Welcome America. Congratulations. You live in the greatest country on the face of the planet. We have more prosperity than we've ever had before than any other people ever. We have a lot to be grateful for. But you know what, to have that privilege and to be stewards of a republic, it requires vigilance, It requires oversight, It requires challenging the status quo. You know what, the United States of America, we're different than everybody else because guess what, we get
to actually challenge. We get to actually have a first Amendment, we actually get to have a second Amendment. We actually get to challenge those in power, and that is so unique in the world. I'm Jason Chafit's filling in for Sean Hannity, thrilled to do so. We got a lot of great guests, and one of them, we're kicking this hour off with Brett Tolman. Now, Brett Tolman happens to be one of my favorite people on the planet. He's like a true cowboy, a rancher, loves his horses more
than well, just about anything else. He's a hunter. He's a former US attorney for the District of Utah. He heads up right on crime. And he's just a funny, good guy who actually knows his stuff. And he worked in the Senate in judiciary, so he knows it from that angle. But being the US attorney he helped prosecute in the Elizabeth Smart case. You've heard him, probably seen him. But one of the smartest legal people out there. And thrilled to have Brett Tolman joining us on the Sean
Hannity Show. Brett, welcome, Thank.
You, Jason.
Great to be with you.
Now, you better not fail after that. If that intro, you better not say no comment or something like that. I built you up like you couldn't be any higher on the pedestal. So let's make sure we knock this one out of the park. You know, I'm a guest here, so you know I want to get invited back. So all right, we got we got to talk about, you know, Unfortunately Charlie Kirk, it's hard to believe this case continues on and on and on, as probably far too many
people know. I was there when it happened. I saw it. I was looking directly at Charlie when he was assassinated. First question I have for you, because there were a couple the judges has made a couple of rulings here. One is about the fate of the death penalty, which I want to ask you about. The other one was about reprimanding the prosecutor for violating a gag order. But my first question is why in the world is this
taking so long? I mean, swiftness helps both sides, right, it's why is this case taking.
Foreff Well, Jason, I agree with you.
I mean, this is a case in which, you know, justice prolonged is justice denied. And the longer it goes, it actually, you know, it benefits the defense because the issues arise, more time to think about potential motions, they can send their investigators out, they can they can stir issues like they've done, you know, to date. And this
last one is an issue they made. The defense made some misstatements and they mischaracterize the forensic evidence surrounding the bullet and so the government, which I think made an unforced there. But the government went on you know, the media and tried to correct that. And that's that's an example of when you take too long, you're just you're just waiting to create more issues for the defense to try to capitalize on.
It.
So, I'm not a huge fan of gag orders. Explain to me why we even have to have a gag order and why can't the prosecutors actually work and be able to say, hey, let us clarify from our side of the view. You you are the ones that talked about it. Now, how come we don't get to talk about exactly.
I'm not a fan of gag orders. I will tell you that the only time a gag order is really necessary is when you're trying to protect identities of witnesses, potential you know, cooperators, right, the safety of individuals.
We don't have that in this case.
We don't have that. In fact, we have one of the more renowned assassinations that's occurred in our country. We have all kinds of media that's already been you know, it exists, it's there, everybody knows what's going on.
This is the case.
It's an example of you don't need the gag order. Try the case, get in there, push it, you know, be be resolved to make decisions quickly. This judge, you know, historically and my experience with him, I've been in that courtroom.
The decisions were not you know, they didn't take this long and there wasn't as much hand ringing, And I think it could be an example of just the overwhelming nature of the case itself and the dynamic that we now see where you have the assassination of one of the more famous peoples in this country, of really good man, a friend of mine and of yours, And so I think all of that you weigh that in the balance of a judge, and unfortunately, I think they believe that,
you know, more thoughtfulness and more process might be what's needed in a high profile case, but that's not what we need.
And I think cases like O. J.
Simpson and others kind of prove that that's sometimes a recipe for disaster.
Well, and we haven't even begun the process of jury selection and how long that's going to go on. And you know, they can argue a change of venue. You know, given that in Utah County where this uh, you know, where this assassination happened, they're going to argue that ninety nine percent of the people already know about this. But where do you see that going.
Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, look at the last couple motions. You had a motion to do something that's never done, and that is to actually confront one of the witnesses in the case at.
