All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
28:33
Jarrett and Schoen - April 25th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Well, we'll come in.
to your city We'll all be inside.
And if you want a little banging yang, come along.
Yes, Trump was like, you know, just gaga over Putin.
Because Putin does what he would like to do.
Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition.
This is about the American brand where I bring capital from all around the world to invest here.
We look like clowns.
What did you mean when you said the border was secure?
Is that not a lie?
the resources and authorities that we have it is as secure as it can be t minus 193 days left till you get to vote From coast to coast.
From border to border.
From sea to shining sea.
Sean Hannity is on.
All right, our two Sean Hannity show toll free.
It's 800-941-SEAN.
If you want to be a part of the program, A lot of legal stuff, as we've been telling you, going on all day.
The issue of absolute versus say limited immunity and the Supreme Court arguments today got very interesting on a lot of fronts.
Um and then, of course, the Trump witch on trial in New York with a biased judge who donated to uh uh uh Donald Trump's opponent.
That would be Joe Biden, uh possible conflict, statute of limitations, eight years later.
Uh I mean, you just can't make this up.
Uh but anyway, here to help us sort through all of this.
We have Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, best-selling author, David Schoen, civil rights attorney, previously represented President Trump.
Uh let's start with the Trump immunity, Supreme Court oral arguments that took place today.
Uh Greg, let's get your take.
Well, it it went exactly as I've discussed and predicted with you.
Presidents already have immunity from civil lawsuits as long as their actions fall within the outer perimeter of official duties.
And i it looks as though the justices will extend that civil immunity protection to criminal prosecutions.
Because as the discussion and the arguments reveal, the same reasoning applies.
Without some kind of immunity, um, the the chilling effect on presidential decision making would trigger paralysis.
You know, instead of a chief executive, America would be ruled by a committee of lawyers afraid to do anything out of fear of future uh prosecutions.
So you know, I it appears that there are at least four justices who want to send this back to the lower courts.
It's called Remanding the Case to sort of uh figure it out.
Uh and uh one of two things will happen.
The Supreme Court will either give them guidance to do that along the lines of the uh immunity in civil cases, or the Supreme Court will just outright say we hereby extend the same uh official duties protection that was identified in the Nixon versus Fitzcherell case in 1982.
So but this is I mean, it's going to have to one way or another go back to the lower court, which means, you know, hearings and briefs, and there's no way that this case would be tried before the election.
I I think that's a part of this.
Uh one of the the big arguments that I think came out here, and and going into this, uh David Schoen, I thought that maybe the better argument would be limited immunity, uh, because they keep bringing up these absurd hypotheticals that, you know, well, if a president decides that their opponent in in an official act is a danger to the country and orders their assassination, are you saying that that they would be immune from that?
Um that's why I I I think you would have uh an argument for limited immunity, but criminal immunity and civil uh immunity as Greg is talking about.
I think you're right, and I think you and Greg are saying the same thing, actually.
Um I think that in this case uh they're gonna do something they should do.
You know, look, I'm not in the prediction business, but what's clearly oh, it clearly ought to be the result here, and what the arguments indicate, as Greg said, um, and as you've indicated, Sean, is something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald, the nineteen eighty-two case that says a president must enjoy immunity for actions taken within the outer perimeter of his official authority, official acts.
The uh I I've said it before, you know, I hate to say it, but uh President Trump's gonna win this one in spite of his lawyers.
The positions they take and took again today at the Supreme Court are just wrong.
They if they were asked today, for example, well, what if a president ordered a coup?
Would that be considered an official act?
And lawyer said it depends.
It doesn't depend.
That's not an official act, nor is having hit uh sealed team six hit your opponent, uh that would not be an official act.
And that's why it's a relatively easy case.
We must give presidents the immunity to act within their official acts, or we would have prosecuted Abraham Lincoln and O'Brock uh Obama and uh and Bill Clinton and many others along the line, but they have to be able to act in the appropriate manner when it comes to an official act for national security, for the uh integrity of an election, or otherwise.
