May 8, 2024 • 26 mins
Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee joins us to discuss the fundraiser she attended for President Trump this weekend and the important legislation her office is passing this week on behalf of children.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I got you shut Han an hour two Sean Hannity
Show told for you. It's eight hundred and ninety four
one Sean, if you want to be a part of
the program. I guess the big story as relates to
the law fair, the unequal justice under the law that
we live through, the weaponized Department of Justice under Joe
(00:20):
Biden and politicized Department of Justice under Joe Biden just continues.
I mean, it's nothing but an outright circus in the
court today with Stormy Daniels and our testimony. Anyway, Greg
Jared is with US Fox News legal analyst, bestselling author.
What do you think the odds are that the DA's
(00:40):
office in New York City probably has a ton of
NDA agreements that they've signed over the years.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Oh, I'm sure they have. Look law firms, corporations. Congress, Congress,
you'll recall put together an i'm a fund of money
to pay off people in exchange for non disclosure agreements,
and they hit it for years and years. You know,
(01:10):
the indictment accuses Trump of falsifying business records. Forget that
there was nothing fault about them. These were legal payments
in exchange for a legal document. A non disclosure agreement
negotiated by two lawyers booked his legal expenses. Well, that's
what they were. So the primary charges in the indictment
(01:35):
are unprovable. I think, how does Stormy Daniels fit in? Well,
she doesn't. She was never privy to the internal accounting
of the payments she received from Michael Cohen. She adds
nothing to this case except the smear tromp with you know,
humiliating stories about her fleeting encounter with him, which by
(01:59):
the way, is questionable, you know Trump.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Well, by the way, we have her on the record
saying in two thousand, I think six, two thousand and age,
she goes through all the years, twenty twelve, twenty sixteen,
and then in writing twenty eighteen January of twenty eighteen
saying it never happened. I never received any hush money.
The money that she got, she said, was not quote
(02:23):
hush money, which by the way, would not even be
illegal if it was.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
That's right, you know, she, as you point out, in
writing in twenty eighteen, she reverses course and recants her
repudiation and that no affair ever happened. You know, I'm
sure that will be brought up and explored on cross examination.
And you know Daniels has multiple motives to lie advancing
(02:50):
her career, trying to justify the cash she pocketed in
what looks very much like a blackmail scheme in which
Trump is the victim. And she lost her quick sotic
defamation lawsuit against Trump and the court's order her to
pay six hundred thousand dollars to Trump in legal fees,
(03:12):
a sum that she still refuses to pay. She tweeted
at one point in time, I will go to jail
before I pay a penny. Well, in my judgment, that's
pretty good idea.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
All right, So we have lots of basically unpack here.
You're an attorney, Greg, Greg, your very good attorney. Can
you please tell me what the second charge is against
Donald Trump? Do you know what that is about? I
know we have a bookkeeping error that would have been
a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations have passed. What is
he being charged with? Can you tell me?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, drawing from my favorite line in Shakespeare in Love,
it's a mystery. Nobody really knows.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Now.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
We heard during opening statements from the prosecution fraud, conspiracy. Well,
take a look at the indictment that fraud and conspiracy
or nowhere any indictment they have alleged, you know, indirectly
that he violated campaign finance laws. But wait a minute.
(04:15):
The federal government has exclusive authority over campaign finance violations.
The FEC handles it civilly, the Department of Justice handles
it criminally. Bragg has, without authority, commandeered a federal law
(04:37):
and or statute over which he has no jurisdiction. Any
knowledgeable and competent and fair judge would have tossed the
case out on that basis alone. But instead, you know,
Trump stuck with Juan Marsham, who is allowing all kinds
(04:57):
of irrelevant information. And it's prejudicial. If you just look
at the rules of court criminal procedure in New York
four point zero six exclusion of relevant evidence. It must
be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the
(05:17):
danger that its admission would create undue prejudice to the defendant. Well,
that's exactly what's happening. So much of this, even Stormy
Daniel's testimony, which is immaterial because the payments have already
been introduced through other witnesses. The access Hollywood tape. All
of that is highly prejudicial, and frankly, it's immaterial and irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
I think the words immaterial and irrelevant really hit home here.
But let's go back and start with the opening argument.
You're right, they talked about a conspiracy again, things that
Donald Trump hasn't even been charged with. All we really
know is the allegation about is about a book keeping error.
Was this a somehow an in kind campaign donation, which
(06:06):
would be a misdemeanor under New York state law, whose
statute limitations have long since passed. And then they reach
into the federal criminal Code and pull out some convoluted,
unprecedented legal theory that had never been tried before. And
then you've got a former fundraiser, the third highest ranking
(06:28):
official at the Justice Department, you know, sent over leaving
his prestigious position there to run the case for Alvin Bragg,
which I think in and of itself is prejudicial. And
I would add, of course, then we have the issue
of a refusal a judge that donated to Biden, a
judge who's family, according to reports, may benefit financially from
(06:51):
this case based on the work of the judge's daughter.
