong decision actually.
Everything is off the table, and they just don't have the right to do that.
Keith Justice Roberts, you know, during oral arguments questioned the Colorado attorney, Jason Murray about the consequences of their decision.
Quote, what do you do with the consequences of your position?
There will be disqualification proceedings on the other side.
Some will succeed in very quick order.
I would expect that a uh you know, goodly number of states will say whoever the Democrat is, you're off the ballot.
It would then come down to a small number of states deciding the election, that would have a a very severe consequence.
Justice Alito pressed Murray in that and and those arguments, you know, to grapple with you know w what some people have seen as consequences of the argument that they were advancing, which there would be conflicts and decisions among the states and the different states would disqualify different candidates and but even pointing out that he's getting no help from them on how they you know this would not become an unmanageable situation, which it would.
Now last time I checked with all the court cases that that you have been dealing with, I don't believe at any point you've ever been charged with insurrection.
No, I haven't, and in many ways I guess this clears that up because if they thought I was or if they believed that I was uh uh an insurrectionist, they would have not given us a win.
So it probably clears that up.
I would say it does.
A lot of people say that clears that up by uh not uh charging or by not discussing uh that goes down.
But I haven't been charged with that, and you know, they charge you with whatever you can.
Look, this is why we talk about the immunity, the immunity.
A president needs immunity.
If a president doesn't have total immunity, uh he won't be able he or she won't be able to function.
You have to make big decisions as president, like uh defeating ISIS, which I did, or uh taking out the number one number two terrorist anywhere in the world, which I did.
All of these things have very big uh implications.
And if you weren't if you weren't immune, if you weren't uh uh free to do what's proper for the country, uh it would be it would be a terrible situation.
You you have to be able as a president, and that'll be up next, but you have to have presidential immunity.
If you don't have presidential immunity, you're not gonna do anything because your opponent or your opposing party or your f who knows, maybe a friend of yours.
But somebody would sue you and you'll leave office and you'll be sued like I have been for uh the last long period of time.
And and that shouldn't happen to a president, not a president that's been popular who's done a great job.
And it shouldn't happen.
Shouldn't happen to any president, whether they're popular or not, frankly.
You have to have presidential immunity, and I think people are really seeing that now, much more so than they would have understood it three months ago.
Uh if you have to be free to make the correct decision, that's gonna help our country, maybe save our country.
Otherwise you're gonna be a ceremonial president.
You're gonna sit there, it's gonna say this is great, but nobody's gonna do anything because they don't want to be sued as they're leaving office and for the rest of their life and get indicted criminally by some prosecutor like uh deranged Jack Smith or Fonny, you know, good old Fonny, and uh Lover Wade, Lover Wade.
So, you know, you just you don't want to be put in in in a position like that.
And I was put in that position because they've read they've read it all wrong.
And what they're doing with me is ridiculous.
These prosecutions are ridiculous.
The good news is the American public sees it, and my poll numbers are higher than they've ever been.
So it's been rather amazing, actually.
Well, if you actually look at your poll numbers, uh I would say that you you should be a pretty happy candidate today.
Now we are as of today, two hundred and forty-five days out of this election.
Uh if you look at the New York Times Siena poll, you you're up by five.
There's been a number there have been a number of polls uh that have come out showing you uh doing very well.
Uh I saw Joe Biden's approval rating uh was at thirty-eight percent, eighty-six percent that was the Gallup poll, eighty six percent in the ABC poll felt that you know he was not up to a second term based on his age and obviously his cognitive issues that have come up.
You even passed the 50% mark in a poll that came out this weekend.
But if you look at all these polls combined and then look at it specifically on the issues, I don't care if it's immigration or the economy or national security.
He's underwater on every major issue.
And Kamala Harris in some polls is even lower than him.
How do you read these polls with 245 days to go?
Well, he's the worst president in the history of our country.
there's never been any anybody close.
I always say in speeches I'll say often that you could take the ten worst presidents put them together and they haven't done the damage that Biden has done in the Biden administration and uh the happiest person is Jimmy Carter because his presidency looks brilliant by comparison.
I mean, what he's done with Afghanistan, what he's done, and I don't mean by leaving.
We were leaving, but we were leaving with dignity and strength, taking the military out first and then having that catastrophe.
I think the most embarrassing day in the history of our country.
But what he's done with these, the migrants coming in and taking over our cities and taking over our country.
And now we have migrant crime.
It's the new category of crime.
And where did you ever see policemen having boxing matches in the middle of a street?
mean the whole thing is crazy.
And if that happened to them in their country they'd be dead within two minutes.
They wouldn't stand for it.
But they come in and they're coming from jails they come in from prisons they come in from mental institutions and insane asylums and they're terrorists and they're they're just we have some very bad people pouring into our country.
Nobody's checking who they are nobody knows anything about them.
They don't know who they are where they come from and they're rough they're rough and many of them come out of jails and prisons.
You look at the world's jail population I'm not just talking about South America.
You look at the world's jail population it's way down now because they're dumping these people rough people they're dumping them into the United States.
Same with mental institutions.
They they have mental institutions that were packed and now they're not packed any longer.
The reason is they're taking these mental patients and they're dumping them into our country Sean.
This man has is destroying our country and I think November fifth this year, November fifth, I think it's going to go down as the most important day in the history of our country.
