Sean Hannity Show - Gregg Jarrett - May 16th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 17, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

34:12

Gregg Jarrett - May 16th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	We're coming back.
	to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound We'll all be fired.
	High than a jail honor.
	And if you want a little bang in your yin-yang, come along.
	As you can see today, we're expanding the electoral map because we are going to officially play in the state of New Jersey.
	We're going to win the state of New Jersey.
	said very loudly ovaries fallopian tubes right nearly 40 of n a h n a n h pi students Rely on Pelgrim.
	T minus 172 days left.
	Till you get to vote.
	Yeah, we have come in to your city.
	Don't play out guitar and say you will song.
	From coast to coast.
	From border to border.
	From sea to shining sea.
	Sean Hannity is on.
	All right.
	Thank you, Scott Chan.
	Hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
	Toll for your number is 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, so the I guess they just have adjourned for the day, which uh is probably good.
	Uh court will not be in session tomorrow because Donald J. Trump uh is going to his son's graduation, which is good news.
	Uh the judge didn't make an immediate decision on that, and uh, which I don't think was fair.
	Uh, by the way, uh Eli Honig over at Fake News CNN Access, this is what he said about what happened today.
	I don't think I've ever seen a star cooperating witness get their knees chopped out as clearly and dramatically as what just happened with Michael Cohn.
	Wow.
	And I'm telling you, everybody, everybody in the courtroom that I talked to, and we're gonna have a number of them that will tell you tonight on Hannity Nine Easter.
	We got you know a lot of people in the courtroom today.
	Um that literally said they'd never seen anything like it.
	And it's pretty unbelievable.
	Uh, but it's incredible.
	Now, uh, we have Judge Janine Piero coming up, we have Greg Jarrett coming up, and we're gonna a lot more legal analysts.
	We'll get your calls.
	I know a lot of you want to uh weigh in on this.
	We do have one other legal issue that I think we've really gotta get into here, and House Republicans now will take their first steps of holding the attorney general, Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress uh today for refusing to turn over audio recordings of special counsel Robert Hurz interviews with Joe Biden.
	Now, you might remember this is you know, you know, pretty pretty interesting for a lot of different reasons because the tape apparently has Joe Biden was I still vice president in 2009.
	You know, and all these, you know, apparently it was a disaster.
	That was described by the special counsel.
	So Republicans are saying Americans have a right to hear it.
	Well, what happened today is the White House they said they wouldn't do this.
	They also said that the Attorney General's office is gonna be independent from the Biden White House.
	Well, that's not turning out to be true either, which is pretty unbelievable, but I guess predictable in this day and age in which we live in.
	But it it's the reality.
	Now, uh it's pretty sad, but it's again, this is this is the country we live in under Joe Biden and Merrick Garland.
	Anyway, from the associate attorney general uh to Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan, I write to inform you that the president has asserted executive privilege over the requested audio recordings and is making a protective assertion of privilege over any remaining ri materials responsive to the subpoenas that have not already been produced.
	Produced.
	It is a long-standing position, the executive branch held by the administrations of both parties, that an official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege cannot be prosecuted for criminal contempt of Congress.
	Well, from the Attorney General Garland to the President of the United States, the audio recordings of your interview, uh, this is with Robert Hurz people, uh, fall within the scope of executive privilege.
	Production of these recordings to the committees would raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the department's ability to conduct similar high profile criminal investigations, in particular investigations where the voluntary cooperation of the White House official is exceedingly important.
	The White House counsel.
	The absence of legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.
	And Garland goes on, we have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure the committees get their responses and so on and so on.
	And so on here.
	You know, I got to tell you something.
	This ought to scare everybody.
	Because this is not what justice is designed to be in this country.
	It just isn't.
	You know, Jason Smith, by the way, uh joins us.
	He's the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and they've been doing their own investigation to talk about the committee vote to hold the attorney general now in contempt of Congress over this issue.
	Uh anyway, Congressman, welcome back to the program.
	It's great to be with you, Sean.
	Let's get your analysis of this.
	Well, you know, uh Merrick Garland is acting acting like the president's personal lawyer, not the attorney general of the United States.
	The Biden administration and the Department of Justice, they've ignored every subpoena this Congress has sent, and every action they've taken has been to shield President Biden from oversight.