The preliminary hering, and in this case.
The friend or boyfriend of the defendant, and they filed a motion to do it that should have been ruled on immediately when they filed it, Like, that's never granted they can use here say it's a preliminary hearing. You don't get to confront the witness.
At that stage.
And yet that's an example of how you know it's been dragged out. Let's let's stop this, let's get this moving, get to jury selection, get past the venue. You you dismissed that motion almost immediately as well, because it's just as notorious in any other county in Utah.
Yeah, I think they need to it again. It's it's solely up to the judge, right, I mean, he's got to accelerate this now. The other thing that your judge did is said that the death penalty can stay in play here. What's your take on that ruling?
Yeah, it was a good decision what the defense was trying to do for your audience there, and Esen said, there's a violation of the gagoger because the prosecution went to the media. And between you and me, Jason, if you're going to go to the media, don't go to TMZ first, right, good?
But yeah, I hear you.
Yeah, I mean go to a sources that perhaps you know, Fox News would be the appropriate.
One in my view, because you're just trying.
To correct a record and you're not trying to do anything to jeopardize, you know, our prejudice. The case, the court found that there was a violation of the gag order, so a sanction has to be given. The defense said, well, the sanction should be we take the death penalty off the place, which is absolutely random and outrageous.
You would not remove.
A potential penalty based on a misconduct by the prosecution. An appropriate sanction would be, you know that particular evidence might not be visited, or there might be evidence that you allow in that you might otherwise not based on
the conduct or misconduct. But for here, they're overreaching and they wanted to get rid of the death and I so the judge is very good, this is an example of what he should should do in other instances and just immediately rule on it and say no, we're not getting rid of one of the potential penalties that are involved in an assassination.
Well, I just hope that they accelerate this because it is taking far too long and justice needs to be served for a variety of reasons, and they need to get on with it. All these motions they can continue in perpetuity in my opinion. All right, let's transition here, Brett, while I still have you here, I want to talk about some of these attacks on President Trump. I mean, you got these judges that are really really going after Donald Trump for all the wrong reasons. But the appellate court,
the Appeals Court issued a writ of mandamus. I don't even know what that is. I should, but I don't explain to us what that is. This has to go back to Judge James Boseburg. He's a gem. Explain to us what's happening there.
Yeah, I mean, there are rare instances in which an appellate court can actually take a look at something, even if it doesn't, you know, even if it doesn't get pushed to them through a final judgment. But if they see, for example, a judge that violates an order below based on a ruling that they've made, then there are extraordinary things that can happen from an appellate court. One of those is a rid of mandamus, in which the court says, get in here, everybody will get in here on this issue,
because you violated our order. It is rare, it's unusual. It's interesting to see that there's some activity. It gives, you know, there, I'm hopeful based on some of the rulings of the Supreme Court, and I'm hopeful that the message starts to get I mean, we thought that that nationwide injunctions were over based on two rulings of the Supreme Court, but we see they still try they're still trying to do those and so it's also a way to expedite getting it up to the Supreme Court for
a final ruling. And then I mean, if they if they violate after that, we will be in fairly unchartered ground. And the question will be at one point, is a judge in capable of issuing, you know, or deciding on an issue, and at that moment, if they refuse to follow,
that's absolutely grounds for impeachment. That's why impeachment is there, because if a judge continues to issue unconstitutional and unlawful orders, that's that's that's why we put in, you know, in the Constitution of a basis to getting rid of individuals that wouldn't follow law.
Yeah, I do feel like this is this is one of those cases where they just unrelenting and what appears to be such driven political points as opposed to if you play and you look back at what Josh Holly did. I think it was yesterday and going after one of these activist judges. I don't know if you saw that clip, but he was pretty good. I think we have this cut to.
What I said I did.
You didn't resign from Jones Day, Senator.
I did not resign from Jonesy because of any particular representation.
All right, So it wasn't it wasn't a moral You had no moral.
Quandaries, Absolutely not, Senator.
I had no moral.
Quandaries with any of the cases at Jones Day. That's your testimony, Senator.
I left the firm in January of twenty twenty one because I was offered an opportunity to return to public service. It's an opportunity the firm supported and that I took.
You had no quandaries with them representing in the Trump litigation you have, Senator, that's your.
