his constituency. the pictures all over the internet, you will notice the servants of color in the background had to remain asked. if cover your face, sir. it's just science. that's it for us tonight. we will be back tomorrow and every weeknight, hope to see you then. ♪ ♪ >> sean: welcome to "hannity." we begin with news just breaking right now at this minute, and we start with a fox news alert. according to a breaking new report from politico, the u.s. supreme court has in fact voted to overturn roe vs. wade. if this report turns out to be true, abortion will not be regulated at the state level, meaning it is not going to be illegal probably in most states in the united states, there will be varied restrictions. one of the biggest issues involving this case has to do with whether or not

roe v. wade -- and this is what conservatives have often believed -- constitutionalists have believed, originalists have believed, is that it enumerated a right that did not exist within the constitution. what's interesting about this is the draft opinion, unflinching repudiation of the '73 decision guaranteeing a federal constitutional protection on abortion rights as they report in politico. planned parenthood versus casey that largely maintain that right. if this report is true, justice alito writes it was egregiously wrong from the start and we hold that they must be overruled. he writes in the docket labeled "opinion of the court." it is time to heed the constitution, return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives. that's where the issue of judicial philosophy comes into play. do you enumerate a right not

specifically spelled out in the constitution, or should it be up to the states, which is what conservatives always argued. deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid, justices cannot sometimes do change their votes and opinions as opinions are circulated among the different supreme court justices. major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts, sometimes until just days before the decision is unveiled. but the real heart of his words, if, in fact, this remains the final decision, would be it was egregiously wrong from the start, it's reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences and far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division in this country. if we look at what they are reporting, a person familiar

with the deliberations, according to politico said that four other republican appointed justices, clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett voted with him in the conference and held among the justices after hearing or goal, oral argument, this is back in december. we don't expect the final decision until sometime in june, maybe july even. usually in may or june i'm a but the three justices are working on one or more dissents that would be part of any final decision that comes out. but it's going to be interesting to watch. this will absolutely be demagogued by the left in the country. but at the end of the day, the document labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, it would indicate they may be leaning as of tonight to overrule roe v. wade. that is considered precedent.

the inescapable conclusion is the right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history or traditions. the constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. the draft concludes. in other words, abortion will not be made illegal by the federal government, it will be up to the states to decide. roe and casey aggregated that that authority. we now overrule these decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representative. we will have a lot more on this breaking news straight ahead tonight. but this is pretty interesting. just to be very clear here, even though this is a draft, sounds like the likelihood that's where their decision is headed towards, so we will watch this very closely. also tonight coming up, a bombshell new developer from the durham pro. we also have disturbing a video showing alleged antifa rioting attacking republicans in portland. by the way, police took forever to get there.

the biden administration is celebrating a looming food shortage that would force america's farmers to "go green" really? that's the next inflation? that's the next hike on gas? food prices aren't high enough? anyway, we will also weigh in on joe's big weekend in washington, d.c. by the way, my record is intact. in all the years i've been on radio, 35 years, 26 and a half years at fox, i had never been to a single white house correspondents' dinner, and i did not break that record and show up this weekend, and i never will. i know they don't like me, i don't particularly like them, so let's not play games. anyway. they did have some fun, good, at our expense. that's also good. and saturday's white house correspondents' dinner, we will give you an update. we want to introduce you to a not so bright msdnc host was having a really hard time coping with twitter's new ownership. we go to one of their hosts, i don't really know this guy, his

dangerous neo-nazis are now poised to take over the country all because elon musk bought twitter and elon musk is saying stay on twitter, all my critics feel free to attack me because that's what free speech is all about. they are that upset? take a look. >> we are living there in unspeakable dangerous moment. the pro-human on pro-neo-nazi faction is poised to expand dramatically among the midterms. we are just two years away from donald trump very possibly re-seasoned executive power. if that happens we may look back on this past week as a pivotal moment when a petulant and not so bright billionaire casually bought one of the world's most influential messaging machines and just handed it to the far right. >> sean: today elon musk responded tweeting out "nbc is basically saying republicans are." by the way, i don't know if you've ever watched the show, are you watching tonight?

every single day, used to be every two years, every four years, now it's pretty much every days, or republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, nontransferable. they want dirty air and water, they want grandma and grandpa only to eat dog and cat food and then they want some prominent republican look-alike to take granny and grandpa in a wheelchair and throw them over a cliff. welcome to my world. welcome to the world of conservatism. this is the same organization that covered up the hunter biden laptop, he goes on, and had the harvey weinstein story early and they killed it, and they built matt lauer -- he wrote his office and he's talking about that lock thing that had been reported. i don't know if that was ever verified. lovely people, he writes. anyway, i'll add this is the same network that brings you joy reid, conspiracy theorist of all time rachel maddow, and until recently, lying brian williams, the guy that saw dead bodies floating during katrina in front of his hotel.

that wasn't flooded. needless to say, nbc news doesn't exactly value truth. neither does fake news cnn for that matter. both organizations are only propaganda arms for the dnc. a petal in lies and conspiracy theories, always to advance the socialist agenda, hate on conservative -- everything conservative, and trump and all trump supporter's. and on sunday, one cnn guest called for the federal government to step in, regulate discourse on twitter before it's too late. take a look. >> musk doesn't want -- you know, he's upset with the sec. how dare they question him. this is dangerous. we can't think anymore in this country. we don't have people -- no, i'm serious, we don't have people in congress who can make regulations, that can make it work. i think we can look to the western countries in europe for how they are trying to limit it, but you need, you need controls on this. you need regulation. you cannot let these guys control discourse in this country, or we are headed to

hell. we are there. trump opened the gates to hell and now they are chasing us down. >> sean: where were these people were donald trump, conservatives band, suspended, canceled, shadow banned, this is the common theme on the left, it's called hypocrisy, unlike many of my so-called competitors, i've never called for any show or any host or any guest be canceled or boycotted or censored. i believe in free speech. if you don't like what they say, i hope you tune them out, most americans already are. but according to them, the american people, you can't be trusted. only big mother government knows right from wrong. for example, while msdnc and fake news cnn freak out about elon musk and free speech on twitter, all of a sudden -- ignored it all this time, they are all but applauding the homeland security secretary in his announcement -- pronouncement of creepy new disinformation governance board, or as we call it on the show, the socialist democrats minister

of leftist truth. watch this. >> in the u.s. there's been an uproar in recent days about the department from unsecured he setting up what the color disinformation governance board. this is been mostly of fox world story. come up early on cnn's state of the union but it don't think people know what it is and what it isn't and is just been a lot of right wing uproar without knowing what it is. >> sean: keep in mind, the dhs, they were founded after 9/11, we lost nearly 3,000 of our fellow americans. they were designed to prevent another 9/11, another attack on the homeland. but under secretary mayorkas, the department has now turned their focus inward? a complete dereliction of duty, a complete retreat from a post-9/11 world and policies to keep every american in this country safe from terrorists. by the way, how many terrorist encounters did they have at the border? 41? we don't even know. how many people might have snuck in that we don't know about? and according to him, disinformation and climate

change, they are the crises of the day, and apparently we have no one to blame but ourselves. in other words, the administration actually believes the greatest threat to this great country, we, the america people. how to look into domestic terrorism, those scary mommies and daddies at school board meetings that will be investigated for domestic terrorism if they dare to raise their voice against crt or age inappropriate education. and counter to this great threat, he announced a new ministry of truth to be led by a far left lunatic who ironically spreads a ton of disinformation all the time. for example, in april of 2020, nina jankowicz referred to the covid-19 lab leak theory as a baseless rumors spread by trump supporter's. false. chinese state run media recently cited her fictitious claims, using them in their own disinformation campaign.

and jankowicz also missed spread information playing down the hunter biden laptop, she called that another trump product. another disinformation lie. he praised dossier author christopher steele and on twitter she enthusiastically voiced her support for hillary clinton and echo hillary's insane claim that trump would embolden aces. even though he actually wipes them off the planet and sent them straight to hell where they belong. but don't worry, let not your heart be troubled, according to him, our new disinformation minister is totally neutral with no bias at all. will only act in the best interest of americans on a government disinformation board that will never abuse its power. that's what he's saying. didn't they tell us that with fisa warrants? i think they did very take a look. >> will american citizens be monitored? >> no. >> guarantee that? >> what we do, we the department of homeland security don't monitor american citizens. >> you don't, but will this

board change that? >> no, the board does not have any operational authority or capability. what it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing and addressing this threat for years. >> sean: so we are supposed to take his word for it. didn't the federal government also tell us that the program would never be used against americans? tell that to carter page and donald j. trump. and what about the shocking report from late last week detailing how the fbi actually was caught searching millions of emails and texts and other electronic communications of americans without any warrant whatsoever. the last thing this country needs is yet another government program that gets used and abused to monitor americans'

communication. i live this life every day. it's a great joy, you should try it one day. first back to tonight's big breaking news from the supreme court. here is what we know, and that is the host here with what she knows, the host of "fox news @ night," shannon bream, along with outnumbered cohost kayleigh mcenany. shannon, because it's politico, they do have a degree of credit ability, and i read through all of this, and it was breaking literally 10 minutes before we came on the air. shannon -- and you used to cover the supreme court for fox, so you know the supreme court well. i cannot think of a single instance where i recall this ever been a leak at the court, so part of me as suspicious, but the specificity of it makes me think -- it would not at all surprise me if this is real. >> yeah. and i have been -- i will say this very carefully. i have been not waived off that this is actually real. remember, this is a draft -- these drafts go back and forth,