Then we have the whole issue of the gag order,
which doesn't exist. For example, for the prosecution's chief witness,
Michael Cohene, who's giving commentary on the case apparently on
TikTok and asking for quote gifts from viewers. Does that
(07:12):
sound like, you know, a fair trial to you, because
it doesn't sound that fair to me.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
No, it's not a fair trial. The gag order is
blatantly unconstitutional or prior restraint on free speech. It's okay
for Michael Cohen to go on social media and make money,
by the way, trashing Trump and giving commentary about the trial,
condemning him as a criminal, but Trump is gagged.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
From responding well, and the judge was very firm and
saying that he's going to send him to jail if
he violates the gag order again. And then we have
people being questioned left and right. I saw the mayor
of New York question today, well, is Riker's Island prepared
to take Donald Trump in as a prisoner. Yeah, I
guess that's one way Donald Trump won't have to sit
(08:03):
in the courtroom. But I can tell you a story
after story about violent criminals arrested in New York and
they're out on the streets and seconds in Alvin Bragg's
New York City.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Well, look, Alvin Bragg campaigned, as Letitia James did, on
the promise to nail Trump. That's what he has done.
He has contorted the law, he has mangled the facts,
and he has brought an utterly meritless, almost laughable case
to you know, fulfill his promised to voters. You brought
(08:36):
up the issue of whether this constitutes a campaign contribution
and therefore a violation of the law. It does not.
And Hope Hicks, his former communications director, was on the
witness stand, completely undermining the prosecution's theory. She told the
jury that Trump's motive for dealing with Stormy Daniels suppressing
(09:00):
glacious story was to protect his wife, not the campaign.
That completely contradicts Bragg's central theory that Trump's intent was
to help his election and he therefore violated campaign laws.
The Feds, as I mentioned, have exclusive authority. They already
(09:20):
investigated the payment to Stormy Daniels, and they concluded this
does not constitute a campaign donation. No crime was committed,
you know, But Bragg decided that for political reasons, he
didn't care whether it's a legal or he is bound
and determined to try to convict Trump to interfere in
(09:44):
a presidential election to the benefit of Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
All right, But if you're on the jury, if you're
judging the jury and the judges allowing all of this
in which I think you know, Muddy's the waters in
so many different ways, and nobody's really explained what the
charge is is, how do you see this playing out?
What would you recommend to Trump's attorneys in terms of
how to approach this case as it relates to the law.
(10:11):
To get either a not guilty verdict or a hungury, they.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Have to keep it very very simple, where is the crime?
And actually, to some extent they did that yesterday with
the accountant on the witness stand who helped co and
arrange for the payments and reimbursements. And the very simple
direct question was is Michael Cohen a lawyer? Answer yes,
(10:39):
So these payments would then be legal expenses, would they not? Yes?
They would. Now that completely blows a hole in all
thirty four charges of fultifying business records because, as I mentioned,
how else are you going to call these things negotiating?
Speaker 1 (11:00):
But how does the jury put aside the salacious nature
of the testimony for example of Stormy Daniels or David Pecker.
And you know what the whole catch and kill operation
is that most people probably have never heard of before.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
You know, this is an effort by Bragg to slime
Trump with salacious, titillating stories, to try to portray him
as a bad guy. So you should convict him even
though he didn't commit any crimes. So you know, it's
a charade, and it's very difficult to convince jurors if
you're the defense, to see through the sham of the
(11:38):
indictment and the charges. Here. One of the things I
would do on cross examination with story Daniels is Jerry
said she didn't care about the money, She just wanted
to get the story out. Really, then why did you
and your lawyer pressure Trump and Michael Cohen into paying
her for her silence if you really wanted the story
(12:02):
to get out? So I don't know how she could
weeedle out of that, but she's a pretty good talker,
according to our reporter in the courtroom.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
As you followed this, And if they do keep it simple,
what was your read on the jury during jury selection?
I mean they have two lawyers on the jury. That
was an interesting selection from my point of view. But
you're in a venue where nine out of ten voters
didn't vote for Donald Trump, and you have a judge
that is obviously that should have recused himself, of my view,
(12:34):
for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
is he donated to Donald Trump's opponent in twenty twenty,
Joe Biden. And I sense in pretty much every ruling
that this judge is just just has it in for
Donald Trump. The jury's going to pick up on that too.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Oh absolutely. And you know, the judges have great influence
over jurors. When they make the rulings in front of jurors,
you know, they take a cue from the judge. You know,
he's on an elevated bench of authority with a black robe.
But more importantly, he dictates the jury instructions. A fair
(13:12):
judge in the jury instructions would explain to these jurors
that non disclosure agreements are not a crime. Suppressing stories
is not a crime. Reimbursing it is.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Not a crime.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
But I fear that this judge will not do that.
If I'm the defense. You ask about the jurors. I
have to assume that these jurors lied, that they do
have a political and personal agenda against Donald Trump, that
they likely wanted to get on the case to convict.
