All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
32:28
Rep. Chip Roy - June 4th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carolyn Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally it's about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
Normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
Our toll-free number is 800-941-SHAWN if you want to be a part of the program.
So the Attorney General of the Politicized, weaponized Joe Biden Department of Justice testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today.
And there were a rightly a lot of fireworks.
We'll be joined by Chip Roy in just a minute, Congressman from Texas.
But first, let me play Chip literally dressing down Garland over the Biden administration.
They're not only not enforcing border laws, they're aiding and abetting in the law breaking.
And I will add what I say all the time.
We have tens and tens of millions of people from our top geopolitical foes, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, that have now entered this country unvetted, aided and abetted by Joe Biden.
And of course, that has now become, I think, the biggest national security threat we have.
And it's not a matter of if.
It's a matter of when this country is going to have another 9-11 or worse.
And then he will have more blood on his hands, like the cop shot in New York.
I'm sorry, I blame Biden.
He has blood on his hands for every crime committed by every Joe Biden unvetted illegal immigrant in this country.
Anyway, here's Chip Roy from Texas.
I say, as the Attorney General and as a human being, that my heart goes out to the families that these are terrible, terrible events.
And I say, secondly, as the Attorney General, the way to stop people like this from coming into the United States is to give more resources to the border patrol so that they can prevent it.
Mr. Attorney General, no.
No.
You don't want to be able to do that.
We the people of Texas, money's not going to solve the problem when the Department of Homeland Security and the President of the United States refuse to enforce the law, ignore the policies, and Lizbeth Medina would be here alive today if we were following the law.
Lake and Riley would be here today if we had not released a killer under the streets of the United States of America through parole policies that this administration is advancing.
And the Department of Justice is suing the state of Texas in court, taking valuable resources to go against the people of Texas when Texas simply wants to say that we should have a say in stopping people who are illegally arrest them and be able to deal with that on our own terms when the federal government refuses to do its job.
Chip Roy, Congressman, great state of Texas is with us.
I'm glad you dressed him down.
He doesn't seem to give an Adam Schiff at all.
Yeah, Sean, good to be on.
I mean, look, we we've had uh a lot of good questions uh throughout the hearing.
I want to compliment Jim Jordan on the hearing, uh, who had Matt Gates was firing away, Dan Bishop from North Carolina.
Uh I know a lot of the your listeners, you know, they're sick of hearings and sick of you know strongly worded letters, as some will say, but it is important to highlight this stuff.
And what what we saw today was a attorney general who has no interest in trying to make sure that our nation is safer and more secure and and doing the things that the Department of Justice should be doing because it's distracted doing political things.
He acknowledged to me on road before that exchange you just played that he had significant resources being drawn out of many, if not all, of the offices of the U.S. attorney across the districts, across the country, to be deployed for targeting people that uh on January 6th and parading and all these different uh charges.
And he's got all this focus, you know, as I just pointed out in that clip, going after Texas, suing us in court to try to stop us from doing their job.
Meanwhile, right?
They're on the streets.
Meanwhile, we've got elevated crime in this country.
Meanwhile, we've got uh, you know, uh less actual uh, you know, uh completion of our investigations on crime around a lot around the country.
So that's what's actually happening, and then importantly, My colleagues did a good job, and I raised this question too, of pointing out why we held him in contempt two weeks ago, right?
Because he literally today admitted to me, hey, well, yeah, we've got this audio recording of President Biden.
But wait a minute.
I have this exchange where you grill Garland claiming privilege on the Biden her audio.
Can I play it?
Sure.
Let's play it.
The Department of Justice did not assert privilege with regard to the transcript, correct?
That's right.
Uh and you articulated a minute ago to my colleague that the best evidence rule says that the transcribed copy is admissible, right?
But but how can you claim privilege in the face of not just a legislative inquiry, but a constitutional impeachment inquiry?
How can you claim privilege for something that you just testified was effectively the same thing?
How can you claim privilege for the audio of the transcript you just testified was the same?
I just testified the words are the same.
Sensing and audio is different.
You have not given any explanation, and there's nothing in the impeachment resolution that uh would make a difference with respect to the president.
I respectfully disagree.
I would ask you one last question.
