On the Sean Hannity Show, guest host Greg Jarrett speaks with former congressman Jason Chaffetz about the surge in antisemitic incidents in the U.S. and abroad. They cite FBI and ADL data, a New York Post editorial on recent New York City attacks, and concerns over public chants calling for a global intifada. The conversation questions political and civic leadership, noting criticism of New York City's incoming mayor and a lack of strong denunciations from some Democrats, including Chuck Schumer. They also highlight law enforcement foiling an alleged pro-Palestinian bombing plot in Southern California and debate the need for consequences and cooperation to deter violence. Listeners are invited to weigh in after the interview.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I'm a Fox News legal analyst and former trial attorney in San Francisco in a previous lifetime.
We're going to be talking to Jason Chaffetz in just a moment about the appalling number of anti-Semitic attacks around the nation and the world.
In the meantime, we do want to hear from you.
So if you'll give us a call when I finish talking to Jason, I'll talk to you.
And our number is 1-800-941-7326.
Give us a call at 1-800-941 Sean.
Love to hear from you.
In the meantime, here in the United States, I'm sad to report, but you already know this, that violence against Jews is on the rise.
According to the FBI, among all religiously motivated hate crimes, the data shows almost 70% target Jewish people.
The Anti-Defamation League, the ADL, reports that in the three months following the start of the war in Gaza, anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. skyrocketed by 361%.
It's abated somewhat, but we still see it happening over and over again, and not just in Bondi Beach, Australia, at the outset of the Hanukkah celebrations, 15 people gunned down, others terribly wounded.
But we see it in the United States still, which prompted a New York Post editorial today by the editorial board recounting the alarming anti-Semitic attacks in just the last few days.
And I'll recite those in just a moment, but I want to bring into the conversation Jason Chaffetz, former congressman.
He's the author of the book, They're Coming for You.
And Jason, thanks for being here to talk to us about it, because I find it so insane.
It is really hard to believe that in this day and age, we see anti-Semitic attacks.
And so, you know, it invites the question, where did this come from?
Did the Free Palestine movement, the pro-Hamas movement, just serve as an excuse for open expressions of Jewish hatred so that now people think, well, we have permission to voice our religious biggest bigotry and hostility toward Jews.
Is that what has happened?
I think that's part of it, Greg.
And thanks for having me on.
The numbers are stunningly high.
It's absolutely disgusting.
It's counter to the foundation of our nation where we could practice religious freedom.
That was the whole foundation of our nation.
But if you look at it on a global scale, there have been attacks on Christians and Jews, I mean, for millennia, right?
They've been going on.
But the uptick is what's so scary.
I think if you take the global number, you'll see that Christians actually, attacks on Christians, when you start to look at Nigeria and some of the mass slaughtering that's going on there, it's just unfathomable.
But certainly after the attacks on Israel on October 7th, the problem that I have here in the United States, and I think this is partly what happened in Australia, is the anti-Semitic chants, rants, calls for death and destruction were not met with any sort of resistance.
There were no consequences for it.
And there continued to be an uptick of this type of violent type of rhetoric.
And so when you have these people that go out and say, oh, they're so evil and they're so bad, and we're going to have the impetata from sea to sea, look no further than the mayor of the incoming mayor of New York.
And somehow he can't denounce that.
He's tried to wordsmith a little bit, but still hasn't denounced some of the other type of efforts.
And I find that this should not be a partisan issue, but it has become one because I don't see en masse the Democrats taking a firm stance saying we will not tolerate this anymore.
And the consequence has been violence and more violence and death.
And it's scary.
Yeah, I covered the second Intifada in the Middle East as a correspondent there.
So I know what it's all about.
I've seen it with my own eyes, the bloodshed.
And, you know, this most recent malicious chant, globalize the Intifada, is a call for violence against Jews.
There's no other way to explain it or rationalize it.
That's what it is.
It is pure hatred born of ignorance.