(13:50):
And you know, I frankly think putting two of the
lawyers who were normally always excluded from juries putting it
on there was a hail mary by the defense. I'm
hoping that these guys know the law and they will
see that the law doesn't support Alvin Bragg's case.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Last question, if there is a guilty verdict, do you
foresee an expedited appeal considering the impact this has on
the election in one hundred and eighty one days real quick?
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Well, I'd ask for it, but I'm not sure given
the makeup of the appellate courts in New York, you'll
get it. But I'm confident that in the end, the
violations by this judge are so egregious, The manipulation of
the law by Alvin Bragg is so obvious and egregious
that you know, I think this will be overturned on
(14:42):
appeal in the event of a conviction. But all you
need is one juror to hang this up, and that
could still.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Happen all right, Greg Jarrett, we appreciate you as always.
Thank you. Eight hundred ninety four. One show is on
number if you want to be a part of the program.
If you own a gun, this is a wake up call.
On a regular morning, a US Army vet, his name
was Brian, was attacked by by a man with a
steel pipe while with his family. Despite warnings, Brian was
(15:12):
forced to defend himself with his firearm, and in today's
twisted America, he was the one charge with first degree
murder and he was the one jailed. Now, Brian remembered
that his United States Concealed Carry Association membership included self
defense liability insurance. He reached out to the USCCA and
(15:33):
was immediately connected with a highly skilled legal team who
got the charges dropped and saved him from what would
be financial ruin and his life route. That's why I
have been a member of the USCCA for nine years.
Why because proving your innocence can destroy your life if
you're not prepared. Now, go to defendfamily dot com right now,
(15:55):
that's the website. Defendfamily dot com right now and start
your one hundred risk free USCCA membership And if you
sign up now you're going to get self defense liability insurance,
world class training, situational self defense training and firearms safety
instructions and vahanity listeners, well, six chances to win the
(16:18):
gun of your choice and up to one hundred and
fifty five dollars worth of free bonuses. Go to the
website now it's one word defendfamily dot com. And by
the way, how much is your freedom worth? Quick break
right back your calls on the other side. Eight hundred
and ninety four to one, Shawn our number as we
continue straight ahead, all right, twenty five to the top
of the hour, eight hundred ninety four one Sean. If
(16:40):
you want to join us, we'll get to your calls
in a few minutes. Here if you are looking for
a firearm that is easy to transport, and by the way,
you got to check it out at Henry Repeating Arms.
I'm telling you you're going to love this company HENRYUSA
dot com Slash Survival. Now, it's a portable rifle. You
can put it together, take it apart in just minutes,
(17:01):
and then when you're not using it, you can store
the parts in the convenient case that it comes in.
It's small so you can store it anywhere, and it's
light enough to carry everywhere. And it comes in either
black or two different camo patterns. You're gonna love it.
Check it out yourself Henry USA dot com slash Survival.
When you're there, check out, get their free catalog. They'll
(17:22):
send your free decals and a list of dealers where
you are. Henry makes over two hundred rifles and shotguns revolvers,
all made in the USA, all backed by a lifetime
satisfaction guarantee, and all you know, literally with the best
craftsmanship in the world. Go to their website HENRYUSA dot
com get your free catalog, free decals, list of dealers
(17:42):
where you are. All Right, before we get to the phones,
I want to just tell you Marshall Blackburn, the Senator
from Tennessee, will join us in a second to discuss
the fundraiser she attended for President Trump this weekend, and
more importantly, legislation that our office is passing this week
on behalf of Children, and it's to protect your kids online.
(18:07):
It will be signed into law this week, and the
Report Act, as they call it, will legally require big
tech companies to report crimes against children involving sex trafficking, grooming,
and the enticement of children for sexual acts to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Now, currently, criminal
(18:27):
law only requires companies to report child's sexual abuse materials.
That doesn't go far enough anyway. Here to explain it
before we get to your calls is Senator Marshall Blackburn. Hey, Senator,
how are you.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
I am doing well, Shawn, Thanks so much for having
me on.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
The scary thing is is parents they don't know what
their kids are seeing, and the kids are being targeted
online left or right. I actually know a group of
parents that have joined together and they actually all agreed
that they're not going to allow their kids online or
to have cell phones unless it's an emergency cell phone
(19:06):
with great limitations until they're like fifteen or sixteen years old.
They said they've had it. They don't want their kids
being targeted this way.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
And those are smart parents to do that, because what
we have learned in hearing after hearing and talking to
whistleblowers is that these social media companies know exactly what
is going on and shown there are laws in the
physical space that say you can't take a child into
(19:37):
a strip club You can't sell alcohol or tobacco, or
vapes or pornographic magazines to a child, but in the
virtual space, they are exposed to this every single day.
And what we are doing is through the Report Act,
we are beefing up the ability to tech children by
(20:02):
allowing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to
hold the information longer and be able to get these
pedophiles and these predators into court. They also will be
able to transfer this information over the cloud. Right now,
they're having to either print it all or they're having
(20:24):
to put it on the sum drive and transfer it
so that it can be used as evidence in court.