Is the decision not to prosecute President Biden for effectively the same crime for which DOJ is prosecuting President Trump?
Is it because DOJ has determined the president is not mentally fit to defend himself and stand trial for his crime, but former President Trump is.
I say again, that's an inaccurate description of Mr. Hur's uh report.
Um, and I would rest on Mr. Hur's report.
The only assertion he made on your back.
Wow.
I I mean the the idea that he's running interference this way is unbelievable.
On that particular point, because it's so front and center.
Obviously, the border, we're about to get this back that Biden is taking the mic as you and I are talking.
But uh, you know, we're sitting here and Biden announces a new border executive action.
The border is front and center.
But what by the way, you mean a border executive action that he said in January that he was not allowed to take?
Is this the same guy with that with a stroke of the pen undid all of the Trump uh border policies that were working?
Is this the same guy that lied for three years and said the borders closed and secured that Biden?
Same Biden and the same Biden who's been trumpeting that BS bill that was a sham bill, it was a fake bill, it was a cover vote bill by the Senate, which would have capped the uh limit at 5,000 people.
Now this executive order apparently is gonna make it 2500.
It still won't do any good, as the great Bill Bill Melugian on Fox reported about an hour ago, that it wouldn't do a thing to stop parole, it wouldn't do a thing to stop unaccompany children, it wouldn't actually cap it while they're still releasing people through parole and asylum inquiries.
So this is all a sham because they Biden knows he's in the tank.
They're seeing President Trump, they're seeing the American people rally around President Trump because of the law affairs.
So put a bow around this entire day.
We've seen the clear politicization of the Department of Justice.
You see the number three ranking guy, the deputy of the number three ranking guy, who goes up and is actually in Bragg's office in New York.
Matt Gates had a great inquiry on that.
You see them purposely choosing not to work with us on the Biden uh uh inquiry on impeachment.
So they're going after Trump for the same charge, and they know exactly why, but they won't give us their documents.
Meanwhile, they're gonna go after Texas, sue us to stop us from securing the border of the United States.
That is your current Department of Justice, while criminals run among it.
By the way, they still won't answer our questions on January 6th.
So I sent a letter yesterday, and I hope to have a hearing to try to run the ground what they've been doing with these parading charges and everything else.
But the American people deserve answers.
Obviously, we know what we need to do in November to try to get rid of these clowns that are destroying our country.
Let me play a cut.
You mentioned your colleague Matt Gates a number of times, uh, you know, pushing Garland uh who won't answer if he'll provide all the documents and communications with Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fonnie Willis, and their offices.
Why wouldn't he be so transparent?
This is supposed to be the most transparent administration ever.
Listen.
Attorney General, you've told us that it's a dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the Department of Justice is communicating with these state and local prosecutions against Trump.
You can clear it all up for us right now.
Will the Department of Justice provide to the committee all documents, all correspondence between the Department and Alvin Bragg's office and Fonnie Willis' office and Letitia James's office?
The offices you're referring to are independent offices of state.
I get that.
I get that.
The question is whether or not you will provide all of your documents and correspondence.
That's the question.
It's I I don't need a history lesson.
Well, I'm going to say again, we do not control those offices.
They make their questions whether you communicate with them, not whether you control them.
Do you communicate with them and will you provide those communities?
Make a request.
We'll refer it to our office of legislative.
But see, here's the thing.
You come in here and you lodge this attack that it's a conspiracy theory that there is coordinated lawfare against Trump.
And then when we say, fine, Just give us the documents, give us the correspondence, and then if it's a conspiracy theory, that will be evident.
But when you say, well, we'll take your request, and then we'll we'll sort of work it through the DOJ's accommodation process, then you're actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you're concerned about.
Wow.
That was a pretty powerful moment.
Of course he doesn't want to reveal it because we know that there was communication.
How many trips did Fonnie Willis or or Alvin Bragg or his surrogates or Letitia James?
Do we know if they took trips to the White House Congressman?
Well, this is precisely what Mr. Gates is getting at, right?
You saw the attorney general of the United States trying to hide behind, saying, Oh, those individual offices, those state offices, uh, I have no control over what they're doing or not doing.
But all Matt was that all Mr. Gates was asking was wait a minute.
