All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2026 - Sean Hannity Show
27:34
SAVE Act Showdown: Citizenship, Voting Integrity, and the Senate Filibuster
|

Time Text
Federal Authorities Arrest In Church Invasion 00:13:41
This is an iHeart podcast.
Guaranteed human.
Howard 2 Sean Hannity Show, toll-free.
It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So we do have breaking news.
A third person in Minnesota in this invasion of this church has, in fact, been arrested.
Federal authorities now arrested one activist lawyer and St. Paul school board member, another person involved in this, and also a third person has been arrested.
And we keep going back and informing you that the law does not allow for the invasion of a church.
It's very simple.
It's not complicated.
It's the FACE Act, and it applies in spite of what Keith Ellison may tell you because it was designed.
They'll say it's designed only to protect from abortion rights.
The FACE Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking not only reproductive rights.
What is true is the FACE Act is best known for protecting the rights of people, and it extends to people to worship freely in this country and exercise their First Amendment religious freedom.
And the law, by the way, bars the conduct that injures, intimidates, interferes with a person seeking to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.
And all these statutes apply.
Now, as we look at the comments, you know, you listen to Don Lemon.
I mean, he was an advocate.
He was not an independent journalist, as he claims, praising the church protesters, making people uncomfortable.
It was pretty disgusting, despicable what they did to the people in that church.
As a reminder, here's what the people in that church said and did.
Rene Good, Rene Good, Rene Good, where are you, where are you?
Where are your people?
Why are you not at Whitville every day fighting for the humanity, standing for our people?
Where are you?
You drink your coffee, you got your jewelry, you have your nice clothes, but what do you do?
What do you do to stand for your Somali and Latino communities?
I'm not going to comment.
You have no comment.
Exactly.
All these comfortable white people who are living lavish, comfortable lives while children are dragged into concentration camps.
You're living real life, nice lives in your lattes, doing absolutely nothing for your Latino and Somali brothers and sisters.
You come here to a man wearing a suit is a preacher?
Did Jesus wear a suit?
Did Jesus profit off the words?
No, Jesus would die with immigrants.
You do not touch me.
You do not touch me again and see what happens.
You are a fake Christian.
Why are you not standing with your Somali and Latino communities?
Why do I not see you out at Whitwill every day protesting this attack on humanity?
Where are you?
You're sinners.
You're pretending to be Christians.
But we know you live an easy life, don't you?
A very easy life while people are starving.
Same.
All right.
So again, you go back to exactly what the law says and what the FACE Act is.
And it is textbook as far as I'm concerned.
One of the big questions is, and the civil rights division of the DOJ has been very clear.
They're looking into Don Lemon and his involvement in all of this, his advocacy of all of this, his support of all of this.
And here's what he said at the time.
This is the beginning of what's going to happen here.
When you violate people's due process, when you pull people off the street, you start dragging them and hurting them and not abiding by the Constitution.
When you start doing all of that, people get upset and angry.
If you remember what the civil rights movement was about, the civil rights movement was about these very kinds of protests.
And for some reason, in our modern era, people think that in order to have protests, you've got to be, you know, cordoned off to a certain area.
Remember, the FACE Act bars conduct that injures, intimidates, interferes with a person seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.
And by the way, other federal statutes likewise protect against the denial of civil rights.
Harmee Dillon is with us, and she's done a phenomenal job.
She is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the DOJ, and she's here with an update and the latest on this new arrest that has taken place.
Harme, first of all, great job.
Thank you for being with us.
Tell us the latest.
Oh, thanks for having me, Sean, and for that lead-in.
I'm really excited and proud of our team at the Department of Justice to report that all three arrests were made this morning with the outstanding arrest warrants.
Nakima Levy, the lead organizer, the lawyer, Sean Till Louisa Allen, member of the St. Paul School Board since 2020.
She was part of the attack, also a wing leader.
And William Kelly, that crazy-looking dude with the beard who was very aggressive and shouting in the faces of worshipers there.
And, you know, there is more to come in this case.
People should stay tuned.
And I think what I'd love your audience to know is that contrary to popular myth or law and order, we cannot just knock down doors and arrest people.
We have to go to a judge for felony charges and get an arrest warrant signed.
And the magistrate judge has the opportunity to do thumbs up or thumbs down on that.
So I think your team, your audience can conclude that what happened today was simply a subset of what we are seeking.
And there hopefully will be more, but only if judges do their jobs and are dispassionate about their role, which is gatekeeper, it isn't jury, to permit us to move forward.
I am personally satisfied that every single person in that building violated multiple federal statutes when they came in and they disrupted a house of worship.
And that is how we are pursuing it at the Department of Justice, zero tolerance.
What are the other statutes besides the FACE Act?
The Klan Act.
In fact, the three arrest warrants today were involving a Section 241 criminal conspiracy.
