Sean Hannity Show - Lawfare Continues

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 25, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show

29:04

Lawfare Continues

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Guaranteed human.
	Hour to Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-Sean is on number.
	If you want to be a part of the program, federal judge, Clinton appointee Cameron McGowan Curry dismissing the charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday.
	The judge dismissing the case brought in the Northern Virginia area by Lindsey Halligan on the basis that Halligan is, quote, not lawfully serving as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New Jersey.
	Let me go specifically to some of the cuts.
	And, you know, one of the problems with all of the issues involving James Comey is the statute of limitations have run out.
	And as I've been telling you, this is the low-hanging fruit.
	And this is because of testimony he gave back in 2020, so the statute of limitations had not run out at the time.
	And he's testifying to Ted Cruz that he denies he approved the leak of classified information, of which I believe I've been convinced this seems to be a more than prima facie case against him.
	Here's what he said to Ted Cruz.
	He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?
	You responded again under oath, no.
	Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.
	Now, what Mr. Kitten McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true.
	One or the other is false.
	Who's telling the truth?
	I can only speak to my testimony.
	I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.
	So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
	And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth.
	Is that correct?
	Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
	Now, we do have an update as this Clinton-appointed judge in this particular case.
	Judge Cameron Curry dismissed the false charges charge against Comey and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice, meaning the charges could be brought again.
	Curry, nominated by Bill Clinton to a seat on the U.S. District Court, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1994.
	Here's a clip of that's pretty viral at this point.
	2020, again, testifying to Lindsey Graham.
	He did not recall receiving intel on Hillary Clinton's camp pushing Russian disinformation.
	So do you recall getting an inquiry from the CI, excuse me, the intelligence community in September 2016 about a concern that the Clinton campaign was going to create a scandal regarding Trump in Russia?
	I do not.
	You don't remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community?
	September, the 7th, 2016, the U.S. Intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral of FBI to FBI Director James Comey and Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzzok, regarding U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S.
	Elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email Server.
	You don't remember getting that or being taught that doesn't ring bells with me.
	Okay.
	Well, that's a pretty stunning thing.
	It didn't ring a bell, but it did come to you.
	Now, if you go back to the burn bags that were found at the FBI, these are bags that were supposed to be incinerated.
	But if you go back, there was pretty self-incriminating notes, handwritten notes of James Comey.
	I'm sure he thought they were long gone.
	In many ways, I think pretty damning that he knew almost from the get-go that it was this whole Clinton narrative was garbage.
	Anyway, here to weigh in on this and what are the next steps in a likely appeal in this case.
	David Schoen, former counsel for President Trump.
	Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, New York Times best-selling author.
	Greg, start with you.
	You wrote a column about all of this, and it seemed that the information in the burn bags contradict what he testified to.
	Oh, it absolutely does.
	And, you know, the more that the FBI discovers evidence that was hidden away, the more incriminating it is for James Comey.
	But, you know, today's decision by the Virginia judge, I think, is the wrong decision.
	It will likely be appealed to a higher court.
	But in the meantime, since Judge Curry dismissed the case, as you point out, Sean, without prejudice, that means the statute of limitations, which has now expired, is told or extended for six more months so that both Comey and James can be reindicted with the exact same charges, but with a different U.S. attorney signing onto it.
	In fact, given the additional evidence discovered against Comey, I think additional charges could be added.
	Look, this was entirely foreseeable that this Clinton-appointed judge would rule against the Trump administration.
	I think Judge Curry is misinterpreting the law and the Constitution and ruling that Lindsey Halligan was invalidly appointed.
	The president has the sole power of appointment whenever there's a vacancy.
	And that's what happened.
	Eric Siebert, who was interim appointed, expired.
	He was kept on as U.S. attorney by a vote of the judges in the district, which the law provides, but he later departed.
	That left a vacancy, which President Trump filled with Halligan.
	There is nothing in the law that forbids a president from making multiple appointments.
	But, you know, this Democrat judge was looking for an excuse to toss the case and conjured one up, but it's a pyrrhic victory because they'll be reindicted.
	What are your thoughts, David Schoen?
	I agree 100%.
	They will be reindicted.