And requiring these social media platforms mandating that when they
have this pedophile and whether it's c SAM, pornography, abuse,
or exploitative material, they must report that. And that puts
(20:51):
that burden on that social media company and they're going
to have to do it. They're going to have to
begin to police these networks and pull this information out
and get it to nick make in a timely manner.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Let me ask you this, I was kind of shocked
you put up a post that said five to six
hundred children under the age of eighteen go missing. Every
single month in your great state of Tennessee. I was
shocked by that number.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
That's exactly right. Is that's the number that we have
from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. These are runaways. These
are children that go missing for a period of time.
Some of them are found, some of them remain missing.
But that is the number. And being able to get
(21:38):
this information is important in finding these children. And I
recently did an event with NFL alums and they are
making it their goal this year during the football season
to get information to parents of this. They know how
(22:01):
to pull DNA on their child, so they've got that
ready for law enforcement if an unfortunate occurrence were to
happen in their family and in their lives. Because we
should be protecting children. Nick Nick has thousands of cases
that they have not had the opportunity to follow up
(22:22):
on or to get into court. So what we need
to do with all these millions of images that are
coming to nick Nick every year. We need to get
these predators off the web. We need to get them
out of our communities, and we need to get them
prosecuted and locked up.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
I've plawed your hard work here and the fact that
you're taking this seriously because it needs to be taken seriously.
People have no idea. I've interviewed so many people over
the years about sex trafficking and human trafficking and children
and what they are subjected to online. It really does
shock the conscience. Anyway, Senator of Marshall Blackburn, Tennessee, thank you.
(23:07):
We appreciate you being with us.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Thanks eight hundred nine to four one, Sean, if you
want to be a part of the program, Jim in
the Free State of Texas, Sir, how are you glad
you called?
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Hey? I'm doing fantastic, Sean, and thanks for taking my call.
You know, everybody knows the Democratics the Democrats playbook. We've
been talking about it for months. Keep Trump off off
the campaign trail. Last thing I saw Wisconsin is basically
tied Pennsylvania, Arizona. The president is barely up. I believe
he needs to get his vice presidential nominee selected. He
(23:44):
needs to get him out there. He needs to get
him on the campaign trail to get his message out
while he's tied up in court. This is going to
be the most important vice presidential nominee ever because he
will be or she will be the presumptive presidential nominee
in four years.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Personal look, well, I mean maybe maybe not. I mean
probably you're right. I mean I would think so. But
I got to tell you this, and I think this
is very very important. Is you know, we do have
a deep bench. There are a lot of good people.
The names that I keep hearing the most are names
that you know, Senator Tim Scott, we hear about Marco
(24:25):
Rubio's name has come up quite a bit. We've heard.
I'm not sure if this this dog issue in Christy
Noman's book will impact President Trump's decision, but I know
her name had been mentioned quite a bit. The North
Dakota Governor burgham Is, his name has been mentioned a lot. JD.
Vance's name has been mentioned a lot. If I'm making
that selection, I'd be I'd be asking who brings the
(24:48):
most to the ticket and who is best qualified to
take over if God forbid something happens, and That's what
I'd be looking for. I do have my I do
have my favorites, but I'll keep that to myself. There's
no difference. Does it make I want? You know it's
going to be President Trump's decision and his alone.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
And he but he's gotta he's gotta make it. And
I think Tim Scott would be a fantastic choice. The
problem with Christy Noman she didn't eat the dog. If
she'd eaten the dog as Obama did, everything would have
been just fine.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Eat the dog as Obama did. What the hell are
you talking about?
Speaker 4 (25:20):
The story when Obama was running for president where that
they had eaten dog and well it was part of
his culture. You know, we hate dogs.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
I thought, I did the deepest dive of Obama. Linda,
do you remember that? Because I don't remember anything remotely
sounding like that.
Speaker 5 (25:36):
He does.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
He actually talks about it in Dreams for My Father,
in his book, he talked about it.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Maybe I have a vague I don't know what ever,
I don't who knows, who cares? Uh? But I appreciate.
I appreciate the call. Eight hundred and nine four one,
Shawn is on number. If you want to be a part.
Actually we have a cut of it. Okay, play it
with Lolo.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
I had learned how to eat small green raw with dinner,
plenty of rice, and away from the dinner table, I
was introduced to dog meat, tough snake meat tougher and
roasted grasshopper crunchy.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
I'm just saying, I.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
Know sometimes the audiences to hear it, you know, from
the horse's mouth.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
I honestly, with all the vetting I did of Obama,
I would have I would think I would remember that
because I can tell you everything you want to know
about about is radicalism. And I read the one that
was tasked with reading the books.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
That was my job.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
If you that's true, painful, painful task, Well I give
you the most important part of this job is researching
his crap. Eight hundred nine fall one, Shawn, our number
all right, quick break right back to our phones. Eight
hundred nine four one, Shawn. If you want to be
a part of the program,
I got you shut Han an hour two Sean Hannity
Show told for you. It's eight hundred and ninety four
one Sean, if you want to be a part of
the program. I guess the big story as relates to
the law fair, the unequal justice under the law that
we live through, the weaponized Department of Justice under Joe
(00:20):
Biden and politicized Department of Justice under Joe Biden just continues.
