Latest Breaking News On - Constitutionalist - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
president trump on this decision. welcome to the program. glad to have you. >> great to be here. >> sean: you and a lot of prominent judicial scholars were asked to look for certain candidates that fit this meaning of a constitutionalist, and originalist. maybe some americans are hearing this term for the first time. how would you best define those terms and differentiate a regionalism from judicial activism? >> first of all, the way to think about it is a judge has a deep sense of fairness and a sense of impartiality. when he is grounded in text and original meaning of the constitution, she is putting the text and the original meeting ahead of any political predisposition he may have. that's the way a judge cases. fairly and partially without regard to your own predispositions or prejudices.
>> sean: a judicial activist assembly of a liberal -- put a liberal would want on the court? somebody believes that the constitution is a living and breathing document that they have the right to almost legislate from the bench, not respecting separation of powers, coequal branches, correct? >> that is right. for an activist, it's all about results. policy results that a particular judge might like where a group of people may like. that is not what judging is all about. if you want to do that, you should run for office. you should not be a judge. >> sean: my two favorite justices was justice antonin scalia and clarence thomas. a lot of democrats that believe in a regionalism have been disappointed. and the one case, obamacare, even the chief justice. can you assure conservatives tonight that this justice is like scalia, like thomas and you
wouldn't expect any surprises? >> what i see and judge gorsuch is a very important quality that gets you there. that is courage. courage and independence, the willingness to stick to your guns, to make decisions that have to be made that sometimes you may not agree with. that is what he has. if you look at his opinions, he has never hesitated to dissent on a separate opinion when the meaning of the constitution or the text of the constitution needed to be elaborated and that the majority of the court did not do that. i think we are seeing in him very much an extension of justice scalia's legacy. >> sean: i actually tweeted out a picture tonight, it's interesting, antonin scalia and now the nominee judge gorsuch together. he seems to almost be -- i don't know if this is the right word, he seemed very enamored and inspired by justice scalia and
may be justice is that a fair day statement? >> judge gorsuch viewed justice scalia as a mentor. many who studied in law school around that time, they used him as a line in the law, a true mentor because of the pathbreaking work he did in bringing originalism and textualism back into the supreme court, in a pretty significant way. >> sean: i think one of the brightest we've had in our time and one of the funniest is justice antonin scalia. his dispensaries, even more scathing. i want to ask you more about judge gorsuch. walk us through the process. then candidate trump went to the people that studied the justices that are on the lower courts. like in his case, on the tenth
circuit court of appeals. what was it about this judge and this process that inspired you about what the president then candidate trump was doing? >> the two most important things you can have our a demonstrable record, showing a commitment to the constitution as it is written. lots of opinions that show you know what you are doing and you know what to do originalism and textualism and judge gorsuch knows how to do that. you want to see signs of courage, strong-willed, who is going to stick to his guns and again, judge gorsuch's work demonstrate that. he emerged as a very serious contender to succeed justice scalia who is really in many ways irreplaceable. >> sean: the liberal talking points were written long before tonight's decision, whoever the president chose was going to be described as out of the mainstream.
somebody that is an extremist. what is your response to those people making those claims? based on the record and those cases we've seen, the ratings. >> it is not surprising. liberals have always had to rely on the supreme court for the policy results they want. because the political process, the extreme positions they desire to have. they look to the courts for that, when they see nominee who is fair and partial, he's going to interpret the law as written, that's not necessarily going to end up with the policy they want, and they oppose it. that is what is happening. >> sean: we will get more deeply into this, one more question on the process. back in may, who did trump approach? to who did you speak to? >> we first met late in the spring. he first had this idea that he was going to pick from, and i thought it was frankly brillian brilliant. different, entrepreneurial,
brilliant. he wanted to do it because -- >> sean: very trumpish. >> yes. >> sean: my friend newt gingrich has been giving trump speeches on trumpish tru. what are your thoughts if any on the nuclear option, mitch mcconnell, and the senate, a precedent has been set for harry reid's, what are your thoughts? >> i'm not sure we are headed in that direction, we just learned that there are seven democrats who already said they will not filibuster and support a vote. this is becoming a very different process than we thought. i think part of it, the president's resolve in the nominee that he made, part of is extraordinary nominee that we
have. in judge gorsuch who i think is just very hard to lay a glove on. >> sean: mr. leo, i hope that is in fact the case. i think it may have a lot to do with politics. i would bet those are states the democrats are serving in that donald trump probably one back. just political thought on my part. after what democrats did to good people like robert bork, good people like clarence thomas, the process they put them through. the slayer max marion, it was so unbecoming. >> thank you so much. >> sean: coming up, jay sekulow. justice judge jeanine pirro. what is your reaction, jay sekulow, we talked about this last night? >> a great selection, i had the privilege of having a case
fight like we are a little bit behind. they're going to motivate even if it does not work. they're going to see how their apparatus works. >> sean: it's interesting you say that. we have a statement from the dnc. the nomination of judge gorsuch raises serious concerns about whether he believes in the constitution and that it protects all of us, not just the wealthy. the same old talking points we always get. judge jeanine pirro, what is your reaction? >> doesn't matter who he would've dominated, they wrote yesterday. i think what's so impressive, not only the fact that donald trump has indicated has now done exactly what he said he would do, and that is to nominate someone in the likeness of an antonin scalia. when i'm so impressed with in terms of judge gorsuch is not only the fact that he is incredible true credentials and temperament, i like one of the things he said in that clip that you did.
a judge who likes every outcome or decision he reaches is probably a bad judge. that speaks to the fact that he is very much a contextual us, and a constitutionalist. his decisions are decided not so much by policy or by what he thinks but by the law, by precedent, by the constitution. you can't always agree with everything you do because it is based upon the law. this is a man who clearly understands the solemnity of the position he is being offered and is nominated for and he writes in the style of justice scalia. he is clearly someone who nominated and received his appointment unanimously before. unanimous credentials by the ab aba. >> sean: his judicial philosophy, and a loverboy article he wrote judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using traditional tools of interpretation rather than denouncing the law as they might
wish it to be in their own political views. what he's saying is he's respecting their legislative branch. he's respecting separation of powers. he is making a clear distinction and is not the role of a judge to legislate from the bench, which is what liberals seem to want. what they cannot get done at the ballot box or legislatively, they will want the courts to rule on. >> he made that point in a speech today. let me say one other thing, you have to give the president a lot of credit here. not just for the selection but how it was rolled out this evening. it was with decorum, integrity, it honored antonin scalia and the entire solemnity of the event speaks with what the president and his cabinet and team views supreme court nominations and the importance of that. he acknowledged this is a legacy that goes beyond him and i think the president to the country a
service today by raising the ba bar. upon which the supreme court announcement. >> sean: it's even bigger than that. 11 days, if you look off where he stood on trade, obamacare, refugees, the wall, the process they are making on the economy, eliminating 75% regulations, it is kind of refreshing, jay, to have a president who is not all words and no action but all action and frankly fewer words than obama gave us. >> i think it served the president and the country well today. if they are going to try this opposition with judge gorsuch, i'm telling you, he is being confirmed. >> no question, he is prepared -- what his mother went through when she was the head of the epa. he knows what he is in for. he is ready for the fight, everybody knows what the fight is going to be. he is prepared for it and he has got the credentials and the background to fight it.
