And if you want come along. Is the July fourth holiday a recipe for disaster. Given the issues with the system right now, there are going to be challenges, but we're watching it closely, and we're talking to the airlines every day. We need to spur the transition to green shipping. But the bottom line is hold thee. The reason why yes crisis are up is because of Russia. Russia, Russia. Russian freedom is back in style. Welcome to the revolution, coming to y'all sent you a council. Sean Hannity Show. More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America. This is a special edition of the Sean Hannity Show America Trap Behind Enemy Lines, Day number three hundred and twenty right our two Sean Hannity Show eight hundred and nine. Put one, Shawn, if you want to be a part of the program. We've been talking a lot about this this January sixth committee. You know, we've basically been out there alone playing the words of President Trump and Mark meadows In, Cash Patel and the acting Defense Secretary at the time, Chris Miller, all of them corroborating, all of them, confirming the Donald Trump on January fourth, twenty one, actively, as required by law, authorized the calling up of up to twenty thousand National Guard troops to protect the Capitol, knowing large crowds were coming, knowing this always bad apples and crowds, knowing when came off a summer of what five hundred seventy four riots and thousands of cops injured, dozens of Americans dead, and billions of property damage. Anyway, so here you have a hearsay witness Cassidy Hutchinson relaying a story told to her now denied by a Secret Service agent that in fact, Donald Trump tried to commandeer the Beast or with the SUV or whatever vehicle he happened to be in when he was driving back to the West Wing because he wanted the Secret Service to take him to the Capitol. This is part of the testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson. She claimed that this note written on January six is her handwriting, and as we've been saying, the president's attorney at the time, Hirschmann says, no, that's my handwriting. Miss Hutchinson. Could you look at the exhibit that we're showing on the screen now, have you seen this note? Before. That's a note that I wrote at the direction of the Chief of Staff on January sixth, likely around three o'clock, and it's written on a Chief of Staff note card. But that's your handwriting, miss Hutchinson, that's my handwriting. Hirshman is accusing her of lying, saying the note was actually written by him. And by the way, others looked at the handwriting and said it is Hushman's. Now, you would think that the committee wants to get to the bottom of it. They just said, no, we have confidence in her recollection. Well, we can find out whatever happened to follow the science. There is a science to handwriting analysis. There is an NBC News story that Biden plans to use the January sixth Committee hearing to make the case against Trump. Liz Cheney on Foxnews dot Com won't commit to having the Secret Service agents who contradicted this woman, Cassidy Hutchinson, testify publicly. She dismissed the Secret Service claims out on the other hand, that Cassidy Hutchinson's Trump assault allegations false. Well, it's nice of her to say, but why don't we hear from the agents themselves? They can clear things up pretty quickly and anyway, so she'd had no interests apparently to get to the truth in this. Both Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani have denied Cassidy Hutchinson's pardon, claims that they want or were seeking a pardon in some way. Louie Gomert has done the same thing as have others, and Democrats now are out there attacking the Secret Service and their bid to salvage Cassidy Hutchinson's credibility. It's, you know, the only fault that would be why didn't the January sixth Committee do simple due diligence and contact the Secret Service? Did this happen? Is this true? Did Donald Trump try to commandeer you know, the car that he was in at the time. Did that happen? Did he assault one of the Secret Service agents? Not difficult to ascertain. Bring in handwriting experts, that's not difficult to ascertain and get to the truth of the matter. Anyway. Joining us now, Greg Jarrett, Fox News contributor, best selling author, His podcast is The Brief. Alan Dershowitz attorney, Harvard professor and anyway, welcome back, both of you. Back to the program. Professor Dershwitz. Let me start with you. You know, I'm just the person that believes in the presumption of innocence, and the testimony of one person, be it under oath or not, is not all that convincing to me, especially when you have people almost immediately contradicting what was said. I think it's worse than that. In my sixty years of being a lawyer, I have never seen a case where a lawyer puts on a hearstay witness without first checking, first checking with the eyewitnesses and the earwitnesses before they put on the hearstay witness. Here. There's no evidence at all that the committee checked with the people in the car before they put on this here say witness, and then they miss led the American public by not producing the eyewitnesses and the ear witnesses. They suppressed evidence. You know, if this were a criminal case, these lawyers on the committee, including my former student Jamie Raskin, would be disciplined for putting on a hearsay witness without first checking with the eyewitnesses to see whether this corroberation, and it is not. They had an obligation to say to the public, we have this hear say witness. She says she heard this from the driver, But the other people in the car disagree, and they were there and they say it didn't happen. Now, you the American public, judge. But to have this spectacle of putting on this hearsay witness stating this thing, which the Boston Globe says is the most dramatic moment in modern presidential history. The grabbing of the wheel without even checking in advance to see whether it's corroberated, is something unprofessional, something I've never seen in my sixty years of experience. But isn't it the same with many things, professor? We never saw three years worth of lying. Now it's been totally debunked. This whole narrative about Trump Russia collusion, the Alpha Banks, Trump servers, and Trump Tower story debunked, The dirty dossier completely debunked. That was the basis the foundation, As FBI Deputy Director McCabe said, if there was no dirty dossier that we know Hillary paid for, there would be no FISA warrants. Nothing happened, Nobody was held accountable for these things. The same people that without any evidence, just dismissed in the weeks before the twenty twenty election hunter Biden's laptop. The people that claimed to care about quid pro quos didn't care about Joe Biden bragging on tape that he withheld a billion taxpayer dollars until Ukraine fired a prosecutor that we know was investigating his son who's paid millions that had no experience at all his own words and oil gas or energy at all or Ukraine. So it seems to me that this double standard exists quite often. Oh, there's no question about that. And my favorite statement it was by my former student jamie're asking, who probably didn't come to class the day we taught about corroboration, and they asked him, is there any corroboration to this story? And his answer was sure, she corroborated. She's the corroboration. Who's ever heard of a hearsay witness corroborating herself when there is eyewitnesses. This is what's called the best evidence rule. You present the best evidence. You don't present the evidence that supports your narrative if it's not the best evidence, and you corroborate it first with the real evidence, and then if you want to put on hearsay, if the judge allows you to do it. To corroborate the actual evidence, that would be a difference. But to use the hearsay as the primary evidence without even checking, without even checking with the