I mean, it's nothing but an outright circus in the
court today with Stormy Daniels and our testimony. Anyway, Greg
Jared is with US Fox News legal analyst, bestselling author.
What do you think the odds are that the DA's
(00:40):
office in New York City probably has a ton of
NDA agreements that they've signed over the years.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Oh, I'm sure they have. Look law firms, corporations. Congress, Congress,
you'll recall put together an i'm a fund of money
to pay off people in exchange for non disclosure agreements,
and they hit it for years and years. You know,
(01:10):
the indictment accuses Trump of falsifying business records. Forget that
there was nothing fault about them. These were legal payments
in exchange for a legal document. A non disclosure agreement
negotiated by two lawyers booked his legal expenses. Well, that's
what they were. So the primary charges in the indictment
(01:35):
are unprovable. I think, how does Stormy Daniels fit in? Well,
she doesn't. She was never privy to the internal accounting
of the payments she received from Michael Cohen. She adds
nothing to this case except the smear tromp with you know,
humiliating stories about her fleeting encounter with him, which by
(01:59):
the way, is questionable, you know Trump.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Well, by the way, we have her on the record
saying in two thousand, I think six, two thousand and age,
she goes through all the years, twenty twelve, twenty sixteen,
and then in writing twenty eighteen January of twenty eighteen
saying it never happened. I never received any hush money.
The money that she got, she said, was not quote
(02:23):
hush money, which by the way, would not even be
illegal if it was.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
That's right, you know, she, as you point out, in
writing in twenty eighteen, she reverses course and recants her
repudiation and that no affair ever happened. You know, I'm
sure that will be brought up and explored on cross examination.
And you know Daniels has multiple motives to lie advancing
(02:50):
her career, trying to justify the cash she pocketed in
what looks very much like a blackmail scheme in which
Trump is the victim. And she lost her quick sotic
defamation lawsuit against Trump and the court's order her to
pay six hundred thousand dollars to Trump in legal fees,
(03:12):
a sum that she still refuses to pay. She tweeted
at one point in time, I will go to jail
before I pay a penny. Well, in my judgment, that's
pretty good idea.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
All right, So we have lots of basically unpack here.
You're an attorney, Greg, Greg, your very good attorney. Can
you please tell me what the second charge is against
Donald Trump? Do you know what that is about? I
know we have a bookkeeping error that would have been
a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations have passed. What is
he being charged with? Can you tell me?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, drawing from my favorite line in Shakespeare in Love,
it's a mystery. Nobody really knows.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Now.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
We heard during opening statements from the prosecution fraud, conspiracy. Well,
take a look at the indictment that fraud and conspiracy
or nowhere any indictment they have alleged, you know, indirectly
that he violated campaign finance laws. But wait a minute.
(04:15):
The federal government has exclusive authority over campaign finance violations.
The FEC handles it civilly, the Department of Justice handles
it criminally. Bragg has, without authority, commandeered a federal law
(04:37):
and or statute over which he has no jurisdiction. Any
knowledgeable and competent and fair judge would have tossed the
case out on that basis alone. But instead, you know,
Trump stuck with Juan Marsham, who is allowing all kinds
(04:57):
of irrelevant information. And it's prejudicial. If you just look
at the rules of court criminal procedure in New York
four point zero six exclusion of relevant evidence. It must
be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the
(05:17):
danger that its admission would create undue prejudice to the defendant. Well,
that's exactly what's happening. So much of this, even Stormy
Daniel's testimony, which is immaterial because the payments have already
been introduced through other witnesses. The access Hollywood tape. All
of that is highly prejudicial, and frankly, it's immaterial and irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
I think the words immaterial and irrelevant really hit home here.
But let's go back and start with the opening argument.
You're right, they talked about a conspiracy again, things that
Donald Trump hasn't even been charged with. All we really
know is the allegation about is about a book keeping error.
Was this a somehow an in kind campaign donation, which
(06:06):
would be a misdemeanor under New York state law, whose
statute limitations have long since passed. And then they reach
into the federal criminal Code and pull out some convoluted,
unprecedented legal theory that had never been tried before. And
then you've got a former fundraiser, the third highest ranking
(06:28):
official at the Justice Department, you know, sent over leaving
his prestigious position there to run the case for Alvin Bragg,
which I think in and of itself is prejudicial. And
I would add, of course, then we have the issue
of a refusal a judge that donated to Biden, a
judge who's family, according to reports, may benefit financially from
(06:51):
this case based on the work of the judge's daughter.