>> sean: we bring in laura ingraham for a second. laura, as an attorney yourself -- >> did you stay for a second, sean? for a second? >> sean: laura, you can stay for the whole show. you can cohost. we are friends. >> i'm listening to judge jeanine. >> sean: she doesn't look like she's in the studio. >> the party is here. we are celebrating the gorsuch pick. i do not know what you are doing. we have the margarita is going. >> sean: thank you for inviting us, we really appreciate it. let me show you some of the cases that went before him, hobby lobby, sisters of the poor. some of these decisions, controversial, but what you glean from his judicial philosophy based on those decisions? >> touched on this earlier, he is a textual list.
he doesn't believe that judges should read it meaning into statutes or the constitution that didn't exist at the time it was written. he doesn't believe in reading legislative history, taking into account other contemporaneous documents or notes written by legislators. he believes that the intent of what congress passed and statutes and what our framers wrote in our constitution is what should govern. that is textualist, that is what justice scalia believed in and that is what judge gorsuch has led his life on. the judiciary, especially in the last half-century has been much more activist. in other words, acting like a super legislator of unelected judges who have life tenure and who are not accountable to the voters. judge gorsuch is a refreshing change from the long history of
judicial activism coming from the left, appointed by mostly democrats but not all democrats, republicans have had a lot of swings and misses in these judicial appointments. conservatives across the country certainly hope that judges gorsuch is not going to be the disappointment that david hackett would be or in some cases, the man for whom neil gorsuch clerk, anthony kennedy. >> sean: what you take out of hobby lobby? little sisters of the poor and its decisions there? >> what i take out is that he holds religious liberty extremely important. the criticism that we are now hearing, the left has conjured up is that he is antiwoman and pro-corporation. they take from a hobby lobby and little sisters of the poor the fact that because gorsuch saide do not want to be forced to give
something against our religion to women who work in the little sisters of the poor, it is up against our religion. they say it's nonsense. it is a religious liberty case. in favor of the little sisters of the poor and in favor of hobby lobby. we don't want to provide abortion. >> if you do not have religious conscience rights, if there is no religious liberty that accrues to a group of people whether in a closely held business organization or with a group that is purely religious as a group of nuns that take care of the elderly, what does religious liberty mean? what'd our framers framers actually intended when they wrote the constitution? that case and his disposition of that case revealed a lot about his judicial philosophy. that should be very reassuring
to people who believe in the original meaning and a more textual interpretation of the constitution which again empowers the original meaning of the constitution and statutory interpretation, he does not substitute his own judgment for the judgment of duly elected representatives. that is the key of the corporation of >> sean: grade analysis. if it really is a religious liberty case as laura points ou out, if the government -- think of it the other way. if the government is allowed to mandate that little sisters of the poor or a corporation must do things that contradict their deeply held religious values and convictions, that is particularly chilling and frightening and it should be for anybody, whether a liberal, libertarian, conservative. it should not matter. >> absolutely right.
i have had the privilege of litigating for three decades on religious liberty. let me say this. judge gorsuch in his concurring opinion in the hobby lobby case, he pointed out at length that the green family had constitutional rights that could impact their business. in other words, you did not have to separate your faith from your business, especially when it was a closely held corporation that hobby lobby is. this fundamental recognition of the right to religious liberty on an individual basis, but in your daily life and business, it should be comforting to everyone. those on the left that don't like the hobby lobby decision but the fact of the matter if you look at the text of the constitution, if you understand what is called the religion clause, the majority opinion there was correct. judge gorsuch especially was correct in his concurring opinion. he went out of his way to point out exactly what his view of religious liberty was on my case, he didn't simply join the majority opinion. he put it in writing what
exactly is thought. >> the fact that the president selected him as his nominee and a case that is so important in terms of contemporary issues tell us where donald trump is on this particular issue and how important it is to him. >> sean: he also weighed in on the second amendment, he respects it, writing that there is a long tradition of lung spread gun ownership by private individuals in this country and the supreme court has held the second amendment to own firearms not beyond friendship. he used the actual text of the constitution. >> he was referring to that one case, that was a layup in my view of a decision. the the thing is the right to die, euthanasia book, it informs
us of his views on life, liberty, the pursuit of happyness. you cannot deprive another person of life even if it is at the end of their life or pre-born children. that goes to the heart of what the constitution is all about. the issue of exercising religion, it doesn't give you the freedom to worship, but not all it says. the freedom to exercise. free exercise of religious belief and understanding. that means you can believe what you want without the government forcing you to do something contrary to your closely held fundamental religious beliefs. that's what we have to understand about judge gorsuch. >> one of the issues that is going to come up is the issue of abortion. there is very little or nothing on abortion. >> sean: that is what all every liberal commentator is talking about. >> there is no writing on the abortion issue. they are going to try to interpret for other cases what he may feel.
>> sean: do all of you believe that roe v. wade is bad law, to all of you believe that as i do? >> they made it up. this was a decision that should have been left to the states. they took it over by having a supreme court to dictate this. at the end of the day, and 8-10 weeks, we are going to be calling him justice gorsuch. >> no question. >> sean: laura, last word. do you think you will get through? >> i believe they will have to use the nuclear option and he will get confirmed and they are going to have another nomination probably in the next 3-4 months. >> sean: really? >> really? what you know? >> sean: you are margaritas alone, but once you tell us? i think in june, there will
probably be a retirement. thank you all for being with us. we've got to keep going. a lot of news here tonight. coming up next on this busy newsnight. >> i've selected an individual whose qualities define what we are looking for. >> sean: earlier tonight, president trump announced he is nominating neil gorsuch to the supreme court. we are joined next, bill bennett is here with reaction, that and more. my friend dr. cornel west is here with us, straight ahead.
and the wolf huffed and puffed... like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! (child giggles) symbicort. breathe better starting within 5 minutes. get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more.
withevery late night...g... and moment away... with every click...call...punch... and paycheck... you've earned your medicare. it was a deal that was made long ago, and aarp believes it should be honored. thankfully, president trump does too. "i am going to protect and save your social security and your medicare. you made a deal a long time ago." now, it's congress' turn. tell them to protect medicare. >> i have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most important decision a president of the united states can make is the appointment of a supreme court justice. depending on their age, justice can be active for 50 years and his or her decisions can last a century or more and can often be
permanent. i took the task of this nomination very seriously. i have selected an individual whose qualities define really -- and i mean really closely define -- what we are looking for. >> sean: that was president trump earlier tonight, announcing his decision to nominate judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court. shannon bream, it really did come down to three names. i was getting worried earlier today, i know you where it's well that it was going to be mr. gorsuch. what is your take and the take from people there? >> it's interesting because my inbox flooded immediately with people supporting and opposing him. many on the left are worried about as you had at lengthy discussion there, the hobby lobby decision. that he's going to be antichoice, antiwoman, you know those are already starting. with respect to him, you know how his strategies are going to
be. in this book he wrote about euthanasia, assisted suicide, we know where his positions are. respecting life and all of its forms and times. we know those things will come up. but this is a guy who way back in columbia before it was public will be '80s, he started a paper called the fed. it was a pushback against what he thought was a dominant liberal philosophy and culture on campus. he is not new to this. his mom was the first female director of the epa under reagan. he has even written about confirmation battles and have big dumb act his opinions have become political warfare. the attacks that happen to people who step up and are nominated for these oppositions on the federal bench. he knows what he's walking into. he has criticized the left and says they have come to rely on courtrooms and judges to get their agenda done where they haven't been able to do with
voters and the ballot box. the left is not going to like this even though he's got that columbia harvard oxford pedigree and a ton of support. the aba which is not known to be a conservative organization has unanimously rated him as well qualified. there is no doubt the president factored in his ability to be confirmed. >> sean: leonard leo saying in the program there were seven democrats already saying they would go along and allow a vote on this, the republicans only need one more, have you confirm that? >> i have not confirmed those numbers. as we know, there are so many of these democrats who are in critical red states in 2018 and that may influence the way they look at this. they may say listen, this guy is eminently qualified on paper, whether we agree with him or not, we cannot say this is somebody who is not qualified. at least let him get to a vote. we will see, i think the numbers could be there.