And this is one of our oldest civil rights statutes that I'm responsible with the Attorney General for administering.
And it comes out of a time after the Civil War when Southern law enforcement was harassing newly freed slaves.
And so we have this law that says that it's a federal criminal conspiracy violation to conspire to violate the civil rights of another American.
And the invasion of a church is one of those rights.
To the extent that you can comment on this, and I do know it's an ongoing investigation.
When you look at Don Lemon and his commentary surrounding his so-called independent Independent journalism in this case.
It doesn't sound to me like he was a passive journalist.
It sounds to me like he was an active participant.
Let's just say that when I say that I believe the evidence covers every single unwelcome visitor in the church, that includes the pseudo-journalists who were found by their own streaming,
in Don Lemon's case, to be kissing Nakima Levy in advance, joking about what we are going to do inside, bringing coffee and donuts to these people, including interviewing outside the William Kelly, who was arrested, and then talking about how the goal of this entire exercise was making people uncomfortable in a house of worship.
We saw images of children crying and mothers with their arms around them and godly men standing up to protect their families.
That's what happened.
Instead of thinking about God and learning about the teachings of Jesus, they were terrorized in a house of worship.
And this is just insane.
Journalism does not cloak you from the obligation to follow our federal laws.
And for those who think this is political, let me remind them that the Biden DOJ and Kamala Harris, when she was the Attorney General of California, went after journalists, some of whom were only actually committing acts of journalism.
And people were prosecuted in January 6th for going in while they were identifying themselves as journalists.
And my clients at Project Veritas were hunted down by the Southern District of New York while they were researching a story that they ultimately didn't publish.
And the Obama DOJ surveilled and went after multiple journalists.
And so I don't condone going after journalists because of what they're printing or researching, but I do when they are violating our federal laws, including harassing people and shoving a mic into the face of a pastor and his flock.
Let me ask you about the interpretation of the AG Keith Ellison because he is arguing that the FACE Act could not apply because it was designed solely to protect abortion rights.
And he said the FACE Act, by design, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive rights so that people for a religious reason cannot just use religion to break into a woman's reproductive health center.
That is not what the FACE Act says, is it?
Especially provisions 247, 248.
You're correct.
Keith Ellison may have gotten his law degree from the Learing Center in Minnesota because when you read the FACE Act, it very clearly protects houses of worship.
In fact, it wouldn't have passed without that provision in there.
It is correct that the United States Department of Justice, for three decades, never used it to protect houses of worship until Pam Bondi became the Attorney General and I became the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
So far, I've already used it in a case in West Orange, New Jersey of an attack on a synagogue.
And now we're using it the second time we are seeking indictments in any event on this.
And I believe they apply here.
We will have more bites at the Apple to go back to court to get perhaps additional charges beyond these.
But I believe multiple federal statutes have been violated here.
I have multiple open investigations under the FACE Act, Sean, in New York and Los Angeles for attacks on synagogues.
We are going to use this law as it was intended by Congress.
Let me ask you this question, and I did ask many other leaders in the Trump administration about it, and it has to do with sanctuary cities and states.
Are they not by definition aiding and abetting in the law breaking by helping illegal immigrants?
And when they offer taxpayer-funded services, how is that not illegal?
Well, this is something that we are litigating in court and investigating.
So I'm not going to comment on that, but I think you can see that the Attorney General has been extremely aggressive on this front.
And when our state leaders ignore and violate federal law and they coordinate to do that, that absolutely could be a conspiracy.
And it could be other criminal statutes as well.
You know, what a difference one administration over another makes.
I mean, they were looking at moms and dads at school board meetings going after peaceful, you know, pro-life protesters.
You know, all the attempts to stop peaceful people from just expressing their views.
And in this case, this is a full-on disruption of a church service.
But more importantly, what about the obstruction of people with ICE?
And we know the supremacy clause is clear that federal laws, the jurisdiction to enforce them lies with the federal government, not with state governments.
And yet they talk about going after ICE agents and arresting ICE agents and taking licenses away from ICE agents.
What is your answer to that?
Yeah.
Look, it's obvious that there is a Marxist-level disregard for the safety of the very people that some of these elected officials have been elected to protect.
And the idea that you would put the, try to sympathize with and treat with more respect and care people who invaded our country than the citizens who have the legal and ethical right and moral duty to be here and write is outrageous.
And people need to wake up and open their eyes and understand that our country is being stolen from us, not only by invaders, but also by elected officials who abrogate their duty to the citizens.
Jack Smith's Capitol Hill Testimony 00:06:32
And so some of that can be fixed at the ballot box, and some of that's going to be fixed by the United States Department of Justice.
We will not tolerate the subordination of Americans' citizens' civil rights to mobs and to invaders.
All right, Harmee Dillon, who is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ.
Harmee, you're doing a great job.
We appreciate your time.