I thought that Sam Alito kind of blew the one big argument uh in in terms of uh the case against uh President Trump's arguments, and he's asking the the attorney goes, if the president gets advice from an attorney general that something is lawful, uh is that an absolute defense?
The answer, yes.
Well, wouldn't the president just pick an A G who will let him do whatever he wants?
I mean, the guy the guy seems stunned just listening to this.
According to a court observers, he looks stunned.
And apparently the AG can provide absolute immunity, but the president who is the boss can't.
I mean, that g that kinda is obscene, isn't it?
It it is obscene, it's absurd.
I I thought some of the most important uh questions came from Brett Kavanaugh uh and Neil Gorsuch.
Kavanaugh asked a very potent question.
What's to stop a creative prosecutor from using a vague statute to prosecute a president, especially a prosecutor from the opposing party.
And the answer, of course, is nothing.
That's exactly what D.A. Alvin Bragg is doing in your Fulton County DA Stanny Willis and Georgia, and of course special counsel Jack Smith in both Washington and Florida.
Uh and then Neil Gorsuch is sort of chimed in.
Uh and he said uh you know, I worry about the misuse of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.
Now that really goes to the heart of all four of the criminal indictments against Donald Trump and the Alvin Bragg case ongoing right now in Manhattan is the most egregious example of this nightmare scenario, a politically motivated case conjured up by unscrupulous prosecutor to fulfill a campaign promise to get Trump.
And Bragg is uh not just using vague statutes, but expired ones that do not support the conduct charge, and yet so far he's getting away with it.
But again, now you're back to the point where uh a president will will then in the future only appoint an attorney general that's gonna say yes uh to anything that they want them to say yes to.
When the when the w when in reality they're supposed to be independent, but we know people like Merrick Garland and Eric Holder are not.
Yeah.
The uh the other undercurrent, by the way, in this case is remember the Supreme Court just took up the question of whether the obstruction of justice uh subsection that was applied to the January 6th uh demonstrators, uh applies in this case, couldn't can be applied.
One of the charges that you know President Trump is facing.
And so the undercurrent during the argument was, well, it seemed to imply at least that they're gonna uh go in the defendant's direction on that question.
But listen, at the end of the day, there's an important win for the law.
The question is ultimately this President Trump win it.
If they send it back to Judge Chutkin, you know, if it comes out something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald, you can be just about sure, I think dollars to donuts that she's gonna find, well, this was not within the outer perimeters of official acts, and then it'll go back up to the DC circuit on that factual question.
Or they could say, Well, we're going to present this to a jury, and the factual question.
That's more problematic.
I think that's a lot more problematic, but I I tend to think I agree with Craig on this, that they're going to come down and they're going to offer guidance on this in a specific way, knowing that ultimately it would end up back in front of them, wouldn't wouldn't that be the case, Greg?
Yeah, I I think that's absolutely right.
And you know, the other interesting part is these justices did talk about all of the other comparable situations in which former presidents have made controversial decisions that arguably could have produced uh prosecutions after they left office.
George Bush.
Uh you know, could he have been charged uh for obstructing an official proceeding uh when he allegedly lied to Congress over uh the reasons for the Iraq invasion?
Could Obama be charged with murdering uh U.S. citizens in a drone strike?
Could Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the company uh country illegally?
Um you know what what you know all of these four indictments have done is open to can of worms that threatens the future presidency, and the Supreme Court is finally, after sort of avoiding the issue of immunity for decades, is now confronted with addressing it because of the Trump prosecutions.
And if you listen to the conservative justices' questions, they don't worry about Donald Trump.
They worry about future presidents being uh handcuffed by uh the concern over future criminal prosecutions.
Well, you're you're you're absolutely right, because you're you're basically quoting Kavanaugh saying, I'm not focused on the here and now of this case.
Yeah.
I'm concerned about the future.
He actually used your words.
Yeah, he he said the our decision is a decision for the ages, which means to me also they're gonna take their time on this.
Now they'll probably have a vote on Friday as they normally do.
Um, but you know, they're they realize the historic nature of this, and they are going to carefully craft their ruling in this case.
All right, quick break.