>> sean: shannon, i know it is a cold night, we appreciate you being out there. joining us now, bill bennett. first reaction to neil gorsuch? >> thanks for letting this nonlawyer join the lawyer margarita party. [laughter] listen, i want to talk about this. i want to echo what jay sekulow said. the president who was supposed to be this carnival barker, this tv guy, this bulgarian, what dignity and grace it wasn't about him, who is all about judge gorsuch, it was a great moment for donald trump. for those of us who went through this campaign and i know you did, we sweat blood a lot of the time, people said what are the arguments? >> sean: i would do that again
in a heartbeat. >> i would say the supreme court. people would say cynically, the roman emperor caligula, he will appoint his sister or some joker. well, he appointed neil gorsuch. end of story, end of case. there is the argument for the president of united states right here. this guide will serve 25 or 30 amazing years. >> sean: we have been around politics a long time. i covered robert bork, clarence thomas, we have seen how ugly this process can be. we both know and understand this. this is justice scalia's seat. i wouldn't expect anything less from the democrats than a fight. the bigger picture, we have seen a lot of presidents too, have you ever witnessed the president check checking off promise after promise as quickly as this one? >> the shock of this is somebody doing what he said he's doing is
remarkable. my gosh, he is fulfilling campaign promises. i want to say something else about gorsuch. people are making out a lot about columbia, harvard, oxford. i went to harvard law, i bet you the formative education experience was georgetown preparatory school, a catholic school. i bet you that's where that comes from. >> sean: why am i not shocked to hear that? >> you know what i believe, a formation of character. the history at that school. you look into it, you will find out. i think the democrats would be wise to just let this one through. i don't think they will be able to touch him. >> sean: i see joe, maybe claire -- she's afraid of losing her seat. that would be the only reason i would see what is coming up in 2018 is not a good lineup for the democrats, defending a whole lot of seats. bill, stay right there.
we've got fox news contributor mercedes schlapp. and a lawyer himself, geraldo rivera. the reaction to the shock and awe and the speed of light by which donald trump is fulfilling his promises. >> i think there is an energy unmistakably but there is also hubris. i do not understand why but the refugee ban for instance was promulgated without any notice. you could have done exactly the same thing the next wednesday. 7-year-old kids stuck at heathrow airport, it looks bad for president trump. >> sean: then it gives people time. look at the lead up of iraq. that was such a long idea to go so long. >> i think he is excellent, an excellent choice. i am relieved by this. >> sean: what were you afraid of? >> i was afraid that he would go
for a bork kind of guy. a hard-nosed. >> sean: he was an intellective genius. >> can't we all get along? he conservative, intellectual, a guy who's been there in every way. my friends say the only judge more qualified than him was merrick garland. my point is -- the skill ese youth, i think it really is a no-brainer. in many ways, i think he did an excellent job, and elegant ceremony. >> sean: at one thing, mercedes, we really haven't talked about, leonard leo said the fact that he did this back in may, he put out the list of 20. all the times i would interview him, the supreme court was such a big issue. i asked him often, when we were doing town halls, and originalist, constitutionalist, why do you want that person? >> he said i'm going to pick
from this list and he did. >> for president trump it was very important for him to build that trust with the conservative circles, my husband runs a conservative union, it was very clear we were all looking for these very solid conservative picks, someone who would be a strict originalist, someone who would fill the shoes of a justice scalia. i think donald trump understood that during the campaign and really, he held to his promise. i have to say, for conservatives out there, and those never trump people, that didn't want to support him, those conservatives that were so critical of him -- if hillary clinton had been elected, we would have lost this justice scalia seat, it would have been fundamentally changed for generations. >> sean: i tweeted something out tonight, i will get a quick reaction from bill.
an originalist, constitutionalist, people like bret stephens, the weekly standard, the never trump people, and then i wrote thank you, irredeemable, deplorable friends. you did this. what does this mean for all those people that were so against donald trump that fought against him and did everything they could do to help hillary clinton and claimed they were conservatives? this would not have happened if they had their way. bill, last word. >> as i've said to you before, every saint has a past, every sinner has a future. >> sean: you're being very gracious. >> i have a t-shirt, a deplorable t-shirt. to be forgiven. >> thank you so much. we will continue, mercedes and geraldo, stay with us. my good friend dr. cornel west will join us in studio, as
"hannity" continues tonight. that's life. you diet. you exercise. and if you still need help lowering your blood sugar... ...this is jardiance. along with diet and exercise... jardiance lowers blood sugar and a1c in adults with type 2 diabetes. jardiance is also the only type 2 diabetes treatment with heart- proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. jardiance can cause serious side effects, including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction.
symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so talk to your doctor about jardiance- the one and only type 2 diabetes treatment with heart. visit jardiance.com for a free consultation with a certified diabetes educator if you qualify.
fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. who's next? >> sean: welcome back to "hannity." president trump has nominated judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court. mercedes schlapp, geraldo rivera. let me ask you about all those supposedly conservative intellectuals that have now been proven and 11 days so wrong on who donald trump is. >> this choice was a choice that would definitely please academics, historians, philosophers, ideologues. the mystery is, and i do not know if you know something i don't know, i don't believe this judge has ever ruled on an abortion rights case.
