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

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 3, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show

29:44

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.
	I understand that prosecutors, when they make plea deals, like in the case of Kohlberger that killed these four college kids.
	I don't know.
	Have you followed this case, Linda?
	This guy was stalking these kids.
	I mean, they had all this videotape 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 bothers me about it is as 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 certainly not having the death penalty is an option, I believe they should have been consulted on.
	Apparently, they were not.
	And that bothers me too.
	Do you follow that case?
	Because I thought it was pretty outrageous.
	They didn't even talk to the families.
	I guess we lost Linda.
	Anyway, so that's one of the big cases we're following today.
	This frustrates me.
	And that is the Sean Diddy Combs trial.
	And it is a pretty shocking verdict on a lot of levels.
	I thought the RICO 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.
	And he was found guilty on the two counts of transportation to engage prostitutes.
	And that's about it.
	Now, we had this videotape in this case.
	He had a girlfriend, longtime girlfriend, Cassie Ventura.
	And 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 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 was testimony in the case from a security guard, and Diddy paid a lot of money to buy what he thought was the only footage.
	And then you have 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 in terms of being able to charge in this particular case, and I'm like, well, why would you have a one-year statute of limitations in this case?
	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, whether you agree or disagree with the verdict, I mean, 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.
	You have 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 reared perversion thing going on, according to testimony.
	And these fans outside the courtroom are squirting each other with baby oil in this celebration where he was acquitted of the sex trafficking and racketeering charges, the more serious charges.
	You know, you see all these supporters dancing and joyously.
	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.
	Anyway, go ahead.
	You're in New York City.
	I just whispered and you're 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.
	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 women.
	I'm a little billionaire and people saying, 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, woohoo?
	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 the woman who's only wearing underwear 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.
	Now he was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, but, you know, that's 10 years in jail.
	This guy was facing life in jail.
	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 going to 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 it is.
	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 recognized those names.
	And a lot of those names didn't come up during the trial or if they did come up and 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, you're going to tell me that they didn't know what was going on?
	Let me tell you something.
	Testify about what's going on there.
	This stuff is happening right now.
	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 the topic is ugly.
	It's not just New York City.
	It's the whole thing.
	I'm not saying it is 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 in some party somewhere else with 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, you may be right.
	I have no idea.
	Definitely not.
	You know, that's your suspicion and theory.
	I have to be open to anything that's possible, but who knows?
	I don't want to accuse people of something that we don't know happened.
	But I will tell you this.
	This guy's a bad guy.
	And if you have any doubt about it, look at that videotape.
	I honestly, I cannot understand the level.
	And people say, well, drugs will make you do that.
	Well, this will make you do things.
	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 we're not protecting women in a case like this.
	And that's what is so frustrating to me.
	And it's like the case of Epstein.
	Well, where was somebody to step in and stop what was going on in that case?
	And then other people, I don't understand it.
	We move on.
	We're watching the one big, beautiful bill.
	The process has begun in the House.
	I'm going to help Republicans a little bit here with the caveat that I've been very clear about.
	I don't like every aspect of the bill.
	But politicians, generally speaking, and 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 the Senate in particular had these arcane parliamentary procedures to bypass cloture, which would require 60 votes.
	They only have 53 senators.
	They can use, when it comes to budgetary issues, what's called reconciliation, and you 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 2 o'clock, no, we 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 Murkowski, 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 priority is 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 let this opportunity be squandered, that's on them.
	I don't think they ultimately will.
	But they can't change the Senate version because you had a Senate parliamentarian that was giving every single line once, twice, and 15 times over.
	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 85% of what the House bill was originally.
	And the House narrowly passed it there.
	If they change the bill again, it means it has to go back to the Senate.
	The odds are going to 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 Brego Garcia 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, energy-rich country, and will pay less at the pump.
	That's in this bill.
	You can tell your constituents that 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, which is desperately needed, all of which is in this bill.
	Now, I understand that they're, you know, for example, 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.
	You're not going to 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 going to get is if you get a puppy dog, get a dog, because you're not going to have a lot of friends in Washington.
	Go there to serve your constituents.
	That is a long laundry list of good things.
	And what frustrates me is when I watch Democrats lie and demagogue this bill.
	This is for the billionaires and trillionaires.
	AOC is saying this.
	Why are 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 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.
	It just rewards electing tax and spend liberals.
	Anyway, Marxist Momdani.
	Now, this was in the New York Post today.
	I read this and I said, no way.
	Did you read this, Linda?
	That Mamdami actually celebrated the anniversary of the Russian Revolution.
	Now, keep in mind, you know, it's Momdani.
	It is AOC.
	They don't fight the oligarchy.
	AOC is, this is a tax cut for billionaires and millionaires and trillionaires.
	I'm like, okay.
	No, it's not.
	Democrats just lie like they lie every two years, like they lie every four years, you know, about Republicans.
	And they're lying about this bill.
	It reminds me very reminiscent of The Congress in 96, 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 Newt Kingrich, and 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, they also reduced the rate of growth.
	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, Medicaid, and Social Security.
	Really, we can't afford it.
	We're on the brink of bankruptcy anyway.
	Can I ask a question?
	Can I just ask a question?
	Is 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 no.
	And the one that worked for Al Gore and that one.
	Yes, sir.
	That one.
	And the one that was appointed by Harry Reid?
	Thank you.
	Yes, sir.
	This person.
	Would you like any other information to help make your point?
	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 in the middle.
	Listen, I think you ask a very valid question 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 during that whole process, when they first had 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, in fairness, it did happen with Obamacare.
	The Senate parliamentarian had many objections, and it did happen with the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden used.
	They did have many, you know, they did have to change the language.
	And in many cases, it doesn't make a dime's 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, I'll give you an example.
	There's a story today that the boss of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, claimed on Wednesday that the Federal 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 Pulte, who is also the chairman of the two U.S.-backed mortgage lenders, demanded that Powell be probed by lawmakers and suggested that he could even be fired by President Trump.
	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 leaked 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 and pointing out, you know, all these countries with all these lower interest rates, and 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 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.
	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 for Medicaid 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.
	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 complaining.
	They're listening too much to what the Democrats are saying, even the lies that are being told.
	You know, this is for billionaires and millionaires.
	No, it's not.
	The people that benefit the most are hardworking Americans and the working class in this country and 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, 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 If somebody is going to invest tens of millions of dollars in a 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.
	You know, so there are certain things that people aren't talking about.
	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 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.
	You know, Democrats voted again for open borders.
	They don't want to fund the border, and the border needs to be closed.
	President Trump and this bill is closing the border.
	President Trump is putting aside monies to get rid of the known terrorists, murderers, rapists, 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. military and our 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 vote lead in the Senate and using the reconciliation process, as bewildering and arcane as it is, that is about for now, first shot at it, the best you're going to do.
	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 room for additions after it leaves the Senate.
	That's it.
	Yeah, well, we could if the vice president or the Senate majority leader fired a 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 open.
	940 pages.
	I bet none of them read the whole dang thing.
	Well, I don't know how they could miss it.
	Chucky Schumer made him read it on the could you listen to Chucky Schumer for 940 pages.
	Come on.
	Well, thank God it was a clerk.
	It wasn't him or clerks.
	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 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 another half a trillion dollars in manufacturing investment and the impact that'll have on the economy.
	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 101.
	That just infuriates me.
	Republicans don't even know their own philosophy.
	Never mind articulating it.
	I can't stand it.
	They don't know how to fight.

▲