	The statute Greg talks about at 18 U.S.C. 3288 allows them six months now to reindict, so the statute limitations doesn't become an issue.
	And if they appeal it, then 60 days from when the decision will become final after the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court has weighed in.
	But, you know, there are many arguments to be made here.
	Some very distinguished professors, Professor Stephen Calabrizi, has said this section of this statute that allows federal judges authority in here to appoint a U.S. attorney is unconstitutional.
	Another judge, Paul Costello, former judge, Paul Costello, has said, even if it's constitutional, that it still is not lawful for this statute, not lawful.
	So there are a number of arguments to be made, still, but I think they will be reindicted.
	I have to tell you, I mean, Lindsay Halligan showed great courage in stepping up here on short notice, filling the shoes.
	Remember, in this office, Comey had a relative working in the office when Siebert was the U.S. attorney.
	That relative left.
	So Lindsay Halligan, you know, came into a situation that was hostile from the start.
	I have to be, you know, to be perfectly candid, from everything in all the media reports that we've seen, the Justice Department should have given her much more support.
	She did what she was asked to do, and she did it because she believed in it, and because the facts were there, and the evidence is there to support it.
	I have no question that there'll be re-indictments in both cases.
	You might say, you might say, why not address these things on the merits?
	If you're a public figure like Letitia James Racome, wouldn't you want this aired on the merits if you think you're right?
	No, I would think so.
	Yeah, but I mean, as I pointed out many times on this program, that this is the low-hanging fruit.
	Moving on to a separate issue, separate and apart, is we have this issue of, you know, six lawmakers, senators and congressmen, this tape that they put out demanding that, in fact, that the military and the CIA have a duty and an obligation to disobey the orders of the commander-in-chief.
	When confronted on this issue this weekend, Elise Slotkin, Senator Michigan, said she's not aware of President Trump making any illegal orders.
	She made this comment on ABC.
	Here's what she said.
	So let's talk right now.
	Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
	To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.
	Okay.
	Now, the president has, you know, believes that this is seditious behavior.
	It's been making the rounds all over the place.
	18 U.S.C. 2387, we have talked about it on this program.
	And the idea that it's optional to obey the president's orders, she's admitting that she doesn't have a specific example.
	I don't know what the proper analysis of this is in terms of a legal effect, but here, if you look at the statute, activities affecting the armed forces generally, it makes it a federal crime to do any of the following with the intent to interfere with U.S. military operations, advise, urge, or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among members of the U.S. military,
	or obstruct or attempt to obstruct recruiting, enlistment, general military operations, or three, distribute materials advocating any of the above.
	The law does not require advocating the overthrow of the government.
	It's specifically about undermining the functioning of the U.S. military.
	Do you think that that particular code, Greg Jarrett, 18 U.S.C. 2387, is applicable to the senators and congressmen?
	100%.
	It is well established that orders by the president are presumed to be lawful and must be obeyed at all times by service members.
	Now, one can reasonably debate whether calling on those service members to disobey unlawful orders actually rises to the level of sedition, which is a very high threshold.
	But, Sean, you're correct.
	It does violate a very specific different law passed by Congress, which makes it a crime to undermine the loyalty and the morale or the discipline of U.S. forces by encouraging or urging or advising them to disobey orders.
	18 U.S.C. 2387.
	What's so dishonest and diabolical about what these six members of Congress did is that their statements insinuated that Trump had issued unlawful orders when, in fact, there's no evidence that he has done that.
	And when questioned, you played the clip, none of them have cited a single illegal order.
	So, you know, it's like the old prosecutor who asks an innocent man, how often do you beat your wife?
	The question contains a false statement, so it sounds incriminating.
	That's what they did to Trump here in their videotape statement.
	They tried to pretend that he's done something unlawful when in fact he hasn't.
	Your take, David Shoan.
	Yeah, I mean, I hate to be just a yes man on the show, but you and Greg are both correct.
	18 USC 2387 is applicable.
	Penalty is up to 10 years.
	I think there's another statute that could apply.
	18 USC 1381 makes it a crime to entice or procure someone to desert.
	That's the logical conclusion here, would be desertion.
	The service member, him or herself, look, first of all, you have an absolute duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order, and it's no defense to say I'm just obeying orders.
	That's not what we have here.