Testimony, Senator, I did not leave my firm because of that representation. I left my problem firm. Senator. I left the firm months later because I received an opportunity to return.
No problem with that. And you have no problem representing the bondholder. So your your testimony is you're you're happy to represent anybody who comes your way. Donald Trump, you bet the bond holders, you bet hedge funds, you bet whoever. That's that's your testimony. So I'll make sure I got it right, Senator.
Throughout my career, I have adhered to the code of ethics that all lawyers are bound by.
Sure, but the code of ethics allow you to make money from anybody. I'm listening. You can choose your clients. I'm not accusing you of any ethical violations at all.
I'm not.
I'm just trying to figure out why you thought it was important to have these hedge funds as your clients, and if you had any moral quandaries. And your testimony is you didn't have any moral quandaries, which is fine, But I just wonder if that's the best judgment.
What do you make of this exchange. I don't know the whole case and what she's dealing with. But I thought Holly was actually pretty good at making this point.
It was very good. You know, you're getting under someone's skin when they continue every sentence they begin it with senator, Yeah, tell, isn't it?
Yes?
Right, it's a tell for sure? But she what what?
Where they're where they're struggling is.
People are vocal, and before they get into a nomination hearing, they're posting, they're telling people, and we're learning that there's extreme bias on the left, extreme bias.
And what I mean by that is they look at you look at the you know, the reflection pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
Right, any other generation, any other president that decides this thing needs to be cleaned up and made beautiful, they're going to be praised from either side. Yeah, with Trump doesn't matter. And you see then when we're nominating or getting people that are in positions or we're trying to question individuals who have been on the.
Left and their.
Vocal critics, it's at a depth of level and emotion that we don't necessarily experience on the right. They experience it on the left because they know that they are hanging their their ability to hold onto power is hanging in the balance on all of this, and if it's not what the American people want, and so they push, and they use hyperbole and exaggeration, and they outright lie
and use deception. And then above that, Jason, the thing that is so hard for me is is this notion that violence is okay?
Have Yeah, No, it's we got Brett. We could talk a lot more about this. I love that you're in the fight and understand this so well. Thank you so much for joining us with Sean Handy. Stay with us.
We're going to be right back, John Hannity.
All right, I want you to check this out when you have a chance. Jason in the House, Jason in the House. That's all you need to remember. You can catch me on Instagram, Facebook, h X, and you go to Jason Inthehouse dot com. You can check out all it. I've written five books, four of which are New York Times bestsellers, including The Deep State, and the one that I'm really excited about that's more recent is They're coming for you. That's what we're talking about with AI and
how they're going to use these tools. We got a lot more coming up with Sean Hannity, Stay with us, We'll be right back.
The one thing you can always count on, Sean Hannity is back on the radio.
Well, he'll be back soon soon. If I'm Jason Chafits, I'm filling in for Sean. It's Tune twenty six. We're getting ready for fourth of July, and we got something special here with America two fifty. You're gonna love. I think our next guest here, his name is a Bradley Devlin. He's the politics editor at the Daily Signal. And if you're not following at Daily Signal, you should be a lot of good content, a lot of good stuff there.
I'm going to go to this cut number one because this is going to set up what we're going to talk about with Bradley Devlin. This is sacred honor, the declaration that defies, that defines a nation. It's the trailer, and so let's go to cut one.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, but they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. But among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sure these rights, governments are instituted among men.
Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive.
Of these inns, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new.
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as shouted them seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.
For the support of this declaration, for the firm reliance and the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives.
Are fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Bradley Devlin is, like you said, he's of politics editor at The Daily Signal and he's also a documentary filmmaker. I recognize Senator Mike Lee in there, just because he's got that distinctive voice. Bradley, we welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. Tell us what you've done, why you did it, and where people can see this.
Well, Jason, it's good to be with you, and thank you to you and your team for playing the trailer. Yes, you heard Mike Lee, you heard Senator Eric Schmidt from Missouri. You had heard Representative Brandon Gill from Texas, and you'll hear a few other voices special guests when this thing premieres on July second. The reason that we did this
is because America Face is a real choice. You know, there was just a Gallup poll this morning that came out that's just forty five percent of gen Zer's reporting report lacking meaning or purpose or both their lives. And they are getting to the age that the founding fathers were when they made that pledge, that solemn pledge, that pledge of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for their unalienable rights. Jefferson was thirty three, Madison was
twenty five, Monroe is just eighteen at the time. And we made this to try to inspire people to a higher form of politics, to recover the virtues that our founders displayed through their political action, to save this country, to save the republic that they entrusted to us. Because every generation has to recommit themselves to that pledge, that pledge of their sacred honor for those rights, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, because if it goes wrong.