It's frighteningly reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
And what's so troubling is that the newly elected mayor of New York City refuses to condemn the phrase.
He just refuses to condemn it.
Which is, I don't know how to describe that, but he is encouraging the hatred, the verbal attacks, and the physical attacks, isn't he?
I think so.
But the only thing I maybe would disagree, I would, and maybe you, I would, I would say, go ahead, disagree with me.
What you said is that it's born of ignorance.
I think it's on purpose.
I don't think it's born of ignorance.
I think there are too many people that believe that this is what has to happen.
Yeah, you may be right.
And I don't think it's ignorance.
I think there's a lot of ignorance and religious.
It's funny to me because there's so many people who preach tolerance, and yet they're the least tolerant among us.
So there are clearly a lot of people that are naive and so focused that they can't see the rest of the world.
But the foundation of our nation, it's and what we're taught in Christianity, I happen to believe in Jesus Christ, and I consider myself a Christian.
But love thy neighbor.
But our foundation of our nation was based on religious tolerance.
That's a large part with the First Amendment's all about.
And so you can't, I just think there's too many people calling for this type of violence and calling for this type of resistance.
And when you start calling people Hitler, then you tell people, oh, then you have permission to take them out.
What would you do?
If you got a chance to meet Hitler, what would you do?
Well, you'd kill him, right?
So, but that's so weird.
I can't even think because then they attack Jews.
Right.
Like, it just circularly doesn't make sense.
Yeah.
I mentioned a moment ago that, you know, the New York Post editorial board was trying to make the point, I think, in their editorial today, and it's a good one, and people should read it online, that it's not just Australia where this is happening still.
No, it is right here in New York City.
And they recite an alarming number of anti-Semitic attacks in just the last few days.
I'll give you a rundown.
In the West Village, a Jewish woman targeted with profane slurs being taunted, we're going to get rid of you effing Zionists.
Over in Brooklyn, Hanukkah celebrants denounced as effing Jews, one Jewish man grabbed by the throat and threatened with death.
In Crown Heights, an assailant shouted anti-Semitic remarks at passersby and then stabbed one in the chest.
And the Post makes the point, these were attacks that were caught on camera.
How many others were not captured on videotape?
And how many go unreported?
It's pretty frightening, isn't it?
It is.
And the incoming mayor can't seem to get his arms around the idea.
I worry that in part he was elected because he was on the wrong side of this issue.
And then you see what's playing out, the MIT professor.
He's Jewish.
So is that just, were we supposed to believe that's just a mere coincidence?
There's too much of this going on.
But, you know, what happened on Australia was so sad and deadly and terrorizing.
And there are too many that want to call this terrorism out, that want to create this type of terror and fear.
And look at what happened in New York with the college campuses.
Yeah.
And they, the problem is, you don't have leaders up and down both sides of the aisle denouncing this.
You see it on one side, but not the other.
And that, I think, is a clear, clear pattern.
Chuck Schumer should be leading the charge for the Democrats.
He is the natural one to do this.
And he's almost silent.
He'll put out some statements, but he has not shown any leadership on this issue.
And he's just kind of scared with the tail between his legs, just not willing to really go to the mount and say, this is it.
You have stepped over the line.
We are not going to tolerate.
You don't see that from him.
And yet, being from New York, given his religious background, you'd think he'd lead out, but no.
No, it speaks volumes of where Democrats are on this issue.
And it's not just, you know, in New York with Chuck Schumer and Amdani, You know, out in Southern California, where I grew up, the FBI foiled what the Attorney General described as a massive and horrific terror plot by an extremist group planning a series of bombings in Orange County and Los Angeles.
According to, you know, Pam Bondi, it was a plot by a far-left pro-Palestine, anti-capitalist group.
But what jumps out at you is the pro-Palestine, which is likely pro-Hamas.
Four people were arrested.