	And so for a service member to disobey this order, all kinds of punishments.
	There's non-judicial punishments under Article 15, administrative penalties, so on, or there's a court-martial, confinement up to two years if it's a general order, up to five years if you willfully disobey a commissioned officer, discharge maybe.
	And in times of war, frankly, it's the death penalty, which I think is what President Trump was referring to.
	The penalty is out there under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
	If you disobey a superior, willfully disobey a superior commissioned officer's order in time of war, you do are subject to the death penalty.
	Well, that's going to be interesting to watch.
	By the way, Letitia James, it's simple.
	Either she claimed on papers that it was her primary residence or she didn't.
	It's really that simple.
	Anyway, we continue now with David Schoen and Greg Jarrett are with us.
	Last question for you only, David, and I only have about 30 seconds for you to answer.
	You were Jeffrey Epstein's attorney in the final days of his life.
	You specifically asked him, and you've said it on this program before, whether he had anything, any incriminating information on Donald Trump.
	He told you what?
	He told me he absolutely did not.
	And what I've said many times is you can try to interpret all of these emails and so on and the mention of names and putting innocent people into it because their name is mentioned.
	Without any question, Jeffrey Epstein had an absolute interest, if it were true, in bringing forth any dirt he had on Donald Trump to try to gain leverage in his case.
	But he also hated Donald Trump because Donald Trump humiliated him by throwing him out of his club publicly and spectacularly and loudly.
	Would he do that if, in fact, he knew he had incriminating information on him?
	If he had incriminating information, he certainly would have tried to hurt him if he could.
	But he didn't have that information.
	And, you know, I know people have painted the monster and so on.
	He was not in the business of just making up something about somebody else, and he wasn't going to do that to President Trump.
	And that's what have been required.
	So that to me speaks louder than anything.
	He had the incentive then to use it if he had it, and he didn't.
	All right.
	We appreciate both of you.
	Greg Jarrett and David Shoan.
	Thank you both.
	800-941 Sean is on number.
	If you want to be a part of the program, we'll get to your calls coming up here.
	800-941-Sean.
	All right.
	Let us, well, before I get there, you know, MSDNC are never going to change.
	They're like apparently going through some name change.
	We're not going to change our name.
	MSDNC.
	MS Socialist DNC.
	I don't know, whatever you want to call it.
	So listen to how one guest says that the Trump administration is going to bring back hate speech.
	I want you to pay close attention to this.
	But my point is that there's been a broader effort here, obviously, to sort of like bring back or destigmatize, I guess, hate speech and re-stigmatize or stigmatize anew, you know, American heroes and rainbows and other, you know, DEI.
	There's been a lot going on within this Department of Defense and DHS in this particular case to try to basically get rid of, get rid of diversity, get rid of like any sort of recognition that there should be something, you know, that we should celebrate our difference.
	Trump is trying to bring back hate speech.
	Let's stay on the same network and a commentator celebrating anti-ICE protesters that were slashing tires, chasing agents out of buildings.
	Is this hate speech?
	Listen.
	My MVP of the week is all of the students who walked out in Charlotte this week in protest of ICE raids.
	Remind us because we didn't talk about it.
	So Charlotte's web is basically ICE Department of Homeland Security's plan to arrest thousands of supposedly undocumented people in Charlotte.
	It has terrorized the city.
	It has shut down traffic.
	You have schools where 30, 40% of the kids are not showing up.
	And these young people on their own, without politicians, without mom, without mom and dad, said, we're standing against this.
	We want our country to be better.
	And thousands of them walked out of their schools in protest to say, we don't want ICE here.
	In addition to the fact, and I won't say that I'm suggesting this behavior, but ICE agents have found that their tires are slashed.
	They have been found that they have been chased out of the thing.
	Yes, they have been chased out of buildings, chased out of restaurants.
	But that's dangerous behavior.
	It is dangerous behavior, but it is a demonstration that the American public, when they're not being listened to, these are the options they'll take.
	I hope this administration listens and pulls back these ICE rates.
	Oh, you either do what we say or we'll slash your tires and we'll get violent.
	Okay.
	From the, you know, the same network saying, oh, this is hate.
	We're worried about hate speech.
	How about hate actions?
	James in Texas, God bless Texas.