eyewitnesses near witnesses, is utterly unprofessional. Well, I mean, that's the point. And by the way, there are other people that have come forward corroborating saying no, that's not that's Hershman's handwriting, not hers, Greg, Jared, let's get your take overall on this whole spectacle. I agree with every word that Professor dursh who had said, and I know you have a lot to add to it. Well, I agree with the professor absolutely. But you know, I watched this testimony unfull live and I laughed. It was such a preposterous story of what allegedly happened in the suv. And in my experience, you know, story sounds too fantastic or outlandish to be true. It's usually not true. And here, you know, Cassie Hutchinson in her testimony pretended in many ways, the tone and tenor and the way she told those stories, she was sort of pretending she was inside that suv and she wasn't. She was wandering a story that had gone through multi individuals. A guy told a guy, Tony Hornado, who told her, and she repeats it in front of this in front of national television. You know, at minimum, it's a triple hearsay, which is a horse and it's probably quadruple hearsay because we're not actually sure of Ornado's original original source because he wasn't in the suv. And in a court of law, as you've pointed out, Sean, this would never be allowed. It's absurdly unreliable, and it's irresponsible and blatantly reckless for Liz Chaney and the other members of the committee to peddle this story, which is multiple hearsay, without, as the Professor points out, first checking with those who were inside the suv. But this is what you get with a highly partisan Trump painting committee making no effort to be fair or even honest. And yeah, Pelosi undermine the credibility of her own committee when she refused to seat members picked by Republicans who might have actually engaged in challenging cross examination. That underscores exactly what I just said. You know, I mentioned, Professor, Trump Russia collusion that went on for three years. I mentioned the dirty dossie. I mentioned the faisal warrants, I mentioned Hunter Biden's laptop. I mean, the list is pretty long, and I think Greg just nailed that this is this is a committee that has had a predetermined outcome from the beginning. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but on January fourth, I've interviewed four of the five people in the Oval offices with Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, Cash Patel, who was the chief of staff of the Acting Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller. All four of them have told me on tape on video that in fact that they were there when Donald Trump authorized up to twenty thousand troops. I wasn't able to interview General Milly, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but I got in contact with somebody close to him who did confirm that General Milly had conversations about capital security before January sixth, that he's abroad, he's been traveling, hasn't had time to do an interview. So that's almost five out of five, we'll say four and a half out of five. My question is, why isn't the committee brought that up? And when they selectively edit the tapes that they're playing. How come they keep out the line of President Trump that said, many of you will peacefully and patriotically march to the capital so your voices will be heard. You know, this is a bigger issue. It goes beyond this committee. It's the whole walk radical left. That's the way they approach cases on college campuses. Somebody's accused of something, we don't need we don't need evidence, we don't need corroboration, we don't need proof, or we need it as an allegation. The allegation confirms itself. It's the way of the new left, woke McCarthyism. They know the truth. Doe process be damned, free speech be damned, confrontation be damn. It's the whole approach. I hear it today on college campuses all over the country. I see it in the media. CNN does it all all the time. They put on one side. They don't have any hard questions of their side. And so what we're seeing in the January SAS community is the culmination of a several year process. You mentioned one part of the process, but the other part of the process is doing a way with due process. Because if you if you know capital the truth. If you know the truth, if you believe in your narrative, why do you need dissenting views? What do you need due process? Why do you need confrontation? Just listen to the witnesses you put forward and don't question them. That's the way of the new Left, and that has to be attacked, that has to be conjuncted. Click break Moore with Greg Jarrett Moore with Professor What's on the other side? Eight hundred nine four one. Sean is on number. If you want to be a part of the program, Well, if our friends at Goldman Sachs are right and we get those eight interest rate hikes that they're predicting in the next eighteen months, a year or so from now, you're gonna look at the interest rates and say, why didn't I listen to my friend Sean Hannity, Because all these professional economists up to now have been right. Now, Why didn't I lock in a competitive rate? Why didn't I get my free mortgage review? Why didn't I get my financial review, my debt consolidation review when I had a chance at a much lower interest rate. You'll save They'll tell you how much they can save you every month they'll tell you how much you'll save over the course. Here you loan. It's an absolutely free financial mortgage and debt consolidation review. They have professionals standing by, no obligation, no pressure whatsoever. They'll take your call at eight six six six one five ninety two hundred eighty six six six one five two hundred or check them out on the web. But American Financing dot net, American Financing NMLS when a two three three four NMLS consumer access dot org, alerting new to all the ways the government wants to fut into your life. This is a Sean Hannity show. A right, we continue with Professor Alan Dershowitz and Box News legal anelist Greg Jarrett. So what's the answer to this, Greig Jarrett? I think the Professor's onto something that has spiral way out of control and getting worse every day. Well, I you know, I the only answer, there's no stopping this committee, Sean, and the only answer is for Americans to express their outrage over it at the ballot box in the upcoming November elections. I mean, Kevin McCarthy has made it abundantly clear that he is has already sent out a bunch of letters preserving demanding they preserve evidence. He'll send out more, and I think he will look squarely at what this committee has done. And you know, what goes around comes around, and you know this is a but McCarthy will make sure that whatever investigative committee looks into this will be fair and will be balanced with Democrat appointed members of that committee. That's how it should be, you know. And as for the rest of Hutchinson's testimony, it is not a presidential conspiracy to incite violence or seditious conspiracy to want to get rid of magnetometers that the rally, or demanding you go down to the Capitol building, or even throwing a fit. For God's sakes, Presidential tantrums maybe unseemly, they're not uncommon. Bill Clinton was famous for his epic temper tantrums. Lyndon Johnson, even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln famously angry fits. So let's get over this self righteous indignation. I can't think of a president that there haven't been reports of anger of a president, can you, Professor Dershwitz, We have about thirty five seconds. No, when I spoke on the floor of the Senate. I said, every single president of the the United States has been accused of abusive power, obstruction of Congress, all of these things. That the double standard is now being applied to one particularly controversial president. It's not about him. It's about the future of the country, in the future