>> sean: hughes and originalist, even you would probably argue with me that roe v. wade it was bad law, it should have been left to the states. >> be careful what you wish for. >> sean: you are a state's rights guy. the tenth amendment confers to the states. as her own sovereign in many ways, you cannot argue sanctuary cities are illegal if the states have the tenth amendment that says -- >> sean: at you and i need two hours alone. >> what do you guys talk about? >> sean: what is your take on people that were so wrong? >> what donald trump is doing us that he is keeping to his word, sean. he has made it very clear. when have you seen a president come out -- just give over a list about who he would pick to as a supreme court nominee? for conservatives that did not believe donald trump would pick one of the 20, i think it's very telling of the fact that for
donald trump, he's proving himself that he's willing especially when it comes to the supreme court to put someone in there who is a conservative. >> sean: love you both. good to see you. when we come back, dr. cornel west, you don't want to miss it. woap, who makes the decisions around here? it's me. don't think i'll make it. stomach again...send! if you're living with frequent, unpredictable diarrhea and abdominal pain, you may have irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea or ibs-d - a condition that can be really frustrating. talk to your doctor about viberzi. a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day that helps proactively manage both diarrhea and abdominal pain at the same time. so you stay ahead of your symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain. do not take viberzi if you have or may have had pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse, long-lasting or severe constipation, or a blockage of your bowel or gallbladder.
if you are taking viberzi, you should not take medicines that cause constipation. the most common side effects of viberzi include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d... with viberzi. i mwell, what are youe to take care odoing tomorrow -10am? staff meeting. noon? eating. 3:45? uh, compliance training. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. 8:30? tai chi. yeah, so sounds relaxing. alright, 9:53? i usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios. the automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life. (vo) when it comes to helzberg diamonds knows
bigger isn't always better. our beautiful diamond heart pendant is just $299.99. that's $200 off! helzberg diamonds. here's to love. "how to win at business." step one: suck on and point decisively with the arm of your glasses. it is no longer eyewear, it is your wand of business wizardry. abracadabra. you've just gone from invisible to invincible. step two: before your meeting, choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly so you can prepare to win at business. book now at lq.com
>> sean: welcome back to "hannity," here with reaction to the supreme court pick, harvard university professor, dr. cornel west. how long have we been friends for? did you vote for trump? >> all, can you imagine? if i owned a crack pipe! if i go this way, you go this way. you look at donald trump, i get excited. i am dealing with the spiritual black outcome of the of integrity. the debate about the court. look at the chair, a stolen seat. republicans actually would not allow the democrats. >> sean: historically, the precedent is, last year, democrats and republicans have done it, they did confirm his earlier supreme court picks. >> on a deeper level, when i look at trump, i like to be
honest with you. i see brother trump as a gangster in character as a neofascist for this reason, he said we are going to go in and take oil in iraq. >> sean: we are going to liberate your country and shed america blood sweat and tears. excuse me, i've got to tell you something, if we are saving your country, if we would've been better off -- isis! did obama do a good job? >> i don't think he did. >> sean: did he do a good job for the black community? >> he could've done so, so much better. obama does not have the same kind of gangster image. >> sean: he went to the church of gd america and hung out with
unrepentant terrorist. >> both with bush, obama and trump, there were seven children killed yesterday in yemen, seven children killed. >> sean: here's the good news, you are coming back tomorrow night and we are going to talk about all of this. we are going to war tomorrow. >> absolutely. >> sean: it takes like a year to get dr. cornel west. weston of the day, up ahead.
c'mon in, pop pop! happy birthday! i survived a heart attack. i'm doing all i can to keep from having another one. and i'm taking brilinta. for people who've been hospitalized for a heart attack. i take brilinta with a baby aspirin. no more than one hundred mill as it affects how well it works. brilinta helps keep my platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. brilinta reduced the chance of another heart attack. or dying from one. it worked better than plavix. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. tell your doctor about bleeding, new or unexpected shortness of breath, any planned surgery, and all medicines you take.
talk to your doctor about brilinta. i'm doing all i can. that includes brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astra zeneca may be able to help. why is there neverite, enough of it? a john deere 1 family tractor with quik-park lets you attach and go. imatch quick-hitch gives you more time for what you love. so it takes less work to do more work. autoconnect drive-over mower deck? done. they're not making any more land. but there's plenty of time if you know where to look. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer.
Brother-trumpSeanDecisionLotMeaningProgramScholarsCandidatesOriginalistConstitutionalistRegionalismTermsexplains why. it is out tomorrow, i hope you buy it. it is great, i think. that is it tonight. we are live in new york tonight, sean hannity is live in our studio in washington. >> hannity: i meant your studio and you could to be a guest on my show coming up later tonight. give me time to breathe and that you can collect yourself. good show tonight. congrats on the book. >> tucker: thank you. >> hannity: welcome to "hannity." i'm not overstating you this. this is literally no a tipping point in american history. democrats and the media, they have no shame. zero restraint, zero concern for truth, zero concern for innocent lives. they are all too willing to destroy, all for political power. that is more important that is what is truth and justice. now we have one party in this country, it is about smears, slander, disgorgement, the media in this country they are the
accomplices. be of the evidence tonight. they're using every dirty trick in the book to write out the clock on judge kavanaugh's nomination. last week they got their wish. the fbi performing a background check into allegations against judge kavanaugh come his seventh background check. they have moved to the goalpost, almost instantaneously. want more investigations. longer investigations and guess what? there are no testing out a brand-new accusation from the mainstream media. what they are forgetting here is that this is a real man's life. a real family, real kids. for them it is just a political game, a quest for power and attempt to wait it out for 36 days until the all important midterm elections. we'll break all of this down with all the information you need including a report from the independent prosecutor who questioned both of them. she is calling the allegations we could come on cooperated, we also been message from dianne feinstein. as per usual, the former fbi
director, he is trying to win from the sidelines and once again fighting with all of his friendly democratic party and a brand-new nbc interview. a disaster on so many levels. said tight, buckle up, it is time for our opening monologue. ♪ if you are the average american that works hard, plays by the rules and paces to pays their . good americans need to step back tonight. this is about republican, democrat, or liberal with no due process, zero cooperating evidence. the left in america is now smearing an individual and they been doing it now for 15 consecutive days. calling him evil, accusing him of being a serial, a predator, a liar, a perjurer, much more.
a man who has served his country and has been in the spotlight now for almost 40 years without a single lift of misconduct until 15 days ago. as we americans, we better get this as a country right. the rog to judgment, getting rid of all presumption of innocence and due process, it is a clear present danger to all of you, to every american. tonight at a huge rally in johnson city, tennessee, resident trump talking about the supreme court nominee and the pillar of what is americans a justice system. the presumption of innocence, let's watch the president. >> democrats are willing to do anything and to hurt anyone to get their way. just like they are doing with george brett kavanaugh. [boos] they been trying to destroy him since the very first second he was announced because they know that george brett kavanaugh will follow the constitution as written. he is a good man.
a great student, great intellect, he has never had a problem and all the sudden, let's go back to high school. maybe they should go before high school and then they want to take a lot longer with the fbi. no, the fbi -- if we took ten years, they would want more time. >> hannity: here we are on day 15, judge kavanaugh. edit wild press conference earlier today the president let loose and had this to say about the important process that the media and democrats are trying to know a band. this is dangerous. he took it on, take a look. >> i want the fbi -- this is another seventh investigation. it is not they are just starting. i want them to do a very comprehensive investigation. whatever that means according to the senators and the republicans on the republican majority.