	How are you, James?
	Glad you called.
	I'm doing all right, Mr. Sean.
	How about you?
	I'm hanging in there.
	I'm dealing with a compressed nerve in my neck from lifting.
	Not fun.
	Yeah, well, hey, I just want to let you know, I've been listening to you ever since President Trump walked down or went down the escalators with his wife back on his first run when he won.
	So I guess I had a question, but now it's more of a statement.
	Maybe it'll be a question later.
	I don't know.
	I have so much I would love to talk to you about, but you know, we know that there's, well, I'm pretty sure that there's laws on the books, federal laws on the books about all the stuff that has taken place since he first ran for president.
	And what's really disheartening is after all these years, not one of the people that played a role in trying to attack, trying to do things to him, the spying, the stuff that was going on.
	We all, you know, I mean, you've talked about it over and over and over again.
	These people violated federal law.
	They did things way, way, way, way out, you know, they're out of bounds.
	And not one of them, not one of them is going to be held or has been held accountable.
	None of them that have really, you know, like been on TV a lot or on these liberal media stations where they talk and they talk this nonsense and just like what you got just talking about going out and slashing tires.
	This is supposed to be celebrated for some reason.
	This drives me nuts.
	And then, you know, Friday, you were talking about, you know, our hardworking congressmen and senators phone records being spot, you know, being spied on, you being spied on.
	They were all, they all violated laws and not none of them are going to be held accountable.
	Now we got James Coney.
	The, what, the charges were dropped?
	I'm, you know, it just, it's very.
	Well, let me just tell you, and I was very straightforward with everybody, the statute of limitations on the major issues involving Comey had long since expired.
	The only reason I always felt, and I said, that this is low-hanging fruit, lying to Congress, as serious as that is, other people go to jail for that.
	And he's an FBI director.
	And I think, you know, those burn bags are burning Comey.
	I am pretty confident that the charges will be reinstated in both cases.
	But the frustrating part, and so many people ask me, how come nothing ever happens?
	And the answer is we've not been in power to enforce the laws of our land and, you know, enforce, you know, our constitutional republic.
	I think a lot of horrible, dangerous, terrible things have happened.
	The only way this can happen is a very difficult legal maneuver, which is what FBI Director Kash Patel discussed, has not talked about it recently, which is has there,
	can there be proven a grand conspiracy to undermine Donald Trump from that moment you described when he came down the escalator with his wife Melania and what they tried to do with a dirty dossier that they knew was dirty and political in nature and how they used it to spy on candidate Trump, transition team Trump, President Trump.
	You know, now we know about the declassification from Tulsi Gabbard that they took career intelligence officials and their assessment that there was no Trump-Russia collusion.
	And according to what we know from Tulsi Gabbard and this declassification, then they ordered a new intelligence assessment report because they didn't like what the real one said.
	And that one came to a very different conclusion.
	Then you have Hunter Biden laptop.
	They had verified its authenticity March of 2020.
	They go through the whole summer meeting weekly with big tech to prebunk what they knew to be very, very true.
	Are they putting cinder blocks on the scale of an election?
	Did they weaponize our justice system as a means of ever making, ever allowing Donald Trump even an opportunity to become the president of our country?
	And they did everything humanly possible in terms of the use of lawfare and the weaponization of justice to destroy this man.
	And in spite of all of those attempts, he was still elected.
	It's a very dangerous time for a constitutional republic when all of this happens and people don't get held accountable.
	You know, look at Arctic Frost.
	Look at all the senators and all these conservative groups and Jim Jordan and all these other people that are being flat out spied on just because they support Donald Trump.
	I've not complained outwardly that much about all the stuff they did to me, but it's not been exactly pleasant.
	But does anyone really want to hear me whine?
	I don't want to hear me whine.
	I'm grateful that I chose this life.
	I chose this career to be a public figure.
	I get it.
	However, I never thought my private personal text messages that they never got from me would ever be released to the public.
	And we're talking about thousands of messages.
	I kind of view that as an invasion of privacy, don't you?
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, you were, absolutely.
	That's what's so frustrating.
	There are two things that I'm going to warn you about.
	I mean, it's Thanksgiving week.
	Everybody's on vacation this week.