Marx was twenty nine, Engels was twenty seven when they wrote The Communist manifesto. Fidel was thirty and Chae Guervo was twenty seven when Cuba had its revolution. So it could go one or two ways for this country in the next two hundred and fifty years. We could lose it a whole lot quicker than that.
And that's why we made this well, I mean, the timing couldn't be better. It is so needed and so desperate. Let's go back to that poll, because you know, generations, they have different experiences. Like it's hard for me to believe. I'm still having a hard time like admitting it. But I have six grandkids and we got a three year old grandchild and she's just so cute, so wonderful. Well, she knows how to take that phone of her mom. She doesn't have her own phone, but she dicks her
mom's phone. She can type in the four digits. She knows the four numbers, and then she hits the little green button and that's the face time and then she can see my picture and she'll hit it and I'll get a couple of times a day I'll get this sweet little grandchild will be facetiming me because she's already and she's three and so like the whole world is so different that the it's just upside. It's just different than how, you know, the rotary phones that I had
when I was growing up. So but this, this pole, this gallup pole, it really is disturbing. Walk us through what this generation, these new younger generations are going through.
Yeah, this is you know, I'm so glad that your grandchildren are using it to connect with their family. But most people aren't riting that technology in this way. They are using it and becoming more isolated and more insular. And as they become more isolated and more insular, they're feeling lonely. They don't feel like they're part of something higher, part of something meaningful, part of something as a collective, whether that's a community or a locality, right, your local
rotary club or a church, or it's something bigger. It's the nation, right, it's this country that every generation has fought to defend. And I see these trends and how familiar they are to other episodes in history that we just talked about. Right, Marx and Angles are writing the Communist Manifesto amongst a large upheaval in Europe and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. How do we adjust to that major change. You can go one or two ways.
We can you know, answer the call of the Enlightenment and mix that modern and ancient thinking into something like the Founding, or it can go terrible and we get something like the Russian Revolution and the Communist Manifesto a few decades before it. Or we have the communist revolutions that follow the upheaval and the destruction that was World War Two. And here we are today, Jason, in a
very similar situation. We have Ai. Right, Pope Leo chose his name because he's hearkening back to the previous Pope Leo, who was in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. He says, we're going to go through something similar here with the AI Revolution, and we need to make sure that we're protecting human dignity, reminding each other what it means to be human and what it means to be human. I think is encapsulated so well in our Founding story. It's
a political story. The Declaration of Independence is this culmination of one of the greatest political acts in history. It's not just principles that come out of nowhere. It is a fierce contest of ambitions and convictions and interests, and they have to navigate that as a collective and as a collective that's really operating together as the first time.
They're figuring out the hierarchy in that room and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and they're figuring out what their collective identity is based on the heritage they had received from Britain. And so here we are. We need to recover what it means to be an American, what it means to be human, even at a more fundamental level, and that's how we're going to be able to address these problems that are emerging from this technological revolution that's happening right before our eyes.
Yeah, the technology itself, it can be good, right think of what it advances in medicine and the research that you can do. But it can also be bad. It can be at downright evil, and I think it's scary in many ways. I wrote an op ad a few months ago for Foxnews dot com and the op ed was basically, it's the one issue artificial intelligence that's scaring everybody, and yet each political party, no political party, has taken a definitive stance on how it fits in today's culture.
And if we don't adhere and stay true to the principles in our founding documents, then shame on us because it will overwhelm us. I just posted up Jason in the house. You go to my x account, and I tweeted out Mark Theesen. He had something that came that was the research done by the Washington Post about how AI is being trained up to be very leftists, that only x AI is being trained to have more of
a balance in its approach. But if you think that we're going to be relying on AI to do everything, and that they are the evil sides, that evil forces, if you will, that aren't going to do you think they're just going to sit by and let this happen. No, they're going to want to manipulate these models and redefine history and redefine who we are as a people. And that is a thing. And then you've got this whole generation,
and Bradley, I want you to talk about this. You got this generation that gauges the success of their life, their worthiness based on how many likes and how many people are following them like it's a contest. And it's so destructive to a young generation into an older generation.