Then we have the whole issue of the gag order,
which doesn't exist. For example, for the prosecution's chief witness,
Michael Cohene, who's giving commentary on the case apparently on
TikTok and asking for quote gifts from viewers. Does that
(07:12):
sound like, you know, a fair trial to you, because
it doesn't sound that fair to me.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
No, it's not a fair trial. The gag order is
blatantly unconstitutional or prior restraint on free speech. It's okay
for Michael Cohen to go on social media and make money,
by the way, trashing Trump and giving commentary about the trial,
condemning him as a criminal, but Trump is gagged.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
From responding well, and the judge was very firm and
saying that he's going to send him to jail if
he violates the gag order again. And then we have
people being questioned left and right. I saw the mayor
of New York question today, well, is Riker's Island prepared
to take Donald Trump in as a prisoner. Yeah, I
guess that's one way Donald Trump won't have to sit
(08:03):
in the courtroom. But I can tell you a story
after story about violent criminals arrested in New York and
they're out on the streets and seconds in Alvin Bragg's
New York City.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Well, look, Alvin Bragg campaigned, as Letitia James did, on
the promise to nail Trump. That's what he has done.
He has contorted the law, he has mangled the facts,
and he has brought an utterly meritless, almost laughable case
to you know, fulfill his promised to voters. You brought
(08:36):
up the issue of whether this constitutes a campaign contribution
and therefore a violation of the law. It does not.
And Hope Hicks, his former communications director, was on the
witness stand, completely undermining the prosecution's theory. She told the
jury that Trump's motive for dealing with Stormy Daniels suppressing
(09:00):
glacious story was to protect his wife, not the campaign.
That completely contradicts Bragg's central theory that Trump's intent was
to help his election and he therefore violated campaign laws.
The Feds, as I mentioned, have exclusive authority. They already
(09:20):
investigated the payment to Stormy Daniels, and they concluded this
does not constitute a campaign donation. No crime was committed,
you know, But Bragg decided that for political reasons, he
didn't care whether it's a legal or he is bound
and determined to try to convict Trump to interfere in
(09:44):
a presidential election to the benefit of Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
All right, But if you're on the jury, if you're
judging the jury and the judges allowing all of this
in which I think you know, Muddy's the waters in
so many different ways, and nobody's really explained what the
charge is is, how do you see this playing out?
What would you recommend to Trump's attorneys in terms of
how to approach this case as it relates to the law.
(10:11):
To get either a not guilty verdict or a hungury, they.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Have to keep it very very simple, where is the crime?
And actually, to some extent they did that yesterday with
the accountant on the witness stand who helped co and
arrange for the payments and reimbursements. And the very simple
direct question was is Michael Cohen a lawyer? Answer yes,
(10:39):
So these payments would then be legal expenses, would they not? Yes?
They would. Now that completely blows a hole in all
thirty four charges of fultifying business records because, as I mentioned,
how else are you going to call these things negotiating?
Speaker 1 (11:00):
But how does the jury put aside the salacious nature
of the testimony for example of Stormy Daniels or David Pecker.
And you know what the whole catch and kill operation
is that most people probably have never heard of before.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
You know, this is an effort by Bragg to slime
Trump with salacious, titillating stories, to try to portray him
as a bad guy. So you should convict him even
though he didn't commit any crimes. So you know, it's
a charade, and it's very difficult to convince jurors if
you're the defense, to see through the sham of the
(11:38):
indictment and the charges. Here. One of the things I
would do on cross examination with story Daniels is Jerry
said she didn't care about the money, She just wanted
to get the story out. Really, then why did you
and your lawyer pressure Trump and Michael Cohen into paying
her for her silence if you really wanted the story
(12:02):
to get out? So I don't know how she could
weeedle out of that, but she's a pretty good talker,
according to our reporter in the courtroom.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
As you followed this, And if they do keep it simple,
what was your read on the jury during jury selection?
I mean they have two lawyers on the jury. That
was an interesting selection from my point of view. But
you're in a venue where nine out of ten voters
didn't vote for Donald Trump, and you have a judge
that is obviously that should have recused himself, of my view,
(12:34):
for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
is he donated to Donald Trump's opponent in twenty twenty,
Joe Biden. And I sense in pretty much every ruling
that this judge is just just has it in for
Donald Trump. The jury's going to pick up on that too.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Oh absolutely. And you know, the judges have great influence
over jurors. When they make the rulings in front of jurors,
you know, they take a cue from the judge. You know,
he's on an elevated bench of authority with a black robe.
But more importantly, he dictates the jury instructions. A fair
(13:12):
judge in the jury instructions would explain to these jurors
that non disclosure agreements are not a crime. Suppressing stories
is not a crime. Reimbursing it is.
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Not a crime.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
But I fear that this judge will not do that.
If I'm the defense. You ask about the jurors. I
have to assume that these jurors lied, that they do
have a political and personal agenda against Donald Trump, that
they likely wanted to get on the case to convict.