	You know, I'm spending most of my spare time trying to get this neck straightened out.
	It's been impacting my life for a month.
	And I will tell you that we're going to hit the ground running in January.
	It's going to be the most important midterms of our lifetime.
	And it's going to take all hands on deck.
	Otherwise, it's going to be two years of never-ending lawfare, weaponization, investigation, impeachment, and the Trump agenda will be stopped in its tracks.
	And then when we get through that election, then I'm going to do my own vetting like I did in 2015 and 16.
	And I will give my best recommendation who I think is the best person to carry on the mantle of President Trump.
	And I'm sure people will spend years probably criticizing me.
	That happened the last time when I supported Trump ahead of most other people.
	Yep.
	That's a preview of coming attractions.
	Linda, how right am I on that prediction?
	I'd say you're pretty spot on on that.
	Yeah.
	Linda doesn't say, she doesn't say many complimentary things.
	So that's a good thing.
	Hey, that's not true.
	Take it easy.
	Take it easy.
	What are you doing?
	Listen, if you were looking for a cupcake producer, you definitely picked the wrong show.
	Oh, you were a cupcake for the first five years.
	We didn't think you talked.
	I was just quiet.
	It's different.
	Yeah, I can't even imagine that person.
	James, thank you, buddy.
	Mac in New Orleans.
	Mac, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Wonderful.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	How are you today?
	And I hope everything is great there where you are in sunny South Florida.
	It's good.
	What's going on with you, my friend?
	Well, every day is a Saturday, but I'd like to point something out.
	These wonderful, patriotic politicos who've been in federal civil service, who've been in the military and stuff, great for their service.
	Grateful for that.
	However, where was all their upset when the Obama administration was droning U.S. citizens?
	Where was their upset whenever the Biden White House was creating malicious prosecution against President Trump?
	Where was their upset when members of the staff, members of the administration were prosecuted for BS?
	Where was the upset?
	Why don't you answer your own question?
	Because you're very smart.
	What's the answer to the question?
	Oh, I understand that, but that's my point.
	Where's the upset with the wrongdoing?
	There's no wrongdoing set forth in these people that are pointing out what they want done, supposedly.
	Well said.
	And here's the thing.
	What they've done here is dangerous.
	What they've done here is extraordinarily dangerous.
	The question is, does it cross the threshold into law breaking and will they help be held accountable?
	That's the question.
	I don't like to give false hope.
	I hope they are.
	Mac, we love New Orleans.
	We love you.
	Thank you.
	Have a great Thanksgiving.
	All right, quick break right back to our phones, 800-941-Sean.
	number as we continue.
	You do not want to miss it.
	And stay tuned for the final hour free-for-all on the Sean Hannity Show.
	Busy phones, 800-941-SEAN if you want to be a part of the program.
	Steph in California.
	Hi.
	Hi, Sean.
	I've been a listener for many years, and I appreciate how much I learn every time I listen.
	I wanted to bring to light just the tactics that they use, and it was used in that when those senators made that video plug and also in just the last clip you played.
	And what they tend to do is they usually make some statements that are very muddy, and then they get to what they want you to do, which, of course, in the case of those senators, it was to defy the orders.
	And here's how they do it.
	I'll just bring that as the example.
	Their first statement, they said that this administration was pitting the military against citizens.
	And then they go on with another statement that says, here goes more fear, another false claim.
	Threats to the Constitution are now here at home, with coming from within.
	And then they went on with, you can refuse.
	And then, of course, you must refuse the orders.
	And your last clip with them talking about the same type of thing with the ICE.
	They just did the same exact thing.
	And this is right out of the Marxist playbook.
	They make you fearful.
	They make statements that are muddy or untrue, but palatable.
	And of course, to the cult on the left, these statements are very palatable.
	And they believe them wholeheartedly that this administration is a threat to the Constitution, that they're pitting the military against poor, innocent citizens, and that everyone must just get up and fight.
	They are pushing our military to violate their oath and the Constitution by what they're doing.
	And I believe they should all be held accountable.
	And for Slotkin to admit, there's no justification that she can think of makes it more reckless.
	Well said, Steph.
	I'm just running out of time.
	I'm up on the clock.
	I do appreciate your call.
	This is an iHeart podcast.

▲