	And that that's leading Congress with no other choice but to move forward with the contempt proceedings.
	That's why you're seeing that today.
	Uh, you know, the attorney general of the United States does not get to tell Congress what documents or evidence are relevant to our investigation throughout this impeachment inquiry.
	So this runs completely afoul of the separation of powers.
	What we've seen today is just absolutely atrocious.
	But you know what, Sean?
	Think about these these recordings.
	These tapes must be so bad that Biden and the Democrats would rather hold Garland in contempt than to release them.
	It tells you that they must be a whole lot worse than what even the transcripts provide.
	You know, I talked to a lot of uh attorneys today about this, and it and the consensus is very clear.
	It's a blatant misuse of executive privilege.
	Uh Greg Jarrett was so passionate about it, and what they want to do is hide in advance of the election what would probably be a devastating recording of the president's mental infirmities.
	That's what this really is all about.
	And that resulted in the special counsel, her, describing him as a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, and that's how a jury would likely see hit, and therefore, well, you know, what's the point?
	They're probably not going to find him guilty because he's a well-meaning old guy with a horrible memory.
	Now, the doctrine of executive privilege, Congressman, you correct me if I'm wrong.
	Doesn't that allow a president uh to withhold from Congress private and confidential communications with aides?
	Because that's not what's happening here.
	The special counsel was not an aid to Biden, who was offering counsel and advice.
	He was adversarial.
	He was investigating Biden for potential crimes over classified documents that he retained in violation of federal law.
	Uh would you agree with that?
	You're exactly right.
	Executive privilege is to do your job as president.
	Not executive pre executive privilege isn't to save your job.
	That's in fact why Joe Biden's using executive privilege is to save his job because he doesn't want the American people to see the truth.
	And that's in fact what could be outlaid in these audio tapes.
	Okay.
	Let me take it a step further.
	Let's look at the Case of the U.S. versus Nixon, right?
	What did the Supreme Court rule?
	That there is no executive privilege when the information sought is relevant to a criminal case.
	Isn't that exactly what Her was doing?
	Hence Biden wrongfully asserting the privilege over a recording in the possession of the attorney general, his attorney general, conflicted attorney general, weaponized Department of Justice, in my view.
	Biden is shielding both himself and Garland by abusing what a presidential power?
	Would you agree with that?
	That's absolutely the case.
	We know that the this whole interview was Mr. Her um interviewing the president for a crime, and even her said that it that he could not even bring charges because he was an older man and that he had a poor memory.
	That is why they're not bringing charges.
	So it shows clearly it was under investigation for criminal conduct.
	Now, by the way, the Supreme Court case that is being heard about immunity and the presidency would be a different case, wouldn't it?
	Wouldn't it?
	Um I know that the president's lawyers, President Trump's lawyers, argued for absolute immunity.
	I would probably argue, I would have argued for limited immunity that would have uh, I think been if it had it been applied, I think a lot of the lawfare against Donald Trump wouldn't have happened.
	Is there's a great distinction here, isn't there?
	There's a huge distinction.
	But you know, this just shows an example of the two-tier justice system on full display.
	Uh one for the Biden family and one for everyone else.
	Yeah, I agree with you there too.
	You know, Biden in in this case is shielding himself and Garland uh by abusing, I believe, presidential power.
	And I think Garland probably knows better and urged the president to do it.
	Um, you know, I guess uh he's sort of like uh Obama's Eric Holder, right?
	I'm not any different in my view, but executive privilege is not absolute.
	It's a qualified privilege.
	In other words, only can be asserted under limited circumstances that we just we just discussed.
	And Congress has okay, that we have coequal branches of government.
	Part of that coequal branch is oversight over the executive branch.
	They have investigative authority.
	Your committee is one of them, uh, as is the Judiciary Committee, as is the oversight committee.
	And you derive your powers, you know, uh, from our Constitution.
	And you look at these discrepancies between the transcript and the recording, and the Congressional Committee needs to be entitled to resolve that in my view.
	Why won't why why don't they want that resolved?
	I think it's pretty obvious why.
	That's exactly right.
	Article one gives us the authority in the Constitution for Congress to have oversight over the executive branch, and that's in fact what we're doing.
	That is why we subpoena this information.
