And we're back with a Sean Hannity Show on Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. I'm a Fox News legal analyst, former trial attorney. Sean's taking a few days off. We're going to be taking your phone calls very shortly, and we do have some callers here and I'll ask them to stand by.
Thank you for calling. Just hang in there. We'll get to you in just a moment.
For those who would like to post some questions or offer comments, please give us a call. The number is one eight hundred nine four one seven three two six one eight hundred nine four one seven three two six All right. On Tuesday, primary elections were held coast to coast, and the endorsement power of President Trump was on full display. The candidates that he backed went, according to the President, thirty seven to zero. In other words, they all won.
And that was no small accomplishment because you know, several of them were high profile ballot box showdowns. For example, Trump was determined to get rid of GOP Representative Thomas Massey Kentucky's fourth congressional district, who had developed into a very outspoken critic of the president. Massey denounced Trump's foreign policy, including the Iran conflict, and he also blamed Trump for slow walking the release of the Epstein files. Well, guess what.
It turned out that the voters in Kentucky got fed up with Massey and his efforts to undermine the President's agenda. The congressman, who had held that seat for fourteen years, was soundly defeated by a newcomer for whom Trump had campaigned. Massey lost by almost ten points, which is an astonished rejection of an incumbent. In the Senate race in Kentucky, the Trump back candidate cruised the nomination to succeed retiring Senator Mitch McConnell, rejecting McConnell's handpicked candidate.
Trump's chosen candidate.
Also move forward in Alabama, in Georgia, in Louisiana. In that last state, Louisiana, Trump went out of his way to get rid of incumbent Senator Bill Cassidy, who has long been a thorn in the President's side. Cassidy got absolutely crushed. So what's the message, Well, it seems to be this oppose Trump at your own peril, because he will flect his political muscles to exert payback on Republicans who defy him, and the question now is will any
of that translate to the general elections in November. Well, joining me now to talk about it is my old friend Doug Sean, who was a lawyer and a veteran political analyst. And I always turned to Doug because he's a Democrat whom I trust to be candid and accurate in his assessments. He's not afraid to criticize his own party when warranted. So Doug, thanks for taking the time to be here. I appreciate it, and I always learn
a lot from you. And before we get to states like Georgia and Texas, which are important and it could spell trouble for Republicans in November, what's your reaction to the powerful influence that Trump had this week in various primaries.
You know, Greg, the conventional wisdom now is that the Republicans are going to get badly beaten in the midterms, and that could well certainly happened. But my message and my takeaway, Greg, and thank you for a very kind introduction, is that the power of Trump to mobilize voters is frankly as great as you state it to be. And
the president represents it to be. And in a midterm election where the issue is turnout, who's going to vote, it would seem to me that the greatest asset that the GOP has and GOP candidates have is one Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States, in mobilizing voters who might otherwise not be so inclined to vote when prices are high. Were currently in a war that we'd all like to successfully get out of, and midterms, as you know and we have discussed previously, tend to break against
the incumbent party. So I think the takeaway is much more good news for the Republicans than we might have anticipated a week or two ago.
Yeah, I think you're right. In fact, I talked to Trump about it. He's well aware of the risks involved in a midterm elections for the sitting president, you know, it always goes against him historically, and he said, look, I'm going to go out and I'm going to campaign as if it's a general election for president, and I'm on the ballot on the midterm. So we'll wait and
see if that works. But I want to talk to you about Texas because Trump waited until the last minute to endorse the state attorney General Ken Paxton, or the President describes as a true MAGA warrior. You know, there's one week to go into the runoff election against the incumbent Senator John Cornyn, and some political pros thing Paxton is a gift to Democrats, making it easier for them to flip the Texas seat with their chosen candidate, James Talerico,
who's built quite a war chest. It's felt that Cornyn was better equipped to successfully defend the seat in Texas.
What do you think, god.
