All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
30:15
Battle for Arizona - April 11th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
I wouldn't go out there and extol the miracle of the Biden economy.
It just drives me crazy when he does that.
And prices, although inflation is moderated, prices are still high.
Price of gasoline is still high.
Other prices are still high, and people feel that pinch.
Sometimes when these debates happen, I feel like it's the early 2000s, and I'm talking to some people who think that we can just have landline phones forever.
The clock is ticking.
Believe it or not, only 207 days left till you get to vote.
Yeah, we're coming to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
From coast to coast.
From border to border.
From sea to shining sea.
Sean Kennedy is on.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour.
Our toll-free number is 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program at the bottom of this half hour, how will the issue of this pre-Civil War or Civil War error law being implemented in Arizona?
How is this going to resolve itself?
We'll talk with the former Attorney General of Arizona.
That's Bernovich.
We'll join us, Mark Bernovich.
But in Washington, there was a lot going on today.
My former colleague also is a friend.
She did great work.
Catherine Herridge talked about, I guess, being released from CBS News and how they seized her reporting records and how this crossed a red line that should never be crossed again.
Then Cheryl Atkinson testified to Tom McClintock that in her experience at CBS, that the government intervened in news coverage and did it on a daily basis.
Now, we've been reading an awful lot about the Biden administration putting a lot of pressure on news organizations if they don't like the coverage.
They didn't like the coverage recently of them reporting exactly what Donald Trump said about IVF and about abortion.
I mean, don't they have an obligation to just tell the truth?
I know they're in basically nothing but an extension of the press office of Joe Biden and the White House, but still maybe just try occasionally to be objective.
Anyway, here's Catherine Herridge, then Cheryl Atkinson.
When I was laid off in February, an incident reinforced in my mind the importance of protecting confidential sources.
CBS News locked me out of the building and seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files, including confidential source information.
Multiple sources said they were concerned that by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct, they would be identified and exposed.
I pushed back, and with the public support of my union, SAG AFTRA, the records were returned.
CBS's News' decision to receive my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should never be crossed again by any media organization in the future.
Well, I think it's interesting to hear people say, and I agree with this, that the government should not be intervening in news coverage.
But in my experience at CBS, that happens every day.
Members of committees, heads of committees, members of Congress in the White House call the Bureau in Washington, D.C., contacts that they have, editors and managers up in New York to try to shape our coverage.
Well, that I don't find particularly objectionable as long as there is no force or threat of force behind that.
Did you find that to be the case?
I don't know what was said.
I just know they call.
There's no physical force threatened, but there certainly is a great deal of pressure weighing on the networks in terms of their coverage.
Anyway, the House now is investigating this issue of press freedom.
Joining us, he is the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jim Jordan, who's with us.
This issue has actually impacted me.
You have told me in the past that you have seen incredible evidence that my social media was suppressed in the lead up to the 2020 election.
Is that true?
Yeah, because, son, you've been critical of the administration.
When you're critical of the administration, oh, my goodness, there's pressure placed.
We've got all kinds of emails where big government, the Biden administration is telling big tech what to do and how to censor conservatives.
And you know that happened to you.
So yeah, this is a real concern.
And I thought both Cheryl and Catherine did a great job in the hearing today.
Yeah, I mean, it's kind of sad.
I mean, you would think that certain basic rights are fundamental and sacred, and among them freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
And we don't really have that today.
You would think other things would be sacred as well, is like the principle of equal justice and equal application of our laws, but we know that's not true either.
Yeah, no, every single liberty we have under the First Amendment's been assaulted by the Biden administration.
You think about all five, your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the government, free press, free speech, every you want.
I mean, you can remember back during COVID, there were Democrat governors around the country who said you couldn't go to church on Sunday, for goodness sake.
And you could just go down the list.
And what we got today was the freedom of press and how Cheryl Atkinson criticized the government, specifically the Obama administration, fast and furious, how they handled the tragedy in Benghazi.
Catherine Herridge was criticizing the Biden administration, and both suffered repercussions.
Cheryl Atkinson, she had concerns about what was happening to her computer, what was happening to her phone line.
And of course, Catherine gets let go by CBS, award-winning journalists, been there five years.
But it's not that she just got let go.
They seized her records.
They seized her material, jeopardizing her sources and everything else.
And we asked the person from the union who represents people in journalism, and they said they had never seen anything like this ever before, where their data, their records were all seized when she was let go.
That's the concern.
And it sure looks like it was because she was covering the Hunter Biden story.
She was covering the laptop story.
She was covering the impeachment inquiry and writing things that were accurate, but not complimentary to the Biden administration.