(13:50):
And you know, I frankly think putting two of the
lawyers who were normally always excluded from juries putting it
on there was a hail mary by the defense. I'm
hoping that these guys know the law and they will
see that the law doesn't support Alvin Bragg's case.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Last question, if there is a guilty verdict, do you
foresee an expedited appeal considering the impact this has on
the election in one hundred and eighty one days real quick?
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Well, I'd ask for it, but I'm not sure given
the makeup of the appellate courts in New York, you'll
get it. But I'm confident that in the end, the
violations by this judge are so egregious, The manipulation of
the law by Alvin Bragg is so obvious and egregious
that you know, I think this will be overturned on
(14:42):
appeal in the event of a conviction. But all you
need is one juror to hang this up, and that
could still.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Happen all right, Greg Jarrett, we appreciate you as always.
Thank you. Eight hundred ninety four. One show is on
number if you want to be a part of the program.
If you own a gun, this is a wake up call.
On a regular morning, a US Army vet, his name
was Brian, was attacked by by a man with a
steel pipe while with his family. Despite warnings, Brian was
(15:12):
forced to defend himself with his firearm, and in today's
twisted America, he was the one charge with first degree
murder and he was the one jailed. Now, Brian remembered
that his United States Concealed Carry Association membership included self
defense liability insurance. He reached out to the USCCA and
(15:33):
was immediately connected with a highly skilled legal team who
got the charges dropped and saved him from what would
be financial ruin and his life route. That's why I
have been a member of the USCCA for nine years.
Why because proving your innocence can destroy your life if
you're not prepared. Now, go to defendfamily dot com right now,
(15:55):
that's the website. Defendfamily dot com right now and start
your one hundred risk free USCCA membership And if you
sign up now you're going to get self defense liability insurance,
world class training, situational self defense training and firearms safety
instructions and vahanity listeners, well, six chances to win the
(16:18):
gun of your choice and up to one hundred and
fifty five dollars worth of free bonuses. Go to the
website now it's one word defendfamily dot com. And by
the way, how much is your freedom worth? Quick break
right back your calls on the other side. Eight hundred
and ninety four to one, Shawn our number as we
continue straight ahead, all right, twenty five to the top
of the hour, eight hundred ninety four one Sean. If
(16:40):
you want to join us, we'll get to your calls
in a few minutes. Here if you are looking for
a firearm that is easy to transport, and by the way,
you got to check it out at Henry Repeating Arms.
I'm telling you you're going to love this company HENRYUSA
dot com Slash Survival. Now, it's a portable rifle. You
can put it together, take it apart in just minutes,
(17:01):
and then when you're not using it, you can store
the parts in the convenient case that it comes in.
It's small so you can store it anywhere, and it's
light enough to carry everywhere. And it comes in either
black or two different camo patterns. You're gonna love it.
Check it out yourself Henry USA dot com slash Survival.
When you're there, check out, get their free catalog. They'll
(17:22):
send your free decals and a list of dealers where
you are. Henry makes over two hundred rifles and shotguns revolvers,
all made in the USA, all backed by a lifetime
satisfaction guarantee, and all you know, literally with the best
craftsmanship in the world. Go to their website HENRYUSA dot
com get your free catalog, free decals, list of dealers
(17:42):
where you are. All Right, before we get to the phones,
I want to just tell you Marshall Blackburn, the Senator
from Tennessee, will join us in a second to discuss
the fundraiser she attended for President Trump this weekend, and
more importantly, legislation that our office is passing this week
on behalf of Children, and it's to protect your kids online.
(18:07):
It will be signed into law this week, and the
Report Act, as they call it, will legally require big
tech companies to report crimes against children involving sex trafficking, grooming,
and the enticement of children for sexual acts to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Now, currently, criminal
(18:27):
law only requires companies to report child's sexual abuse materials.
That doesn't go far enough anyway. Here to explain it
before we get to your calls is Senator Marshall Blackburn. Hey, Senator,
how are you.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
I am doing well, Shawn, Thanks so much for having
me on.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
The scary thing is is parents they don't know what
their kids are seeing, and the kids are being targeted
online left or right. I actually know a group of
parents that have joined together and they actually all agreed
that they're not going to allow their kids online or
to have cell phones unless it's an emergency cell phone
(19:06):
with great limitations until they're like fifteen or sixteen years old.
They said they've had it. They don't want their kids
being targeted this way.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
And those are smart parents to do that, because what
we have learned in hearing after hearing and talking to
whistleblowers is that these social media companies know exactly what
is going on and shown there are laws in the
physical space that say you can't take a child into
(19:37):
a strip club You can't sell alcohol or tobacco, or
vapes or pornographic magazines to a child, but in the
virtual space, they are exposed to this every single day.
And what we are doing is through the Report Act,
we are beefing up the ability to tech children by
(20:02):
allowing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to
hold the information longer and be able to get these
pedophiles and these predators into court. They also will be
able to transfer this information over the cloud. Right now,
they're having to either print it all or they're having
(20:24):
to put it on the sum drive and transfer it
so that it can be used as evidence in court.
