Sean Hannity Show - Diddy's Verdict - July 2nd, Hour 1

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 3, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show

29:43

Diddy's Verdict - July 2nd, Hour 1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	All right.
	Thank you, Scott Shannon, and thanks to all of you for being with us.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	A lot of issues involving crime out there today.
	Um I I understand that that prosecutors when they make plea deals, like in the case of Kohlberger that killed these four college kids.
	I don't know.
	Did you have you followed this case, Linda?
	This guy was stalking these these kids.
	I mean, they had all this video tape of him, you know, driving past the house repeatedly, late at night, pulling in the driveway.
	I mean, just crazy stalker, you know, chilling every parent's worst nightmare kind of stuff.
	And what what bothers me about it is it's part of the plea deal, the families get no closure, no explanation, nothing at all whatsoever.
	And I do sympathize with their anger in that case, because I think they do have a right to know, and and certainly not having the death penalty is an option.
	Uh, I believe they should have been consulted on.
	Apparently they were not, and and that bothers me too.
	Did you follow that case?
	Because I I thought it was pretty outrageous.
	They didn't even talk to the families.
	I guess we lost Linda.
	Uh anyway, but uh so that's one of the big cases we're following today.
	The uh this frustrates me.
	And that is the Sean uh Diddy Combs trial.
	And it is it is a pretty shocking verdict on a lot of levels.
	I thought the Rico was was always Rico charge, was always going to be difficult racketeering conspiracy, but it was also two counts of sex trafficking, two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
	Uh, and he was found guilty on the two counts of of transportation to engage prostitutes, and that's about it.
	Now, we had this video tape in this case.
	He had a girlfriend, longtime girlfriend, Cassie Ventura.
	And it we all saw this horrific, chilling, frightening physical assault on this woman.
	When he comes down the hall, he's in like a towel and you know, just beating and kicking the the uh daylights out of her.
	Clearly, she's trying to escape and get in an elevator and was unable to do so.
	And then there's this other fact there's testimony in the case from a security guard, and did he paid a lot of money to buy what he thought was the only footage, and then you have this this little issue of the statute of limitations in the case, which I believe is about one year in California, only one year.
	That's insane.
	And uh in terms of being able to charge uh uh in this particular case, and I'm like, well, well, why would you have a one-year statute of limitations in this case?
	I don't under and and for a battery felony like this.
	I don't understand that.
	And, you know, and by the way, when you drag somebody back against their will into your apartment, what do you call that?
	Which is another thought that I have.
	But the most uh whether you agree or disagree with the verdict, I mean it's it's the best system we have I can think of as imperfect as it might be at times, and you do have people that go in, jury nullification is real, people have all sorts of other motivations.
	Yeah, politics in the courtroom, you have overcharging in some cases by ambitious prosecutors.
	This was a huge loss.
	And anyway, and the worst part of all of this is fans of Sean Diddy Combs, because he had these freak-offs and all this baby oil, apparently that was used in it, and he like, you know, had this voyeurism weird perversion thing going on,
	according to testimony, and these fans outside the courtroom escorting each other with baby oil in this celebration where he was acquitted of the sex trafficking and racketeering charges, the more serious charges, and you know, they see all these supporters dancing dancing and joy.
	It is disgusting.
	These people are disgusting.
	You know what?
	I've been here the whole time, and I've been talking the whole time, and then everybody started saying they couldn't hear me on the air.
	So I went to a different microphone just to make sure you Anyway, go ahead.
	You're in New York City.
	I just whispered in your dumb.
	Oh, I thought you said something else.
	Anyways, my point in all of this is we have an issue here with, you know, no accountability.
	It's a two-tier system, it's an elitist system.
	It's absolutely insane.
	And this Diddy case is no different.
	We saw him beat a woman up in a hallway with we've had a million claims.
	That doesn't make your stomach turn.
	It doesn't exactly alone.
	She's up there, and now she's pregnant on the stand giving her testimony.
	Where's all the me too women?
	I don't see any of them outside.
	No, I see a bunch of baby oil.
	And people say, well, she got paid all this money, et cetera, et cetera.
	I'm like, it doesn't matter.
	That doesn't take away the criminality.
	You are not allowed to beat women.
	Period.
	End of sentence.
	And why are people celebrating and dancing and shouting, Woo-hoo?
	Uh, you know, you have one half naked woman drenched in oil, ripping off her blue wig and waving it around.
	This is all over social media.