Well, I guess the conventional political wisdom would be exactly that Greg, that a more quote moderate mainstream Republican like Cornyan would do better than a more activist attorney general such as Ken Paxton. I think the problem is, first, the polling today shows that the margin between Paxton and Cornyan in the primaries very close, and there wasn't a clear advantage for Cornyan in the general election. Maybe a
point or two maybe, but I don't see it. But to me, the key variable is Trump, and I believe that the Trump endorsement Greg will as it did in Louisiana and as it did in Georgia and Alabama, as you suggested, I think it'll probably be enough to pull Packson over the finish line and everything I've seen of Texas,
and you know, you're right. I'm a veteran, but going back many many years, Texas is a reliably red state that my party always believes it's going to win and somehow never manages to do so, at least in recent memory. So I'd make Paxt a narrow favorite, assuming he is
the nominee, and that's a big assumption, goes. We haven't had the run up, but I don't think he's going to be appreciably weaker because the Republican brand and the Trump brand, I think are going to be what impels people to vote less than perhaps some of the issues that Paxton has faced in the past.
Yeah, I think you're right about that, Doug.
You know, primaries are one thing, general elections or another, Especially, as I said before, when the party in power faces traditional headwins, it's always a challenging political climate. Historically, the party that controls the White House tends to lose seats in Congress during the subsequent mid terms. It happened to Trump in twenty eighteen, certainly happened to most Democrats presidents as well. And look, Trump is getting battered in the polls.
I saw the it came out yesterday, the Fox News polls. Opposition to the Iran conflict grows despite the belief that the US is winning, and economic anxiety seems to be deepening among Americans. That could be troubling for people who vote their wallets and they invariably do they step into the voting booth and say what affects me the most, well, my empty wallet. And so Democrats are making affordability the issue that they're going to run on.
So smart move, I think it is. Greg My party's basic strategy is we don't have a message. We don't have a messenger, and we have the polarization and division between the far left in the more moderate wing of the party, which the progressive seemed to be winning, if I am any judge of it. So basically, my party sort of says, we don't have anything to run on ourselves,
so we got to run against Trump. And the one issue that we run on is the one, frankly that Trump ran on himself, which is it's too darn difficult to make it in America. Prices are too darn high and Flacusnes is too high, and so vote against the incumbent because you have to hold somebody accountable. That's my party's best argument. They really don't have much else going for them other than that.
Well, you say they don't have a messenger Kamala, Come on, man, Kamala is out there.
You know, she's got all kinds of ideas.
Well, Greg, I mean, I think the chance that he see has to be the nominee is about zero. Even though she's got more name recognition, she doesn't have appreciably more votes. And my experience with her, both in the presidential general election in twenty twenty four and when she was a primary candidate in twenty twenty is that the more people see her, the less they like her.
Yeah.
Yeah, you know, Republicans should advocate the Kammaly get out there more in talk because when she talks, it's an auto turn off.
You know, Republicans seem to be winning the war.
On redistricting lately. The Spreme Court finally put a halt to Democrats racial jerry mandarin in the Louisiana decision, so they could lose a number of seats in the South and Midwest. As maps are being withdrawn as a consequence of that ruling, and political jerry mandarine backfired spectacularly in Virginia, whereas Republicans have actually successfully redrawn maps in their favor elsewhere. But you know, changing the maps may not be good enough, right, I mean, how do you handicap that?
Well, it really is a question of how much the anti incumbent sentiment, the anti Republican sentiment, how strong that is because we're going to have a lot of, as you suggest, correctly, new districts, a lot of new candidates, and invariably these house races greg have become more a test of incumbent versus out party than it is candidate A versus candidate B. I would say at this point,
you're right on both your assertions. You're right to say that the Republicans have clearly benefited from the redistricting wars so far in the court decisions. But it's also the case that we really don't have a sense as to where the generic vote laws. I've seen everything from dead even to plus in the most extreme left wing pole New York Times poll plus eleven Democrats. I assume the Democrats are narrowly ahead, But if they're narrowly head three,
four or five points in the generic vote. That means that a lot of these races are going to be very very close, and no trend is at this point discernible.
You know, I tend to ignore the generic ballot because you know, you're really in the house talking about district races, and it really comes down to whether voters like that particular representative. So isn't the generic ballot sort of misleading?