	That's why we're asking for it, is because this information is essential to the investigation.
	The Attorney General doesn't have the discretion of deciding what documents Congress should have or should not have in their investigation under Article One.
	Well, they're just hoping to run out the clock, aren't they?
	You know what?
	They want they want to make sure those tapes are not heard by the American people uh before the election.
	Isn't that what this is about?
	And because I doubt that Robert Herr lied when he characterized Joe Biden as a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory who didn't remember the when he that he was vice president and just became vice president in 2009 and and other horrific examples of a poor memory, right?
	Exactly.
	Sean, you hit the nail on the head.
	You're you're saying it exactly what it is.
	They're trying to make sure that the American people don't hear the truth, see the truth.
	The more that they can keep Joe Biden in the basement and not allow people to actually see his conduct or even his actions, they feel like that that's how he can get re-elected.
	Unbelievable.
	Well, we appreciate your time, Congressman.
	Uh anyway, Jason Smith, uh, head of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
	Thank you, sir.
	Hey there.
	I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
	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 facts.
	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 Markovitz.
	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.
	Alright, court just ends it for the day.
	Donald Trump uh let me just play some of his comments.
	He does this every day, kind of reads all the comments of everyone else because of the gag order, but let's listen in.
	I think it was a very interesting day.
	It was a fascinating day.
	And it shows what a scam this whole thing is.
	And I think that seems to be the way almost everybody, even CNN and MSDNC, they have courts over here that are drop the trial.
	This is a statement he just made.
	Would not have even charged this case.
	This case shouldn't have been charged many, it should have never been started against me.
	Uh Nicholas Chambers, lawyer newsmanks, there's no law against securing a non-disclosure agreement.
	There's none.
	Everybody has it.
	Every company has it.
	Out of concern for your marriage or protecting your family or any other reason.
	The common non-disclosure NDAs.
	The Manhattan Show trial against President Trump is a gross abuse of power.
	it's a disgusting spectacle he says and it should terrify all of us and that's true jonathan fairly fox news judge has failed to protect rights of defended in requiring clarity trump did not violate federal election law at all i didn't i I didn't violate any law.
	It's a scam.
	Brad cannot prosecute federal election law.
	It's not under his jurisdiction.
	DOJ declined to bring the action.
	As you know, DOJ looked at this a long time ago.
	This case was going to be brought, which it should have never been brought.
	Should have been brought seven or eight years ago.
	They didn't do that because they wanted to bring it right in the middle of the election, especially since we're leading in every poll.
	It's a weird situation where judges allow prosecutors to refer to election violations.
	And as you know, the uh federal elections looked at it and they didn't bring anything, and it's under their jurisdiction.
	That was from Jonathan Charlie, Andrew McCarthy.
	NDAs are legal in common.
	Yet Greg alleges Trump's was illegal.
	I have the only illegal NDA.
	It seems that Trump's crime by blue state lights was winning the election.
	That was my crime.
	I won an election that I wasn't supposed to win against Hillary Clinton.
	And that's not a crime.
	Either Republican in New York, it's not a crime.
	Bragg wants to prosecute Trump for federal campaign finance crime, something he has no jurisdiction to do.
	This is from Andrew McCarthy, highly respect.
	He's got no jurisdiction to do, and that the feds, who do have jurisdiction, decided not to do it, not to charge.
	They decided not to do it.
	They decided not to do it.
	This was Bragg, who by the way didn't want to do it himself.
	And then when I started running, when I announced that I was running, all of a sudden it became a hot item again.
	This is a political persecution.
	Human events editorial board.
	This case is a joke.
	Ashton Kutchard's going to pop and left to tell us that we've been pumped.
	That's kind of what that means.
	It was a series of glorified legal pranks that seriously called into question the impartiality of the American justice system.
	All right, we're going to dip out of this.
	We're going to get reaction to the blockbuster day with Judge Jeanine Pirro.
	She's coming up next later on, Greg Jarrett, as we continue.
	25 to the top of the hour.
	Thank you for being with us, 800 941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, want to remind you if you own a gun.
	This is a wake-up call on a regular morning.
	U.S. Army vet, his name is Brian, attacked by a man with a steel pipe while with his family.