	I guess we'll show it on TV tonight, but a man in a blue top, you know, squirting a the woman who's only wearing underwear with this with this baby oil lubricant, you know, which was notoriously used by combs during his long freak off bizarro, you know, sex parties, according to you know, the video, you know, that we've seen so far.
	I mean, it is pretty unbelievable.
	He's now he was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, but you know, that that's ten years in jail.
	This guy was facing life in jail.
	I I thought when they came to this verdict fast, but they couldn't decide on the one Rico.
	I thought for sure it was going to be guilty.
	Let me tell you something.
	I'm gonna tell you right now, and there is no proof of what I'm saying.
	All right, this is just the way that things go.
	Somebody got to somebody because everybody's got a guy.
	And this guy had a lot of guys.
	This is your theory without any evidence.
	Hence the reason I just said to you, I have no proof.
	Hello.
	My point in saying this is this guy is famous, he's disgusting, and he had a lot of nasty famous people at his parties, and all those people want to make sure that their dirty little secrets never come out.
	And that's exactly what I'm saying.
	It was interesting because remember at the beginning of this trial, they had the names of all these famous people that they gave to jurors during jury selection, and asked people whether they recognize those names, and a lot of those names didn't come up during the trial, or if they did come up, they only came up in innocuous ways.
	And it sounded to me like if these people were at the famous white parties, freak off parties, uh, you're gonna tell me that they didn't know what was going on.
	They weren't brought in to testify about what's going on.
	This stuff is happening.
	It's happening right now in New York City with little kids that are being trafficked by sick and disgusting and perverted people.
	And because it's not just New York City, it's just New York City.
	I'm saying it's everywhere, but we're talking about New York.
	So while these people are out in the streets freaking out with their baby oil, some little five year old is being subjected to a pedophile and some party somewhere else.
	But a bunch of disgusting people that I'm sure a lot of us would know if we knew their names and we knew they were there.
	But somebody got to somebody on that jury.
	Well, it's a nice uh you may be right.
	I have no idea.
	Definitely right.
	You know, that's that's your suspicion in theory.
	Uh I I I have to uh be open to anything as possible, but who knows?
	Uh, I don't want to accuse people of of something that we don't know happen, but I will tell you this.
	This guy's a bad guy.
	And if you have any doubt about it, look at that video tape.
	You know, I I honestly I cannot understand the level, and people say, well, drugs will make you do that.
	Well, this will make you do things.
	Uh there is something so off here.
	There's so something, the whole everything that was described is so bizarre and weird and strange and perverted.
	And if we're not protecting women in a case like this, and that's that's what is so frustrating to me.
	And it's like the case of Epstein.
	Why where was somebody to step in and stop what was going on in that case?
	And then other people.
	I don't, you know, I don't understand it.
	Um we move on.
	We're watching the one big beautiful bill, you know, the uh processes begun in the house.
	Um I'm gonna help Republicans a little bit here With the caveat that I've been I've been very clear about.
	I don't like every aspect of the bill.
	But you know, politicians generally speaking, and I have this I have learned over the years this is how they work, they always put their self interest and their reelection.
	Oftentimes they'll put that above what is right.
	And what's frustrating to me is knowing that there are slim majorities in the House and the Senate and Senate, the Senate in particular had these these arcane parliamentary procedures to bypass cloture, which would require sixty votes.
	They only have fifty-three Senators.
	They they can use when it comes to budgetary issues what's called reconciliation, and you don't only need a simple majority.
	Okay, it ended up being a 50-50 vote, a marathon session, a voter rama, as they call it, and as of I was up not last night, but the night before, all night, checking in with my friends in the Senate, finding out the latest, the latest, the latest, and two o'clock, no, we'd say didn't have the votes.
	4 a.m. they didn't have the votes, 5 a.m. they didn't have the votes, 6 a.m. they didn't have the votes, 8 a.m.
	I hear it looks like they got the votes, and Lisa Mikowski, she wasn't telling people how she was voting.
	I'm not getting into the personality aspect of it.
	And this is where Republicans sometimes need to ask themselves if you want to win reelection, your focus and priorities to get the economy, two things drive elections, peace and prosperity, and both are included in this bill.
	If you don't want the argument, if they if they let this opportunity be squandered, that's on them.
	I don't think they ultimately will, but a they can't change the Senate version because you had a Senate parliamentarian that was, you know, giving you know every single line of once, twice, and fifteen times over, um, and there are very rigid rules that they have to follow in the Senate.
	All right, so there were changes and provisions.
	That's about eighty-five percent of what the House bill was originally, and the House, you know, narrowly passed it there.
	Uh if they change the bill again, it means it has to go back to the Senate, the odds are gonna be lower that it'll pass in the Senate.