It is when it's very close, because it doesn't provide a clear tip off. But if it's you know, in twenty eighteen, it was eight to ten points for the Democrats, and when it gets that high, you have what you'd call in that instance, a blue wave. In twenty twenty four, we had something of a red wave. Certainly twenty ten, which we both remember when Obama said we got pasted,
there was a red wave against Obamacare. So I think, again, it's still too early to say, but if the generic vote is relatively close, I think you're almost certainly correct that it'll come down to a candidate to candidate, district to district fight. And it's not lost on me that Trump of the Republicans will bring you bringing over three hundred and fifty million dollars to bear out from outside the system, plus whatever the candidates themselves and the party's race.
Let me ask you one final question in thrown to the mixed fraud scandals. You know, these multi billion dollar fraud scandals, they happen in blue cities and states. They have created constant headlines. There's another one today in Minnesota, ninety billion in fraud. And it damage is Democrats who are in charge as either enabling the fraudsters or turning a blind eye to it, as Tim Waltz has done
in Minnesota. And of course voting taxpayers don't like it one bit when they're ripped off of their hard earned dollars. A factor in the socialist mayors in places like New York City and Seattle have managed to drive away businesses and sap budget revenues as a consequence, and that hurts Democrats as well. Doesn't that impact the midterms?
You know you are raising greg an issue that is I think emerging in people's consciousness because it is just a fact that democratic blue cities, particularly those with far left mayors, are badly administered. But badly administered is very different than ninety billion dollars in fraud, and if the Republicans run against fraud and corruption, I think they have a chance to neutralize an issue that arguably would be one that the Democrats would prefer to deploy against them.
Yeah, Doug Seawan, you're great. Thank you so much for taking the time. We appreciate it. Will be right back more of the Sean Hannity Show. I'll be taking your phone.
Calls, John Hennity.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show on Greg Jarrett. We're going to be getting to your phone calls in a couple of minutes. It's Keipen coming. The number is one eight hundred nine four one seventy three twenty six one eight hundred nine four one Sean. If you have a question or a comment to make, I'd love to hear from you. We've got callers standing by.
Hang on.
There will be right to you.
You can't always believe what the other side claims.
That's why there's the Sean Hannity.
No truer words were spoken.
I'm Greg Jared Filling and for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
Time now to get to your phone calls, and we appreciate the callers on the line. Stand by. I'm going to get right to you.
Our number is one eight hundred and nine four one seven, three two six. If you haven't called yet, give us a call, one eight hundred and nine to four to one.
Sean.
All right, let's get right to it. Buffalo, New York. Tom is standing by with a question or comment. Hey Tom, how are you good?
It's not going to be on your show. My comment is, I'm wondering if President Trump would consider bombing Iran basically every interval six hours, twelve hours, twenty four hours, one item minute time, whether it be a power plant, a bridge, or whatever, one item minute time on an interval of whatever he sets and say keep doing that until they cry.
Uncle, well a bad idea, presuming we have the armaments to do it, and you know I think we do. And you know I find it so amazing, if not amusing, that when several weeks ago Trump threatened to bomb carg Island and the oil depots and the pumping stations and so forth.
You know, Democrats, how that's a war crime. You can't you can't bomb their infrastructure.
Sure you can't. And it's not a war crime. That's a silly argument. During World War Two, the Allies bombed all kinds of infrastructure, power plants, railroads, you know, depots, fuel stations and so forth. And it was incredibly successful. And you know, the Nazi planes style flying because they didn't have any more fuel, the tanks stop running and moving and say it.
Was very effective.
It was not a war crime then, and it's not a war crime now. It is a ludicrous argument for Democrats or anybody to make, Oh gee, it's a war crime.
You can't do that utter nonsense.
And doing an interval or intermittently gives them a chance to cry uncle. And it's done slowly, monotonously and hit them hard on one item at a time or two, and just do it on an interval and say as soon as you cry uncle, will stop and you sign the agreement.
Yeah, it seems like it's the only thing that's going to get the Iranians attention, you know, but they're following their traditional playbook, you know, this sort of cat and mouse game, delay, delay, delay, make promises.
That will maybe do we'll sit.