But again, the common denominator, Jason, is the individuals appear to have been motivated, in part at least, by anti-Semitism, the cause of Palestinians, and using, in fact, the methods of Hamas, which is terror bombings, which I saw, you know, myself with blood on my boots in Israel during the second Indifata.
Can I just make, you're right, that plot that was foiled in Southern California bombs that were going to go off at distribution centers on New Year's Eve.
Well done to law enforcement.
A little side note here.
This has really bothered me.
I'm glad I don't have an opportunity to say this.
Every single law enforcement from the city to the county to the state to the FBI, they all stood up and said, it was all because of cooperation we were able to foil this.
Right.
Cooperation, cooperation.
Every one of them said cooperation.
Oh, it was great.
They're patting each other on the back.
But you know when they don't cooperate?
If ICE is involved, somehow the sheriff can stand up and say, we had great cooperation.
But if somebody's here illegally and they have somebody who's wanted for, you know, some heinous crime, they won't cooperate with the feds to tell them they have a detention.
And yeah, cooperation works.
See how good it works?
But we just don't practice it here in California or any of these other sanctuary cities and states and counties.
It just, it really makes me mad because how many other crimes and acts of terrorism could we have prevented if there was actually true cooperation?
But there's not.
It was just lip service and it made me mad.
Yeah, well, I'm glad you told us so.
Jason, good talking to you as always.
Jason Chaffetz, everybody, and be sure to get his book, They're Coming for You.
It's a real eye-opener.
Jason, take care.
Happy holidays.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Merry Christmas.
Thanks, Greg.
All right.
We're going to pause, take a quick break.
We've got some callers on the other side.
If you haven't called us yet, please do now.
The number is 1-800-941-7326.
We have a full half hour of your phone calls coming up.
1-800-941 Sean.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
One of the topics we've been discussing today was potential indictments against those who waged lawfare against Donald Trump.
And I'll give you one example.
The raid on Mar-a-Lago.
It was a shocking abuse of the law, and newly disclosed FBI documents prove it.
There was no probable cause as the law demands because Trump had done nothing illegal.
The Records Act is the controlling statute, and it gives a former president custody and possession of presidential records.
And if the National Archives wants them, they go to court.
The exclusive remedy is civil.
It's not criminal.
The government's only recourse is to file a motion to compel before a federal judge.
What you cannot do is conjure up imaginary crimes and then shop it around to an anti-Trump magistrate to sign off on a baseless search warrant.
Now we know that Garland didn't care about the law.
He and his Confederates weaponized it to bring a meritless case against Trump to stop him from his reelection bid in 2024.
More of your phone calls on the other side.
1-800-941-7326.
Give us a call.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean, and it's been a pleasure.
I'll be back tomorrow, by the way, 3 o'clock to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.
Hope you'll join us then.
Got a great lineup of guests.
In the meantime, it's time for your calls and your questions or comments.
And give us a call if you haven't already, 1-800-941-7326.
That's 1-800-941-Sean.
All right, let's go to Will in Michigan, who's been standing by for a while.
Will, thanks for your patience.
How are you?
I'm driving my 80,000-pound fly slaughter.
My truck.
My semi.
It's 80,000-pound flyswater.
Yeah, yeah, better you than me driving that thing.
They're easier than they look.
But anyways, I have a question on the vetting process and getting the cabinet set up for the president and why it's not done between the time the Electoral College does their voting and the time that he's sworn in.
You got like two or three months there that they could be vetting the candidates that he wants as his cabinet and have them sworn in.
And when he swears in, his cabinet's in his office and they're getting the ball rolling right away.
Trump had to wait, what, six, eight, ten months before he finally got his whole cabinet.
I don't even know if he still has his whole cabinet.
Yeah, he's got his whole cabinet in there.
And, you know, some of them were approved quickly.
Some took a little extra time.
There's really only a month between the Electoral College in December and January 20th when the president is sworn in on Inauguration Day.