	But this is what you can, if you're a politician, tell your constituents about this bill that you should be proud of.
	It is the largest tax cut in American history, and Democrats and your opponent voted for the largest tax increase in American history.
	And you could tell your constituents that you voted for hardworking American men and women, and you voted for no tax on tips and no tax on overtime or social security.
	You can tell them that part, and Democrats, they wouldn't stand up for working men and women.
	You could tell them you voted to fund and fully build a secure border wall that will protect our country, and that Democrats still are in favor of open borders.
	You can tell them that you voted for the funding to deport criminal illegal immigrants, and Democrats, they are fighting for them to stay, like a Brago Garcia and and others.
	You can tell your constituents that you voted for lower energy prices because in this bill are all of the policies the president needs to bring this country to become put in place the foundation for us to be an energy dominant and energy rich country and we'll pay less at the pump.
	That's in this bill.
	You can tell your your your constituents, the Democrats as always they don't care about high energy prices.
	You can proudly say that you voted for the principle of peace through strength and modernizing a military that has been neglected for the last four years by Biden and Harris.
	And Democrats, they voted for appeasement and they voted for a weak department of defense.
	All things you can tell.
	You can tell them you voted for law and order and safety and security.
	You can tell them that you voted for reform and education, uh, which is desperately needed, all of which is in this bill.
	Now I understand that they're you know, for example, I I can give a number of examples of things I don't like.
	And now the question is I understand some people they want perfect.
	I you're not gonna get perfect in Washington.
	You want perfect.
	Don't go into politics because you picked the wrong profession.
	It's like if you want a friend and you go to work in Washington, the only friend you're gonna get is if you get a puppy dog, get a dog, because you're not gonna have a lot of friends in Washington.
	Go there to serve your constituents.
	That is a long laundry list of good things.
	And the what frustrates me is when I watch Democrats lie and demagogue this bill.
	AOC is saying this.
	Why aren't Republicans telling the truth?
	They're cutting Medicaid.
	No, they're not.
	They're increasing spending.
	They're just getting rid of waste fraud and abuse and putting in, you know, what Bill Clinton supported, which is a work requirement.
	Why don't you get out there and champion all the good things?
	There's never been more conservatism in any one bill.
	Not a perfect bill.
	Why did why did blue states get rewarded with salt deductions, state and local tax deductions?
	I hate it.
	But you know what?
	It's not going to be perfect.
	But you needed that to get Republicans that live in New York and New Jersey and California.
	They desperately needed it because they felt that they needed to tell their constituents that they got something special for their states.
	Just rewards electing tax and spend liberals.
	Anyway, uh we have Marxist Mom Donnie.
	Now, this was in the New York Post today.
	I read this and I said, no way.
	Did you read this, Linda?
	That Mam Dami actually celebrated the anniversary of the Russian revolution.
	Now keep in mind, you know, it's Mom Dani.
	It is AOC.
	Fight the oligarchy, AOCs of this is a tax cut for billionaires and millionaires and trillionaires.
	I'm like, okay.
	No, it's not.
	They just Democrats just lie like they lie every two years like they lie every four years, you know, about Republicans.
	And they lie they're lying about this bill.
	It reminds me very reminiscent of the Congress in in ninety-six.
	And when they voted to balance the budget, and they reduced the rate of growth of Medicare, and Democrats demagogued it.
	But if you recall, Bill Clinton went along with New Kingrich, and then the result was amazing for the American people.
	And that was, you know, we balanced the budget four straight years in a row, and we got on a path to fiscal sanity.
	They did it two ways.
	They had work requirements.
	That is in the one big beautiful bill, by the way.
	Number two, uh, they also reduced the rate of growth.
	Uh that is not a cut.
	That is an increase, but a lower increase.
	Reducing the rate of growth because it's unsustainable.
	You already are facing Medicare, Medic Medicaid, and Social Security.
	Really, we can't afford it.
	It's on the we're on the brink of bankruptcy.
	Anyway.
	Can I ask a question?
	Can I just ask a question?
	It's the elephant in the room.
	I would like to ride the elephant.
	So Elizabeth McDonough is the parliamentarian.
	This is an unelected woman who has news.
	I mean the one that worked for Al Gore and Yes, sir.
	That one.
	And the and the one that was appointed by Harry Reid.
	Thank you.
	Yes, sir.
	This person.
	Well, no, I'm asking a question.
	I'm not making a point.
	I'm asking a question.
	So she can be fired by the Senate majority leader, John Thune, a Republican.