And then this happens from CBS, similar to what happened with the government going after Cheryl Atkinson.
Well, I could tell you from my own personal experience, I mean, I find it beyond offensive that thousands of text messages, private text messages between me and Paul Manafort at one point were released.
It bothers me the text messages, private text messages between me and a mutual friend of ours, Mark Meadows, that that was made public, or me and Kaylee McEnaney, that that was made public.
It's happened to me time and time and time again.
Whatever happened to my freedom of press, my freedom of privacy for crying out loud.
I wasn't being investigated.
I didn't do anything wrong.
Exactly.
The entire country is now analyzing and then they're trying to selectively pick the text that either I sent or received that benefits their narrative.
It doesn't even have to be in context.
Do I not have any privacy rights or rights as a member of the press?
You're supposed to.
It's supposed to be equal treatment under the law.
You don't see similar things typically happening to folks on the left when it comes to this to journalism.
So this is, again.
Well, have we ever seen fake Jake Tapper's text messages or conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow's text messages, private text messages?
I don't think so.
I don't think so either.
And again, it's the unequal application of the law, which is not supposed to happen in the greatest country in the world with the Constitution that we have.
And this is why this is, I think, the most important issue.
We can recover from all the other crazy stuff Joe Biden and his administration have done.
But if they take away the First Amendment, they take away your right to privacy, they take away those fundamental liberties, your Second Amendment rights, they start taking away those, then we've lost what makes America the greatest country ever.
And that's why we spend so much time on the Judiciary Committee doing the investigations and defending.
If we see what's happening even in Brazil and other countries where they're going after free speech, going after Twitter and Elon Musk there, I mean, this is the scary direction things are heading, and we better all work together to protect First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment liberties.
We learned during the Russia hoax a lot of things, but maybe the most dangerous in terms of our liberties and our freedoms dealt with the issue of Pfizer warrants.
And what we learned was that, and by the way, everybody was warned ahead of time, including the FBI director who signed three of the four Pfizer warrants, but we'll get to that in a minute.
But they were warned by Bruce Orr in August of 2016, don't trust the dossier.
It's a political document.
What changes are going to be made in terms of the Pfizer warrants, which for national security reasons, I would like to think we have some availability for, but it's been politicized and weaponized.
I can't support the reauthorization of this, and I know you and others can't either.
Right.
I can't support it unless one part of the program now that doesn't require a warrant to search Americans, unless that amendment that we're offering gets adopted.
So there are two parts.
There's a part usually you spend a lot of time there describing, Sean, and accurately so.
That's the part where the FISA court operates.
That's actually not up for reauthorization, but we're trying to make some changes there to improve the situation and prevent what happened to President Trump in that whole scenario you just went through that was so wrong.
We're trying to prevent that.
The part that's up for reauthorization is the second part of FISA, what's called this 702 program, where our country spies on people abroad, foreigners, not Americans, but foreigners abroad.
But when they do that, listen to their phone calls and getting their emails and all that stuff, when they do that, they inevitably pick up Americans because there's innocent Americans talking to business people around the world.
Americans get picked up and their data goes in this gigantic database, the 702 haystack, I call it, this gigantic haystack.
And then what's happening, Sean?
Our government, specifically the FBI, the FBI who did all those things you talked about there in the other part of FISA, the FBI who spied on parents, the FBI who said pro-life Catholics are extremists, and maybe most importantly, the FBI who retaliated against the whistleblowers that you and I have talked to, the whistleblowers who came to our committee and told us about all this garbage.
That FBI has been searching that haystack of information using Americans' names, phone numbers, and email addresses without a warrant.
And so I'm saying that's not how our country works.
You want to go look through people's stuff and they're an American citizen, you've got to go to a separate and equal branch of government and get a warrant.
And we think they have to do the same darn thing here, which they're not doing.
That's what, and if that amendment, if that language is not in the bill, I ain't voting for it.
And a bunch of members aren't going to vote for it, particularly in light of all the abuses that you and I know of and that you just recited.
Why would any Republican vote for that if they didn't put those provisions in that would guarantee the privacy of Americans and we wouldn't have warrantless searches like this?
I mean, they're supposed to practice minimization, but we know they don't.
So, Sean, even our, so they say, oh, this could be a delay, and there could be a terrible terrorist attack on our country if we can't search American citizens' name, number, and email address.
And I'm saying, okay, so we put in our language in the warrant, an exception.
If it's an emergency situation, FBI is determined, go ahead and do the search of the database.
But if it's not an emergency, you can't do it.
Now, here's the kicker.
278,000 times, the Inspector General had discovered in his auditing that the FBI searched this database and didn't follow their own rules.