We'll come right back more with David Schoen, Greg Jarrett on the other side, 800-941 Shawn is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sas, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional SAS, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
We continue with attorneys, uh David Schoen and Greg Jarrett are with us, 800 941 Shauna's on number if you want to be a part of the program.
And there's certainly skepticism on the part of some of the justices, so to my or saying, well, we would we would be creating a situation in which we'd be saying uh is this what you're asking us to say, uh, which is that a president is a t entitled not to make a mistake, but more than that, a president is entitled uh uh for a total person uh personal gain to use the trappings of his office that you're trying to get us to h hold without facing criminal liability.
I'm having a hard time, she said, thinking of creating false documents that submitting false documents that ordering the assassination of a rival, which again I I just hate the whole analogy because I think it's absurd.
Um, that accepting a bribe and countless uh laws could be broken for personal gain.
Uh, David, your take on that part.
Well, no, I mean, but I think again, I think the formula from Nixon versus Fitzgerald that I think they're likely to send it back with the guidance for, uh, really deals with that.
Each one has an answer.
It's not an official act.
It may be the person's holding office at the time, but it's not within what we think of as official acts.
Something like ensuring the integrity of an election when you have advice about that election that you believe needs to be acted on to ensure its integrity would be within the official a act doctrine.
But something like, you know, doing something for personal gain, or what we saw in the case of you know Bill Clinton with the um you know Paula Jones situation and so on, these are outside the realm, and certainly the hit sealed team sixth kind of thing.
And by the way, you know, I know everyone was offended by the hypothetical, but that that's a kind of hypothetical.
A lawyer has to be prepared to answer to fit within your formula.
But he had a different take on it.
His take is no, you have to be impeached first and convicted, and then you can only be tried.
And they cited to Judge Kavan on that, but just Justice Kavanaugh actually wrote the exact opposite.
He said that when a person's out of office, then if they if you first presented it to Congress and they didn't do anything with it, when the person's out of office, they could be prosecuted if it were the right kind of act to prosecute.
What's your take on what's going on in this New York City kangaroo court uh where you you have a judge uh that donated to Joe Biden presiding and then potential family conflicts, and it's eight years later and the statute of limitations have passed.
But what is your take on the testimony of this guy, David Pecker, who is with uh the National Inquirer.
Greg.
Well uh you know, Pecker's testimony is immaterial and incompetent.
He knows nothing about the thirty-four criminal charges of falsifying business records.
But you know, no matter to Alvin Bragg, because his objective is to tie Trump to the sort of sleazy dealings of a notorious tabloid.
It's really filth by association here.
Um look, the the entire case is is a farce, it's a sham.
Any fair and impartial judge, knowledgeable in the law, would have long ago dismissed Bragg's sham charges.
Instead, you know, this case went to Judge Juan Brashant, whose anti-Trump bias is on conspicuous display whenever he takes the badge.
Uh his unconstitutional gag order on the leading candidate for president is is one in a string of sort of headbanging pronouncements.
So, you know, I worry about a hyper biased judge and also a venue in which uh the jurors were selected from the pool.
Uh that's a pool that hates Donald Trump.
And so it's it undermines to me the Bill of Rights uh an impartial jury.
Uh it could have been moved elsewhere, should have been moved elsewhere, and Mershawn wouldn't do it.
Yeah.
Uh it's going to be interesting.
Your take.
How's this going to play out?
Thirty seconds, David Shaw.
Well, the j Greg's 100% right again.
So are you, and uh this judge should not be sitting on the case.
They've got teed up issues for appeal.
I don't love the way they raise some of them, but I still think the record's clear enough.
The judge, there are many cases saying this judge had to be disqualified and that it's reversible error.
They haven't ever char identified the target charge.
We saw that even in the opening.
We saw it in the judge's denial of the motion to dismiss.
It's a farce, and it's gonna just send President Trump up higher and higher in the polls, because unfortunately everyone sees it for what it is.
Uh if we can hang on to you guys, I I just have too much that I want to ask both of you, and I think a lot of people want to have a deeper understanding of this.
We'll continue with David Schon and with Greg Jarrett on the other side.