Down and time stop, you know, firing bombs now, and we should have a c spe and then we'll talk about it. Oh, yes, we'll stop enriching uranium. And then, of course they lie and cheat, and they do it secretly, and you know, they they take American presidents for suckers until Donald Trump comes along and he actually does something about it, right.
Exactly exactly. And I think if they I think that would wake them up, and sooner or later, I don't think it would take long. I think they'd say we'll sign.
Yeah.
You know the problem with the Mullas, who were in charge in Iran is is that, you know, you can't reason with unreasonable people. These people are maniacal. They are pathologically you know, liars, and they're destined to cheat, and so you can't trust them. So that you know, trust but verify, of course, was the famous uh Reagan slogan. But unless there is a reliable ability to verify, and I don't trust the IA to be a reliable partner in that, you know, continued military strikes may be the
only option. Tom, Thank you so much for calling us from Buffalo, New York. Let's go to Tennessee, where Dan has been patiently standing by. Hi Dan, how are you.
Fine? Greg, I'll make this real quick, Greg. I'm not sure if you're familiar with what they call the Presidential National Security Emergency Declaration. It stems from a nineteen eighty
three case before the Supreme Court. The significance of it is this, as under that particular declaration, the President can set forth a judicial order mandating everything that is now in the Save America Act, which is not going to pass, and that will mean, in effect, when the mid turns come, that the Save America Act and the provisions in it, even though the Act has not been passed, will be effective in the election. And I don't want to comment
any more on that. I don't know if it's with it, I am not qualified.
Oh you are, okay?
Oh sure.
It's fifty USC.
Sixteen oh one, the National Emergency Act, and it essentially grants the president access to, you know, over one hundred distinct statutory powers. Once he formally proclaims the emergency, there are limits to it. He has to you know, declare the emergency in writing, specify you know which law he's activating, transmitted to Congress. But you know, it's generally done. If there is a as the title of it says, a
national security threat, that's either foreign or domestic. You know, he can do all kinds of things under it again, block transactions, regulate trade, freeze assets. It's never been used that I'm aware of in an election, But you know, I think, Dan, it's an interesting idea and it's you know, something that I might consider looking into as a possibility, you know, creative idea.
Dan. Thanks.
I mean, look, Thune is the villain in all of this, you know, right, he's the Senate Majority leader, John Tune.
And you know he didn't want to.
Kill the fillibuster to do it, even though he's naive if he doesn't think that's the first thing that Democrats are going to.
Do when if, and when they regain.
Control, they'll kill a filibuster and you know, try to do all kinds of things, including packing the Supreme Court with additional you know, Katanji Brown Jackson's you know, make Puerto Rico and DC states. Yeah, I mean they're gonna, you know, with Kamal.
Harris it out recently.
Here are the things we need to do, I mean, crazy stuff, but that's where Democrats are. But you know, Save of America Act should have been passed a long time ago. It's a no brainer. Of course you should have an ID to make sure when you vote you are who you say you are. I was just reading the other day, it was yesterday actually about you know all the people are who at their homes are receiving multiple mail in ballots for people who don't live there.
And you know, Gavin Newsom has issued in order that you know, you don't need to show ID, you don't have verify who you are. Fill out the malee in ballot as many time as you want, and center it on in and make sure that you market for Democrats.
And you know it's rigged out in California. I hate to say that.
I spent thirty years in California, born and raised there. I loved California until it went. You know, nuts, Dan, thanks very much, appreciate a good idea. Let's go to Utah. Sherry is standing by, Hi, Sherry, what's up?
Hello?
Well, I had a question. It was a while ago and I forgot the guy's name that was talking about all these people that are this should be punished, they should be in trouble.
They should.
Yeah, it was Mike Davis.
Mike, Yeah, but how are we going to make it happen? I hear it all the time. I mean for years and years. Hillary Clinton can destroy her computers and oh yeah, I guess she probably wasn't guilty. You know, Hunter Biden, all those Gavin Newsommers is so awful, but they nobody ever gets in trouble.
Yeah, no one.
I mean we hear their name all the time, going, oh, those awful people. But that's not a punishment of any sort to make other people do the same things. I was just wondering, what can we do?