So now if we put new rules on them without the warrant requirement, do we really think they're going to follow those?
The same FBI who did all those other things?
Like, no, you have to.
The way our system works, the tried and true method, is if you're going to search American citizens' information, you got to go to the judicial branch, a separate and equal branch of the government.
We all learned about this in Civi's class.
That is the protection for Americans' liberties.
It may take a little extra time, but liberty and freedom are worth it.
Our founders understood that, and it has served us well for 200-plus years.
Let's not abandon that fundamental principle.
All right, quick break more with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio.
800-941 Sean is our number.
And what's really happening out in Arizona as we talk about the Supreme Court ruling on abortion out there, the former Attorney General of that state will join us also coming up.
We continue with the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Jim Jordan is with us.
Let me ask you where we are in terms of the latest, because there was a deadline of noon on Monday for Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice to hand over to your committee and the Oversight Committee the interview that Robert Hurr, the special counsel, had with Joe Biden and any materials, information they had on conversations involving this ghostwriter of Joe Biden's.
They did not, are you going to hold these guys in contempt because they did not comply with the congressional subpoena?
Yeah, everything's on the table here, Sean, contempt.
We've even went to court on another issue to interview two lawyers at the Justice Department who are part of the Hunter-Biden investigation.
So we're determined to do our duty, our constitutional duty of oversight.
And in this situation, they're the ones who told us about the audio tape.
They're the ones who said, even though Joe Biden met the elements of the crime, even though he had a motive and the motive was an $8 million book advance, and he kept it, classified information and disclosed it because of that book advance, clearly in Mr. Hurr's report.
Even with all that, Mr. Hurr said, we're not going to recommend charges because Joe Biden's a forgetful old man.
Okay, you told us about the audio tape.
You've given us a transcript.
We want the audio tape as well.
We think we deserve that as the people, the branch of government that does oversight.
More importantly, we think the American people deserve to hear that.
When they're getting ready to make the most important decision, who's going to be our next commander-in-chief?
Yeah, very, very important work.
Will there be criminal referrals in the weeks ahead?
We don't have a lot of time.
Well, we're going to complete our investigation.
I've said all along this case is compelling, I think.
But, you know, in the end, whether there's articles, whether there's referrals, whether there's a report, how this is all put together is up to the House of Representatives and the Republican Conference, but frankly, the entire House, because impeachment, inquiry, impeachment is a sole power in the House.
And we will go through everything, get all the facts out there, and then make a decision.
But our job is to continue to do it.
And like I said, the Constitution puts no time limit on doing proper oversight.
All right, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, looking into a lot of issues, doing a great job.
Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, sir, thank you as always.
Appreciate your time.
You too.
Thanks for all you do.
All right.
So out in the great state of Arizona, the Supreme Court made a ruling.
It relates to the issue of abortion.
And as a result of that ruling, a pre-Civil War law that is probably the most restrictive is now officially the law in the great state of Arizona.
Now, there's plenty of time for the two bodies of Congress out there, their House and Senate, to deal with this issue.
I believe within the next week, two weeks, it may take a little bit of time to hash out the deal, but I do believe that the elected officials in Arizona have an important job to do, and that job is to make sure that they provide a fix to what this decision has caused.
Anyway, there's a very slim margin in both the lower chamber and the upper chamber for Republicans.
They do have a governor that is a Democrat, an attorney general that is a Democrat.
But anyway, here to give us some insight into what's actually going on here is the former Attorney General of Arizona, Mark Bernovich, is back with us.
Sir, how are you?
Long time.
Glad you're back.
Thank you very much, Sean.
It's always great to hear your voice, and I'm glad to be talking about this important issue today.
Now, this all goes back to the Supreme Court decision on Roe v.
Wade that eliminated the constitutional right to abortion on the federal level, and the power goes back to the states, and every state would then get to set whatever limits, regulations they want on the issue of abortion.
At the time, when you were Attorney General, you went to court to reinstate the 1864 abortion ban and convince the trial court that the Civil War era law should be enforced instead of the 15-week ban that had been passed just months earlier.
My understanding is you did all of that because of constitutional reasons.
Am I wrong?
No, you are absolutely correct.
And let's put this in context.
For decades, conservative legal scholars and even scholars on the left had argued that Roe was constitutionally suspect and should be overturned.
And traditionally, issues of public health, safety, welfare were left to the states.
And so when Roe was overturned, Arizona, I want to make sure everyone understands this.
In 1977, there was a recodification, and the old territorial law was recodified.
So it was reinstated in 1977, but Roe prevented it from going into effect.