Thanks for the clarification, and we hope to have you back soon.
Thank you so much, Sean.
Take care.
All right.
So Jack Smith was on Capitol Hill today.
A couple of great moments.
You have Jim Jordan, for example, slamming Jack Smith over him using Cassidy Hutchinson as a witness, even though everyone knew she was lying.
Now, remember, they had already interviewed the driver.
This is about Donald Trump.
Did he try to commandeer the vehicle that was driving him at the time and direct that driver to drive to the Capitol?
The driver said it never happened.
Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't there.
He was a hearsay, hearsay witness.
And she was saying just the opposite.
Instead of using the driver as a direct witness, no, they went to the person that gave them the narrative that they wanted.
And here's Jim Jordan calling him out on it.
You know how many times Cassie Hutchinson was mentioned in their report, the January 6th report?
Any idea, Mr. Smith?
I do not.
185 times.
Someone that the whole country knows wasn't telling the truth, and you were still considering putting her on the witness stand because you had to get President Trump.
And everybody can see that.
Are we going to put her on the witness stand if you ever got to trial?
We had not made final determinations as to who we were going to call as a witness.
We had a large...
You were still considering her?
We had a large choice of witnesses in this case.
Are you premier what Washington Post reporters Carol Lenig and Aaron Davis said in their book?
They did this book, 300-some pages book on Chronicle and the whole investigation at the Justice Department.
And here's what they said on page 310.
They said Jack Smith had wondered whether some of Hutchinson's claims might be relied upon at trial.
Still, at one point, Smith told the elections team he wasn't ready to give up on Hutchinson's account.
Ultimately, however, Trump administration officials uniformly, fiercely disputed her accounts under oath.
Prosecutors on your team told Smith they wouldn't want to use Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed.
Are Carol Lenig and Aaron Davis who wrote this, are they lying?
My recollection is that I certainly had not made any final determinations about who we were going to call.
And that's the point.
That is the point.
The fact that they used her in a prime time hearing and you won't rule out using her or didn't rule out using her, putting her on the witness stand when everybody knows she wasn't telling the truth, that says it all.
That's the degree the left and Democrats were willing to go to get President Trump, putting on the witness stand someone everybody knows is making it up.
Everybody knows that.
Wow.
Pretty powerful.
Now, Lance Gooden from Texas grilled Jack Smith on the details of a swearing in, which we now know was quite questionable.
And why would he have needed a second swearing in?
Listen.
Mr. Smith, on November 18th, 2022, A.G. Garland appointed you a special counsel.
Can you tell me about your swearing in or the oath of office that you took after that?
I don't recall the specifics of it.
I know I was sworn in.
I don't recall the specifics of how that was done.
You don't remember who swore you in?
I don't.
Would you agree that taking the oath of office is a legal requirement for the job that you had?
I've taken oaths of office regularly.
I haven't researched whether it's required or not, but I've done that.
I think in every government case it is required.
Terms I heard earlier today were atypical, irregular, no proper procedure.
Yet in your opening statement, you said that we followed Justice Department policies, and I would assume you meant the law as well.
It strikes me as odd that you don't remember who swore you in, how you were sworn in.
It's pretty significant.
We all get sworn in here, and I remember every day.
You don't remember who swore you in?
I don't remember the details of it as I sit here today.
But you did take the oath of office before you got rolling.
I think my recollection is it was when I was appointed.
It was when.
It strikes me as odd that Attorney General Garland had you retake the oath of office on the 14th of September of the following year.
Why did he make you do that?
As I sit here right now, I do not recall.
I know that there is the oath of office that I signed.
I believe it was on the 18th, the day that I was appointed.
And I know the department had me do a second one.
I don't know the particulars of why they asked me to do it again, but I know.
You signed it on the 20th of November 22nd, November 2022, but there was no witness, which, I mean, you have to agree.
It's a little odd.
If there's no witness saying that you took the oath of office, it would maybe make someone like me question whether or not you were legitimately doing the job until you finally took the oath of office.
It sounds like the attorney general had the same question and thought, oh, we got to have him sign this on the 14th day of September of the following year.
Does anybody believe for a second that he does not remember that?
Does anybody believe that?
Because I don't.
Mike in Canada, next on the Sean Hannity show.
Hi, sir.
How are you?
Glad you're listening.
Glad you called.
I want to address something that Donald Trump said in Davos, I guess, on Tuesday in his rambling commentary on the state of things.
It wasn't exactly rambling.
I think he was very, very straightforward, very articulate, and very honest.
Canada As A Buffer 00:07:49
Honest?
Donald Trump honest?
Okay, fine.
That's right.
I think he.
Well, tell me where he was not.
Tell me.
Give me one example when he was not honest.
He was brutally honest.
Okay.
In reference to Canada, the statement that the Canada lives because of the U.S. How is that?
That's correct.
