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