	Trent Lott fired the Senate parliamentarian when he was the majority leader.
	Fine.
	John Thune should follow in suit.
	Or the vice president can overrule her.
	I'm trying to figure out what the purpose is of having control of the House and Senate if we're not going to exact that authority and use it.
	She's putting in crap into it.
	Listen, I think you I think you ask a very valid question.
	Thank you.
	On many, many of the language issues that she originally brought up, and I was paying very close attention to it.
	As you know, I was up all night, two nights ago.
	And the during that whole process when they first had their the first written version, and I saw the story, and we talked about it on the air.
	It made me very nervous.
	By the way, it in fairness, it did happen with the with Obamacare, uh, the Senate parliamentarian had many objections, and it did happen with uh the inflation reduction act that Biden used.
	They did have many, you know, they they they did have to change the language, and in many cases, it does it doesn't make a dimes worth of difference.
	But there were some key provisions.
	You're right.
	If I had my way, I would have followed suit and followed the precedent set by Trent Lott.
	I don't think the president asked for it, to be very honest.
	And I think had the president pushed it, it probably would have happened.
	Like, for example, I think there is a strong case to be made on the issue of the economy as it relates to Jerome Powell.
	I mean, uh, I'll give you an example.
	There's a story today.
	The boss of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack claimed on Wednesday that the Federal Uh Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell, could lose his job over his allegedly deceptive testimony to Congress over the central bank's lavish $2.5 billion revamp of their D.C. headquarters.
	Now, the Federal Housing Finance Agency Director, this guy William Poulty, who is also the chairman of the two U.S. backed mortgage lenders, demanded that Powell be probed by lawmakers and suggested they that he could even be fired by President Trump.
	Quote, I am asking Congress to investigate Chairman Jerome Powell for his political bias, his deceptive Senate testimony, which is enough to be removed for cause, he said in a leak statement obtained by the New York Post, and Powell's $2.5 billion building renovation scandals stinks to high heaven.
	And he said he lied when he was asked about the specifics before Congress.
	This is nothing short of malfeasance.
	The 37-year-old former journalist and private equity titan added.
	And look, I think the president was right in that handwritten note in pointing out, you know, all these countries with all these lower interest rates, and and why is why aren't they dropping it?
	It's for political reasons.
	That's all.
	There's no other reason.
	Inflation is down at a manageable rate at their targeted goal, and there's no reason at all to keep interest rates high.
	Now, while most indicators on the economy are firing on all cylinders far better than anybody else believed, and even the doubters, even our friend Stephen Moore, very, very skeptical.
	Wrote the book, Trumponomics, but very skeptical skeptical over Trump's tariff policy and trade policy.
	Even on this program came back and he said, you know what?
	Donald Trump was right.
	And, you know, I'm saying on this one big beautiful bill, kind of the same thing.
	Um again, what frustrates me is these guys don't know how to message things.
	If you watch the arguments on the House floor, it is the same demagoguery we get every election year.
	It's the same thing we got when Newt Gingrich even partnered with Bill Clinton, and the result was reducing the rate of growth from Medicare, Medicaid from to 7% a year every year for seven years.
	We had four straight balanced budgets in a row.
	They have to eliminate something called baseline budgeting.
	Now remember, too, that we also have another bite or as many bites as the apple as we want, and there'll be many opportunities for the House and Senate to get the cost savings that we need in effect so we stop robbing from our kids and grandkids.
	My that goal of mine, I have stated my entire career.
	And I want to get to that.
	But what frustrates me about some Republicans is they're they're they're complaining, they're listening to too much to what the Democrats are saying, even the lies that are being told.
	No, it's not.
	The people that benefit the most are hardworking Americans and the working class in this country, and uh people that are lower middle class, The people that are poor and people that are middle class.
	They are the biggest beneficiaries of this bill.
	Now there are certain business incentives that you might say, well, Hannity, uh, if a business builds out a warehouse and they have certain tax benefits, they're the biggest beneficiaries.
	Are they really the biggest?
	Because all that is going to do is pour gasoline on the economy and accelerate its growth.
	And by that I mean it it if somebody is going to invest tens of millions of dollars in a far pharmaceutical manufacturing company, a semiconductor manufacturing company, automobile manufacturing company, and they're incentivized to do it faster.
	Well, that's going to help the building industry, which has been decimated by Powell and his high interest rates.
	Nobody's going to give up a 2.9% 30-year fixed rate mortgage for a 7% or 7 plus percent 30-year fixed rate mortgage, and he has stifled the housing market as a result of all of this, unnecessarily so based on his own words and definitions.