Anybody, but that is blatantly false and it's also.
No, that is a thousand percent true.
That's because if Canada did not have the military protection of the U.S., Canada would be ripe for the taking.
Canada would be less safe and less secure.
And that is just a fact.
And frankly, the president was right in pointing out that Canada doesn't really appreciate America's contribution to their national security.
Do you think that Canada is capable of it on its own to protect itself from Russia?
Because they're not.
You said 51 miles between.
I just asked you a question.
Is Canada on its own capable of defending itself from Russia?
Yes or no?
We won't be in that confrontation.
You will provide.
I didn't ask if you'd be in that confrontation.
I'm asking, is Canada on its own capable of protecting itself from Russia?
I'm only naming one geopolitical potential foe.
Is it yes or no?
I'm not going to respond to that question.
That's a hypothetical question.
It's not a hypothetical question.
Look at geography because you're right on the border.
You are on the border between Alaska and the Bering Strait.
That's correct.
And Vladimir Putin and Russia know the last thing they'd ever want is a military confrontation with the USA.
I'm asking you, is Canada capable of defending itself and its homeland without the help of the U.S.?
We don't need much from the U.S.
We need the U.S. to respect us.
That is complete Adam bullshift.
That is a lie.
You cannot defend yourself.
You need the USA.
And the president, when he said to your prime minister, who took shots at him the day before he spoke, the president was a thousand percent correct in saying that without us, you'd be a sitting duck.
Hello?
Hello?
I think we call that, Linda, a checkmate moment in talk radio, no?
He's very upset.
Why is he upset?
Well, he's from Canada, you know?
He's from Canada.
There you go.
There's a reason.
All right, back to our busy phones, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to join us, Glenn, Louisiana, next.
Thanks, Sean.
I appreciate giving it my idea.
The insurrection in Minnesota kind of ties in with my thought about, and the Canadian call, but I thought about Greenland and Canada and Europe.
We know that this insurrection could well be funded from sources through Europe.
We also know that a lot of the negative political schemes come to us through Europe, Marxism, socialism, communism, insurrection flows through Europe.
Europe is now taking steps that are antithetical to our constitution.
They're arresting people for religious thought, for prayer, arresting people for speech in Canada, arresting people for gathering together, which is a part of our constitution, which is allowed the Rise Assembly.
So my question is this.
If a country that was formerly an ally takes so many steps that sort of moves them toward the area of foe, would not Greenland be smart as a buffer to all of Europe, not Russia, not China, but a buffer to what Europe could become, in which case Canada also might be a great 51st state.
But I have a feeling that if we did that, we'd have even more progressive and more of this thought in our nation.
Thought I'd like to hear that.
Look, Europe has a multitude of problems.
They have immigration without assimilation, and that has caused a major, major, long-standing problem for them.
And I don't know if over time you could even resolve it.
It would take mass deportation to do it.
I don't think they have the willingness to do it.
Their socialist economic policies are killing their economy.
Their adaptation of climate alarmism is killing their entire economic framework.
And you look at their adoption of woke policies, that is hurting them.
They, like Canada, need the U.S.
And that's why Greenland is of such geopolitical national security importance, not only to the U.S., but to NATO and to our European allies.
And our European allies can balk all they want, but they need the U.S.
The one president that knows that they are at the mercy of the U.S. is Donald J. Trump.
And frankly, Greenland, him making this deal is not only historic, but it is in the best national security interests of Europe against the world's top geopolitical foes.
That would be Putin and Russia and Qi and China.
And that is a reality that they seem to be unwilling to accept.
When Donald Trump challenged Europe and NATO allies about their lack of contribution to national security and defense, he got them to more than double their contribution in spite of the fact that they whined and moaned and complained.
When Donald Trump said, you're not going to rip America off anymore with your unfair tariffs, they whined, they moaned, they complained.
And then they not only got rid of their tariffs, now they're paying us.
When Donald Trump talked about Greenland at first, they were whining and moaning, and they sent 37 troops there to defend Greenland, which was just idiotic.
Now we have a deal in place where the president will protect all of Europe and NATO nations and the U.S.
And when we get the Golden Dome, you know, finally finished, it will be a protection, the likes of which will probably be Trump's greatest legacy.
So, you know, I mean, I really don't care about Europe that much, to be honest, other than the fact that they're destroying their continent.
And I don't know if it's gone so far that they can't fix it at this point.
I 100% agree so much that at some point, we, I think, have to wonder whether many of the European countries are allies or not.
And therefore, Greenland looms even larger.
That was a thought.
They're feckless, they're weak, and they're woke.
It's a very bad combination.
And the president was right to call them out.
They are destroying themselves from within.
It is a disaster.
I hope they do reverse course.
I don't expect that they will.
Anyway, appreciate your call, my friend.
800-94-1 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
This is an iHeart podcast.
Export Selection