No, you tell me what communications have you or the White House, what have you had with them?
He certainly can communicate that, but he doesn't want to, because you know full well, we see this issue where you've got that the number three guy, the deputy guy heading up to go work in the New York case.
You know they've been having conversations with all of these local district attorneys.
You think it's an accident that they timed the case on President Trump in New York the way they did?
You think it's an accident that they set the sentencing in this judge, who, by the way, there was great questioning, I think it was by Jordan or somebody, on the extent to which it might have been Matt actually, uh, who asked good questions about wait a minute, you were a judge, Attorney General Garland.
Did you take political contributions?
Garland said, Well, no, I didn't.
Matt asked him, did you did your daughter, right?
Uh, did she take uh uh did she make money?
Did you have a daughter making money based on your it's too long a cut, but but Garland says as a judge he never gave political donations.
He then says that he won't comment on Judge Marshawn or the hush money case.
I'm like, oh, of course not.
Right.
He won't.
And that and look, it it and I mean if I were going to defend Garland, which I'm not inclined to do, I'd say, I mean, look, you're in a thicket here where you've got all of this mess, and anybody with eyes can see it.
And he's trying to kind of bounce around in the middle of it without having to answer the question.
Uh, and that's actually the difficulty.
I understand why the American people are frustrated.
Uh, what has to happen is that in January, uh, Lord willing, that we go out and we elect President Trump and we have the House and we have the Senate.
We have to deliver.
We have to deliver policy change, substantive changes, funding changes, and we have to hold people accountable.
Um You need a listen, I'm gonna be honest, you need a majority.
You can't win with with I guess you're back up to a two-seat majority at this point.
That's not enough.
The problem in your caucus is you have too many rhino republicans that don't have a backbone on a spine.
And I would argue there's at least 20 of them, which means you need a good 30-seat majority in my view.
That is exactly right, and it's one of the reasons, look, all these primaries matter, and like I to be honest, without getting into it, we're electing a few too many people that are going to continue some of those uh kind of uh establishment, you know, uniparty ways of doing things.
But we got a lot of good candidates out there.
We got to build the majority so that we can grow it because we're actually moving the needle in the conservative direction.
You know, I'm hopeful that this week we'll pass this international criminal court rebuke where we sanction them for you know throwing a warrant against uh BB Netanyahu, which could be turned around and boomeranged on us.
I'm hoping that we'll unite and pass our Milcon VA a spending bill.
But we need to pass a continuing resolution, get it into President Trump.
We need to go out and win the majority, and then have a hundred-day battle plan where we come in and we absolutely cut the head off of the snake that is this politicised corrupt federal bureaucracy that is at war with the American people, at war with the rule of law, undermining our courts, undermining the judiciary, undermining our ability to actually secure the border of the United States, and we're seeing it on full display today.
The president is at the mic, offering a BS sham executive order that has all been, you know, lodge from the beginning, and you got the AG sitting in front of us who refuses to answer questions.
Um I think the American people see this, but we've got to deliver in November, and then we have to deliver for the people in January.
All right, quick break more with Congressman Chip Roy of Texas on Merrick Garland testifying before Congress earlier today.
Your call's coming up straight ahead, 800.
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 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.
941 Sean, as we continue.
We continue now, Congressman Chip Roy is with us.
Of course, he was part of the Judiciary Committee grilling and beat down America Carlin today.
All right, let's go to uh Jim Jordan, uh, who you also mentioned in your piece.
And this is Jordan confronting Merrick Garland, which he needs to be confronted on a lot of issues.
Uh, about Jack Smith's tampering with evidence.
This has to do with the Florida document case.
This guy was so important, you have to bring him from Europe back here to go after President Trump.
Name him as a special counsel.
Uh, do you regret the pick?
I'm sorry, can do you regret picking him?
No, I do not regret picking him.
Well, as prosecutors aren't supposed to tamper with evidence, and it looks like that's what he did.
He changed the sequence of the documents that he sees from our lago.
I'm sorry, that's a false characterization, but that is obviously.
Here's what he said to the court, Mr. Attorney General.
There are some boxes where the order of items within the box is not the same as in the associated scans.
I mean, he said it.