	Now, despite warnings, Brian was forced to defend himself with his firearm, and in today's twisted America, well, he ended up being the guy charged with first degree murder and put in jail.
	Now, Brian, thankfully remembered he was a member.
	I've been a member for nine years of the United States Concealed Carry Association.
	He remembered that his membership included self-defense liability insurance.
	He reached out to the USCCA, immediately connected with a highly skilled legal team, and those charges they got dropped.
	That saved him from financial ruin.
	And that's why I've been a proud member for nine years.
	You know, proving your innocence now can destroy your life if you're not prepared.
	Just go to DefendFamily.com right now and start your 100% risk-free USCCA membership.
	If you sign up now, you'll not only get self-defense liability insurance, world class training.
	They even have training centers around the country you can sign up for.com.
	All right, we have been going over what unbelievable uh what has been unbelievable in the courtroom in New York City today in the case of Donald Trump.
	I had more than one person in the courtroom describe what happened today as a my cousin Vinny moment, as I've been telling you.
	And anyway, you know, the defense was asking about a series of uh prank calls in 2016.
	Todd Blanch representing Donald Trump uh in cross with Michael Cohn, uh, talked about the call call logs between Cohn and Trump's former bodyguard, uh guy by the name of Keith Schiller.
	This is before Trump was president, and a little bit into his presidency.
	Cohn then testified earlier this week that he made a call to Schiller in October of 2016 to speak to Trump and confirm the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
	Really?
	And this is the call that he identified as having that happened.
	Blanche questioned uh Cohn about the series of harassing phone calls.
	Cohn Cohn had claimed in a text to Schiller that he received at the time.
	And anyway, Blanche pointed to the message exchange where Cohn uh said some fourteen-year-old prank called him, and the message exchanged uh Schiller asked Cohn to call him.
	According to the call logs, the call Cohn made to Schiller less than two minutes, about a minute and a half.
	And Blanche argued that the call was too short for Cohn to have both explained the prank call and his concerns about it, and shared what he testified earlier in the week was an extensive conversation with Donald Trump on the Stormy Daniel issue.
	Blanch are obviously arguing that the call that Cohn cla Cone claims was he was informing Trump about the hush money payment was actually about him dealing with a prank caller.
	Apparently the reaction from the jury was was wow.
	Anyway, joining us now.
	Uh she's been on both sides of this.
	I mean, her background is extensive.
	I think one of the smartest legal minds in the country, her and the great one, Mark Levin, two of the my friends.
	Uh my friend, she is the co-host of the hit show, uh, the five.
	Uh Judge Janine Pierrot is with us.
	Uh, I know you're following this as closely as we are.
	Wow.
	It was.
	It was wow.
	I got to tell you, Sean.
	Um, and and as you stated, I mean, I've been a DA like Alvin Bragg, and I've been a judge like Juan Marchon.
	Uh, and the whole thing is so bizarre.
	But the wow moment today had to do with Michael Cohen saying, I talked to Donald Trump about the uh Stormy Daniels uh payment.
	But the truth is he called Keith Schiller, not to talk to Donald Trump, but to talk in response to Keith Schiller telling him, call me because Michael Cohen was being harassed by some fourteen year old who kept making prank calls.
	So Keith Schiller says, Call me, you know, I'll tell you what to do or connect you with the police.
	It's a minute and a half phone call.
	Now Michael Cohen wants the jurors to believe, oh no, I definitely spoke to not just Keith Schiller, but Donald Trump in that minute and a half.
	Now think about it.
	You gotta call Keith, you gotta say, need to speak to the boss.
	Keith has to say, let me see if he's available, and then let's assume you get Trump on the phone within, you know, 30 seconds.
	Then you explain the whole thing in less than a minute.
	I mean, this is an all-out lie, and what we haven't seen yet are text messages between Schiller, the bodyguard for Donald Trump, and Michael Cohen, where Michael Cohen says this kid's driving me nuts during the exact same period of time that he alleges that he was calling Trump to inform him on what he was doing about Stormy Daniels.
	I mean, the jury, according to my sources as well, looked at each other.
	Now, this is kind of a low-key jury, Sean, but they were they were stunned.
	This was not about Michael Cohen calling Donald Trump.
	It was about his call to Donald Schiller to his uh Keith Schiller, and it's all about Michael Cohen protecting himself and trying to deep fix Donald Trump.