And in 2022, the legislature passed and the governor signed a bill that basically said if Roe ever overturned the old law, the 1977 statute goes into effect.
And so after Roe was overturned, there was a lot of confusion as to what law was in effect or not in effect.
And I'll have consistently said the job of an AG, the job of the prosecutors is to enforce the law as it is.
Me, I'm on record saying that I believe there should be exceptions for rape and incest and to save the life of the mother.
And I think we all agree that there's things that we can do, for example, like to require minors to have parental consent.
But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter.
What matters is the law that the legislature passed and the governor signed in 2022.
And the court wasn't legislating from the bench, but they made a decision, which is what conservatives say they always want.
They want the courts to say, well, the legislature passed this law, so we're going to give effect to the plain words that they used.
And the plain words that they used said that the old statute, you know, 13-3603 was in effect, and that statute essentially prohibited all abortions.
Well, okay.
So now let's talk about what options are available for elected officials in Arizona to deal with this.
And I know there's been a contentious back and forth in the last 48 hours as they begin the process of working this out.
I would suspect, and maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, that in a week or two, they're probably going to have this resolved.
Let's talk about what they are doing, what is being proposed.
Where do you think this is going to end up?
Well, most Republicans, even very strong pro-life Republicans, understand that if this issue isn't addressed, the Democrats have just done the Biden administration, a seven-figure ad buy here in Arizona.
They are going to beat up all the Republicans, all the conservatives, and Arizona is in danger of losing a couple of congressional seats, even the legislature, and then you're going to have even more chaos here.
So people understand in the legislature, the leadership understands that this has to be addressed.
And so what I would recommend, and what I've said to people, look, there are issues that we can all agree on, even people that are independent, women, and even moderate Democrats.
For example, parental notification, you know, trying to curb late-term abortion.
So there are issues that I think that we can agree on.
And I try to remind all my pro-life friends, if two years ago you had said Roe v.
Wade was going to be overturned and states like Arizona would have some limitations and we're going to do things to protect the unborn, people would have said that's awesome.
And so, you know, I keep thinking about what my mom said.
She has all these old slavic expressions.
And one of them is, just because you can't buy the whole salami doesn't mean you can't buy a few pieces or slices.
And so politics is about the art impossible.
And so there are Republicans pushing to eliminate the complete ban and to go to the 15-week ban, which is something I think the legislature could pass and put the Democrats on the spot.
They say they want to repeal the old law, the 77-flash territorial law, and force them to vote on that, force them to do that.
And then the Republican can start figuring out, okay, is it a 15-week ban?
Is it parental notification?
And there's other options they can do that are consistent with a pro-life position, but also will not result in a tsunami politically crashing here in Arizona.
Politically, I see the great state of Arizona as a state that has always had pretty libertarian leanings.
Where do you think the people of Arizona are on this politically?
Arizona is a conservative, but not a crazy state.
This is the home of Barry Goldwater, and there is definitely a strong libertarian undertow.
It's one of the reasons why people even approved, you know, legalized marijuana here.
Some people were surprised by that, but I wasn't because there tends to be a very Arizona attitude of, look, live it live.
And Republicans, when we have candidates that focus on, you know, consistency and certainty in the application of law, trying to create an environment where entrepreneurs can succeed, where people can make sure that they can buy a house or provide a better future for their kids, Republicans win.
And, you know, I remind all the people moving here from California that, you know, high taxes, lots of regulation and lawlessness don't work.
We have an ocean, ain't going to work in the desert.
So Arizona politically is still a right of center state, but there is a strong libertarian streak here.
And I think that when it comes to reasonable restrictions like, you know, you mentioned 15 weeks, but the notion of like, hey, we want our kids to, you know, make sure that, you know, they're vulnerable.
We want them to be telling their parents what they're doing, whether that's, you know, a sex change operation or getting an abortion, that's something parents should know about.
And I think reasonable people, most people here understand that.
But what's happened is the left has defined this here in other places as some sort of war on women.
And I think they're setting a narrative.
And that's why I do think, Sean, it's so important for Republican leaders here, especially in the legislature, to act quickly.
Because as I said, I just saw today that I know the Biden administration, Biden, Joe Biden, his political campaign, is doing a seven-figure ad buy.
Kamala Harris is going to be in town tomorrow.
So they are spiking the football and they are doing everything they can to create this narrative and to change it from issues that people really care about, like, you know, are they going to be able to afford to send their kids to college?
Can they buy a house?
Why do eggs cost so much?
Why is the price of milk?
Why is gas so high?
And my goodness, we have a border that's a civ that's empowered the cartels and we've seen increases in crime here.