I mean, so many great points there, Jason, And especially when it comes to getting the getting the shock, the hit of having the likes pour in or the reposts pour in. I mean, this is what it's all about.
Right.
They have isolated themselves and now they've replaced real community with a fake community, a fake community that can only register its presence or its love for you in the form of likes and clicks and all of that. And AI has a very similar function. Not only is it leftist, Jason, of course we expected that. We saw it is a black George Washington. When Google first came out with his AI, everybody saw how ridiculous that was. But it's also a flatterer.
And that's what's so dangerous too. We've seen this really be a cancer on the minds of so many young people, so many people in gen Z and even Jen Alfin now who have committed terrible acts against themselves, even up to suicide, because AI has ed them on. And that's what it's a flatterer. And so the first impulse that you have politically when you see a problem like that, it's going to be what's a limiting principle? And I'm
not inherently against limiting principles. You want to be able to find a place where you can stake your flag in the ground and stake it deep so that it lasts for generations. But what the Founding story tells us about how to confront these problems, even for people in my age demographic, young folks around you know, twenty to thirty five, is it's not a limiting principle. It's a virtue. It's the highest virtue in politics, and that's prudence. It's judgment.
It's cultivating that judgment and being a flatterer as Ai is to you telling you, no, that's perfect. Oh, do more of that? Yeah, yeah, just one more bite of that apple, mister Eve or mister Adam and missus Eve. That is what can really derail you. The Founders are not flatterers in any way, shape or form. They were strong, great men, and I think the miracle of the Founding is that there were so many great men of history
in a single room. And so we need to recover that sense of who we are and develop that virtue of prudence by understanding our history and knowing our history so that we're not replacing a real community with fake communities. Whether or not that lives in a chatbot or on your favorite social media program.
So what I hear you saying, and I totally one hundred percent agree. You got to get the principle's right, you know, I had when I served in Congress, we
had this. I kind of teach this to young staffers Washington, DC is often run by twenty year olds, right, And I'd say, and I would drop on the board, the whiteboard, and at the top I'd write principle and then I'd put a line under it, and then I'd put policy underneath that, and it's It was a reminder visually for them and for me to just say, principle over policy. I can answer any policy quench question if you get the principle right. And I think that's the issues that
people are facing today can be answered. And I maybe it's an oversimplification and somebody could help me here, but if you get the principle's right of how you want to lead your life and what you want to do.
And the second part of that is at least for me personally, I believe in prayer, and I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe in a religion and a higher being in the reality of Jesus Christ, and that prayer and that ability to communicate and to be inspired is something that drives me and that informs me, and they can keep me centered if I don't get off direct.
Ugh, I mean absolutely, and just the prayer to be thankful for the existence of God in the first place, because without God, there is no principles to which we can find, and there is no objective truth. There is no enduring, eternal thing that we can point to and
orient ourselves in the world. Right, And that's what that's what makes the declaration so powerful is it's this mixture of modern political philosophy and ancient political philosophy all infused with Christian teaching that tells us not only to just go to the policy, but to go to the principle. And not only did just go to principles, but go to first principles. Right, we talk about how this may
build off built off of consent we the people. Well, consent is actually a second order principle from equality.
That is Bradley where Bradley Devlin, congratulations, Politics editor editor at the Daily Signal, and you've got a documentary sacred honor the Declaration that defines a nation coming out. I believe you said July second, So watch for that. Thanks so much for joining us on the Sean Hannity Show. Do appreciate it. We'll be right back, Kennedy.
Watch keep it an eye on breaking news and bringing it to you first.
Sean Hannity.
Tay, Congratulations to the United States. I think the country has been doing a heck of a job, a great job and hosting the World Cup. I think people coming all over the world watching their teams play. I think it's been exceptionally well orchestrated. The security line seem to be good, they seem to be working, and the USA team's doing really well. You're seeing a surge of patriotism that's flowing through like you've never we haven't seen in
some of these other leagues and whatnot. In the next game, market July first, eight pm Eastern, that's when the US will be taking on Bosnia and Herzegovnia, and it's going to be a great game. Congratulations is the US. We'll be right back, Stay with us. MHM.