We'll get to your calls coming up straight ahead as well.
800, 941 Sean is on number if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, 25 dots at the top of the hour.
Our toll free numbers 800, 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Let me tell you about a case.
guy named Michael, his wife, uh out for a walk in their neighborhood, right?
All of a sudden their life gets flipped upside down.
Why?
Michael was attacked by a homeless woman, stabbed him multiple times before he was able to restrain her, uh, thankfully, and then waited for law enforcement to arrive.
Now, what happened next is why I am a proud member of the USCCA.
Because when Michael was in the hospital, well, guess what?
A detective came in and charged him with assault for protecting himself.
Well, welcome to the all new America of defund, dismantle, no bail laws, reimagining police, right?
Anyway, that's now the America we live in.
You go to jail, what, for defending yourself, you could be forced to spend what tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain your innocence.
Well, if you want to learn proven ways to deter criminals, defend your family and avoid legal trouble, well, you want to be a part of the USCCA also.
Now they're going to give you their free concealed carry defense guide.
They put it together.
USCCA they joined forces with the former head of trading for the FBI Aquanico, and just go to their website.
You'll get this free uh, you know, proven, defend your family, deter criminals, and their their concealed carry defense guide, absolutely free.
They also have classes, by the way, around the country, situational self-defense classes.
Just go to their website, it's USCCA.com slash Hannity.
USCCA.com slash Hannity.
All right.
Let's go to a couple of moments that took place in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today.
I want to start with Neil Gorsuch.
You know, he's getting egg exasperated at the lawyer for the special prosecutor, uh his name is Michael Dreben.
And anyway, over the semantics over the word immunity, and and I want to get reaction from David Schoen and Greg Jarrett, uh, who continue with us.
Uh, but listen to this exchange.
Did you agree that there are some core functions of the executive that uh present conduct that Congress cannot criminalize?
Yes.
We is that a form I mean we can call it immunity, or you can call it they can't do it, but what's the difference?
We call it an as applied Article II challenge, and that we're gonna do it.
Okay.
Okay we call it immunity just for shorthand sake.
So we so I think we are kind of narrowing the ground of dispute here.
It seems to me there is some some area you you concede that an official acts that Congress cannot criminalize.
And now we're just talking about the scope.
Well, I don't think it's a just, but i i I think it's a very significant gap between any official act and the small core of exclusive official act.
I thought that was a checkmate moment, David Schoen.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think so, and I uh also think Mr. Dreven is uh actu not accurately uh relaying what Nixon versus Fitzgerald held.
By the way, it's not it's not such a narrow By the way, why don't you why don't you explain for people, Nixon and Fitzgerald, because we've been talking about it all day.
Yep, Nixon versus Fitzgerald's a nineteen eighty-two case was brought uh against uh President Nixon after he was out of office, a claim that he uh made an unfair, inappropriate, illegal uh employment decision.
Um, and the court said that we're not gonna subject a president even out of office to civil liability.
He or she is gonna have immunity for actions taken within the outer perimeters of his official th authority as president.
And so we call it referred to you know as an official act's immunity, and and it's quite broad.
That's why they said the outer perimeter.
Many examples are given, but essentially, you know, uh official act has been uh uh uh uh uh defined in McDonald vs.
U.S. a 2016 case to say any official act on any matter that's pending before a public official and includes the president using his official position to exert pressure on another official, knower and intending such advice will form the basis for an official act of another official.
And so my view at least it puts the what happened here squarely within the official act.
It's not a narrow exception.
President stands apart from every other official, and by the way, other officials have immunity too.
Judges, prosecutors in their realm.
Yeah.
What what's your take on that, Greg?
Because I think uh David nailed it.
Well, yeah, it's always a mistake to try to bicker over semantics with the Supreme Court justice and dream.
Yeah, by the way, that that should be one oh one uh in terms of being dumb.
You know, when you get an when you get a justice exasperated like that, uh can we just say immunity because that's what you're saying, you know?
Yeah.
And they're trying to come up with a creative way to get out of the immunity that he's basically being forced into a corner to acknowledge.