I didn't say it.
He told the court that.
Now you're asking me to comment on a discovery dispute that's going on going in in a court.
I don't know the facts of it, and I'm not going to be able to do that.
No, this is from Jack Smith filing with the court.
He admitted to the court that they tampered with the evidence.
He mishandled the very documents he's charging President Trump with mishandling.
And I'm just asking, do you regret picking this guy as the special counsel and the most important special counsel investigation probably in American history?
I'm I'm sorry, I didn't not hear the words tamper in the statement that Mr. Smith filed.
He did not use those words.
Well, let me ask it this way.
Were you supposed to change the order of the documents that you seize and there were the physical documents don't match up with the scan doctor?
You supposed to do that as a prosecutor?
This is a matter in dispute in discovery in that court, and I'm gonna leave it for the district court to make a determination.
I just can't believe the political how we politicized and weaponized our Justice Department.
These are scary times, Congressman.
No, you're right, you're right, Sean.
And look, that's just the capstone on the entire day.
I refuse to answer Jim question.
Uh they're legitimate question.
Uh obviously Jack Smith acknowledged that.
He's the one who put it out there.
It's not in dispute in court.
So it's just more of the same.
But again, I think we've exposed a lot of it.
Uh now we've got to do something with it.
And uh, you know, we we've got to actually deliver for the American people.
But uh what's at stake is obvious, is what you just said, Sean.
Unbelievable.
All right, Congressman Chip Roy, we always appreciate you being with us, sir.
Thank you.
Uh, some of the other news we haven't gotten to.
Uh, I see that Maxine Waters is back in the new news wanting an investigation.
She's the one.
Remember, get in their faces.
You're not wanted any place, anywhere anymore.
Blah, blah, blah.
Follow them into the grocery store and the gas chasing, build a crowd.
You know, that Maxine Waters.
Now she wants an investigation to see if Trump supporters are preparing a civil war against us.
You know, how do they make this crap up?
Listen.
Let me just say this.
I'm worried that he's so divisive and that he's talking about retribution, and they're talking about revenge.
And I think that that's dangerous.
Uh, he's even mentioned civil war At one point, talked about there would be bloodshed.
I am going to spend some time with the criminal justice system, with the justice system, asking them, tell us what's going on with the domestic terrorists.
Are they preparing a civil war against us?
Should we be concerned about our safety?
What is he doing with this divisive language?
It is dangerous, and we're going to have to make sure that we understand that we're not at risk with this man talking in the way that he's doing.
And we have got to find out what they're doing as domestic cares tried uh to take over the government January 6th.
How far is this gonna go?
Are they gonna be attacking?
Whom are they going to attack?
What are we going to do?
I've got to get on with trying to get an investigation going about that.
About what?
Is this let's just take a little trip down memory lane.
Uh, because if I recall correctly, she's the one that said this.
If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant in a department store at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.
And you get back on them.
And you killed him, they're not welcome.
Anyway, anywhere.
With this kind of inspiration, I will go and take Trump out tonight.
Unveil the criminal activity, the unconstitutional activity of this president and his family.
So I have dubbed them the uh criminal clan a long time ago.
What am I gonna do to you?
What I'm gonna do to you is Faye.
I'm gonna do to you what you did to us.
Uh, one other just switching gears, and then we'll get to your phone calls, 800-941 Sean.
Um, Linda, I know you're gonna kind of disagree with me because you know, you once showed me a t-shirt that you wanted to wear, and I absolutely put my foot down.
I'm like, you can do anything you want in your own time, but no, I don't think it's good to wear this uh in a video in which you're associated with me.
What you do on your own time is on your own time.
And it was in good humor, by the way.
This is kind of funny.
And I don't want to tell the whole story, but it had the the B word in on a t-shirt.
And it was meant to be, I think it's I am wrong in saying characterizing this.
It was meant to be funny.
Tongue in cheek, very funny.
Right, okay.
And by the way, I have a very high tolerance for you know, people having freedom of speech.
However, in this crazy time in which we live in, where there's a million people that would love this show to just drop dead and meet a drop dead and the show to go away.
Um, I got we've gotta we've got to be a little smarter than you know, handing them something that they would, you know, weaponize against us.