	All right.
	Now, there's another aspect to this, and that is the prosecution's role here, and how apparently they kept these text messages.
	They they knew about them, but they kept it away from Cohn, knowing that Cohn two days earlier made this testimony and this allegation about this extensive conversation with Trump about the deal.
	So clearly they knew he was lying.
	They had the text messages, and I guess I don't know if they they just didn't inform him that they just screw up or anything nefarious in your mind.
	Yes, absolutely.
	I mean, the whole case is nefarious.
	There is no case.
	There is a great point of the law.
	And, you know, in the end, they have to continue this narrative that what they're doing is absolutely appropriate.
	The fact that they didn't give these text messages to uh Michael Cohen or to the prosecution tells me that they're possibly supporting perjury, that they knew he was going to go on the stand and talk and say that that phone call on October 24th of 2016 had to do with uh uh telling Donald Trump how they were handling Stormy Daniels,
	but in truth that phone call was about a kid who was harassing Michael Cohen, and Michael Cohen seeking help, he's getting a text back from Schiller saying call me, and it had nothing to do with Donald Trump.
	There's no proof Donald Trump was even on that call.
	Schiller didn't say call me because I'm with Donald Trump.
	How did he even know he was with Donald Trump?
	This whole thing is suborning perjury and moving records out so the witness would not remember.
	I'll give Cohen the benefit of the doubt, although I think he's an outright liar, you can never give him the benefit of the doubt.
	But that the prosecution did not give him those text messages that were his at the exact same time of the call log is outrageous.
	It really is.
	What do you well what do you make of that?
	I mean, you would think if they knew the testimony that he gave the other day didn't correspond with text messages that they have.
	Don't they have a legal obligation to to get the truth out?
	I mean, uh uh Alan Dershwitz said the other night on Hannity, and I thought he was dead on accurate, and it was something I didn't know before.
	I'm sure you did because of your background in the in the law, and that was that on the issue of attorney client privilege and Michael Cohn taping Donald Trump, not informing him that he's taping him, and then sharing that information with the with the prosecution in this case.
	And Dershaw would said, Well, he needs to be questioned extensively on this and about what the nature of those conversations were and why attorney client privilege was broken and why they didn't inform Donald Trump.
	Why would you ever, you know, break that privilege?
	And what were the conversations with the prosecutors?
	And if he's on the stand and he doesn't tell the truth, and The prosecutors know he's not telling the truth.
	They would have an obligation to stand up in court before the judge and the jury and tell them that's not true.
	Now that's pretty amazing.
	That that is amazing.
	They are not abiding by the rules that are imposed upon them.
	You are required to give exculpatory material to the defense immediately.
	Once he lied on the stand, let's assume I'll give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt, right?
	Although I don't believe they deserve it either.
	But let's assume that they forgot to give it to him.
	Once Michael Cohen said that, they should have gone up to the bar to the bench and said, Your Honor, we have exculpatory material, it's our mistake.
	But no, they're running with it as though this is absolutely the truth.
	This phone call was to Donald Trump.
	This is when he explained it all to Donald Trump.
	It's a lie.
	They suborned it.
	They violated discovery rules.
	They didn't give this information to the to the defense.
	This is all this is all corrupt, and it's just consistent with what they've been doing from the filing of these criminal charges.
	I am ashamed that these people can call themselves prosecutors when they're nothing more than political operatives on the hunt to interfere with an election.
	It's unbelievable.
	By the way, I I just read your book.
	I gotta just stop here for a second because you're so good at the law, and my friend Judge Janine has just come out with a new book, and it's called Crimes Against America, the left's takedown of our republic.
	Now, it's just been released.
	It is an unbelievable read.
	It is so informative and well researched.
	Um it's up on my website uh right now, and it's on Amazon.com.
	I assume it's in bookstores now everywhere or will be.
	Yeah, I it's it's definitely on Amazon and I think it's Judge J. Book dot com, singular.
	Uh but the book is about the breakdown of the institutions of government, all of them.
	In this case is a classic example, but this this should be a book in itself.
	But what the prosecution has done here is what the republi what the uh Democrats and woke people are doing, and that is taking down our system so we can no longer rely on it.