Yeah.
But Drew been is strident.
Um and he you know, he won't give an inch.
And part of the problem here is both sides are guilty of that.
Um you know, Drevan and the special counsel argued um there should be no immunity whatsoever.
And of course, uh the other side on behalf of Donald Trump uh argued uh wrongfully, I think, that um there should be absolute immunity for everything.
Part of the problem arises from the Nixon versus Fitzgerald case, in which the Supreme Court, in their ruling, referred to absolute immunity and then they set conditions, as David described within the outer perimeter of official acts.
So it wasn't absolute immunity at all.
They immediately contradicted themselves.
It's it's really limited immunity, or let's call it immunity with conditions.
And uh, you know, I'll reiterate that uh listening to these arguments today, that's where the Supreme Court majority is heading here, to simply adopt uh the Fitzgerald principles and apply them uh to a criminal case because it makes sense.
I mean, you've got to offer some sort of immunity.
Um and you know, uh this was a very different court in nineteen eighty-two, but uh it was a smart court, and the justices there had spent a lot of time trying to figure it out, and they came up with a immunity solution that has stood the test of time civilly, it should now be extended criminally.
I mean, that's the fascinating part of this.
Let's do uh let's stay with Gorsuch and and he's asking uh the same attorney uh for the special prosecutor if a president can be prosecuted after leaving office for leading a protest that would delay Congress, uh which kind of goes to the heart of of a lot of the arguments that the special counsel is making.
Listen.
For example, let's say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress, uh because he objects to a uh a piece of legislation that's going through.
And it in fact delays the proceedings in Congress.
Now, under 1512 C2, uh that might be corruptly impeding uh a proceed an official proceeding.
Cool is that core and therefore immunized or whatever word euphemism you want to use for that.
Is that not core and therefore prosecutable?
Well, I without a clear statement that applies to the president.
It's not it's not core.
The core kinds of activities that the court has acknowledged are the things that I would run through the Youngstown analysis.
And it's a pretty small set, but things like the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments.
These are things that the Constitution specifically allocates to the president.
Once you get a president then could be prosecuted for the conduct I described after he leaves office.
Probably not, but I want to explain the framework of why uh I don't think that that would be uh prosecution that would be valid.
Your reaction, Greg Jarrett.
You know, this is really getting into the weeds into the Youngstown case and and so forth.
But um this was really one of the By the way, you say the Youngstown case, people don't know what you're saying.
Well, I I don't remember the Youngstown case.
Well I mean, you do you do study a lot of cases at law school.
I'm sure you know Marbury versus Madison and Brown v versus Board of Education and and and all the uh all the important ones.
I'm not expecting you to remember everyone.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Um but this was one of the few times in which they actually drew an analogy that is very close to their own case, the uh J. Six Trump case, Uh which of course led to the immunity claim, which they're now uh trying to decide.
Um of the other analogies I thought were were quite instructive and useful in in going forth with an immunity uh protection of some sort.
And uh, you know, this was this was one that was um both direct to the Trump case but a little bit in the weeds legally.
Your take, uh David Schoen.
Yeah, I mean, first of all, Greg will remember the Youngstown case in a second.
Youngstown sheet from two versus Sawyer 1952 case.
Truman seized uh yes, uh yes, now I remember the seizure plans during the Korean War.
There's a question it was uh uh illegal because it probably violated a statute when you can seize private property under very narrow circumstances, but they didn't prosecute was the point.
Some people suggest it's one of the best Supreme Court uh decis written decisions ever and so on, but it lays out factors on when it's appropriate prosecution and that sort of thing.
But anyway, um yeah, uh I I just think that um you know what what Gorsuch and others are getting to is very reminiscent of the argument the other day on the obstruction statute.
And in fact, it's very cute and clever, I think, some of the examples they're using.
The other day they said, well, what if a congressman, for example, uh pulled a fire alarm falsely on his way to a vote uh for to obstruct that vote?
Is that something we can prosecute under the obstruction statute?
And they had the same kind of thing going during the repartee today, actually.
▲
Export Selection