Uh however, um it's just a sort of a thing, it's very different if you're saying it about yourself, which is what the joke was with the t-shirt, again, without giving the specifics.
And versus, say, a sports commentator like Pat McAfee, he's kind of like the Jim Kramer of sports talk.
I mean, he's a kind of a buffoon to me.
You know, when I when I want real intelligent, smart, fun sports talk, you know who I love.
I love Stephen A. Smith.
I think there's nobody better.
And by the way, I've seen the ratings.
I'm in TV.
I see the ratings over at ESPN, and I mean, the ratings of Stephen A's first take, I mean, uh, are massive compared to Matt Pat McAfee.
And I think Pat McAfee can't handle the fact that Stephen A, you know, is the real the number one star at ESPN.
He just is.
Um, you know, I've been number one, I've been number two.
I'm usually never lower than number three in all the years I've been in cable, and I I really don't mind if I'm number two, because then you get less scrutiny and attention, to be honest with you.
Uh and anyway, so and I'm happy for other people's success.
And I'm I'm happy that I've had such a loyal audience and continue to have a loyal audience.
And my I try to keep my ego out of these things, but I think his ego's so massive he can't handle the Stephen A success.
Do you agree with that?
Yeah, I would say that that's accurate.
Okay, so the reason I bring this up is McAfee.
Now he was defending Caitlin Clark.
Caitlin Clark is broke every college record for Iowa.
I I one of the greatest shooters in in the history of women's college basketball.
She's going to be one of the biggest stars in the WMBA in in history if she stays healthy, in my view.
And she's now been targeted with these violent attacks on the court.
And I mean, it's just gotten downright vicious.
And I think what's amazing about it is what people in the WMBA have clearly not figured out because they don't get paid much.
I mean, Caitlin Caitlin Clark has a four-year contract.
Not one year is six figures.
Even her option fourth year.
I mean, it's it's so little.
Now she'll make a fortune in endorsements, but wow.
I mean, it the pay is so little.
Now, one of the ways that you're gonna increase the pay of every player in the WMBA is to bring in stars that people want to see.
And if somebody can shoot, you know, from it from almost half court on a regular basis and sink a three-point shot.
I mean, it's insane.
I actually like the idea of adding a four-point shot now because she's so good.
But they've been knocking her down and beating her up and and giving her a hard time.
And he was defending her, but then he called her a white B-word.
Listen.
But I would like the media people that continue to say this rookie class, this rookie class, this rookie class, nah.
Just call it for what it is.
There's one white for the Indiana team who is a superstar.
He's right about the superstar stuff, but I'm old school, Linda.
You never call a word of a woman, you know, any let's put it this way.
You don't use a term that begins with ABCDEF, and and you can go through the alphabet.
You don't you don't use those terms about women.
I'm just old school.
Well, I mean, putting aside what you do in your private life, you really don't do them if you're on TV, radio, doing some sort of podcast.
He's on YouTube, he's got kids that watch him.
I'm like, I'm not sure what the example is that you're trying to set, but that's just not it.
It's just not.
You know, me wearing a t-shirt to go to bed in that I think is funny is completely different than saying on a national show, hey, you know, and then just like blasting her.
It's just I don't know.
It's it's definitely very um it's it's very crude and unnecessary.
Could have gotten his point across without it.
You think yeah, I don't know.
I do.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
So many of you being very, very, very, very patient.
Ken in the free state of Texas.
Hey, Ken, how are you?
Hey, Sean, how are you doing?
It's been about eight years, buddy, since we've talked about the national debt and free spending.
Well, we we haven't done very well in the eight ensuing years, have we?
Listen, watching and following the trial that ugh.
There I think this thing's been cooking for about six years.
I mean, I I wondered why Cohen pleaded guilty to finance campaign violations that weren't really campaign violations.
I mean, in order for this trial to end the way it did, you had to have an inside guy at the Department of Justice.
You had to have Cohen pleading guilty to these non violations, and you had to have a judge that was in on it from the beginning, and they could control what happened in the courtroom.
And I can't wait for Chip Roy and Jordan and all those to start the hearings and looking into how these three pieces came together.
And then you have Bragg who passed on the case to begin with.