of the constitution. No matter what's are you're on politically, if you believe in civiliberties, you have to be opposed to this committee and what the hard left is doing to do process in our constitution. Well, if you listen to the rest of the media that's taken everything that every even hearsay witness as a gospel truth. Anyway, thank you both, Professor Dershowitz, Thank you, Greg Jared, Thank you. Eight hundred nine Pour one Sean. If you want to be a part of the program, quick break right back, holding them accountable. Sean gets the answers no one else does. America desserts and know the truth about Congress twenty five to the top of the hour. Eight hundred nine one, Sean is our number. You want to be a part of the program. So we just went over everything that Cassidy Hutchinson claimed. You know, she claims the note written on January six, is her handwriting? Former Trump attorney attorney at the time, Eric Hirshman claims, No, that's my writing, and he's had other people confirmed, Yeah, that looks like his handwriting. Now, if the committee wanted to get to the truth of it, and they've shown no indication they do, they could easily bring in handwriting experts that would probably very quickly ascertain whether or not it was her handwriting or Hershman's handwriting. Not that hard to do. We know she made the claim Donald Trump, you know, assaulted the Secret Service agents because they wouldn't take him to the Capitol because they told him it was not safe. After he gave his speech on January sixth, Well he according to NBC and ABC and pretty much every news service out there, we now know the two Secret Service workers officers are denying what was said, denying that testimony. Now this Chaney won't commit public testimony of these two Secret Service agents. Why not? I'm sure they'll say, well, we don't want to, we don't want to ruin their career. They'll come up with some answer. But to me, the biggest, the most exculpatory evidence that debunks and shatters the entire narrative of this committee with their predetermined outcome is what happened on January fourth in the Oval Office. There were five people in the Oval Office, President Trump, his chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and his chief of staff, Cash pits Hell, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and that would be General Millie. Now, out of that group of five, the only one I have not interviewed on this is General Millie. I did get in contact with people close to the General and they were able to confirm for me that, in fact, the General recalls conversations with the President then President Trump prior to January sixth about safety issues involving the capital. They confirmed that to me. Now the other four have said no, they were there, and Donald Trump authorized as many as twenty thousand troops to be called up to protect the capital. I'll land one thing before I play it, and that is that there was a full investigation by the Inspector General about the Department of Defenses handling of things on January sixth, and they were cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever. And of course, remember Muriel Bowser is on record rejecting the National Guard to be called up after the President, as required by law, authorizes the troops to be called up, the jurisdiction to actually call them up is not his. That would go to Nancy Pelosi, who's in charge of security at the House of Representatives at the Capitol, and that would be the jurisdiction of DC mayor Muriel Bowser. And none of these people have been called in. No testimony has been given. Why didn't you call up the troops? Did you know that the president had authorized the troops? And it gets even deeper, But to me, this totally blows out of the water this narrative. Donald Trump wanted an insurrection. Donald Trump pushed for an insurrection. Donald Trump also said, many of you will peacefully and patriotically march to the Capitol so your voices will be heard. And all they're editing and they're dicing and slicing and of their predetermined narrative. I don't see that they played that part once, nor are they paying any attention to these four people that are corroborating Donald Trump authorized the Guard. It'd be pretty interesting that he wanted an uprising to take place at a time when he himself is trying to protect the capital doesn't seem particularly consistent with that narrative that they had from day one. Here's what they said to me, did you authorize calling up the Guard? And then it became the chain of command went to Nancy Pelosi and to the Mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, did you, as required by law, authorize one hundred percent? And attested to by many people, and they turned it down. Nancy Pelosi turned it down. Mayor Bowser's written refusal, the communications between the leader of the Capitol Police and their chain of command to the DoD refusing our request to allow National guardsmen and women to stage on January four and five before January six? Did you both ask for the National Guard to be called up? Without a doubt? Sean, We've made that very clear, not just once, but on numerous occasions. We wanted to make sure that there was plenty of National Guard on the Eddie in case there was some kind of violence. I had a meeting with President Trump on the third of January concerning some international threats, and at the very end he asked if there were any requests for National Guards support. What was the President's response to you with regards to the request made by Mayor Bowser phill It and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators. One of the people in that room was Cash Patel. He's the former Pentagon chief of staff. By the way, he's also the author of a number one New York Times bestselling children's book, The Plot Against the King, which, by the way, does talk about January sixth, and it says his inspiration to writing fairy tales for kids based on reality working the Trump administration. Not only is it funny for parents, but it's true and it also gives life lessons for kids. So it's a great book and you can get it at Amazon dot com. We'll put a link on Hannity dot com and in bookstores everywhere. Cash, welcome back to the program. Hey, Sean, thanks so much for having me. So is it a true statement that both you and then Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller told the January sixth Committee under oath that in fact, you were in the room when Donald Trump authorized calling up up to twenty thousand troops or whatever is necessary to use Chris Miller's words to protect the capital two days before January sixth. It's true, and if you're any of the audience or listeners doesn't want to believe in the Secretary of Chris Miller, twenty six year Army veteran career official, or myself at sixteen years in government working for Democrats and Republicans alike. How about you believe the deafening silence from General Billy, who has sought in his career to lead investigations and sensitive materials to the media and give book interviews and tell the Chinese counterparts that he would give him a heads up during the Trump administration should we decide to attack them, he would have Is there any paper trail that confirms this that may have General Milly's signature, Honor, There's a massive amount of documentation that I requested at the January sixth community to go get. Not only is there emails between myself and him and the off Secretary of Defense and the chairman talking about the troop deployment and the posture because that's what it takes to mobilize them at the DoD, but there's a delegation memo at the Department of Defense, which specifically General Milly signed, stating that the Secretary of the Army, who the National Guard reports too, is given the delegation authority from the Secretary of Defense to deploy the National Guard troops as seemed fit. Because President Trump already