And, you know, the practice is because there are new senators who take office in January and, you know, join various committees, including judiciary.
And, you know, it has to go through committee first with hearings and so forth.
And you got to wait for the newcomers to arrive if there are any.
I think the real problem is not so much the cabinet, but other positions that are incredibly important.
And that comes down to blue slips.
And I talked about it before a couple of hours ago.
But blue slips are totally crooked.
It refers to a U.S. Senate tradition that began in 1917, believe it or not, where home state senators get to approve or disapprove of presidential nominees for federal judgeships,
U.S. attorneys, and it effectively gives those home state senators veto power over the president's choice.
And they can block and have blocked important appointments, leading inevitably to a conflict, particularly with President Trump, who wants to end it.
And he's absolutely right about it.
A withheld or negative blue slip blocks a nominee from moving forward, and it gives minority party senators leverage that they are not entitled to under the constitutions and the appointment power of the president of the United States.
It's a tradition that was wrong when it started in 1970.
It's wrong today.
And it's high time that the Senate vote out the blue slips.
But Will, thanks for your question.
It was a good one.
Aaron joins us from Arizona.
And I imagine it's a lot warmer in Arizona right now than it is here in chilly New York City.
Aaron, how are you?
Good.
How are you doing, Greg?
I'm fine.
I'm actually 73 out here right now.
Oh, you're killing me.
I just wanted to say, I think the American people are ready.
Some people need to be held accountable for all this corruption and everything that's going on.
You know, the FBI, we're supposed to be investigating them.
I'm sorry that, you know, Dan Bongino is going to be leaving and everything, but it's sickening and it's hardening to keep seeing people.
They got them dead to rights, and they're not going to do anything for the crimes and the fleecing and the corruption against the American people.
They're just let off Scott Free and go, oops, it's over with.
Thank you.
And then it just continues on and continues on and continues on.
It's getting really old.
Yeah, I agree with you.
And it does not instill much faith in our criminal justice system because, you know, it's abundantly clear that this long-running corrupt lawfare crusade against Trump,
and in fact, anybody connected with him, you know, I think now finally it is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. attorneys.
And maybe we will see some indictments.
I hope so.
There should be.
And, you know, it incorporates all the way back to 2016 and the Russia hoax, which was codenamed Crossfire Hurricane.
And it stretched on for years to the more recent targeting of Republicans by the Biden administration, codenamed Arctic Frost.
Why do they always have these stupid code names?
I mean, it's just dumb.
It is.
And, you know, among other things, they seized surreptitiously the data of more than 400 Republicans, including U.S. senators, members of the House.
They were all victimized by the FBI and the DOJ.
Their phone records were seized without notice to the members of Congress.
And the law requires they be put on notice.
And Judge James Boesberg, the notorious federal district judge in Washington, D.C., was behind a lot of the seizures and the gag orders associated.
You can't tell them, even though the law says you must tell them that you're seizing their phone records.
I mean, this was a shocking abuse of power.
And as I said at the top of the first hour, it's a crime, deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law.
And thankfully, this is now the focus of an intensive investigation in Florida.
John Solomon joined me in the first hour and said it's a grand jury convened beginning January 2nd in Fort Pierce.
And they're going to be looking at an ongoing criminal conspiracy that deprived Trump and others of constitutional rights, which again is a crime punishable by up to 10 years behind bars for each illegal act.
And I hope charges are brought.
They should be.
Our next caller joins us from California.
Diane, are you there?
It's Greg Jarrett.
And where are you in California?
I'm in Santa Cruz.
Ah, beautiful Santa Cruz.
I know it's endless summer here.
Yeah.
Well, that's nice to hear if you're there.
What's your question or comment, Diane?
I have a comment about concerning the recent university shooting.
I think that the gun-free zone idea should be shelved.
And I think that we should arm all teachers and staff with non-lethal firearms and make it known that the staff carries non-lethal firearms.
Yeah, here's my question.