i want them to do that. the reason i would like them to go quickly, to so simple. because it is unfair to him at this point. what his wife is going through, what his beautiful children are going through is not describable. it is not describable. it is not fair. >> hannity: of course his boat was once again delayed last week because the left successfully coerced a flaky republican, to go along with their demands. a new background check into the allegations made by professor christine blasey ford. only a week, senator jeff flake sat down with one of his democratic colleagues on "60 minutes" to pat himself on the back for his heroic moments. he did admit in the interview that he was seeking reelection, he would never would have done this. ever. he came to the democratic demands, he is no other hero. take a look. >> you have announce that you
are not running for reelection, could he have done this? >> no. [laughs] not a chance. >> not a chance. >> because politics have become too sharp, too partisan? >> there is no value to reaching across the aisle, there is no courtesy, there is no incentive. >> hannity: tonight the fbi's background check into christine blasey ford, these are all important facts you have to remember. it is well underway. rachel mitchell, to remember her? the question both professor ford and judge kavanaugh, she has already released her report to the senate committee and these findings. they are devastated. this is what she said, a he said, she said case is incredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that. dr. ford identified other witnesses to the event at those witnesses either refuted her allegations were failed to cooperate them. for the reasons discussed below
i do not think any reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee. the prosecutor went on to list multiple issues were professor ford's allegations including no consistent account and when the alleged assault actually happened, a failure to progress identify judge kavanaugh as he is salient. a failure to member key details including who remembered him to the party, how she got to the party and where the party even took place. how she got home from the party. she does however remember unrelated details like the consumption of exactly one beer and that she took no medication that day. another issue listed by prosecutors, it surrounds the fact that her allegations have been cooperated by nobody. including a lifelong friend. dr. ford also struggled to recall recent events related to her allegations including the date of a polygraph test.
also inconsistencies with her psychological trauma claims including her fear of flying and the fact that she flies frequently in many of her hobbies include flying all over the world. rachel mitchell reporting activities of democrats and her attorneys likely affected her account. it is important to remember that senator feinstein, this is where we get into facts matter. cooperation matters, she mentioned these four people. none of them cooperated her story including an alleged eyewitness to the incident. dianne feinstein played politics with professor ford's very serious claims from the very beginning. she knew about this in july. last week senate democrats demanding an fbi investigation, feinstein and her colleagues have known about this as i said since july. this calls for investigation into keith ellison? for that matter, one at bill clinton? why didn't senator feinstein ask brett kavanaugh when they met
personally? why at the very same time that she is advising professor ford on what attorney to hire, instead of contacting her with a qualified and experienced nonpartisan lawyer? feinstein suggested a partisan left winger. big-time democratic donor. once be claimed on national tv, she would resist president trump. she dismissed paula jones. it was only ten, to 12 minutes. excuse me, he exposed himself. bill clinton at the time comes that was the allegation. she defended al franken. according to a report from the washington beacon, one of her close friends is now searching for anyone willing to come forward against brett kavanaugh. they are sending out emails to people. literally soliciting people as late as last week. feinstein cared about getting to the truth, why a democratic hack events consist on what is a serious issue?
meanwhile even though professor ford requested her name remain private, it was leaked. the congressional democrats are the only officials with access to her story and senate republicans are now bowing rightly so to investigate dianne feinstein the democratic handling of this case. she is denying any responsibility for the leak but earlier today president trump called out the senator for her shameless political practice and they were shameless. take a look. >> dianne feinstein knew about this two months earlier. if she wanted a really thorough investigation, we had all the time in the world. she didn't have to wait till after the hearing was closed. essentially. she should have said listen, i have a problem. i have this report. i would like the fbi to look at it while we are doing the hearing. we had two months. for the democrats to be talking about, we want more time for the fbi, if you wanted more time
with the fbi, why didn't diane feinstein bring this up? >> hannity: why didn't she? america deserves an answer to that question. why did she tell her republican colleague, we need time, we can't rush this. we have plenty of time democrats have continued their political stall tactics. last week it was a narrow investigation, limited to only a week and i despite president trump's ordering the fbi to investigate any and all legitimate claims, it is still not enough for the left. they want fbi investigations and every single claim made against brett kavanaugh no matter how unsubstantiated and some are even calling for an investigation into whether or not he lied about how much you drink in high school. he said sometimes he drank a lot. like a lot of kids in high school and college. that is called moving the goal post, that is called moving the game. they want to stall the nomination, they want the midterm elections, these facts all matter. 36 days, you, we come with the people, do you want to put these
people in power? they were to impeach the president, they want their crimes back and they want to open the borders and they want to keep obamacare. if the fbi does extend the investigation into the second accuser than the third accuser we arty know about the second accuser we find again, on such educated claims from a woman who claims that brett kavanaugh may have exposed himself to her in a drunken college party when he was a freshman. she doesn't really remember in factories that she wasn't fully sure if he was the perpetrator. she called around according to "the new york times" to see if they remembered the incident whether it was him. they did not. she even acknowledges that she has significant memory gaps from that evening. "new york times" refuses to write the story. in this case the fbi is likely to find a lot of inconsistencies from her while delegations paid remember, she is claiming that brett kavanaugh was involved in a serial drugging and gang rape
that happened almost every weekend in the 80s. she went to ten of these parties, today she is represented by the all fame seeking attorney michael nava lottie, the new face party sat down with nbc news. by the end of the day it will be a disaster. take a look. >> in that statement she said she became aware of efforts by brett kavanaugh and his friend to spiked punch at parties. in her interview she said she saw them near the punch but did not specifically she saw either man man to spike it. did you see brett kavanaugh spiking the punch? >> i saw him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls' night time. i saw him around the punch. the container. i don't know what he did. i saw him buy them. >> are their friends who member these parties to? >> i think everyone in the county of these parties. >> we haven't heard from those
friends. i am asking, are the people alive today? >> yes, there are people who know about those parties. >> this morning she provided four names of friends who went to those parties with her, one of them says she does not recall that. another friend is deceased. we have reach out to the other two and haven't heard back. >> hannity: still come as your cooperation, the same nbc news that set on that interview when she was making allegations about bill clinton. they refused to air that for over a month all because they said it couldn't be cooperated. they needed time to vent it. nbc, this is a disgrace. this is not news. this is them letting an individual make on cooperated claims and then just airing it. here they are running totally unverified claims against judge kavanaugh and multiple inconsistencies yet again. are there any news standards
over there? should we all be surprised? this is now a disaster for nbc news. by the way, tom brokaw if you're watching and if somebody calls you in 3 minutes, will you err this? you need to speak out publicly. he spent her whole leg trying to build that brand. all three of these stories, they have one thing in common, zero cooperating evidence. outright denials of so-called witnesses and many inconsistencies. after all, this is how your mainstream media is now treating the ongoing supreme court battle. this week and a cartoonist drew this file depiction of judge kavanaugh's young daughter, praying for her angry, lying, alcoholic father for assaulting dr. ford. and never made into a newspaper. there cartoonist publish it online on his own. he didn't return our request for commenting, shocking. james comey, he of course is calling for an unlimited time
frame for fbi investigations and bashing anybody, he won't sit down with investigators "most people will speak to the fbi refusal to do so is its own kind of statement." i am thinking, really? ask a general flint about speaking to the fbi. that worked out perfect for them. in the case of even general flint, they didn't think he lied. he was charged with lying. when you see all of these brett kavanaugh off beds come asking for more information and use the media rushing to judgment. when you see democrats demanding more and more investigation, you have to remember this one clear point and this is what matters tonight, this is all about politics. it is not about power. it is not about the truth. democrats have been against brett kavanaugh publicly from they did that he was announced. no matter what this investigation finds, they will
never vote for them anyway. they never were. it is likely every single report and event in modern history. this is a matter that we better get right. if you don't have evidence and you are going to rush to judgment and you will have zero presumption of innocence, by the way this is not the first time. ferguson, missouri, richard jewell, the baltimore, maryland, the cambridge police, duke lacrosse, now judge kavanaugh. clarence thomas. we have a party of smears, slander, lies and no due process. non! they should be political. all the left-wing friends in the mainstream media, the deep state are backing them up. there is no light they're not willing to destroy for power. no reputation. there is no process. no issue they want to politicize. that means there is no shame, their actions are literally as
we speak reprehensible. we have a lot to get to tonight. he's been in the forefront of all this, lindsey graham. welcome, it is good to be back. to me this is serious. what was the deal on friday? >> here's the deal. senator flake voted yes on the committee with the understanding that she would like the fbi to interview the 340 witnesses that were interviewed by the republican on the committee. pj, mrs. leland, and mark judge. lisa murkowski set out that the fbi to try to check the committee's homework and be also agreed to interview mrs. ramirez with the allegations. >> hannity: that was the new yorker? >> right.