	The fact that they can't defend the largest tax cut in American history and they can't go on offense.
	The Democrats are supporting the largest tax increase in American history.
	It's almost like they have no business being politicians if you cannot communicate that.
	You know, if Sean Hannity is giving you the benefits of your stupid bill, then you're out of touch.
	The idea that you can't go out and herald the fact that this is the first time any party has ever uh given service workers the benefit of not taxing tips and other industry hardworking people the incentive to work overtime without taxing all their overtime, not taxing social security up to a much higher level than before.
	I mean, those are all things that had never happened before.
	You know, Democrats aren't standing up for working men and women.
	The border needs to be closed.
	President Trump in this bill is closing the border.
	President Trump is putting aside monies to get rid of the known terrorists, murderers, rapists, uh, other violent criminals, cartel members, gang members, and drug dealers.
	That's in this bill.
	Democrats are voting for more open borders.
	If you can't sell that, I can't help you.
	If you can't go out there and lay out the importance that Republicans in this bill are ensuring lower energy prices by opening up drilling and fracking and coal mining, I can't help you.
	And that Democrats are fighting for higher energy prices, the lifeblood of our economy.
	If you can't go out there and explain the importance in a very evil and dangerous world of the U.S. uh military or Department of Defense needing money for the next generation of weaponry, i.e.
	bunker buster bombs, new technology, hypersonic missiles, missile defense, the iron dome, which Democrats are not supporting, I can't help them because all of that is in the bill.
	And if you can't go out there and point out that, oh, finally we'll get rid of the Department of Education, which has failed spectacularly, take power away from teachers' unions, give more choice to parents as a good thing.
	I can't help you.
	And I don't hear these people making those arguments, Linda.
	I don't hear it.
	Yeah, okay.
	Point out the three provisions you don't like.
	I'll listen to you and probably agree with you.
	I'll concede the point.
	But I also know with a three-margin, you know, vote lead in the Senate and using the reconciliation process as bewildering and arcane as it is, um, that is about for now, first shot at it, the best you're gonna do.
	You can argue that we can.
	I will give you all of this.
	And I would agree with you.
	And you know that I don't agree with you on this bill.
	But I had a conversation with our friend Jeff Lord, who worked for Reagan this morning, and he enlightened me onto something, which is something that I've thought for quite a while now.
	There's them and there's us, and there's no in between.
	The right and left all work together in one big giant club, which is how do we get it over the finish line so we can all get to July 4th?
	This is how I really feel.
	The uniparty.
	The Uniparty.
	Well said.
	Thank you.
	He said the same thing.
	You're welcome.
	It basically helps them and not us.
	And I think it's a realization that is painful but unfortunately necessary.
	Having said that, if they were to put something into the bill that said this is what they need to do to codify the tax cuts and to help us with some of the things you're talking about, like energy and things like that, so that they can come back to the table with the reconciliation to take out all the woke crap.
	I would be okay with that.
	So let them add the promise so that we actually get to the other reconciliation to get the crap out of it.
	The problem is there's no there's no room for additions after it it leaves the Senate.
	It's it.
	Yeah, well, we could if the vice president or the Senate majority leader fired the parliamentarian, then her bill would be null and void.
	I'll concede it.
	The stated plan is that they are going to, you know, go back and make some of the do more.
	Now, there's an argument to be made this bill is too big, and I actually am kind of opening it.
	940 pages.
	I bet none of them read the whole dang thing.
	Greg Greck well, I don't know how they could miss it.
	Chucky Schumer made him read it on the on the case.
	Could you listen to Chucky Schumer for 940 pages?
	Come on.
	Well, thank God it was a clerk, it wasn't him or clerks.
	Um, and I'm just saying, I'm just laying out the good parts of it.
	Now, why is this imperative now?
	Newt Gingrich made the point.
	Is you need lead up time to November 26th.
	If you do all these things for the economy, and you factor in the the incalculable impact on the economy that energy dominance will have, and the 10 and a half, and we have another it's soon to be announced, another half a uh trillion dollars in manufacturing investment and the impact that'll have on the economy and every and this notion that people don't understand you cut taxes, it increases revenues to the government.
	Trump proved it, Reagan doubled revenues in eight years.
	Oh, well, we didn't factor in the cost of the tax cuts.
	There is no cost to tax cuts, you morons.
	That's supply side one oh one.
	That just infuriates me.
	Republicans don't even know their own philosophy.
	Never mind articulating it.
	It's I can't stand it.
	They don't know how to fight.

▲