And those are the issues that Republican conservatives should be talking about.
It doesn't mean that this isn't an important issue, but it obviously, as you know, it's a highly emotionally charged issue.
And there are people adamant on both sides.
And at some point, we have to realize that you can agree to disagree.
And politics is about the art of the possible.
And if Republicans don't want to get wiped out in states like Arizona and maybe even other swing states because this could have a contagion effect, they need to address this issue in a reasonable manner at this point.
And I keep reminding all my pro-life friends, if you had said two and a half years ago that Roe v.
Wade is going to be overturned and a bunch of states are going to impose 15-week abortion bans, they would have said, oh my gosh, hallelujah, that is amazing.
That is a complete victory.
So let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at this point.
Okay.
Now, you have a pretty good feel for the political environment.
Do you think Republicans are smart enough to follow your advice?
Because I agree with everything you just said.
I hope so, Sean.
Like I said, I mean, I think you know, you and I talked about this when you endorsed me when I was running for the Senate.
Look, when I ran in 2018 for re-election of AG, I got attacked millions of dollars of out-of-state money from the tree huggers.
And yet, I not only won, I got more than 70,000 votes than Kirsten Sinema, raw votes in that senatorial race.
And so to me, that's an indication of when you have candidates, you can be principled, you can be conservative, and you know I've gone to the Supreme Court and sued Joe Biden over the border over unconstitutional vaccine mandates, Bernovich V DNC on election integrity.
I have the receipts, and you can be a conservative, but you have to tell people here.
They like straight shooters.
It's that Barry Goldwater tradition.
I know not everyone likes them, but John McCain won six statewide elections here, and he had that reputation as a straight shooter.
And so, well, people expect you to say, this is what I believe and why I believe it.
And when we have good candidates, Republicans win statewide.
And when we have poor candidates or candidates that will not stand up or they're flip-flopping or they're wishy-washy on issues, we end up losing.
And the problem for me is an Arizonan, if someone that grew up here, I mean, it's bad enough.
We've got an incompetent governor.
We've got a highly partisan, unethical attorney general.
We have a secretary of state that's going to be overseeing the election that's a hardcore partisan.
And now we're at risk of losing congressional seats in Republican or swing districts.
And we could end up losing the House and the Senate legislatively on a state level.
And so if people think, you know, there's going to be chaos or there's chaos right now, my goodness, if you give the Democrats a Democratic AG governor and control of the legislative branches, there will be no end to the chaos and the havoc they will wreak on this state.
They will forever change it.
I mean.
Is your prediction now?
Let's assume in the next week or two this does, in fact, get the fix that you're discussing.
What is the impact of that?
Well, I've been told by folks I know in the legislature that they have the votes.
There will be a fix.
At least by next week, the House is going to vote on it.
The Senate will vote on it.
So it does have a fix.
And at the end of the day, Biden definitely is getting a bump here.
And, you know, he's getting a sugar rush.
You know, all the local media is on this and the way it's being portrayed is fun.
The question is, is that with independent and moderate women here, Republican women, what is going to be their impact?
Are they going to be like, well, wait a minute, I don't trust the Republicans moving forward?
Or are they going to take a reset?
And as you know, two weeks is a lifetime and two months is an eternity in politics.
And once people start going to the grocery store, the gas station and seeing how much gas costs and how much your groceries cost, when they see the interest rates aren't falling and it's impossible, it's impossible for middle-class people to buy houses here in Arizona because they're so expensive and interest rates are so high.
When they see record amount of cartel activity, when they see sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews dying of fentanyl overdoses here in Arizona in record numbers, they're going to realize, well, wait a minute, there is a real choice.
And when it comes to their family's long-term health and consequences, it's the Republicans that are looking out for their public safety.
And the Democrats are using this issue to not only try to drive a wedge, but it's because it's the only thing they got that's going to rally their base and hopefully flip independent Republican women.
All right.
Former Attorney General of Arizona, Mark Bernovich, I think you put it in a good perspective, and you're pretty confident this is going to pass, correct?
Yes.
Okay.
That's what my prediction is as well, because I don't think there's any other option.
Anyway, Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being with us.
800-941-Sean, our number.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Loaded up tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Kellyanne Conway, Charlie Hurt, Stephen A. Smith will check in with us.
Leo 2.0 Terrell.
He knew O.J. Simpson.
Alan Dershowitz defended O.J. Simpson.
We'll check in with them.
What is really going on out in Arizona with the abortion issue?
Will it be resolved?
Mark Bernovich, the great Victor Davis Hansen, and much more.
Set your DVR at 9 Eastern, Hannity, tonight on Fox.
We'll see you then back here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection