April 18, 2025 • 32 mins
In this "Best of Hannity", Dan Huff, former White House attorney, is sounding the alarm in a powerful Wall Street Journal op-ed. Huff argues that Judge Boasberg’s deportation order—and dozens of similar injunctions—are legally invalid because they fail to impose the mandatory bond required under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without such bonds, these rulings may not be legally enforceable.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well we have coming.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
To your city saying you a conscious cell will be desired, Ajellan.
And if you want a little banging, ye I come alonge.
These guys are crushing us. The Democratic brand is toxic
right now. It's one thing to make noise, but you
(00:23):
also have to make sense. It sounds all very good.
But but Governor, you were the poster boy for a
lot of this stuff. Do you agree that the democratic
brand is toxic?
Speaker 1 (00:31):
I do agree that the democratic the Democratic Party brand
is really problematic.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Well, this is a revolution, and I think it might
be that it might be the biggest revolution government since
the original revolution.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Freedom is that you style welcome to the revolution.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
Coming to your city, going the way.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Against us and saying you a conscious zell The New
Sean Hennity Show more me I'm the scenes.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Information on freaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information overload.
Speaker 6 (01:15):
All right, news round up and information overload. Our toll free.
Our number is eight hundred and nine to four one, Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program,
So the only thing, the only power, if you will,
the left has to stop the mandate that Donald Trump
got in the last election is well, they lost electorally,
so they what they can't get done that way, what
(01:37):
they can't get done legislatively because they don't have control
of the House or Senate, they go racing to the
courts and they look and they do a little judge shopping.
They find the right radical leftist activist judge or jurist,
and they try to stop the president's agenda that way.
Now President Trump has experienced more of this. Frankly, it's
(02:00):
it's an extension of lawfare and weaponization as far as
I'm concerned, and we have talked at length about how
to stop it. We're going to get into more details
here in a second. This morning, jd Vance, the Vice President,
was on Fox and Friends, and here's what he said
about this.
Speaker 7 (02:15):
Well, there are a lot of things that we can do,
not just appeals. We can limit the jurisdiction of certain courts.
Even when certain courts make a ruling say that you're
not allowed to deport a person for a certain reason,
we can still deport that person for another reason. So
it's not like deportations have stopped. But yes, the radical
courts are a problem. But Our view here is we
(02:35):
knew we were going to have this fight. We were
prepared for it. We're going to litigate it all the
way to the Supreme Court. We think that we're going
to win, and when we do win, that will end
this question permanently.
Speaker 8 (02:44):
Think about this.
Speaker 7 (02:45):
The Democrats, they're spending so many resources fighting the deportation
of gang members. You have to ask where are their priorities?
But we knew they were going to do this. We're
prepared for it, Lawrence, and we're going to fight all
the way to the top of the courts.
Speaker 6 (02:58):
When you think about it, I mean party now the
champions the right rights of men to play women's sports.
They're the party that puts the rights of illegals over
the safety of Americans. I mean Jamie Raskin demanding going
as far as to demand that the return of these
illegal alien gang members Trendy Orragua gang members that were
(03:19):
sent to Al Salvador. I'm fine with that plan, under
two conditions that they have to live under his roof
in his house with him, and they have to have
ankle bracelets on in case they try to escape his house.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Listen, I call on them to demand that the Trump
administration comply with all judicial orders while appealing whichever one's
they want to appeal, and to demand the return of
people unlawfully taken to El Salvador on that so called
plane full of gang bangers.
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Yeah, let's bring back to Trende or Ragua gang bangers.
Let's bring them back into the country and let them
move straight into Jamie Raskin's apartment or home or wherever
the hell he lives.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
That's a brilliant idea.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Now on that particular issue that deals with the Alien
Enemies Act, there are other ways you can depoor people,
and the administration is now implementing them as we speak.
But that's only one example of judge shopping. That's one
example of judicial activism. The constitution is clear. There have
been four presidents that have used the Alien Enemies Act,
(04:22):
and there was a nineteen forty eight Supreme Court ruling
that upheld the president's authority to depoor people that he
deems to be illegal aliens. And by the way, Trende
Iragua is now designated a terrorist organization, So if you
remember that gang, you should be deported immediately. So the
president has every right to do so. The interesting part
(04:45):
of the decision is the court was very clear that
it is not subject to judicial review. They upheld the
authority and the constitutional rights of the president, the constitutional
duties of the president to enforce such actions as the
commander in chief. Now, there are other issues that have
(05:05):
come up, legal issues. One op ed by the way,
and the Wall Street Journal by Dan Huff was going
to join us here in a second pointed out something
we brought up the other day and the Wall Street
Journal brought up the other day. And in the case
of Judge Boseberg's deportation order and dozens of similar injunctions,
he points out they're legally invalid because they failed to
(05:27):
impose what is a mandatory bond, mandatory not subjective it anyway,
mandatory bond required under Rule sixty five C of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without the bond, those rulings
are likely not legally enforceable, which is the interpretation of
Pam BONDI and others. Anyway, Dan Huff, former White House attorney,
(05:49):
joins us. Now, sir, how are you Tom great? All right,
let's talk about law fair, Let's talk about the injunctions.
Let's talk about the lower courts, and let's talk about
Rule sixty five.
Speaker 8 (06:01):
See, well, you know it's interesting, I guess here you
talk about let's get all these trender Awogua, you know,
criminal alien gang members and put them in Jamie Askin's home.
And what you're really saying is, let's see either have
some skin in the game or let's see how you
behave when the when the you have to suffer the
consequences of the things you say. And that's really what
rule sixty five is all about. It's making sure that
(06:22):
plaintiff seeking culminary in junctions have skin in the game.
And specifically, if they want to block defendant from taking action,
if they want to block the government from taking action,
they want to block it up front before a full trial,
then those plaintiffs have to post bond to compensate the
defendant for any costs or damages that result from being
wrongfully enjoyed. So in the Boseburg case, you're telling you're
(06:44):
telling the government turn around the planes, put these people
in prison, hold them there at cost. Well, if you
want to do that, then the people who want that
to be done should have to pay for it. In case,
as is highly likely, the Supreme court says that the
government had every right to do that sighting, among other things,
case that you brought up. And because that isn't happening
because Judge Bozburg did not require that, that injunction is invalid.
(07:07):
Actually a temporary restraining order is invalid and the government
was not required to comply.
Speaker 6 (07:12):
Let's still let's talk about specifically what the bond refers to.
Because if you're causing this action and forcing people to
pay money, and ultimately it is overturned, what does that
mean for the people that bring this core proceeding.
Speaker 8 (07:27):
So the way it's supposed to work is is they're
supposed to put up bond up front. They're supposed to
put up the money to pay those costs, and when
they lose, that money goes to the injured party here
the government. So let's say the cost of turning around
that plane is you know, twenty thousand dollars and holding
them and it comes to you know, a couple million dollars.
They have to put that bond up the front, and
if it's later overturned, they lose that money. Which is
(07:49):
why this bond requirement is so important, because the basic
idea is to deter frivolous litigation. You won't bring those
cases if you know you could lose all that money
ter on when your preliminary junction gets overturned on appeal,
even if you have a sympathetic judge down below, and
that winds up deterring this frivolous litigation and preventing these
(08:11):
types of things from even starting, you know, to begin with, it's.
Speaker 6 (08:14):
Almost the version of loser pays. You bring a lawsuit,
you lose, then you should pay the attorney's fees for
the people that were involved. I think that would result
in far less litigation, far fewer lawsuits. I know, maybe
attorneys groups don't like the idea of it.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I like it a lot.
Speaker 6 (08:32):
I know European countries often use that strategy. I think
it's a good law personally, it gets rid of frivolous lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I like the idea.
Speaker 8 (08:41):
Yeah, and I think that that's a very good analogy.
And what's important to remember too, is that it's not
as if you can't bring a lawsuit without a preliminary junction.
If you really think you've been wrong, you can go
bring that lawsuit and have it completely litigated on the
marriage and never seek a preliminary junction. Preliminary jention is
pre trial, it's before the full hearing on the marriage,
So go you litigate it out. If you can't afford
(09:03):
the injunction, you simply don't afford the bond. You simply
don't seek the injunction. So the court doors are not
being slammed on anyone. And I think that's really important
to remember. It's just a question of whether we're going
to let activists score quick upfront victories without having to
prove their case, and the bond helps say no. And
if you really want to bring your case, go bring it.
(09:23):
And if you can't afford the bond, that's fine, you
just won't get a preliminary injunction. You'll have to go
through the ordinary process. So it's really completely fair here.
And one other point that things are really important or
a member, is that we're not in this situation by accident. Okay,
it's starting in the eighties, there were a lot of
you articles where you had activists saying, we want to
use the courts to achieve our agenda, to impose our ideology,
(09:46):
and the problem we're going to face is these bonds,
we're not going to be able to pay these bonds.
If we want to stop the construction of an airport,
if we want to stop the government from halting welfare payments,
we're going to have to post the enormous bass that
we may lose and we can't afford it, and it'll
kill us. So we've got to figure out a way
to sideline these bond requirements. And sort of systematically, they
(10:08):
started going to sympathetic judges and getting decisions that tried
to minimize or reinterpret the bond requirement to say that
they didn't need to follow it. But it's all wise,
Like if you read the requirement, it's crystal clear, the
history is crystal clear, it's mandatory. It must be done.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Okay, So this process, and by the way, to the
credit of the Trump administration, they identified the legal law
ramp and this March eleventh memorandum directing the Department of
Justice to demand bonds in future and junction cases. I
think it should be retroactive because the rule has been
in place. Personally, so I would I would I would
(10:44):
argue that that decision should be rendered unenforceable. And I
think that's Pam Bondi's take on it as well. But
moving forward, I think the long term solution is going
to be legislation.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Now.
Speaker 6 (10:57):
Chuck Grassley is introducing legislation in the Senate. In the House,
him Jordan and others are working on legislation there that
would prevent these lower court judges for usurping the power
of a duly elected President of the United States and
his agenda. I think that's a better long term solution.
Do you not agree?
Speaker 8 (11:16):
Well, I think it's a very important solution because there's
a real intuition behind that right, judges should not be
one judge. One lower court judge should not be able
to set a rule for the entire nation. And what
those bills that you referenced do is they say that
a judge can issue a decision that binds the parties
before him or her, it doesn't go beyond that. And
that sort of is a very sort of fair way
(11:38):
of handling it. My concern with these approaches are that
it's just going to be very hard to pass them.
Even that bill that was supposed to that mister Isiser
Representative Isa introduced to do just that was supposed to
be voted on the House this week and it got
sidetracked because the House had to go out of session
for a totally unrelated reason, and I think that just
(11:58):
speaks to the difficulty of a legislative solution. But ultimately, yes,
that would be a very good way to do it.
The advantage of the injunction bonds that I'm bringing up
is that it sort of nearly requires people to enforce
the law as is without having to pass something new.
Speaker 6 (12:12):
Well said, I really do appreciate your analysis, your expertise,
Dan Huff, Thank you for being with us. We really
appreciate it.
Speaker 8 (12:19):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 6 (12:20):
Eight hundred nine four one, Shawn our number if you
want to be a part of the program. We're going
to hit the phones when we get back. All right,
to our busy phones we go. Eight hundred ninety four
one Shawn is a number we have. Jim in San Antonio.
God Bless Texas. Jim, how are you glad you called?
Speaker 5 (12:33):
Hey?
Speaker 9 (12:34):
God Bless Texas and I'm honored. Thanks for taking a call, Sean,
and pats off to your outstanding call screener Katie.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
She does an excellent job.
Speaker 6 (12:43):
Why why does everybody suck up to Katie and to Linda.
It's very annoying.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
They earned it.
Speaker 9 (12:50):
Your bread and butter right there. So treat them well,
give big raises, to send them on nice vacations. They
didn't ask me to say that either.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Oh man, man, what's on your mind today?
Speaker 8 (13:02):
Hey?
Speaker 9 (13:03):
I wanted to I just sound off on Donald Trump
inviting Bill Mahr to the White House whatever day it was,
And I.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Got to say, I'm no real fan of Bill Maher.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
I was.
Speaker 9 (13:15):
I was when I first turned in with his new rules,
and then then I listened to him for years and
just route him off as a leftist nut job. And
then he started to get a little more you know,
fair and impartial.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
The last year or two. But I think it was.
Speaker 9 (13:29):
An awesome gesture, and Olive grants that Donald Trump had
him in the White House, had the enemy inside there,
because you know.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
The best way to keep track of your enemy is
to keep him close to the vest.
Speaker 9 (13:41):
And I think winning Bill Maher over at least neutralizing
him was good for him. He I'll tell you, I'm
a young Republican in the Reagan era. My first vote
ever was for Ronald Reagan three weeks after my eighteenth
birthday in nineteen eighty and Reagan changed his country.
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Much as Donald Trump is doing Trump I think is
even doing better. But one thing Trump.
Speaker 9 (14:03):
Will do is he will fight at the drop of
the hat. He's a New York fighter. He was raised
and born that way. That's what people love about him.
But he's got to understand when he's the president, he's
got to be able to after those olive branches. And
Ronald Reagan did a great job of that. He was
the master at reason across the island, going out with
Tip O'Neil for lunch every week, and you know, and
(14:23):
making friends of his enemies. And I think Donald Trump
has master Dad.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
And should continue to do so.
Speaker 9 (14:30):
You know, he brought Joe Blow and Mika into the Marlago.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
I think it was last year, and I think that
was a good thing.
Speaker 9 (14:37):
I can't stand neither of those two. They left this
nut job. They lie, they distort the truth. They've been
nothing but bashing Trump for years. But him bringing them
in shows he's the bigger man. He's a bigger than
man and big enough to be president. And he's doing
an excellent job, and I just I commend him for it.
I think he should keep doing it, keep inviting them in,
(14:57):
win them over with love, don't don't you don't have
to beat him up in the rank with Hey, just
win them over and.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
Show them what you're doing well. Is showing your success?
Does that help?
Speaker 2 (15:06):
I think it helps a lot.
Speaker 6 (15:07):
And let me tell you something, there are differences in
style with Reagan and Trump. I think at the end
of the day, as successful as Ronald Reagan was, and
he was successful, the Trump agenda is the most transformational.
And if we help him be successful by putting pressure
on congressmen and senators, et cetera, I'm telling you this
(15:28):
country is going to be on the right track and
it's going to help our children, our grandchildren, future generations,
and I think it's just going to be a boom
for the entire country. Anyway, I appreciate the call eight
hundred and nine foot one Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program. By the way, if
there's one thing you own that should be made in America,
don't you think it should be the American flag. Do
not buy a flag made in China or elsewhere. Now,
(15:51):
every Allegiance flag is hands sown by craftsmen and women
in Charleston, South Carolina. Every single component from the white
ash flagpole to the spinners and mounts. They were all
sourced right here in America. I just got mine and
you're gonna love yours. When you buy an American flag,
you're supporting American jobs. You're supporting an American business. This business,
(16:14):
the American Dream, started by three friends in their garage.
It's simple. Get your full American flag. All right, quick
break right back. We'll continue more of your calls straight ahead,
eight hundred nine to pot one Shawn as we continue,
Hi twenty five now till the top of the hour.
Eight hundred nine. Pot one Shawn is our number. If
you want to be a part of the program, don't
forget our Tesla contest. Win a free Tesla. You get
(16:35):
to register every day if you know the word of
the day that we give out on the program, and
today's word is reciprocal. Just go to Hannity dot com,
click on the Tesla Tesla contest icon. It'll take you
to the contest page. You put in the word of
the day, reciprocal, and you will have a chance to win.
This continues through April the eleventh. You can register once
(16:57):
a day every day, and then you get to pick,
if you're the winner, the Tesla of your choice. Ali
Dwyer and her three sons. They lost their hero. His
name was Stephen. He was serving our country in the
US Army and anyway it was his calling in life.
He was flying a helicopter that was his passion in life. Now, sadly,
Stephen died in a Blackhawk helicopter and a crash over
(17:21):
the Mediterranean. And thanks to friends like you, the Tunnel
to Towers Foundation was able to help this family with
a mortgage free home, helping to give them the security,
the hope that they need in their darkest hours. Tunnel
to Towers provides mortgage free homes for families of our
country's fallen heroes. They built specially adapted smart homes to
catastrophically injured heroes. The foundation is also committed to eradicating
(17:45):
homelessness among our veterans and helping our nation to keep
its vout and never forget. Nine to eleven oh one.
Please help this great mission continue. Join us here at
Team Hannity if you can commit to eleven dollars a month,
every month, this great work continued. Everybody listening to my voice,
please go to their website, the letter T, the number two,
the letter T dot org, the letter T, the number
(18:08):
two the letter T dot org for the Tunnel to
Towers Foundation, President Trump announcing tariffs, and in a second
an unlikely ally listen.
Speaker 10 (18:18):
April second, twenty twenty five will forever be remembered as
today American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed,
and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.
For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and
(18:38):
plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.
American steel workers or a workers, farmers, and skilled craftsmen,
we have a lot of them here with us today.
They really suffered gravely. They watched in anguish as foreign
leaders have stolen our jobs. Foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories,
(18:59):
and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream.
Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for
more than fifty years. But it is not going to
happen anymore.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
It's not going to happen.
Speaker 10 (19:15):
This is one of the most important days, in my opinion,
in American history. It's our declaration of economic independence. For years,
hard working American citizens were forced to sit on the
sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of
it at our expense. But now it's our turn to
(19:36):
prosper and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of
dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt,
and it'll all happen very quickly. If you want you're
teriffraied to be zero, then you build your product right
here in America, because there is no tariffy if you build.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Your plant, your product in America.
Speaker 10 (19:55):
To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queen's ambassadors,
and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask
for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs,
drop your barriers, don't manipulate your currencies. They manipulate their
currencies like nobody can even believe, which is a bad,
(20:17):
bad thing and very.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Devastating to us.
Speaker 10 (20:19):
And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Now, believe it or not.
Speaker 6 (20:24):
We found a clip of Nancy Pelosi in the nineties
talking about tariffs and a trade deficit, and listen to
what she had to say about tariffs and a trade deficit.
It's a little long, but I think it's worth playing
because he sounds an awful lot like Donald Trump.
Speaker 11 (20:41):
Listen, how far does China have to go, how much
more repression, how big a trade deficit and loss of
jobs for the American worker, and how much more dangerous
proliferation has to exist before members of this House of
Representatives will say I will not endorse the status quo.
(21:03):
As I mentioned, it's about jobs, proliferation, and human rights.
And there are those who say we shouldn't link human
rights in trade and proliferation and trade. I disagree. But
if we just want to take up this issue on
the basis of economics alone, indeed, China should not receive
Most Favored Nation status for several reasons that I'd like
(21:23):
to go into now. I'd like to call the attention
of our colleagues to this chart on the status quo
that the business community is asking each and every one
of you, to, each and every one of us to
endorse today. Right now, we have a thirty four billion
dollar trade deficit with China the nineteen ninety five figure.
It will be over forty billion dollars for nineteen ninety six.
(21:47):
Since the Tenement Square massacre, this figure has increased one
thousand percent from three and a half billion then to
about thirty four billion dollars now. In terms of tariffs,
I'd think it's interesting to note that the average MFN
tariff on Chinese goods coming into the United States is
two percent, whereas the average Chinese to MFF tariff on
(22:09):
US goods going into China is thirty five percent. Is
that reciprocal on exports? China only allows certain industries into
China of US industries into China, and therefore only two
percent of US exports are allowed into China. On the
other hand, the US allows China to flood our markets
(22:30):
with thirty a third of their exports, and that'll probably
go over forty percent. And it's limitless because we have
not placed any restriction in terms of jobs. This is
the biggest and cruelest hoax of all. Not only do
we not have market access, not only do they have
prohibitive tariffs, not only are our exports not let in
(22:51):
very specifically, but China benefits with at least at least
ten million jobs from US China trade. The President, in
his statement requesting this special waiver, said that it China
trade supports one hundred and seventy thousand jobs in the
United States one hundred and seventy thousand jobs, whereas our
(23:15):
imports from China support ten million jobs at least. The
fact is that that US China trade is a job loser,
and one of the reasons that it is is because
in order well first, let me just make another point,
and that is that our colleagues on the other side
of this issue will say the trade with China, exports
to China have increased three times in the last ten years.
(23:37):
They have, but they failed to mention that exports imports
from China have increased eleven times, thereby leading to this
huge trade deficit. The other issue, in addition, if intellectual
property is a two billion dollar three billion dollar loss,
technology transfer is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
(23:58):
If you want to sell to China your products into China,
the Chinese insists that you open a factory there. They
take misappropriate your technology, open factories of their own, and
then say to you, now we want to see your
plan for export. That's as simply as I can say
it briefly, But the fact is this isn't about products
(24:18):
made in America. The Chinese want American products that are
made in China, and the most serious of these transfers
of technology are in the airline industry where Boeing tail sections,
the tail sections of the Boeing seven thirty sevens were
mostly made in Wichita, Kansas. Now they are made in
shen Province, where workers make fifty dollars a month, and
(24:42):
they had the transfer of the technology and the transfer
of the jobs has taken place General Motors for they're
all fighting to get in to build factories there so
they can make parts there. They want MFN so they
can get those parts back into the United States. So
we are exporting not low tech jobs and textile jobs.
We're exporting our technology. Now, if you take a country
(25:03):
the size of China, with the cheap, the very cheap
and in some instances slave labor, the lack of market access,
the rip off of our intellectual property, the transfer of technology,
a country that is not willing to play by the
rules in any respect in this trade relationship, you have
a serious threat not only to our relationship, but to
(25:25):
the industrialized world. And if there's one message that I
want our colleagues to understand today and our constituents, is
that on this day, your member of Congress could have
drawn the line, just say to the President of the
United States, do something about this US China trade relationship.
That is a job loser for the United States. And
this brings us to the point that others have said, well,
(25:47):
we can't isolate China. Do you think for one minute
that with ten million jobs at least and thirty five
billion and be over forty billion dollars this year in
a trade surplus, all those billions of dollars in circlus
that the Chinese are going to walk away? Where are
they going to take thirty five to forty percent of
(26:08):
their exports? Who's going to buy them? This is what
sustains the regime, the funding and the jobs. They can't
have those people out of work. They have to be
at work exporting to the United States.
Speaker 6 (26:21):
It just reminds you of how radicalized this party has become. Anyway,
eight hundred and nine foot one, Sean, if you want
to be a part of the program, let's say hi
to Jim my Free State of Florida. Jim, how are
you glad you called?
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Hey? Sean, It's a pleasure to talk to you. Listen
about this tarif thing. I thought he was going to
do it reciprocally, which means even for even, but it
seems like he's doing fifty percent mostly. I think you
should just do the full one percent of what they're trying.
You know, did they charge us, we charge them?
Speaker 2 (26:51):
He's doing that that way now.
Speaker 6 (26:53):
I think what he's doing is leaving open the door
if you want to end this, if you want free
and fair trade, our door is open. And we already
see movement today. I mean, I mean this is now
for car companies in particular. It is opening the door.
If ninety four percent of vehicles in in some place
like Japan, for example, are our Japanese cars, why aren't
(27:17):
ninety four percent of American vehicles American cars? I mean,
I've always felt that way. But you know, however, Toyota,
you know other companies that from overseas, if they have
if they manufacture their cars here, that's that's fine, but
something's got to be done. I mean, it's just so
(27:37):
unfair to our workers, our manufacturing capability. It weakens our economy.
When you have a country like Germany that has a
ten percent tariff and then a twenty percent value added tax,
which is a national sales tax. It makes an American
car in Germany cost prohibitive. Well, that's not a level
playing field.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Like Trump said, he's been talking about this since back
in the eighties when he was on Oprah. He commented
about it.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
He absolutely did, and he was right then and he's
right now.
Speaker 8 (28:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (28:07):
Anyway, my friend, appreciate the call. You're right out of money.
Let's say hi to Larry and Wisconsin. Larry, how are
you glad you called hello?
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Sean.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
He was listening to your conversation with I think it
was Bill O'Reilly about the Wisconsin Supreme Court thing, and
towards the end, Bill said, hey, I think Wisconsin's going blue.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
And I'm like, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 10 (28:28):
We're not.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
We voted for President Trump.
Speaker 9 (28:30):
There's plenty of US here, plenty of US ready and willing.
Speaker 6 (28:33):
And well, it's still considered a swing state. I don't
think you can make any judgments based on the race
for the Supreme Court. As I had pointed out, as
much as I would have preferred the conservative to win,
and we had him on the program before the election,
both radio and TV, as much as I would have
preferred that it didn't happen, and as much as I
(28:56):
you know, understand. Look, it came down to me one issue,
and you were in Wisconsin, you were probably watching the ads.
But he supported a law in the eighteen hundreds on abortion.
He made a number of comments, and that law does
not make exceptions even for rape incest to the mother's life.
To me, that makes any candidate unelectable. Did you see
(29:19):
a lot of abortion ads in the state of Wisconsin
and the lead up to Tuesday's vote?
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah, and a lot of nonsense about you know who,
let who go as far as criminals and yeah, I
don't even pay attention to them to tell you the truth.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
But yeah, I mean I think you're.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Dead on right about the abortion thing.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
And that's what a lot of people voted for.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Yeah, yep, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (29:39):
I mean I think that's a big issue. Look, my
personal views on abortion are one thing. Do I think
my views are the same?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Was?
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Where the country is? I do not.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
I think probably the country is at twelve to fifteen weeks.
I mean, looking out at how it's playing out in
states like Mississippi, I mean, fifteen weeks seems to be
a consensus number or belief in terms of a woman's
right determinated pregnancy.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Do I like it?
Speaker 5 (30:09):
No.
Speaker 6 (30:10):
I mean Bill Clinton famously said legal rare, and I
would add the word early. With the abortion pill decision
in the Supreme Court, it pretty much is codified the
first trimester abortion availability using the pill versus you know,
the old methods of getting an abortion. So I think
(30:32):
in that sense, it's a point in terms of the
first trimester, and the states will make their respective laws.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
It's going to be up to the states.
Speaker 6 (30:40):
However, that's where that became an issue in the Supreme
Court race that you just dealt with on Tuesday. But
I think it's an untenable political position for anyone to
be and if you're on record against exceptions for rape
incess mother's life, I don't think you can win. When
Doug Mastriano ran again, ran again, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania,
(31:02):
I mean, that was his position, and he lost by
the largest percentage of any gubernatorial candidate in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania to a non incumbent since the nineteen forties.
That's how big an issue was in the state. It
became a big issue I think in Wisconsin in this race,
it in my view, in many ways made it unwinnable
(31:24):
talking about Brad Schimmel in this case. Anyway, my friend,
I appreciate your call. And the twenty six percent of
voters that want voter ID in Wisconsin that was huge.
The two congressional seats in my state of Florida, that
was huge.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Also.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
Anybody that's spinning it any other way is just flat
out lying to you. Eight hundred nine to four to one,
Shawn our number. If you want to be a part
of the program.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Right that's going to wrap things up for today. We
have a busy show.
Speaker 6 (31:50):
Tonight's sat in DVR nine Eastern Hannity on Fox, Victor
Davis Hansen, David Asman, Lindsey Graham. What he's doing is
the single most important thing the US Senate will do
this year. And he'll explain why it's so important and
why we may need you to call your congressman and
your senators. Anyway, Tom Holman, Joe Kancha, stephen A. Smith,
(32:11):
We go at it again tonight nine Eastern City You
DVR Hannity on Fox. We'll see you tonight back here tomorrow.
Thank you for making this show possible.
Well we have coming.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
To your city saying you a conscious cell will be desired, Ajellan.
And if you want a little banging, ye I come alonge.
These guys are crushing us. The Democratic brand is toxic
right now. It's one thing to make noise, but you
(00:23):
also have to make sense. It sounds all very good.
But but Governor, you were the poster boy for a
lot of this stuff. Do you agree that the democratic
brand is toxic?
Speaker 1 (00:31):
I do agree that the democratic the Democratic Party brand
is really problematic.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Well, this is a revolution, and I think it might
be that it might be the biggest revolution government since
the original revolution.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
Freedom is that you style welcome to the revolution.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
Coming to your city, going the way.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Against us and saying you a conscious zell The New
Sean Hennity Show more me I'm the scenes.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Information on freaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information overload.
Speaker 6 (01:15):
All right, news round up and information overload. Our toll free.
Our number is eight hundred and nine to four one, Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program,
So the only thing, the only power, if you will,
the left has to stop the mandate that Donald Trump
got in the last election is well, they lost electorally,
so they what they can't get done that way, what
(01:37):
they can't get done legislatively because they don't have control
of the House or Senate, they go racing to the
courts and they look and they do a little judge shopping.
They find the right radical leftist activist judge or jurist,
and they try to stop the president's agenda that way.
Now President Trump has experienced more of this. Frankly, it's
(02:00):
it's an extension of lawfare and weaponization as far as
I'm concerned, and we have talked at length about how
to stop it. We're going to get into more details
here in a second. This morning, jd Vance, the Vice President,
was on Fox and Friends, and here's what he said
about this.
Speaker 7 (02:15):
Well, there are a lot of things that we can do,
not just appeals. We can limit the jurisdiction of certain courts.
Even when certain courts make a ruling say that you're
not allowed to deport a person for a certain reason,
we can still deport that person for another reason. So
it's not like deportations have stopped. But yes, the radical
courts are a problem. But Our view here is we
(02:35):
knew we were going to have this fight. We were
prepared for it. We're going to litigate it all the
way to the Supreme Court. We think that we're going
to win, and when we do win, that will end
this question permanently.
Speaker 8 (02:44):
Think about this.
Speaker 7 (02:45):
The Democrats, they're spending so many resources fighting the deportation
of gang members. You have to ask where are their priorities?
But we knew they were going to do this. We're
prepared for it, Lawrence, and we're going to fight all
the way to the top of the courts.
Speaker 6 (02:58):
When you think about it, I mean party now the
champions the right rights of men to play women's sports.
They're the party that puts the rights of illegals over
the safety of Americans. I mean Jamie Raskin demanding going
as far as to demand that the return of these
illegal alien gang members Trendy Orragua gang members that were
(03:19):
sent to Al Salvador. I'm fine with that plan, under
two conditions that they have to live under his roof
in his house with him, and they have to have
ankle bracelets on in case they try to escape his house.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Listen, I call on them to demand that the Trump
administration comply with all judicial orders while appealing whichever one's
they want to appeal, and to demand the return of
people unlawfully taken to El Salvador on that so called
plane full of gang bangers.
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Yeah, let's bring back to Trende or Ragua gang bangers.
Let's bring them back into the country and let them
move straight into Jamie Raskin's apartment or home or wherever
the hell he lives.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
That's a brilliant idea.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Now on that particular issue that deals with the Alien
Enemies Act, there are other ways you can depoor people,
and the administration is now implementing them as we speak.
But that's only one example of judge shopping. That's one
example of judicial activism. The constitution is clear. There have
been four presidents that have used the Alien Enemies Act,
(04:22):
and there was a nineteen forty eight Supreme Court ruling
that upheld the president's authority to depoor people that he
deems to be illegal aliens. And by the way, Trende
Iragua is now designated a terrorist organization, So if you
remember that gang, you should be deported immediately. So the
president has every right to do so. The interesting part
(04:45):
of the decision is the court was very clear that
it is not subject to judicial review. They upheld the
authority and the constitutional rights of the president, the constitutional
duties of the president to enforce such actions as the
commander in chief. Now, there are other issues that have
(05:05):
come up, legal issues. One op ed by the way,
and the Wall Street Journal by Dan Huff was going
to join us here in a second pointed out something
we brought up the other day and the Wall Street
Journal brought up the other day. And in the case
of Judge Boseberg's deportation order and dozens of similar injunctions,
he points out they're legally invalid because they failed to
(05:27):
impose what is a mandatory bond, mandatory not subjective it anyway,
mandatory bond required under Rule sixty five C of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without the bond, those rulings
are likely not legally enforceable, which is the interpretation of
Pam BONDI and others. Anyway, Dan Huff, former White House attorney,
(05:49):
joins us. Now, sir, how are you Tom great? All right,
let's talk about law fair, Let's talk about the injunctions.
Let's talk about the lower courts, and let's talk about
Rule sixty five.
Speaker 8 (06:01):
See, well, you know it's interesting, I guess here you
talk about let's get all these trender Awogua, you know,
criminal alien gang members and put them in Jamie Askin's home.
And what you're really saying is, let's see either have
some skin in the game or let's see how you
behave when the when the you have to suffer the
consequences of the things you say. And that's really what
rule sixty five is all about. It's making sure that
(06:22):
plaintiff seeking culminary in junctions have skin in the game.
And specifically, if they want to block defendant from taking action,
if they want to block the government from taking action,
they want to block it up front before a full trial,
then those plaintiffs have to post bond to compensate the
defendant for any costs or damages that result from being
wrongfully enjoyed. So in the Boseburg case, you're telling you're
(06:44):
telling the government turn around the planes, put these people
in prison, hold them there at cost. Well, if you
want to do that, then the people who want that
to be done should have to pay for it. In case,
as is highly likely, the Supreme court says that the
government had every right to do that sighting, among other things,
case that you brought up. And because that isn't happening
because Judge Bozburg did not require that, that injunction is invalid.
(07:07):
Actually a temporary restraining order is invalid and the government
was not required to comply.
Speaker 6 (07:12):
Let's still let's talk about specifically what the bond refers to.
Because if you're causing this action and forcing people to
pay money, and ultimately it is overturned, what does that
mean for the people that bring this core proceeding.
Speaker 8 (07:27):
So the way it's supposed to work is is they're
supposed to put up bond up front. They're supposed to
put up the money to pay those costs, and when
they lose, that money goes to the injured party here
the government. So let's say the cost of turning around
that plane is you know, twenty thousand dollars and holding
them and it comes to you know, a couple million dollars.
They have to put that bond up the front, and
if it's later overturned, they lose that money. Which is
(07:49):
why this bond requirement is so important, because the basic
idea is to deter frivolous litigation. You won't bring those
cases if you know you could lose all that money
ter on when your preliminary junction gets overturned on appeal,
even if you have a sympathetic judge down below, and
that winds up deterring this frivolous litigation and preventing these
(08:11):
types of things from even starting, you know, to begin with, it's.
Speaker 6 (08:14):
Almost the version of loser pays. You bring a lawsuit,
you lose, then you should pay the attorney's fees for
the people that were involved. I think that would result
in far less litigation, far fewer lawsuits. I know, maybe
attorneys groups don't like the idea of it.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I like it a lot.
Speaker 6 (08:32):
I know European countries often use that strategy. I think
it's a good law personally, it gets rid of frivolous lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I like the idea.
Speaker 8 (08:41):
Yeah, and I think that that's a very good analogy.
And what's important to remember too, is that it's not
as if you can't bring a lawsuit without a preliminary junction.
If you really think you've been wrong, you can go
bring that lawsuit and have it completely litigated on the
marriage and never seek a preliminary junction. Preliminary jention is
pre trial, it's before the full hearing on the marriage,
So go you litigate it out. If you can't afford
(09:03):
the injunction, you simply don't afford the bond. You simply
don't seek the injunction. So the court doors are not
being slammed on anyone. And I think that's really important
to remember. It's just a question of whether we're going
to let activists score quick upfront victories without having to
prove their case, and the bond helps say no. And
if you really want to bring your case, go bring it.
(09:23):
And if you can't afford the bond, that's fine, you
just won't get a preliminary injunction. You'll have to go
through the ordinary process. So it's really completely fair here.
And one other point that things are really important or
a member, is that we're not in this situation by accident. Okay,
it's starting in the eighties, there were a lot of
you articles where you had activists saying, we want to
use the courts to achieve our agenda, to impose our ideology,
(09:46):
and the problem we're going to face is these bonds,
we're not going to be able to pay these bonds.
If we want to stop the construction of an airport,
if we want to stop the government from halting welfare payments,
we're going to have to post the enormous bass that
we may lose and we can't afford it, and it'll
kill us. So we've got to figure out a way
to sideline these bond requirements. And sort of systematically, they
(10:08):
started going to sympathetic judges and getting decisions that tried
to minimize or reinterpret the bond requirement to say that
they didn't need to follow it. But it's all wise,
Like if you read the requirement, it's crystal clear, the
history is crystal clear, it's mandatory. It must be done.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Okay, So this process, and by the way, to the
credit of the Trump administration, they identified the legal law
ramp and this March eleventh memorandum directing the Department of
Justice to demand bonds in future and junction cases. I
think it should be retroactive because the rule has been
in place. Personally, so I would I would I would
(10:44):
argue that that decision should be rendered unenforceable. And I
think that's Pam Bondi's take on it as well. But
moving forward, I think the long term solution is going
to be legislation.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Now.
Speaker 6 (10:57):
Chuck Grassley is introducing legislation in the Senate. In the House,
him Jordan and others are working on legislation there that
would prevent these lower court judges for usurping the power
of a duly elected President of the United States and
his agenda. I think that's a better long term solution.
Do you not agree?
Speaker 8 (11:16):
Well, I think it's a very important solution because there's
a real intuition behind that right, judges should not be
one judge. One lower court judge should not be able
to set a rule for the entire nation. And what
those bills that you referenced do is they say that
a judge can issue a decision that binds the parties
before him or her, it doesn't go beyond that. And
that sort of is a very sort of fair way
(11:38):
of handling it. My concern with these approaches are that
it's just going to be very hard to pass them.
Even that bill that was supposed to that mister Isiser
Representative Isa introduced to do just that was supposed to
be voted on the House this week and it got
sidetracked because the House had to go out of session
for a totally unrelated reason, and I think that just
(11:58):
speaks to the difficulty of a legislative solution. But ultimately, yes,
that would be a very good way to do it.
The advantage of the injunction bonds that I'm bringing up
is that it sort of nearly requires people to enforce
the law as is without having to pass something new.
Speaker 6 (12:12):
Well said, I really do appreciate your analysis, your expertise,
Dan Huff, Thank you for being with us. We really
appreciate it.
Speaker 8 (12:19):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 6 (12:20):
Eight hundred nine four one, Shawn our number if you
want to be a part of the program. We're going
to hit the phones when we get back. All right,
to our busy phones we go. Eight hundred ninety four
one Shawn is a number we have. Jim in San Antonio.
God Bless Texas. Jim, how are you glad you called?
Speaker 5 (12:33):
Hey?
Speaker 9 (12:34):
God Bless Texas and I'm honored. Thanks for taking a call, Sean,
and pats off to your outstanding call screener Katie.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
She does an excellent job.
Speaker 6 (12:43):
Why why does everybody suck up to Katie and to Linda.
It's very annoying.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
They earned it.
Speaker 9 (12:50):
Your bread and butter right there. So treat them well,
give big raises, to send them on nice vacations. They
didn't ask me to say that either.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Oh man, man, what's on your mind today?
Speaker 8 (13:02):
Hey?
Speaker 9 (13:03):
I wanted to I just sound off on Donald Trump
inviting Bill Mahr to the White House whatever day it was,
And I.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Got to say, I'm no real fan of Bill Maher.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
I was.
Speaker 9 (13:15):
I was when I first turned in with his new rules,
and then then I listened to him for years and
just route him off as a leftist nut job. And
then he started to get a little more you know,
fair and impartial.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
The last year or two. But I think it was.
Speaker 9 (13:29):
An awesome gesture, and Olive grants that Donald Trump had
him in the White House, had the enemy inside there,
because you know.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
The best way to keep track of your enemy is
to keep him close to the vest.
Speaker 9 (13:41):
And I think winning Bill Maher over at least neutralizing
him was good for him. He I'll tell you, I'm
a young Republican in the Reagan era. My first vote
ever was for Ronald Reagan three weeks after my eighteenth
birthday in nineteen eighty and Reagan changed his country.
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Much as Donald Trump is doing Trump I think is
even doing better. But one thing Trump.
Speaker 9 (14:03):
Will do is he will fight at the drop of
the hat. He's a New York fighter. He was raised
and born that way. That's what people love about him.
But he's got to understand when he's the president, he's
got to be able to after those olive branches. And
Ronald Reagan did a great job of that. He was
the master at reason across the island, going out with
Tip O'Neil for lunch every week, and you know, and
(14:23):
making friends of his enemies. And I think Donald Trump
has master Dad.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
And should continue to do so.
Speaker 9 (14:30):
You know, he brought Joe Blow and Mika into the Marlago.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
I think it was last year, and I think that
was a good thing.
Speaker 9 (14:37):
I can't stand neither of those two. They left this
nut job. They lie, they distort the truth. They've been
nothing but bashing Trump for years. But him bringing them
in shows he's the bigger man. He's a bigger than
man and big enough to be president. And he's doing
an excellent job, and I just I commend him for it.
I think he should keep doing it, keep inviting them in,
(14:57):
win them over with love, don't don't you don't have
to beat him up in the rank with Hey, just
win them over and.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
Show them what you're doing well. Is showing your success?
Does that help?
Speaker 2 (15:06):
I think it helps a lot.
Speaker 6 (15:07):
And let me tell you something, there are differences in
style with Reagan and Trump. I think at the end
of the day, as successful as Ronald Reagan was, and
he was successful, the Trump agenda is the most transformational.
And if we help him be successful by putting pressure
on congressmen and senators, et cetera, I'm telling you this
(15:28):
country is going to be on the right track and
it's going to help our children, our grandchildren, future generations,
and I think it's just going to be a boom
for the entire country. Anyway, I appreciate the call eight
hundred and nine foot one Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program. By the way, if
there's one thing you own that should be made in America,
don't you think it should be the American flag. Do
not buy a flag made in China or elsewhere. Now,
(15:51):
every Allegiance flag is hands sown by craftsmen and women
in Charleston, South Carolina. Every single component from the white
ash flagpole to the spinners and mounts. They were all
sourced right here in America. I just got mine and
you're gonna love yours. When you buy an American flag,
you're supporting American jobs. You're supporting an American business. This business,
(16:14):
the American Dream, started by three friends in their garage.
It's simple. Get your full American flag. All right, quick
break right back. We'll continue more of your calls straight ahead,
eight hundred nine to pot one Shawn as we continue,
Hi twenty five now till the top of the hour.
Eight hundred nine. Pot one Shawn is our number. If
you want to be a part of the program, don't
forget our Tesla contest. Win a free Tesla. You get
(16:35):
to register every day if you know the word of
the day that we give out on the program, and
today's word is reciprocal. Just go to Hannity dot com,
click on the Tesla Tesla contest icon. It'll take you
to the contest page. You put in the word of
the day, reciprocal, and you will have a chance to win.
This continues through April the eleventh. You can register once
(16:57):
a day every day, and then you get to pick,
if you're the winner, the Tesla of your choice. Ali
Dwyer and her three sons. They lost their hero. His
name was Stephen. He was serving our country in the
US Army and anyway it was his calling in life.
He was flying a helicopter that was his passion in life. Now, sadly,
Stephen died in a Blackhawk helicopter and a crash over
(17:21):
the Mediterranean. And thanks to friends like you, the Tunnel
to Towers Foundation was able to help this family with
a mortgage free home, helping to give them the security,
the hope that they need in their darkest hours. Tunnel
to Towers provides mortgage free homes for families of our
country's fallen heroes. They built specially adapted smart homes to
catastrophically injured heroes. The foundation is also committed to eradicating
(17:45):
homelessness among our veterans and helping our nation to keep
its vout and never forget. Nine to eleven oh one.
Please help this great mission continue. Join us here at
Team Hannity if you can commit to eleven dollars a month,
every month, this great work continued. Everybody listening to my voice,
please go to their website, the letter T, the number two,
the letter T dot org, the letter T, the number
(18:08):
two the letter T dot org for the Tunnel to
Towers Foundation, President Trump announcing tariffs, and in a second
an unlikely ally listen.
Speaker 10 (18:18):
April second, twenty twenty five will forever be remembered as
today American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed,
and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.
For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and
(18:38):
plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.
American steel workers or a workers, farmers, and skilled craftsmen,
we have a lot of them here with us today.
They really suffered gravely. They watched in anguish as foreign
leaders have stolen our jobs. Foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories,
(18:59):
and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream.
Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for
more than fifty years. But it is not going to
happen anymore.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
It's not going to happen.
Speaker 10 (19:15):
This is one of the most important days, in my opinion,
in American history. It's our declaration of economic independence. For years,
hard working American citizens were forced to sit on the
sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of
it at our expense. But now it's our turn to
(19:36):
prosper and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of
dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt,
and it'll all happen very quickly. If you want you're
teriffraied to be zero, then you build your product right
here in America, because there is no tariffy if you build.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Your plant, your product in America.
Speaker 10 (19:55):
To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queen's ambassadors,
and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask
for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs,
drop your barriers, don't manipulate your currencies. They manipulate their
currencies like nobody can even believe, which is a bad,
(20:17):
bad thing and very.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Devastating to us.
Speaker 10 (20:19):
And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Now, believe it or not.
Speaker 6 (20:24):
We found a clip of Nancy Pelosi in the nineties
talking about tariffs and a trade deficit, and listen to
what she had to say about tariffs and a trade deficit.
It's a little long, but I think it's worth playing
because he sounds an awful lot like Donald Trump.
Speaker 11 (20:41):
Listen, how far does China have to go, how much
more repression, how big a trade deficit and loss of
jobs for the American worker, and how much more dangerous
proliferation has to exist before members of this House of
Representatives will say I will not endorse the status quo.
(21:03):
As I mentioned, it's about jobs, proliferation, and human rights.
And there are those who say we shouldn't link human
rights in trade and proliferation and trade. I disagree. But
if we just want to take up this issue on
the basis of economics alone, indeed, China should not receive
Most Favored Nation status for several reasons that I'd like
(21:23):
to go into now. I'd like to call the attention
of our colleagues to this chart on the status quo
that the business community is asking each and every one
of you, to, each and every one of us to
endorse today. Right now, we have a thirty four billion
dollar trade deficit with China the nineteen ninety five figure.
It will be over forty billion dollars for nineteen ninety six.
(21:47):
Since the Tenement Square massacre, this figure has increased one
thousand percent from three and a half billion then to
about thirty four billion dollars now. In terms of tariffs,
I'd think it's interesting to note that the average MFN
tariff on Chinese goods coming into the United States is
two percent, whereas the average Chinese to MFF tariff on
(22:09):
US goods going into China is thirty five percent. Is
that reciprocal on exports? China only allows certain industries into
China of US industries into China, and therefore only two
percent of US exports are allowed into China. On the
other hand, the US allows China to flood our markets
(22:30):
with thirty a third of their exports, and that'll probably
go over forty percent. And it's limitless because we have
not placed any restriction in terms of jobs. This is
the biggest and cruelest hoax of all. Not only do
we not have market access, not only do they have
prohibitive tariffs, not only are our exports not let in
(22:51):
very specifically, but China benefits with at least at least
ten million jobs from US China trade. The President, in
his statement requesting this special waiver, said that it China
trade supports one hundred and seventy thousand jobs in the
United States one hundred and seventy thousand jobs, whereas our
(23:15):
imports from China support ten million jobs at least. The
fact is that that US China trade is a job loser,
and one of the reasons that it is is because
in order well first, let me just make another point,
and that is that our colleagues on the other side
of this issue will say the trade with China, exports
to China have increased three times in the last ten years.