And then changed his mind once he was brought into the inner circle.
So, here's how it's gonna go down.
I can't wait for that.
You know, look, I I can tell you that there's a lot that I know about connections, involvement people in this case at the highest levels of the Democratic Party that would blow your mind.
And it's just I can't I can't prove it all yet, but I know it's all true.
And the, you know, remember Hillary talked about a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Yeah, there's been an all-out, all hands-on deck effort involving all of this law fair against Donald Trump, and it's gonna take a long Time before we're able to untangle,
you know, the the root of all of this and where a lot of this has come from and the people that are involved in it, but it's very deep and it's way more complicated than people know, and there's a lot more in terms of connections of high-ranking Democrats and their tentacles, their support, their their background, you know, pushing and manipulating.
Uh it's just it's it's pretty beyond what you would think.
You can't even write about it in a novel.
We'll get to it over time.
But there's there's no point.
We've got 153 days till election day, and we just got to dial into what we can deal with.
Hope that makes sense, my friend.
I don't know if it does.
Uh Ken, appreciate it.
Joe, South Carolina next Sean Hannity Show.
Hey, Joe, how are you?
Hey, Sean, how are you?
I'm good, my friend.
What's on your mind?
Um, two things uh, if I can.
Uh, first is um the Supreme Court.
Are they able to see this case prior to um sentencing?
And if so, why aren't they?
Uh, I think a hundred percent they could, and I think that we should try.
I think the first person to put forward that legal idea was the great one, Mark Levin.
Others, I think have followed Greg Jarrett.
I think, you know, the the only disagreement that Greg and Mark have is whether it should be done pre-sentencing or post-sentencing.
And uh, you know, maybe maybe Greg thinking that you're probably only gonna get one shot for them to even say yay or nay on that idea, but I think so.
Levin had a good idea as well, which is that you know, Republican state attorneys general can sue the state of New York for their law fare against President Trump.
He's written about this himself, and anyway, which would create a second wholly independent basis for paving fit paving a path uh to the Supreme Court.
I went into great specificity and great detail about you know the areas where I think that they need to they need to be investigating.
I want to know if Alvin Bragg is you know, whether or not what Bob Costello's true said is true, whether he helped withheld exculpatory evidence that Costello himself in a Zoom call gave him and his team, and that was before the indictment.
And that information should have, once it was known, been given to the grand jury, the indictury that didn't happen.
I want to know if Biden donor Judge Mershawn was obligated to recuse himself, uh, including the family issues that we've talked at length about with the daughter.
Uh, I want to know were Donald Trump's Sixth Amendment rights violated by not telling him the crime he was charged with.
I want to know if the judge, you know, allowed prejudicial information during the trial, especially in closing arguments.
I think he did.
I want to know if New York even had jurisdiction on a on a federal election law that we didn't know about till the end of the trial.
Uh, I want to know if the judge violated two Supreme Court decisions and jury instructions that very clearly mandate that the jury must have unanimity on all issues, and he gave them very different instructions.
The latest Supreme Court case was Ramos versus Louisiana 2020.
Um there's so many avenues for appeal.
But the answer to your question, the short answer is yes, they can do exactly what you're saying, and and you know, whether it's before or after sentencing, uh is gonna be up to President Trump and his attorneys.
But there's there's certainly that uh I strongly recommend they go and pursue every avenue possible.
And that uh the the justice would be a verdict on whether or not the case gets thrown out.
I can't see any any appeal in the end, and this is a lot it could be a long drawn-out process where Donald Trump is not vindicated here because of that the issues I mentioned and others.
Anyway, appreciate the call, my friend.
800-941 Sean is on number.
That's gonna wrap things up for today.
Hannity tonight, nine Eastern D VR on the Fox News channel, loaded up tonight.
Miranda Devine in the courtroom.
A lot went on today uh as it relates to Hunter Biden and and his trial.
Also, we'll check in with Greg Abbott on this.
Oh, all of a sudden, uh 153 days out of the election, immigration conversion policy of Biden, Jim Jordan on the beatdown of Garland today, or and Greg Jarrett, Pete Hag Seth, more.
We'll see you back here tomorrow.
Thank you for making this show possible.
Music.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
▲
Export Selection