if they won't further interview, they will sit down with senator mcconnell and see what they can work out. they had a deal for a week, we limited the interviews two, three people named by dr. ford. we will see with the fbi finds. >> hannity: it is now been expanded out? the president said. >> no it is not. this is a request out of signage. nobody asked to do this. nobody asked for that. not one democrat asked the question. the senators english and did not feel that was necessary. it makes no sense let me go over it again. the doctor ford witnesses, mark judge, leland, and pj. and mrs. ramirez. that said, do it within a week, report back to the senate and will move forward. nbc news just ran this interview. >> hannity: not only was one
person to headset, she changed the story. she was saying that it was systematically -- every weekend. >> we can take care of this in about 30 seconds. what reasonable person would go to a party, witness drugging of women, gang rape and go back. i never tell anybody. >> hannity: and now she is saying, said that he put it in the punch. he was near the punch. what is nbc run this? >> there was an anonymous letter received by cory gardner, the senator from colorado with no return address, just a letter. it accused brett kavanaugh of assaulting somebody in a restaurant in 1998 in colorado. cory handed to the committee and somebody on the democratic side leaked that a letter. i got on the nbc nightly news.
the fourth allegation. >> hannity: the fifth and rhode island. >> to think nbc would have done that if it was a democratic male nominee? all i can say is that the journalist integrity has been destroyed over this case. >> hannity: all right. it is a very tight margin in the senate. >> any of jeff flake. >> hannity: who knows what jeff flake is saying. who knows. let me ask you this, you fall one vote short. >> number one, i don't think we will. i will tell you why, i don't think we will find anything new from the supplement on the fbi investigation to take jeff from yes, to know. i think the two senators want to make sure that the fbi did their homework, they checked the committee's work. but her work was good. i think that is what this is all about.
we're not expanding at all this crazy stuff. now, what would happen if something really weird did occur. we are one vote short. here's what i would do, i would appeal the verdict to the ballot box. this good man should not be destroyed if you legitimize this process by one vote short. we will be on to the next person. i would hate to be the next person nominated. i would feel horrible that we destroyed brett kavanaugh. what would i do? i would renominate him and i would take this case to the american people and voters in indiana and missouri and north dakota and other places where trump one saying who he would nominate if he got president and see if voters want to appeal the verdict. >> hannity: you are saying if you fall one vote short, you are saying that i would appeal the case. for this election? >> the president should renomin?
>> one you would be legitimizing destruction of a horrible person, i mean a horrible process at a good prop mike person. >> hannity: this would be a referendum? >> this would be an appeal from a political body to the people who put us here and see if these trump states that elected president trump would do exactly what he is doing on cutting taxes. if they are okay with the decision of their senator, i don't think we will get there. i think we will get 50 plus but if we fell one vote short for the good of the nation, i would appeal this to the people of the country and let them have a say. >> hannity: senator, thank you for being with us. newt gingrich, a lot more straight ahead from d.c. ♪
-additional interest on umbrella policy? -can you translate? -damage minimization of civil commotion. -when insurance needs translating, get answers in plain english at progressiveanswers.com. ♪ -he wants you to sign karen's birthday card. it's a high honor. -he wants you to sign karen's birthday card. since you're heading off to dad... i just got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff,
or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water. i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do.
♪ >> hannity: joining is not for the reaction, much more the host, michelle, michelle malkin the author, a brand-new book. i will be releasing it on foxnews.com.com, my review of this book because david limbaugh inspired me of my life. i am a baby compared to him in terms of the knowledge, jesus has risen. paul in the early church, it is out tomorrow. david limbaugh committee has done legal work for me like anybody else because i'm a legal trouble all the time apparently. let me start david with you, a breakdown in every single case here. there is no cooperation. we watched julie literally refers herself on tv, that she made in a statement that her lawyer released last week. the same thing with mrs. ramirez. we have problems with her story.
we have read all of the inconsistencies of professor ford's story and no cooperation there. we getting rid of due process and presumption of innocence no? >> obviously this isn't a criminal proceeding. as jonathan starley said, it is a tradition that people who are accused of these kinds of activities should get a presumption of innocence. the accuser should have two produce evidence or credible evidence. i don't deny this sincerity of dr. ford. it seems like this has traveled and there are some inconsistencies in her testimony. my quarrel isn't with dr. ford who i believe is in good faith. my quarrels with the democrats were lying in wait to ambush any nominee who is a
constitutionalist because they want judges on the supreme court, justices, who would legislate their political liberal agenda. it is horrendous. my real thrust here is for feckless conservatives, feckless republicans to realize why president trump is so popular and it is because a feckless conservatism isn't . we are in a struggle for the future of this country and the democrats are relentlessly pursuing their agenda. they will do anything they can to thwart president trump's appointments. this idea that they are doing this to find the facts is just ridiculous. >> hannity: let me bring in michelle. the problem here is guilt by accusation. i've been very critical, michelle eubank of the republican party. they took this with the proper
seriousness that this topic deserves. they were very professional as they should have been with professor ford. if she identifies an eye witness and eyewitness contradicts what she says, that is just problematic. without saying anything about her personally at all. we cannot assume that people are guilty knowing that this is a tactic that is used in supreme court nominations and in political campaigns, often by people who don't care about the truth. >> the radical and extreme left, particularly radical feminists exploit the fact that republicans act in good faith. we have to stop tiptoeing around this. timing, matter, motive and manner all are important in judging the credibility and the strength of these kinds of accusations. every day in america, innocence men of all races, backgrounds,
socioeconomic status are falsely accused of rape and they can never get their names back. it takes five, ten, 15 years. whatever civil sediment that they can finally win after losing their freedom and losing their lives and reputations, it can never compensate for the loss, the devastating loss that they and their family software. is why, rape is a serious crime but so is long about it. until there is criminal liability for it this will keep happening over and over again. >> hannity: in every case there are inconsistencies. every case there is no cooperation. the people that they say where there which happened on nbc news tonight. let me ask you both this, lindsey graham had a pretty good idea. i think he was suggesting tonight that if the democrats if republicans fall short here.