And requiring these social media platforms mandating that when they
have this pedophile and whether it's c SAM, pornography, abuse,
or exploitative material, they must report that. And that puts
(20:51):
that burden on that social media company and they're going
to have to do it. They're going to have to
begin to police these networks and pull this information out
and get it to nick make in a timely manner.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Let me ask you this, I was kind of shocked
you put up a post that said five to six
hundred children under the age of eighteen go missing. Every
single month in your great state of Tennessee. I was
shocked by that number.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
That's exactly right. Is that's the number that we have
from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. These are runaways. These
are children that go missing for a period of time.
Some of them are found, some of them remain missing.
But that is the number. And being able to get
(21:38):
this information is important in finding these children. And I
recently did an event with NFL alums and they are
making it their goal this year during the football season
to get information to parents of this. They know how
(22:01):
to pull DNA on their child, so they've got that
ready for law enforcement if an unfortunate occurrence were to
happen in their family and in their lives. Because we
should be protecting children. Nick Nick has thousands of cases
that they have not had the opportunity to follow up
(22:22):
on or to get into court. So what we need
to do with all these millions of images that are
coming to nick Nick every year. We need to get
these predators off the web. We need to get them
out of our communities, and we need to get them
prosecuted and locked up.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
I've plawed your hard work here and the fact that
you're taking this seriously because it needs to be taken seriously.
People have no idea. I've interviewed so many people over
the years about sex trafficking and human trafficking and children
and what they are subjected to online. It really does
shock the conscience. Anyway, Senator of Marshall Blackburn, Tennessee, thank you.
(23:07):
We appreciate you being with us.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Thanks eight hundred nine to four one, Sean, if you
want to be a part of the program, Jim in
the Free State of Texas, Sir, how are you glad
you called?
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Hey? I'm doing fantastic, Sean, and thanks for taking my call.
You know, everybody knows the Democratics the Democrats playbook. We've
been talking about it for months. Keep Trump off off
the campaign trail. Last thing I saw Wisconsin is basically
tied Pennsylvania, Arizona. The president is barely up. I believe
he needs to get his vice presidential nominee selected. He
(23:44):
needs to get him out there. He needs to get
him on the campaign trail to get his message out
while he's tied up in court. This is going to
be the most important vice presidential nominee ever because he
will be or she will be the presumptive presidential nominee
in four years.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Personal look, well, I mean maybe maybe not. I mean
probably you're right. I mean I would think so. But
I got to tell you this, and I think this
is very very important. Is you know, we do have
a deep bench. There are a lot of good people.
The names that I keep hearing the most are names
that you know, Senator Tim Scott, we hear about Marco
(24:25):
Rubio's name has come up quite a bit. We've heard.
I'm not sure if this this dog issue in Christy
Noman's book will impact President Trump's decision, but I know
her name had been mentioned quite a bit. The North
Dakota Governor burgham Is, his name has been mentioned a lot. JD.
Vance's name has been mentioned a lot. If I'm making
that selection, I'd be I'd be asking who brings the
(24:48):
most to the ticket and who is best qualified to
take over if God forbid something happens, and That's what
I'd be looking for. I do have my I do
have my favorites, but I'll keep that to myself. There's
no difference. Does it make I want? You know it's
going to be President Trump's decision and his alone.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
And he but he's gotta he's gotta make it. And
I think Tim Scott would be a fantastic choice. The
problem with Christy Noman she didn't eat the dog. If
she'd eaten the dog as Obama did, everything would have
been just fine.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Eat the dog as Obama did. What the hell are
you talking about?
Speaker 4 (25:20):
The story when Obama was running for president where that
they had eaten dog and well it was part of
his culture. You know, we hate dogs.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
I thought, I did the deepest dive of Obama. Linda,
do you remember that? Because I don't remember anything remotely
sounding like that.
Speaker 5 (25:36):
He does.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
He actually talks about it in Dreams for My Father,
in his book, he talked about it.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Maybe I have a vague I don't know what ever,
I don't who knows, who cares? Uh? But I appreciate.
I appreciate the call. Eight hundred and nine four one,
Shawn is on number. If you want to be a part.
Actually we have a cut of it. Okay, play it
with Lolo.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
I had learned how to eat small green raw with dinner,
plenty of rice, and away from the dinner table, I
was introduced to dog meat, tough snake meat tougher and
roasted grasshopper crunchy.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
I'm just saying, I.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
Know sometimes the audiences to hear it, you know, from
the horse's mouth.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
I honestly, with all the vetting I did of Obama,
I would have I would think I would remember that
because I can tell you everything you want to know
about about is radicalism. And I read the one that
was tasked with reading the books.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
That was my job.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
If you that's true, painful, painful task, Well I give
you the most important part of this job is researching
his crap. Eight hundred nine fall one, Shawn, our number
all right, quick break right back to our phones. Eight
hundred nine four one, Shawn. If you want to be
a part of the program,
The Sean Hannity Show News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.