gave that authorization, that memo is somehow lost in the ether, And of course it's not being put out, it's not being disputed. What I was saying by Millie, I've not seen in these hearings that have been airing publicly any mention of any of you, no mention whatsoever of the President's authorization. And more importantly, I think the fact that you four all remember the same thing would compel the committee, especially if they didn't want something like this ever happen again. I certainly don't want it to ever happen again. I don't want five hundred and seventy four riots over the summer of twenty twenty to ever happened again. Either. We need a committee for that. But the reality is you testified under oath before this committee, under the threat of perjury, and they have they have never one time mentioned, nor have they gone to Nancy Pelosi, nor have they gone to Muriel Bowser or the Sergeant at arms. Also, Chuck Schumer's office received a note is my understanding on January fifth, with a very real specific threat picked up by our intel community. I think he should be put under oath. I think all of them should hand over their text messages, their phone records, and their emails to the committee. But that hasn't happened, has it. No? And remember, Sean, I've been asking for my transfer, which I took in December of last year, my deposition transcript for the entirety to be put out to the American public, and I just went finally three weeks ago, they let me review my transfer with my attorney in the hopes that they were be getting ready to release it. In the exhibits that I just talked to you about from the Department of Defense and the exhibits that I had to enter for the January sixth Committee because they failed in getting this documentation, those exhibits were somehow to left out of my transcript, even though we formally under oath entered them into the record for the American public to see. And we asked the committee why these documents were excluded from the transcript, and they said, oh, whoops, we forgot so will you have an opportunity to go back and review them? We did, and that's what we said. We said, we are not signing off on this transcript until you put these documents and these exhibits, and my lawyers put in writing to the committee that they were submitted, and they did, and they did eventually give them to you. Well, we don't know because they still won't put out my transcript. We'll know once the transcript is that if the exhibits, the documents that you and I are talking about are in there because I entered them under oath before the committee, before the staff, before the members of Congress, to see on a videotape deposition. So it's there, and if they want to exclude it, we'll know they have been selectively excluding material that you say, well, that's exculpatory evidence that this is why, for example, with Cassidy Hutchinson, you don't allow hearsay witnesses in a real call court of law. If it wasn't a sham committee with a predetermined outcome, there would be some type of cross examination, people asking tough questions. What was the level of interest you were in being interviewed by this committee, What was the level of interest in this aspect of things that Donald Trump authorized? These National Guard troops almost none. I spent six hours getting interrogated by the January sixth committee. Less than an hour was spent on January sixth. Less than a quarter of that was spent on this conversation that you and I are having. In less than a fifth of that was directly related to the hard evidence that shows the President authorized National guardsmen and women two days before. They could not have cared about that fact. They didn't want to investigate it, and they did want it out there, and so they just motored past it with talks of Afghanistan and other talks about cheap political theater. So I don't think this committee is focused on being the bringing the truth, as was witnessed by the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, who was not anywhere near any of the people on or around the events of January sixth, and her testimony, as you said, was never cross examined, so it was not born out that she had no idea what was going on in the president. They never even took the time to ask the Secret Service about it. Foxnews dot Com is reporting that Liz Cheney declined to comment on the possibility of these Secret Service members testifying in front of the January sixth Committee after they disputed claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson about former President Trump's behavior in the car that day, which apparently they've publicly disputed, not only publicly sean it goes one step further. I know Tony Ornato and Bobby Angle I served with them their career service members of the Secret Service the military before that. They actually testified months ago to the January sixth Committee, and that was hidden from the entire public. No one has heard about what they testified to and whether or not the January six Committee bother to ask them about this revelation from Kathody Hutchison. They didn't even go to the Secret Service knowing Kathy Hutchison would come put out this fairy tale because they knew it been shut down by the testimony already have. And that's why they don't want to entertain the thought of allowing two excellent Secret Service agents to come and tell the world the truth. Well, we've got one other contradiction, and that is that the President's attorney at the time, Hirshman, claims that it was his handwriting that Cassidy Hutchinson claims as her handwriting. Now, I think that's easily ascertained Cash, and that would be follow the science. There are people that are phenomenal and forensics handwriting experts. Wouldn't they be able to probably very quickly determine whether or not it was her handwriting or Hirshman's. Well, even if they don't want to believe, I would continue Cash Patella's with us former chief of Staff of the Department of Defense and the Secretary Chris Miller, who was acting DoD secretary at the time. I want to focus on two more things, and I've less than two minutes. One is there documentation with General Milley corroborating the story of the other four people in that room on January fourth. There's a slew of emails and memorandums in the Department of Defense which we demanded that the January sixth committee produced, and they failed that. Both my name, Christopher Miller's name of Secretary of Defense, Chairman Millie's name, and Secretary of the Army who the National Guard reports do. All of our names are on these delegation memos accompanying President Trump's authorization. Those memos would be unconstitutional, unlawful if the president never authorized the National Guard, So either everybody in the chain of command for the National Command authority lied and broke the law where we actually followed a presidential authorization and executed the Inspector General of the DoD under Joe Biden. Didn't they do a full evaluation and of the events of January sixth about the Department of Defense is handling of events that day in the lead up to that day, And didn't they give you a clean bill of health that you did everything perfectly. Not only that, they said the Department of Defense in the lead up to and on January six acted with undue delay, acted appropriately, acted swiftly, and abided by the chain of command. That to me is the one thing the January six Committee should be focused on, because it was Biden's Inspector General that confirmed that we were telling the truth the entire time. But of course they don't want to talk about that either. We supplemented the record with the Biden DoD Inspector General report. By the way, the January sixth Committee wouldn't even put it into the record. We did, I did. Yeah, they won't put these relevant things in, but they'll put a Hannity text in there five hundred thousand times. Yeah, cash BTEL thing,

And if you want come along. Is the July fourth holiday a recipe for disaster. Given the issues with the system right now, there are going to be challenges, but we're watching it closely, and we're talking to the airlines every day. We need to spur the transition to green shipping. But the bottom line is hold thee. The reason why yes crisis are up is because of Russia. Russia, Russia. Russian freedom is back in style. Welcome to the revolution, coming to y'all sent you a council. Sean Hannity Show. More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America. This is a special edition of the Sean Hannity Show America Trap Behind Enemy Lines, Day number three hundred and twenty right our two Sean Hannity Show eight hundred and nine. Put one, Shawn, if you want to be a part of the program. We've been talking a lot about this this January sixth committee. You know, we've basically been out there alone playing the words of President Trump and Mark meadows In, Cash Patel and the acting Defense Secretary at the time, Chris Miller, all of them corroborating, all of them, confirming the Donald Trump on January fourth, twenty one, actively, as required by law, authorized the calling up of up to twenty thousand National Guard troops to protect the Capitol, knowing large crowds were coming, knowing this always bad apples and crowds, knowing when came off a summer of what five hundred seventy four riots and thousands of cops injured, dozens of Americans dead, and billions of property damage. Anyway, so here you have a hearsay witness Cassidy Hutchinson relaying a story told to her now denied by a Secret Service agent that in fact, Donald Trump tried to commandeer the Beast or with the SUV or whatever vehicle he happened to be in when he was driving back to the West Wing because he wanted the Secret Service to take him to the Capitol. This is part of the testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson. She claimed that this note written on January six is her handwriting, and as we've been saying, the president's attorney at the time, Hirschmann says, no, that's my handwriting. Miss Hutchinson. Could you look at the exhibit that we're showing on the screen now, have you seen this note? Before. That's a note that I wrote at the direction of the Chief of Staff on January sixth, likely around three o'clock, and it's written on a Chief of Staff note card. But that's your handwriting, miss Hutchinson, that's my handwriting. Hirshman is accusing her of lying, saying the note was actually written by him. And by the way, others looked at the handwriting and said it is Hushman's. Now, you would think that the committee wants to get to the bottom of it. They just said, no, we have confidence in her recollection. Well, we can find out whatever happened to follow the science. There is a science to handwriting analysis. There is an NBC News story that Biden plans to use the January sixth Committee hearing to make the case against Trump. Liz Cheney on Foxnews dot Com won't commit to having the Secret Service agents who contradicted this woman, Cassidy Hutchinson, testify publicly. She dismissed the Secret Service claims out on the other hand, that Cassidy Hutchinson's Trump assault allegations false. Well, it's nice of her to say, but why don't we hear from the agents themselves? They can clear things up pretty quickly and anyway, so she'd had no interests apparently to get to the truth in this. Both Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani have denied Cassidy Hutchinson's pardon, claims that they want or were seeking a pardon in some way. Louie Gomert has done the same thing as have others, and Democrats now are out there attacking the Secret Service and their bid to salvage Cassidy Hutchinson's credibility. It's, you know, the only fault that would be why didn't the January sixth Committee do simple due diligence and contact the Secret Service? Did this happen? Is this true? Did Donald Trump try to commandeer you know, the car that he was in at the time. Did that happen? Did he assault one of the Secret Service agents? Not difficult to ascertain. Bring in handwriting experts, that's not difficult to ascertain and get to the truth of the matter. Anyway. Joining us now, Greg Jarrett, Fox News contributor, best selling author, His podcast is The Brief. Alan Dershowitz attorney, Harvard professor and anyway, welcome back, both of you. Back to the program. Professor Dershwitz. Let me start with you. You know, I'm just the person that believes in the presumption of innocence, and the testimony of one person, be it under oath or not, is not all that convincing to me, especially when you have people almost immediately contradicting what was said. I think it's worse than that. In my sixty years of being a lawyer, I have never seen a case where a lawyer puts on a hearstay witness without first checking, first checking with the eyewitnesses and the earwitnesses before they put on the hearstay witness. Here. There's no evidence at all that the committee checked with the people in the car before they put on this here say witness, and then they miss led the American public by not producing the eyewitnesses and the ear witnesses. They suppressed evidence. You know, if this were a criminal case, these lawyers on the committee, including my former student Jamie Raskin, would be disciplined for putting on a hearsay witness without first checking with the eyewitnesses to see whether this corroberation, and it is not. They had an obligation to say to the public, we have this hear say witness. She says she heard this from the driver, But the other people in the car disagree, and they were there and they say it didn't happen. Now, you the American public, judge. But to have this spectacle of putting on this hearsay witness stating this thing, which the Boston Globe says is the most dramatic moment in modern presidential history. The grabbing of the wheel without even checking in advance to see whether it's corroberated, is something unprofessional, something I've never seen in my sixty years of experience. But isn't it the same with many things, professor? We never saw three years worth of lying. Now it's been totally debunked. This whole narrative about Trump Russia collusion, the Alpha Banks, Trump servers, and Trump Tower story debunked, The dirty dossier completely debunked. That was the basis the foundation, As FBI Deputy Director McCabe said, if there was no dirty dossier that we know Hillary paid for, there would be no FISA warrants. Nothing happened, Nobody was held accountable for these things. The same people that without any evidence, just dismissed in the weeks before the twenty twenty election hunter Biden's laptop. The people that claimed to care about quid pro quos didn't care about Joe Biden bragging on tape that he withheld a billion taxpayer dollars until Ukraine fired a prosecutor that we know was investigating his son who's paid millions that had no experience at all his own words and oil gas or energy at all or Ukraine. So it seems to me that this double standard exists quite often. Oh, there's no question about that. And my favorite statement it was by my former student jamie're asking, who probably didn't come to class the day we taught about corroboration, and they asked him, is there any corroboration to this story? And his answer was sure, she corroborated. She's the corroboration. Who's ever heard of a hearsay witness corroborating herself when there is eyewitnesses. This is what's called the best evidence rule. You present the best evidence. You don't present the evidence that supports your narrative if it's not the best evidence, and you corroborate it first with the real evidence, and then if you want to put on hearsay, if the judge allows you to do it. To corroborate the actual evidence, that would be a difference. But to use the hearsay as the primary evidence without even checking, without even checking with the eyewitnesses near witnesses, is utterly unprofessional. Well, I mean, that's the point. And by the way, there are other people that have come forward corroborating saying no, that's not that's Hershman's handwriting, not hers, Greg, Jared, let's get your take overall on this whole spectacle. I agree with every word that Professor dursh who had said, and I know you have a lot to add to it. Well, I agree with the professor absolutely. But you know, I watched this testimony unfull live and I laughed. It was such a preposterous story of what allegedly happened in the suv. And in my experience, you know, story sounds too fantastic or outlandish to be true. It's usually not true. And here, you know, Cassie Hutchinson in her testimony pretended in many ways, the tone and tenor and the way she told those stories, she was sort of pretending she was inside that suv and she wasn't. She was wandering a story that had gone through multi individuals. A guy told a guy, Tony Hornado, who told her, and she repeats it in front of this in front of national television. You know, at minimum, it's a triple hearsay, which is a horse and it's probably quadruple hearsay because we're not actually sure of Ornado's original original source because he wasn't in the suv. And in a court of law, as you've pointed out, Sean, this would never be allowed. It's absurdly unreliable, and it's irresponsible and blatantly reckless for Liz Chaney and the other members of the committee to peddle this story, which is multiple hearsay, without, as the Professor points out, first checking with those who were inside the suv. But this is what you get with a highly partisan Trump painting committee making no effort to be fair or even honest. And yeah, Pelosi undermine the credibility of her own committee when she refused to seat members picked by Republicans who might have actually engaged in challenging cross examination. That underscores exactly what I just said. You know, I mentioned, Professor, Trump Russia collusion that went on for three years. I mentioned the dirty dossie. I mentioned the faisal warrants, I mentioned Hunter Biden's laptop. I mean, the list is pretty long, and I think Greg just nailed that this is this is a committee that has had a predetermined outcome from the beginning. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but on January fourth, I've interviewed four of the five people in the Oval offices with Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, Cash Patel, who was the chief of staff of the Acting Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller. All four of them have told me on tape on video that in fact that they were there when Donald Trump authorized up to twenty thousand troops. I wasn't able to interview General Milly, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but I got in contact with somebody close to him who did confirm that General Milly had conversations about capital security before January sixth, that he's abroad, he's been traveling, hasn't had time to do an interview. So that's almost five out of five, we'll say four and a half out of five. My question is, why isn't the committee brought that up? And when they selectively edit the tapes that they're playing. How come they keep out the line of President Trump that said, many of you will peacefully and patriotically march to the capital so your voices will be heard. You know, this is a bigger issue. It goes beyond this committee. It's the whole walk radical left. That's the way they approach cases on college campuses. Somebody's accused of something, we don't need we don't need evidence, we don't need corroboration, we don't need proof, or we need it as an allegation. The allegation confirms itself. It's the way of the new left, woke McCarthyism. They know the truth. Doe process be damned, free speech be damned, confrontation be damn. It's the whole approach. I hear it today on college campuses all over the country. I see it in the media. CNN does it all all the time. They put on one side. They don't have any hard questions of their side. And so what we're seeing in the January SAS community is the culmination of a several year process. You mentioned one part of the process, but the other part of the process is doing a way with due process. Because if you if you know capital the truth. If you know the truth, if you believe in your narrative, why do you need dissenting views? What do you need due process? Why do you need confrontation? Just listen to the witnesses you put forward and don't question them. That's the way of the new Left, and that has to be attacked, that has to be conjuncted. Click break Moore with Greg Jarrett Moore with Professor What's on the other side? Eight hundred nine four one. Sean is on number. If you want to be a part of the program, Well, if our friends at Goldman Sachs are right and we get those eight interest rate hikes that they're predicting in the next eighteen months, a year or so from now, you're gonna look at the interest rates and say, why didn't I listen to my friend Sean Hannity, Because all these professional economists up to now have been right. Now, Why didn't I lock in a competitive rate? Why didn't I get my free mortgage review? Why didn't I get my financial review, my debt consolidation review when I had a chance at a much lower interest rate. You'll save They'll tell you how much they can save you every month they'll tell you how much you'll save over the course. Here you loan. It's an absolutely free financial mortgage and debt consolidation review. They have professionals standing by, no obligation, no pressure whatsoever. They'll take your call at eight six six six one five ninety two hundred eighty six six six one five two hundred or check them out on the web. But American Financing dot net, American Financing NMLS when a two three three four NMLS consumer access dot org, alerting new to all the ways the government wants to fut into your life. This is a Sean Hannity show. A right, we continue with Professor Alan Dershowitz and Box News legal anelist Greg Jarrett. So what's the answer to this, Greig Jarrett? I think the Professor's onto something that has spiral way out of control and getting worse every day. Well, I you know, I the only answer, there's no stopping this committee, Sean, and the only answer is for Americans to express their outrage over it at the ballot box in the upcoming November elections. I mean, Kevin McCarthy has made it abundantly clear that he is has already sent out a bunch of letters preserving demanding they preserve evidence. He'll send out more, and I think he will look squarely at what this committee has done. And you know, what goes around comes around, and you know this is a but McCarthy will make sure that whatever investigative committee looks into this will be fair and will be balanced with Democrat appointed members of that committee. That's how it should be, you know. And as for the rest of Hutchinson's testimony, it is not a presidential conspiracy to incite violence or seditious conspiracy to want to get rid of magnetometers that the rally, or demanding you go down to the Capitol building, or even throwing a fit. For God's sakes, Presidential tantrums maybe unseemly, they're not uncommon. Bill Clinton was famous for his epic temper tantrums. Lyndon Johnson, even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln famously angry fits. So let's get over this self righteous indignation. I can't think of a president that there haven't been reports of anger of a president, can you, Professor Dershwitz, We have about thirty five seconds. No, when I spoke on the floor of the Senate. I said, every single president of the the United States has been accused of abusive power, obstruction of Congress, all of these things. That the double standard is now being applied to one particularly controversial president. It's not about him. It's about the future of the country, in the future of the constitution. No matter what's are you're on politically, if you believe in civiliberties, you have to be opposed to this committee and what the hard left is doing to do process in our constitution. Well, if you listen to the rest of the media that's taken everything that every even hearsay witness as a gospel truth. Anyway, thank you both, Professor Dershowitz, Thank you, Greg Jared, Thank you. Eight hundred nine Pour one Sean. If you want to be a part of the program, quick break right back, holding them accountable. Sean gets the answers no one else does. America desserts and know the truth about Congress twenty five to the top of the hour. Eight hundred nine one, Sean is our number. You want to be a part of the program. So we just went over everything that Cassidy Hutchinson claimed. You know, she claims the note written on January six, is her handwriting? Former Trump attorney attorney at the time, Eric Hirshman claims, No, that's my writing, and he's had other people confirmed, Yeah, that looks like his handwriting. Now, if the committee wanted to get to the truth of it, and they've shown no indication they do, they could easily bring in handwriting experts that would probably very quickly ascertain whether or not it was her handwriting or Hershman's handwriting. Not that hard to do. We know she made the claim Donald Trump, you know, assaulted the Secret Service agents because they wouldn't take him to the Capitol because they told him it was not safe. After he gave his speech on January sixth, Well he according to NBC and ABC and pretty much every news service out there, we now know the two Secret Service workers officers are denying what was said, denying that testimony. Now this Chaney won't commit public testimony of these two Secret Service agents. Why not? I'm sure they'll say, well, we don't want to, we don't want to ruin their career. They'll come up with some answer. But to me, the biggest, the most exculpatory evidence that debunks and shatters the entire narrative of this committee with their predetermined outcome is what happened on January fourth in the Oval Office. There were five people in the Oval Office, President Trump, his chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and his chief of staff, Cash pits Hell, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and that would be General Millie. Now, out of that group of five, the only one I have not interviewed on this is General Millie. I did get in contact with people close to the General and they were able to confirm for me that, in fact, the General recalls conversations with the President then President Trump prior to January sixth about safety issues involving the capital. They confirmed that to me. Now the other four have said no, they were there, and Donald Trump authorized as many as twenty thousand troops to be called up to protect the capital. I'll land one thing before I play it, and that is that there was a full investigation by the Inspector General about the Department of Defenses handling of things on January sixth, and they were cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever. And of course, remember Muriel Bowser is on record rejecting the National Guard to be called up after the President, as required by law, authorizes the troops to be called up, the jurisdiction to actually call them up is not his. That would go to Nancy Pelosi, who's in charge of security at the House of Representatives at the Capitol, and that would be the jurisdiction of DC mayor Muriel Bowser. And none of these people have been called in. No testimony has been given. Why didn't you call up the troops? Did you know that the president had authorized the troops? And it gets even deeper, But to me, this totally blows out of the water this narrative. Donald Trump wanted an insurrection. Donald Trump pushed for an insurrection. Donald Trump also said, many of you will peacefully and patriotically march to the Capitol so your voices will be heard. And all they're editing and they're dicing and slicing and of their predetermined narrative. I don't see that they played that part once, nor are they paying any attention to these four people that are corroborating Donald Trump authorized the Guard. It'd be pretty interesting that he wanted an uprising to take place at a time when he himself is trying to protect the capital doesn't seem particularly consistent with that narrative that they had from day one. Here's what they said to me, did you authorize calling up the Guard? And then it became the chain of command went to Nancy Pelosi and to the Mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, did you, as required by law, authorize one hundred percent? And attested to by many people, and they turned it down. Nancy Pelosi turned it down. Mayor Bowser's written refusal, the communications between the leader of the Capitol Police and their chain of command to the DoD refusing our request to allow National guardsmen and women to stage on January four and five before January six? Did you both ask for the National Guard to be called up? Without a doubt? Sean, We've made that very clear, not just once, but on numerous occasions. We wanted to make sure that there was plenty of National Guard on the Eddie in case there was some kind of violence. I had a meeting with President Trump on the third of January concerning some international threats, and at the very end he asked if there were any requests for National Guards support. What was the President's response to you with regards to the request made by Mayor Bowser phill It and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators. One of the people in that room was Cash Patel. He's the former Pentagon chief of staff. By the way, he's also the author of a number one New York Times bestselling children's book, The Plot Against the King, which, by the way, does talk about January sixth, and it says his inspiration to writing fairy tales for kids based on reality working the Trump administration. Not only is it funny for parents, but it's true and it also gives life lessons for kids. So it's a great book and you can get it at Amazon dot com. We'll put a link on Hannity dot com and in bookstores everywhere. Cash, welcome back to the program. Hey, Sean, thanks so much for having me. So is it a true statement that both you and then Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller told the January sixth Committee under oath that in fact, you were in the room when Donald Trump authorized calling up up to twenty thousand troops or whatever is necessary to use Chris Miller's words to protect the capital two days before January sixth. It's true, and if you're any of the audience or listeners doesn't want to believe in the Secretary of Chris Miller, twenty six year Army veteran career official, or myself at sixteen years in government working for Democrats and Republicans alike. How about you believe the deafening silence from General Billy, who has sought in his career to lead investigations and sensitive materials to the media and give book interviews and tell the Chinese counterparts that he would give him a heads up during the Trump administration should we decide to attack them, he would have Is there any paper trail that confirms this that may have General Milly's signature, Honor, There's a massive amount of documentation that I requested at the January sixth community to go get. Not only is there emails between myself and him and the off Secretary of Defense and the chairman talking about the troop deployment and the posture because that's what it takes to mobilize them at the DoD, but there's a delegation memo at the Department of Defense, which specifically General Milly signed, stating that the Secretary of the Army, who the National Guard reports too, is given the delegation authority from the Secretary of Defense to deploy the National Guard troops as seemed fit. Because President Trump already