(23:37):
They have, but they failed to mention that exports imports
from China have increased eleven times, thereby leading to this
huge trade deficit. The other issue, in addition, if intellectual
property is a two billion dollar three billion dollar loss,
technology transfer is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
(23:58):
If you want to sell to China your products into China,
the Chinese insists that you open a factory there. They
take misappropriate your technology, open factories of their own, and
then say to you, now we want to see your
plan for export. That's as simply as I can say
it briefly, But the fact is this isn't about products
(24:18):
made in America. The Chinese want American products that are
made in China, and the most serious of these transfers
of technology are in the airline industry where Boeing tail sections,
the tail sections of the Boeing seven thirty sevens were
mostly made in Wichita, Kansas. Now they are made in
shen Province, where workers make fifty dollars a month, and
(24:42):
they had the transfer of the technology and the transfer
of the jobs has taken place General Motors for they're
all fighting to get in to build factories there so
they can make parts there. They want MFN so they
can get those parts back into the United States. So
we are exporting not low tech jobs and textile jobs.
We're exporting our technology. Now, if you take a country
(25:03):
the size of China, with the cheap, the very cheap
and in some instances slave labor, the lack of market access,
the rip off of our intellectual property, the transfer of technology,
a country that is not willing to play by the
rules in any respect in this trade relationship, you have
a serious threat not only to our relationship, but to
(25:25):
the industrialized world. And if there's one message that I
want our colleagues to understand today and our constituents, is
that on this day, your member of Congress could have
drawn the line, just say to the President of the
United States, do something about this US China trade relationship.
That is a job loser for the United States. And
this brings us to the point that others have said, well,
(25:47):
we can't isolate China. Do you think for one minute
that with ten million jobs at least and thirty five
billion and be over forty billion dollars this year in
a trade surplus, all those billions of dollars in circlus
that the Chinese are going to walk away? Where are
they going to take thirty five to forty percent of
(26:08):
their exports? Who's going to buy them? This is what
sustains the regime, the funding and the jobs. They can't
have those people out of work. They have to be
at work exporting to the United States.
Speaker 6 (26:21):
It just reminds you of how radicalized this party has become. Anyway,
eight hundred and nine foot one, Sean, if you want
to be a part of the program, let's say hi
to Jim my Free State of Florida. Jim, how are
you glad you called?
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Hey? Sean, It's a pleasure to talk to you. Listen
about this tarif thing. I thought he was going to
do it reciprocally, which means even for even, but it
seems like he's doing fifty percent mostly. I think you
should just do the full one percent of what they're trying.
You know, did they charge us, we charge them?
Speaker 2 (26:51):
He's doing that that way now.
Speaker 6 (26:53):
I think what he's doing is leaving open the door
if you want to end this, if you want free
and fair trade, our door is open. And we already
see movement today. I mean, I mean this is now
for car companies in particular. It is opening the door.
If ninety four percent of vehicles in in some place
like Japan, for example, are our Japanese cars, why aren't
(27:17):
ninety four percent of American vehicles American cars? I mean,
I've always felt that way. But you know, however, Toyota,
you know other companies that from overseas, if they have
if they manufacture their cars here, that's that's fine, but
something's got to be done. I mean, it's just so
(27:37):
unfair to our workers, our manufacturing capability. It weakens our economy.
When you have a country like Germany that has a
ten percent tariff and then a twenty percent value added tax,
which is a national sales tax. It makes an American
car in Germany cost prohibitive. Well, that's not a level
playing field.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Like Trump said, he's been talking about this since back
in the eighties when he was on Oprah. He commented
about it.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
He absolutely did, and he was right then and he's
right now.
Speaker 8 (28:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (28:07):
Anyway, my friend, appreciate the call. You're right out of money.
Let's say hi to Larry and Wisconsin. Larry, how are
you glad you called hello?
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Sean.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
He was listening to your conversation with I think it
was Bill O'Reilly about the Wisconsin Supreme Court thing, and
towards the end, Bill said, hey, I think Wisconsin's going blue.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
And I'm like, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 10 (28:28):
We're not.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
We voted for President Trump.
Speaker 9 (28:30):
There's plenty of US here, plenty of US ready and willing.
Speaker 6 (28:33):
And well, it's still considered a swing state. I don't
think you can make any judgments based on the race
for the Supreme Court. As I had pointed out, as
much as I would have preferred the conservative to win,
and we had him on the program before the election,
both radio and TV, as much as I would have
preferred that it didn't happen, and as much as I
(28:56):
you know, understand. Look, it came down to me one issue,
and you were in Wisconsin, you were probably watching the ads.
But he supported a law in the eighteen hundreds on abortion.
He made a number of comments, and that law does
not make exceptions even for rape incest to the mother's life.
To me, that makes any candidate unelectable. Did you see
(29:19):
a lot of abortion ads in the state of Wisconsin
and the lead up to Tuesday's vote?
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah, and a lot of nonsense about you know who,
let who go as far as criminals and yeah, I
don't even pay attention to them to tell you the truth.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
But yeah, I mean I think you're.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Dead on right about the abortion thing.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
And that's what a lot of people voted for.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Yeah, yep, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (29:39):
I mean I think that's a big issue. Look, my
personal views on abortion are one thing. Do I think
my views are the same?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Was?
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Where the country is? I do not.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
I think probably the country is at twelve to fifteen weeks.
I mean, looking out at how it's playing out in
states like Mississippi, I mean, fifteen weeks seems to be
a consensus number or belief in terms of a woman's
right determinated pregnancy.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Do I like it?
Speaker 5 (30:09):
No.
Speaker 6 (30:10):
I mean Bill Clinton famously said legal rare, and I
would add the word early. With the abortion pill decision
in the Supreme Court, it pretty much is codified the
first trimester abortion availability using the pill versus you know,
the old methods of getting an abortion. So I think
(30:32):
in that sense, it's a point in terms of the
first trimester, and the states will make their respective laws.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
It's going to be up to the states.
Speaker 6 (30:40):
However, that's where that became an issue in the Supreme
Court race that you just dealt with on Tuesday. But
I think it's an untenable political position for anyone to
be and if you're on record against exceptions for rape
incess mother's life, I don't think you can win. When
Doug Mastriano ran again, ran again, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania,
(31:02):
I mean, that was his position, and he lost by
the largest percentage of any gubernatorial candidate in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania to a non incumbent since the nineteen forties.
That's how big an issue was in the state. It
became a big issue I think in Wisconsin in this race,
it in my view, in many ways made it unwinnable
(31:24):
talking about Brad Schimmel in this case. Anyway, my friend,
I appreciate your call. And the twenty six percent of
voters that want voter ID in Wisconsin that was huge.
The two congressional seats in my state of Florida, that
was huge.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Also.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
Anybody that's spinning it any other way is just flat
out lying to you. Eight hundred nine to four to one,
Shawn our number. If you want to be a part
of the program.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Right that's going to wrap things up for today. We
have a busy show.
Speaker 6 (31:50):
Tonight's sat in DVR nine Eastern Hannity on Fox, Victor
Davis Hansen, David Asman, Lindsey Graham. What he's doing is
the single most important thing the US Senate will do
this year. And he'll explain why it's so important and
why we may need you to call your congressman and
your senators. Anyway, Tom Holman, Joe Kancha, stephen A. Smith,
(32:11):
We go at it again tonight nine Eastern City You
DVR Hannity on Fox. We'll see you tonight back here tomorrow.
Thank you for making this show possible.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!