Yeah, you know, the most frequent question I get almost on a daily basis for ten years, are.
These people who waged.
This lawless, lawfair campaign against Donald Trump and others? Are they ever going to be punished? And you know, I don't have a crystal ball. You know, I gave up
reading Tea Leaves. I can't tell you the answer. I can't tell you this that in my first book called The Russia Hoax, published way back in two thousand and eighteen, So you know what is that eight years ago I laid out all of the crimes that were committed by all of the people who committed them, and I urged, you know, in every chapter, these people should be prosecuted. The next year, twenty nineteen, I wrote the sequel witch Hunt, in which I had laid out even more crimes committed
by more people. And you know, unfortunately, after Jeff's sessions was canned, terrible mistake by Trump to appoint him as Attorney General.
Bill Barr took over.
And I had high hopes for Bill Barr, a fine attorney, and he talked a big game about all of the people who were abusing the law and weaponizing it for political purposes and you know, partisan game, but he didn't know anything about it. Bar became a huge disappointment in my mind. And then of course it was shut down by Merrick Garland and Joe Biden the moment that Biden was inaugurated, and it was shut down for four long years.
Trump retook office in January of twenty twenty five, and you know, it takes a while to get the DOJ and the US attorneys up to speed, and you know, you've got to fight the deep state that are buried in these institutions all the way that are undermining any efforts. A lot of people had to be fired appropriately. So and now you finally relatedly got a grandeury impaneled that is looking into it, and I think maybe poised issue indictments.
You know, justice comes.
A little too late, but it's never too late, and I suppose we have to counsel patients. But it's a great point, Cherry, and thank you for bringing it up. Let's turn out to South Carolina, beautiful state.
Mark joins us. Hi, Mark, how are you, hi? Greg?
How you doing fine?
It's a great it's a great honor to talk to you. UH, and I feel like you were one. You're the perfect man to answer my question, which I have two parts and two part questions. And the reason I feel like you're the perfect man to answer to answer this question is I'm sorry, I'm nervous.
UH.
Is that you were always the one and most of the time first, but that's not important. But it was always truthful information and UH your book and and everything else, you've always presented the facts of the Russia hoax. And my question comes down to this. Basically, I think the Russia hoax was used as the main reason for impeachment, and UH, impeachment is actually a trial. It is actually a trial by the Senate, and it is prosecuted. They have the prosecutors, they have everything is just like a
crimin court. And my question is, since you're a trial attorney, is my question is, just like there's false prosecution and wrongful prosecution, there's got to be a way to look at it. And I think President Trump My question was this is, why doesn't President Trump pursue through the lens of wrongful prosecution and that way through civilly and criminally to That's the first part of the question, why can't
that be done? The second part of the question is I believe that you know, we've all seen the movie Absence of Malice with Sally Field as a purporter and Paul Newman and Wilfred Bramley. He says basically, we can't prosecute the journalists because they are absence of malice. You know, they did not have any malice. I think it can be proven now without a shadow of doubt. There's so much malice against President Trump, whether every reporting, every thing
that's done. Why not go through the lens of wrong of prosecution? Now start proving prosecution of speech a wrongful speech and incorrect speech and factual speech and okay else through the lens of uh I have malice to prove?
All right?
Well, you.
You know, there's a lot to unpack there. I'll be I'll begin with your remark about the impeachment. It looks like a trial, but it's a political device, and the rules of evidence don't really exist. Anything comes in, including a multiple hearsay, which is only slightly absurd. I wrote a column recently about how the first impeachment against Trump was totally phony and contrived and reprehensible conduct by you know, all kinds of people in Congress, and the idea of
wrongful prosecutions. I think Trump brought one all, but I think that may be one of the useful methods for accountability. I've got to take a break, otherwise I'd give you a longer explanation.
Give us a call.
One eight hundred nine four, one seventy three, twenty six. We'll be right.
Back, Sean Hannity, more of.
Your phone calls coming up. One eight hundred nine four, one seventy three twenty six. One eight hundred nine four one Sean, and John Solomon, the great editor in chief of Just the News, will be Mike asked as well, stick around