And I'm not arguing with you because I actually agree.
But opponents of that say that teachers, what happens if teachers who are armed make a miscalculation or misunderstand a situation and, God forbid, you know, a student, a child is killed.
How do you get around that argument?
And if I like your argument, I'll steal it.
Well, I mean, there's always a worst case scenario.
I mean, I don't know that you can rule out every possibility.
And I think it's un-American to take our weapons from us.
I think it's unconstitutional.
And I've always thought that the more people that were prepared to defend, the better.
I even used to say I thought that when you got on an airplane, that everyone should be required to carry some sort of self-defense.
That would be a great deterrent.
So I think the deterrent part outweighs the worst case scenario in these situations.
You know, at the height of airplane hijackings, and particularly after, you know, 9-11 and the planes flown into the World Trade Center and, you know, the Pentagon and so forth, federal marshals armed were on board a lot of flights across America.
So if you can do that, then to your argument, Diane, why not schools as well?
Well, I might reveal my age, but when I was in grade school, our class used to take regular trips to the gun range.
Really?
Where did you grow up?
I grew up in Portland, believe it or not.
Wow, things have changed in Portland.
Oh, my God.
Well, it's always been a loony bin, but for some reason, that was a thing.
And it went away shortly after I got into high school.
But I just think that we've gotten away from, you know, we need to take, it's prophylactic.
Right.
We all should be prepared, you know.
And wasn't it a deterrent in World War II to the Japanese that we were a nation of militia?
Yeah.
I mean, I think it's a deterrent.
And I think it's un-American to not even consider that.
It's constitutional.
Right.
And so, I don't know.
I don't know what the legal ramifications are.
So you probably know better than I do.
Well, you know, the Supreme Court has weighed in on gun-free zones and their justification around schools and so forth.
but it may be something that they really need to revisit uh in you know our age of rage and violence um diane you're in santa cruz which is largely water here pardon me I'm a fish out of water here.
Yeah, I was about to say you probably have no friends, right?
We call it the left coast.
You do have to keep your mouth shut.
You can't say much.
I did offend somebody today when they said they went to an office meeting and they had to reveal their pronouns.
And I said, oh, well, I threw away my list of pronouns when Trump got into office.
I'm sure you got a rather nasty look in return.
Hi, guy.
All the way around.
I got the side of it.
All right, Diane.
Thank you very much for giving me a call.
I appreciate it.
Fun talking to you.
Going to San Antonio now.
Bob is standing by.
Hi, Bob.
How are you?
Doing good, Greg.
Thanks for taking my call.
Sure.
Bob, I want to talk about Joe Biden, and now there's a double standard.
When he was caught with all this classified information in three different locations, and the Democrats ran interference for him so he would not get prosecuted.
And they are constantly lecturing America that nobody is above the law unless, of course, you're a Democrat.
Yeah, and he had no immunity or declassification authority, so he had no excuse because he was doing it when he was vice president.
In fact, some of the documents that were classified came from when he was a United States Senator before he was vice president.
So they talk about a violation of the Espionage Act, and yet they treated him with kid gloves.
And then in the end, you know, the special counsel said, we're not going to prosecute him basically because he's too old and senile.
But he's perfectly okay to be president of the United States.
You got to love that rationale.
Good point.
Bob of San Antonio, thanks for giving us a call.
We're going to take a quick break.
I'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I want to tell you about tomorrow, we're almost finished here.
We've got a great lineup of guests.
For example, Peter Schweitzer will be joining us.
He wrote the book on Clinton corruption called Clinton Cash.
And it comes on the heel of newly declassified documents that expose how the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton and her Clinton foundation was shut down by Barack Obama's Department of Justice and those in the White House.
Also joining us, Mike Davis.
We'll talk to him about whether criminal charges will be brought against those who've waged a relentless lawfare campaign against Donald Trump.
Please join me tomorrow on the Sean Hannity Show for now.