	So there is no real truth and justice anymore.
	What there is is a subjective reality of making sure that the people in power stay in power and do everything they can, including indicting opponent so that that opponent cannot stay uh be elected president.
	But I'm telling you, Sean he is going to be elected president.
	I'm telling you in the end here, this is a corrupt effort that I think the American people see through, which is why the president, uh former president is maintaining such good uh numbers in terms of his polling.
	Quick break, right back more with Judge Danim Piero, and don't forget her new book is just out.
	You definitely want to get a ha a copy of it.
	It is on Hannity.com, Amazon.com, bookstores around the country, crimes against America, the left's take down of our republic.
	Get that book.
	We continue now.
	Judge Janine Pierrot is with us.
	Her new book just out now.
	Uh it's on Amazon.com, Hannity.com, bookstores around the country, crimes against America, the left's take down of our republic.
	Uh, you gotta read this book.
	Uh I gotta tell you something.
	Uh uh the polls to me tell a lot.
	You know, I pointed something out the other day when Bill Clinton was impeached, people don't remember this.
	Uh, but his approval rating by Gallup went up to seventy percent.
	Yeah, remember that.
	Now, compared to what Donald Trump has been through, and and they I think there's a message here, because every time they they do this to Donald Trump, what happens?
	His poll numbers go up.
	Every time they indict him, poll numbers go up.
	People see this sham trial for what it is.
	They see this Biden donor judge, they see a misdemeanor case, you know, with this convoluted legal theory upgrading it to a a federal felony, which the DOJ even passed on.
	That's the weaponized DOJ.
	I mean, I can't believe the level of corruption.
	Never mind the judge's family and and how they may benefit from all of this.
	He should have recused himself as per New York law.
	He didn't.
	This case, even if Trump was found guilty, he'd be overturned on appeal very quickly, although quickly doesn't mean before the election, which is which is to me election interference.
	Uh the idea that that this this judge right now should end this case in my view.
	And he's not going to do it.
	He he's not going to do it.
	There should be a directed verdict.
	If I had a case like this, the same judge as Marchant.
	If you have a case where Donald Trump has in no way, shape, or form been implicated in the bookkeeping, in the categorizing of ledgers, nothing like that.
	An NDA is not illegal.
	Let's assume that there was discussion about it.
	It's done every day.
	It's done with celebrities.
	It is a civil agreement.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	But what's going on right now is they're trying to you know hoodwink the jury as though, look, this is all bad, and Donald Trump's bad, and who cares about Stormy Daniels and what kind of sex they had.
	It's a it's an embarrassment, Sean.
	It's terrible.
	Yeah, no, no, finish your thought.
	The case should be dismissed pursuant to a directed verdict.
	If there is not enough to go to the jury, he they have not made out a prima facie case.
	There is no evidence against Donald Trump.
	There isn't.
	No one has put falsifying a business record.
	You better prove that he falsified those business records when you can't even tell that he was even close to those records.
	Or that he had an intent to commit a crime.
	A crime.
	By the way, the intention is a big part of this case.
	You have to show he intended to break federal election law or state election law if you believe in the convoluted theory, which in itself is questionable because it was a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations have brought out.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, exactly, Sean.
	And they and they didn't show any of this.
	They showed absolutely nothing.
	They didn't have anyone implicating him with a book, with the record keeping, or that he intended to violate anything.
	And how can you violate an election if what is allegedly wrong is done after the election?
	It's so well said.
	Again, uh just out, crimes against America, the left's takedown of our republic, just out, Judge Piero.
	Uh it's on Hannity.com.
	Uh we put it on our social media.
	We're gonna leave it up there because I want people to get this book.
	This is a really good book.
	And it's just out, and it really, really is it just it speaks to the moment we are now living in.
	And that's the scary part.
	Anyway, Amazon.com bookstores around the country.
	Judge, you're awesome.
	We we love you.
	Congrats on all the success.
	Uh all my friends on the five, and you're all friends of mine.
	Uh we're so happy for you.
	Indeed, and we love you too.
	Bye-bye.
	Well, now are you sure everybody loves me on the five?
	Everybody?
	Just checking.
	Um, they do.
	I'll have we're just joking.
	Uh anyway, uh 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, unbelievable times that we're living in.

▲