gave that authorization, that memo is somehow lost in the ether, And of course it's not being put out, it's not being disputed. What I was saying by Millie, I've not seen in these hearings that have been airing publicly any mention of any of you, no mention whatsoever of the President's authorization. And more importantly, I think the fact that you four all remember the same thing would compel the committee, especially if they didn't want something like this ever happen again. I certainly don't want it to ever happen again. I don't want five hundred and seventy four riots over the summer of twenty twenty to ever happened again. Either. We need a committee for that. But the reality is you testified under oath before this committee, under the threat of perjury, and they have they have never one time mentioned, nor have they gone to Nancy Pelosi, nor have they gone to Muriel Bowser or the Sergeant at arms. Also, Chuck Schumer's office received a note is my understanding on January fifth, with a very real specific threat picked up by our intel community. I think he should be put under oath. I think all of them should hand over their text messages, their phone records, and their emails to the committee. But that hasn't happened, has it. No? And remember, Sean, I've been asking for my transfer, which I took in December of last year, my deposition transcript for the entirety to be put out to the American public, and I just went finally three weeks ago, they let me review my transfer with my attorney in the hopes that they were be getting ready to release it. In the exhibits that I just talked to you about from the Department of Defense and the exhibits that I had to enter for the January sixth Committee because they failed in getting this documentation, those exhibits were somehow to left out of my transcript, even though we formally under oath entered them into the record for the American public to see. And we asked the committee why these documents were excluded from the transcript, and they said, oh, whoops, we forgot so will you have an opportunity to go back and review them? We did, and that's what we said. We said, we are not signing off on this transcript until you put these documents and these exhibits, and my lawyers put in writing to the committee that they were submitted, and they did, and they did eventually give them to you. Well, we don't know because they still won't put out my transcript. We'll know once the transcript is that if the exhibits, the documents that you and I are talking about are in there because I entered them under oath before the committee, before the staff, before the members of Congress, to see on a videotape deposition. So it's there, and if they want to exclude it, we'll know they have been selectively excluding material that you say, well, that's exculpatory evidence that this is why, for example, with Cassidy Hutchinson, you don't allow hearsay witnesses in a real call court of law. If it wasn't a sham committee with a predetermined outcome, there would be some type of cross examination, people asking tough questions. What was the level of interest you were in being interviewed by this committee, What was the level of interest in this aspect of things that Donald Trump authorized? These National Guard troops almost none. I spent six hours getting interrogated by the January sixth committee. Less than an hour was spent on January sixth. Less than a quarter of that was spent on this conversation that you and I are having. In less than a fifth of that was directly related to the hard evidence that shows the President authorized National guardsmen and women two days before. They could not have cared about that fact. They didn't want to investigate it, and they did want it out there, and so they just motored past it with talks of Afghanistan and other talks about cheap political theater. So I don't think this committee is focused on being the bringing the truth, as was witnessed by the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, who was not anywhere near any of the people on or around the events of January sixth, and her testimony, as you said, was never cross examined, so it was not born out that she had no idea what was going on in the president. They never even took the time to ask the Secret Service about it. Foxnews dot Com is reporting that Liz Cheney declined to comment on the possibility of these Secret Service members testifying in front of the January sixth Committee after they disputed claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson about former President Trump's behavior in the car that day, which apparently they've publicly disputed, not only publicly sean it goes one step further. I know Tony Ornato and Bobby Angle I served with them their career service members of the Secret Service the military before that. They actually testified months ago to the January sixth Committee, and that was hidden from the entire public. No one has heard about what they testified to and whether or not the January six Committee bother to ask them about this revelation from Kathody Hutchison. They didn't even go to the Secret Service knowing Kathy Hutchison would come put out this fairy tale because they knew it been shut down by the testimony already have. And that's why they don't want to entertain the thought of allowing two excellent Secret Service agents to come and tell the world the truth. Well, we've got one other contradiction, and that is that the President's attorney at the time, Hirshman, claims that it was his handwriting that Cassidy Hutchinson claims as her handwriting. Now, I think that's easily ascertained Cash, and that would be follow the science. There are people that are phenomenal and forensics handwriting experts. Wouldn't they be able to probably very quickly determine whether or not it was her handwriting or Hirshman's. Well, even if they don't want to believe, I would continue Cash Patella's with us former chief of Staff of the Department of Defense and the Secretary Chris Miller, who was acting DoD secretary at the time. I want to focus on two more things, and I've less than two minutes. One is there documentation with General Milley corroborating the story of the other four people in that room on January fourth. There's a slew of emails and memorandums in the Department of Defense which we demanded that the January sixth committee produced, and they failed that. Both my name, Christopher Miller's name of Secretary of Defense, Chairman Millie's name, and Secretary of the Army who the National Guard reports do. All of our names are on these delegation memos accompanying President Trump's authorization. Those memos would be unconstitutional, unlawful if the president never authorized the National Guard, So either everybody in the chain of command for the National Command authority lied and broke the law where we actually followed a presidential authorization and executed the Inspector General of the DoD under Joe Biden. Didn't they do a full evaluation and of the events of January sixth about the Department of Defense is handling of events that day in the lead up to that day, And didn't they give you a clean bill of health that you did everything perfectly. Not only that, they said the Department of Defense in the lead up to and on January six acted with undue delay, acted appropriately, acted swiftly, and abided by the chain of command. That to me is the one thing the January six Committee should be focused on, because it was Biden's Inspector General that confirmed that we were telling the truth the entire time. But of course they don't want to talk about that either. We supplemented the record with the Biden DoD Inspector General report. By the way, the January sixth Committee wouldn't even put it into the record. We did, I did. Yeah, they won't put these relevant things in, but they'll put a Hannity text in there five hundred thousand times. Yeah, cash BTEL thing,