Well you certainly uh we'll learn a lot more on Tuesday night because it's super Tuesday, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia um a lot of a lot of po a lot of primaries uh we'll know a lot more by I guess by by Tuesday night or certainly by early Wednesday morning.
Um you're expected to win I think in pretty much every one of those states and you had a couple of big wins this weekend although you didn't win Washington DC, which I would not have expected to be honest.
No, we didn't do anything there.
We didn't send anybody we didn't spend she spent everything there because she thought she could do it and uh it almost sends it's it would almost been bad.
You know it's the swamp and it just shows that it's a swamp.
And still we got a lot of you know we got a lot of votes there but we didn't do anything about that one.
We wanted to it almost sets a good example because that's what we're talking about.
That's the swamp and she's from the swamp that's what she's all about and uh it's uh it's been amazing.
This weekend, you know Missouri we won a hundred percent.
Uh we won Idaho we won Michigan we won we had three great victories this weekend plus and won a hundred percent of the votes in all of them and it's you know it's been amazing.
Now the big one is tomorrow because we have uh many of the states sixteen seventeen states uh come do some of them are very big ones They're all sort of big actually.
And uh that should just about wrap it up.
And we get on to Biden because we can't have Biden.
Look, Biden is a disaster for our country.
He's destroying our country.
We can't have him.
You cannot have him be president.
He is just so bad.
We're left at all over the world.
The guy can't find stairways off the stage when you have five stairways.
He can't put two sentences together.
And he's negotiating with Vladimir Putin over nuclear weapons.
The whole thing is crazy.
We have to get him out.
November fifth, this year, that's election day.
Let me ask you this.
I think it's gonna go down to one of the most important days in the history of our country.
Last couple of elections, we literally had you know six, seven states, uh a couple of hundred thousand people determine the outcome of an election.
Now, I have noticed when you look at demographics, especially demographics that have historically been a big part of the Democratic Party base, that would include African Americans, Hispanic Americans, young people and women.
Uh they seem to be leaving him in larger and larger numbers.
Now, whether they come back to the Democratic Party come November or whether they stay home is a question I don't think anybody can answer today.
Uh for those people that say I like Donald Trump's policies.
I really do.
I wish you wouldn't fight so much.
I've asked you this question before.
I've known you long before you ever thought about running for president, and I know this other side of you, and that is you'll always be the funniest guy in the room, generous to a fault, uh uh and extremely knowledgeable.
I I think during i I don't think Joe Biden could have done the town hall that we did together last week at the border.
I don't think he's capable of doing that.
I g he can probably get through a State of the Union address because they keep interrupting every few seconds for a clapping.
But I don't think he's cognitively strong enough.
And you made a point during our interview that it's not necessarily age.
I would argue Bernie Sanders is as sharp as he's ever been, and I think he's older than Joe Biden.
And I do think it but it's clear that he's had cognitive decline.
What do you what do you make of that cognitive decline and about traditional democratic demographics that are leaving him?
How do you interpret that?
Well, number one, he's not too old because old is I I know so many people that are making a fortune.
I know man became a rich man from eighty to ninety.
He he was a failure almost his whole life.
And from eighty to ninety, he became a very rich man.
And you have that you know, so so much.
Uh you look at Bernie Marcus, who's ninety five years old.
Do you ever speak to him?
I mean he's he's I don't know him well.
He used to run Home Depot, he's a great guy.
You're right.
Well founder.
Uh and you speak to him, it's like sp speaking to him twenty five years ago.
It's not an age thing, it's a uh there are other problems, and and he had operations in the nineteen nineties on a certain part of his body that is you know tough stuff.
Look, we can't afford I I would love everybody to take a cognitive test.
I took two of 'em.
I aced them both.
Very public information.
I think everybody I it's just When did you take the second one?
Because I noticed the media is saying, Well, we haven't seen the second one.
When did you take that one?
I had that done by the doctors in uh upstate in uh uh New Jersey in New Jersey, and it was a similar test.
And it's a tough test.
I'll tell you what, I guarantee you that he couldn't pass that test, couldn't pass that test.
It's a tough test.
I looked at it once and I'm like, I'm not taking this test.
Thank God I don't have to take one.
It's not an easy test, and it's uh you know, it tells you you have you have something that's okay and we want to keep it that way.
But uh but I think somebody I think Nikki should take the test.
I think that anybody running for office, I really believe that.
Now they say it's a constitutional problem.
Well, what about the people that have to suffer with somebody that can't pass a test that you should be able to pass if you're president?
The greatest was the uh the document hoax where they uh say that he can't go to court because he's not competent, but he is competent to be president.
That's one of the great classics of all time.
And he was so guilty on that, but they gave him a pass.
But I don't want that kind of a pass.
That's not a good pass.
Yeah.
Let me uh let me say this with two hundred and forty-five days uh left.
Uh it should be interesting to watch in these final days.
Um will you go after will you will you specifically try to communicate with some of these uh historically these demographics that have historically been a big part of the Democratic Party base.
Are you targeting them and trying to entice them to vote for you?
Sure.
Look, New York is a different place.
In New York traditionally is very blue.
It's Democrat, but New York is a different place.
They got almost a half a million migrants there that are taking over the parks, the schools, the hospitals, and taking over crime.
Migrant crime is going to end up being too big I really made it, you know, I made it Biden migrant crime, but it's too l too long.
These are frightening times.
Uh I I hate to tell you we are on a hard break, but Mr President thanks for checking in with the radio audience.
We appreciate your time as always.
▲
Export Selection