and if they go with the democrats, he is basically saying, let the american people vote on this very topic and basically let president trump renominate if you will judge brett kavanaugh. david, do you like that idea? >> i do like that idea. it depends on what the prolonged investigation ensues. what if he appoint someone else. if he gets taken down and he appoint someone else, it is like blood to a shark. it will be a feeding frenzy, they will be encouraged by this ambush. they will do it again. like michelle said. >> this is an ex-potential crisis and every time that voters have a chance to weigh in on it at the ballot box they absolutely should do that. it could happen to you next and we don't draw the line right now, it is going to go to a
social justice mob, not just to go after high nominees but your father, your grandfather, your uncle, your son. >> hannity: no cooperation, inconsistencies, very troubling. no due process, this is scary. thank you both for being with us. david, tomorrow i will put your article on fox news. it is amazing, that is one short word. we come back in with the latest on the fbi investigation. newt gingrich joins us from our nations capitals be continued. we are right here in the middle of the sewer where it is all happening. we are so happy you are joining us. ♪ i think we can do better. change is hard. try to keep an open mind. come on, dad. this is for me, son?
principal. we can help you plan for that.
♪ [ telephone ringing ] -whoa. [ indistinct talking ] -deductible? -definitely speaking insurance. -additional interest on umbrella policy? -can you translate? -damage minimization of civil commotion. -when insurance needs translating, get answers in plain english at progressiveanswers.com. ♪ -he wants you to sign karen's birthday card. it's a high honor. ♪ >> hannity: the fbi in the background checks this hour with brett kavanaugh, chief national correspondent ed had ray. you have your own studio, i see. >> we are separate. here's the bottom line.
president trump is pushing back on what he essentially is: fake news. the idea that there are various reports that he has restricted the fbi probe of judge kavanaugh. he said absolutely not. that the fbi is moving quickly and intensively and that he is staying out of the way. they started their work friday after the senate compromised in the presence how they work through the weekend. in fact lender short time ago that brett kavanaugh has her talk to the fbi, his lawyer said the vets completed that. he is already said he doesn't member anything about dr. ford's obligations. the senate deal by jeff flake and chris led to a one-week pause. sticky focus on what is called current and credible allegations like the charge from dr. ford. not nuance with a deadline for the fbi this upcoming friday. he cracked the door open to expanding missing he did not control new allegations. sure enough other unverified charges have been popping up. a story quoting a former yelp classmates and that he was a violent drunk. the white house releasing long
statements from two of his classmates and that it is grossly untrue. republican mitch mcconnell trying to go to the goalpost be on friday as can keep investigating brett kavanaugh. blumenthal suggests they should go on longer. he falsely charged the white house say they are micromanaging the white fbi. he said that is not true. he was with his head wants in terms of this playing out. enough that he lied about his service and vietnam. >> hannity: ed henry joining us now with a reaction, the author of "the new york times" best seller, trumps america, the truth about our nation. former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. and every case, tonight was glaring in this client of his. no cooperation from the very people that they said would cooperate. >> yes. i will take you up from 30
seconds away from this. all of us should recognize the last 24 hours president trump is the one with an enormous victory with canada and mexico. in the middle of all this noise. big things are happening to create a lot of new jobs, to keep the economy going. the president is delivering and he is getting results. >> hannity: it is not insignificant. this to me as a real threat. one of the foundational principles we share, all of us. this is why i say does not republican or democrat. >> here's what i don't understand come i haven't had this in a long time. they talk about this deal that he made company give up nothing. republican sometimes have this passion for being stupid. flake got nothing out of that, nothing. plays this game. let me see i can rip you off again. didn't he says, would you please rip me off a little bit more? there is a reason people get fed up with the stuff.
lindsey graham we had an a while ago is the most effective guy on the judiciary committee. he told the truth. i think we as the american people have to stand up and say they don't want a country that is dominated by these kinds of people. i think it has a really serious threat. >> hannity: what did you think of his idea that if they fall short, the should be a election again question work on this issue? >> i think it is a good idea. >> hannity: and the president would renominate? >> tucker: i think it is a good idea. the alabama senator who supposedly not a liberal does come out to work with the left, jo donnelly represented the vice president's home state, who will vote with the left. you have high camp in the state which republicans have carried a 16 out of the last 17 presidential campaigns. they will probably wood for the left. we have 15 out of 17. i think imagine is going to vote for brett kavanaugh. i tell you what, if he doesn't
vote for brett kavanaugh, they are definitely should bring brett kavanaugh back up because after the election, mansion will have disappeared. >> hannity: one of the problems we have gotten to use to, i warn my audience every two or three years. racist, sexist, homophobes, islam hopes, killed children and killed grandma. i watched you go through this. i was there. i saw it all. there is a certain embracing of slander now. it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter whose family is hearing this. it doesn't matter what they are saying. >> they score points with their crazed french that is people are saying. this election is fall is about two americas. in america that thinks bullying you at a restaurant, pulling you in an elevator, harassing you,
destroying you, smearing you, shaming you in front of your children is fine because they are morally impure. >> hannity: i never hear a single positive agenda item that is going to benefit the american people from the democrats. this is what i hear, they want to impeach trump they want and bliss investigations, they want to keep obamacare which is been a disaster. they want to get rid of i.c.e and open borders. they want the crumbs back. they want the tax cuts back. they want them back. how do republicans defeat history and they said that it is only happen through tabs in the last 100 years. the party gets the power of the white house. and then hold onto power and the midterms. >> the same way we wanted 2016. we get more votes where it matters. the fact is, i will go out on a limb, i think election night this year will be worse than
2016. i think there's going to be a shock. the democratic party for example, can reduce the candidate for california wants to have government run health care to pay for health care for illegal immigrants. >> hannity: 10 million. >> that is this year. when workers go to california, and every person get sick on the planet will be told to go to california appear they want to take care of you. i think those kinds of policies are so unsustainable. >> hannity: by the way, the most indicator is that we want a seat in south texas. we have not had it 139 years, 53% hispanic in in a moment to limit the democrats favor tax. abortions, they just left. they said we are not with you. >> hannity: if this doesn't awaken the pace of the conservative movement for the
republican party, trump supporters, i don't know what will. >> i different say to me today, they have never seen as many conservatives as angry as they are now. it is when you look at the brett kavanaugh and you look at his two daughters and his wife and you think, these bad human beings. they are willing to do this to this family. >> hannity: without any cooperation at all. it is scary. mr. speaker, good to see you. glad to be in your hometown, the swamp. but i guess know italy is your hometown. >> thank you. >> hannity: when we come back and we still have studio but he is coming back. tucker carlson will weigh in on this expedition, judge kavanaugh, lots more as we continue from washington, d.c. stick with us. ♪ ? what if you had some help? introducing the new 2019 ford edge
with the confidence of ford co-pilot360™ technology. the most available driver assist technology in its class. the new 2019 ford edge.
traffic and roads... a mess, honestlyrents going up,le. friends and family moving out of state, millions of californians live near or below the poverty line. politicians like gavin newsom talk about change, but they've done nothing. sky-high gas and food prices. homelessness. gavin newsom, it happened on your watch. so, yeah. it is time for a change. time for someone new.
♪ >> hannity: is in the white house to agree to an investigation, the democrats have not slowed down. their attack on judge kavanaugh, joining me right now from reaction, the author of a brand-new book, "ship of fools." how a selfish ruling class is bringing america to the brink. tucker carlson, congrats on the book number one. thank you for letting me use your studio, number two. number three, these are really scary times. i think your book is impacting that. i am really worried about this guilt by accusation now. >> tucker: of course. it is not a question of one party beating the other, because the question of whether the basic ideas on which all of which we have are founded. they're swept away in this revolution. free speech, due process, the things that have made our
culture and our economy and our government possible for 240 years. these are all being blown up right now. what is so fascinating and the reason i wrote the book, it does liberals making arguments against the things that they have defended for a hundred years. free speech, colorblindness, they are attacking those very concepts. like the aclu existed so that you could say what you thought was true without being punished. the great people who ran that aclu and i try to get you fired for disagreeing with them. liberals thought thought againt segregation and now they are holding graduations mounties at harvard, what? >> hannity: tucker, serious allegations like this, there are evil predators in this world. there are. i think the republicans have handled it with an appropriate seriousness. if you have inconsistencies, look at nbc, the allegation.
just backtracking on very key details. she was describing the systematic, almost weekly drug gang of young girls and gang rape. and she is saying, well, i sought judge kavanaugh near the punch bowl. one person she gave the name and the other persons that i've never heard of her. it is ludicrous. why was that covered? >> tucker: if you want to discredit legitimate claims of sexual abuse and discredit the survivors of sexual abuse, take obviously ludicrous claims seriously. which is exactly what they are doing. i went to nine gang rape's in a row. i never told my friends? that is not plausible? >> hannity: she is claiming she did speak to one officer. >> tucker: she did not file a replaced reports. there is no evidence that she sought medical attention.
the ideas that there could be ten public gang rape's and chevy chase maryland, the small tight-knit community and no one remembers them. it does not stand the possibility test. other claims do, this is not one of them and for people to repeat them uncritically is reckless. it corrodes the things we need to preserve. >> hannity: and when an eye witness and an alleged incident not only doesn't cooperate but says it didn't happen, that is problematic. especially if you believe in due process. >> tucker: the problem is as you know, the left now controls every institution, essentially may be other than the white house in our society. they are deeply threatened by what has happen again so they are clamping down. fearful people hate free speech, that is what you need to remember. >> hannity: "ship of fools," i've been reading it and it is ripped from the headlines and so many ways. tucker, congratulations.
think you for joining us tonight. when we come back, highlights as the president had a rally tonight. a lot of people haven't been paying attention to it based on the breaking news, we'll show you some of that next. ♪
>> hannity: all the news that we didn't talk about, the president dealing with nafta. obviously canada and mexico. here is what he had to say. >> democrats believed that they are entitled to power, and they have been blinded, and a blind rage ever since they lost the 2016 election. they have gone loco. they have gone crazy. this election is a choice between the republican party that is building our future, and the democrat party that is trying to burn our future down. democrats can no longer be trusted with your power and with their power. you can't let it happen. they have moved so far left that
TruthMediaDemocratsConcernShameLivesRestraintZeroPowerAl-lCountryParty
difference between systems. you can be authoritarian or fascist is all you care about is yourself, in order to be a democrat or somebody who cares about the rule of law or a constitutionalist you have to be able to take that step of realizing another person is real, another person might deserve to take some kind of risk at some point. >> professor, when you, i have been thinking about world war ii a lot since the ukraine war has, since russia invaded ukraine and the parallels. and it is not easy to make those parallels and these discussions every day. but this is one of those days. when the parallels are so vivid with president zelenskyy right there in normandy. >> thank you for that. number one, we should remember, even as we commemorate this extraordinarily difficult and significant, the decisive naval operation, seaborne operation, that the second world war was chiefly about ukraine it was
DifferenceOrderDemocraticSomebodyFascistSystemsPersonLotRiskPointWorld-war-iiKind
has to be examples. my favorite was the one where we have no right to commemorate others unless we take lessons from them for the future. as far as mr. trump, we have to acknowledge in the 1930s , a current which was called america first. that we should be admiring foreign dictators. that is the right form of politics was the reasoning and that current still exists in american life and mr. trump embodies it. he doesn't understand the value for which you would take risks. you can be an authoritarian or fascist if all you think about is yourself. in order to be a democrat or someone who cares about the rule of law or a constitutionalist, you have to
Donald-trumpMrFavoriteLessonsOthersExamplesOneDictatorsFormPoliticsCurrentReasoningamerican criminal justice which brings us back to speaker johnson. i try to be respectful around here. when he says he is a constitutionalist, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. what constitution? >> i want to play briefly the way he talks to the point you raised. take a look. >> look. we are the rule of law team. we believe in the rule of law. >> we have rogue prosecutors that have drug president trump through the process. there will be a reckoning on november 5th. >> he is not for the rule of law. trump said the real verdict comes on the 5th. they don't have any credibility on democracy because they tried to overthrow the last loss, and sometimes i feel like i am saying the obvious around here, part of the job in the news, we don't put jury verdicts up to a
You-don-tUnited-statesWomen-whose-reproductive-rights-speaker-johnsonConstitutionalistConstitutionBackCryPointRule-of-law-societyProsecutorsWayTeam
administration, the probes and jury process was respected. present a lot of that to respect the rule of law when his appointed cia director betray us face a problem over leaking classified information to a woman he was seeing. there were debates about how to balance the military public service with that offense unlike trump, he accepted responsibility to cooperate with authorities and he did reach a probation deal where he pled guilty but did avoid prison. unlike top republicans that you just saw, then president obama and vowed to respect that verdict in process. even though, having your hand- picked cia director convicted is not the greatest look. obama knew that then just as johnson knows this is complicated now. that does not mean you chuck the entire constitution in the garbage, especially if you are self-proclaimed constitutionalist. the evidence matters because this is how our justice system is supposed to work. the history matters right now because it shows this is a different and dangerous new phase. it is not just politics as usual
LotDirectorJury-processAdministrationProblemRule-of-lawCiaProbesPublic-serviceDebatesWomanInformationlike jimmy carter or something and wanted to make arguments about a living constitution and blow off the text of the constitution, fine. that is one thing, but donald trump claims to be an originalist, who cares about the strict text of the constitution, and that is not what this grief is. and it isn't that way because the original list constitutionalist scholars, people like william bauder at the university of chicago, have exhausted look at the history of the 14th amendment and concluded despite the fact that there are republican scholars who have concluded trump absolutely fits the 14th amendment section three to a tee. so to me, the questions, the big million dollar question is, how is this case going to be argued? is it going to be argued from kind of liberal precepts of a living constitution, or are the challengers, as these voters are challenging trump's eligibility, going to talk the language of the conservative wing of the supreme court about
Donald-trumpThingConstitutionArgumentsSomethingTextJimmy-carterBlowLiving-constitutionFineClaimsWho