they can change, both can change until it actually is signed off by the nine justices or whoever if there are people recused, all of the justices here in the case until it's signed off and issued from the courts office officially has an opinion of the court, it's not the real deal. so this is a draft if it is legit, as i have been led to believe it is, from february, which means a lot of things could have changed. there could be justices who would read this and say wow, this is sweeping. i'm not prepared to sign something that is sweeping or you can have five justices who of already said this is something i will sign onto, and basically what it does, if this ends up being the opinion in some form or fashion, if it uses this wording, it's essentially sending the idea of abortions back to the states and saying they will decide, let the people there decide. it upholds the mississippi law and says roe and casey got it completely wrong. it's over 100 pages, i am still reading, but the conclusions are there, sean, if it turns out to be what ends up being in the final draft. >> sean: i want to stay with the process for one second because this is very common that

drafts of opinions are circulated for notes from the other justices that seem to be inclined to vote a certain way. my understanding, my sources at the time told me that up until the last minute that chief justice roberts was going to put an end to obamacare and changed his mind at the last moment. so i want our viewers to be very careful here. this is not a final -- this is not a final decision. decisions drafts do change and change dramatically. it does have a little bit of credibility as i read it as a possibility, but it's certainly not definitive, and you've watched that process all the years you've covered the supreme court, correct? >> yeah. it right, and you're absolutely right about what happened with the affordable care act. there were essentially two tracks going, two opinions that were being written by the conservative wing, the more liberal wing, and at times both wings thought that chief justice john roberts was a vote with them. there was an attempt at

one point when he decided to go with the liberal wing, with the dash among the conservatives to bring him back into their side. they had this meeting, they called back together to get together and when he showed up at they realized he was not with them, they thought there's nothing else we can do, we've lost him at this point, so there was some back and forth, and i clearly could have happened in this case since this february draft. like i said, i've been led to believe this was legitimate as a february draft. a lot could happen between now and then. i have never, as you said, seen a leak like this at the court in the years i covered it. it is astonishing that somebody would release a draft opinion outside of the court. they are very tightly held. if there are almost never any leaks from this one place in washington. every place else leaks like a seed around here. not the court. and it's shocking, actually. >> sean: let me go to the political side of this. if true, it would not surprise me as a conservative and u.s. summative that knows the law as well. we have often argued that roe is

bad law, it enumerated rights to people that were not in the constitution. and it should be noted very, very clearly that if, in fact, it were to be true -- and again, we are saying is very cautiously, this is on politico tonight, and this is a pretty bombshell report. i did have one person write me and says this is likely true that i had somebody else write me and say it's likely not true. but what it would mean for the people in this country is it doesn't mean abortion would be outlawed or illegal. it would be sent back to the states and the state representatives would decide within their state what the law should be, correct? >> that's right. and it would mean that we are no longer 1 of 8 countries, sean -- yes you heard me correctly -- eight countries in the world that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks. you're exactly right, go back to states, state like texas or a state look mississippi could say

after 15 weeks, no elective abortions were as a state like new york or new jersey could take a different path. it would also mean, sean, we are not among the good company as justice roberts said during oral arguments, of the people's republic of china and north korea. because right now that is exactly where the united states stand with our abortion laws. 62 million children -- 62 million -- have perished because of this law that is nearly one fifth of the united states population. and you're exactly right to note that from the beginning, sean, roe was wrongly decided, even a liberal jurist said that this is a verbal smoke screen. that's what he called roe, substantive judgment was nowhere to be found. ruth bader ginsburg, she thought that was better left to the states, she was a critic of roe although she was a proponent of abortion rights generally, she got the democrat a process was the way. at least she made one or two comments intimating that. this was bad law. this would put us on the side of life, would allow states like mississippi and texas to decide one way, states like new jersey and new york to decide another.

>> sean: put me down is very skeptical, shannon. only because i've been doing this a long time. i have never seen anything like this ever leaked from the u.s. supreme court, not a single time. the way it reads at points, it reads like it might be partly an opinion. at other points i read it and i'm like this doesn't read like a supreme court decision to me. and you know, having covered the court as extensively as you have, i'm curious if you feel the same way. if i had to say with the odds are, i would see him leaning heavily against. >> i do think we have to be, as you've told your viewers, very cautious about this. again, i have not been waived off of this as being a legitimate draft at some point. who knows how much -- if it is legit, it may have changed in the weeks since it was written. there are flourishes, and there are expressions in the way that this is written that sounds like

justice alito justice alito to me and some of other writings. so i think we have to take it with a grain of salt. and again, until it comes out officially from the court, this means nothing. votes could change, and if it this is a legitimate draft, both could have changed and this could be flipped the other way and we just don't know, but there are things in the writing that sound alito-asked timmy. not that somebody couldn't draft that of their own of course buried >> sean: y politico -- let me throw this. why would this just let me run through the headline they have here. of supreme court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows, they are saying it definitively. again, i've never seen that in my life, and i'm skeptical. >> well, sometimes the headline overstates what is actually in the rest of the article. i think this may be the case. to shannon's point, shannon said she has not been waived off the fact that this was a draft from

february, which i think is absolutely the case if they obtained this draft that was more than 100 pages, it likely was a legitimate draft letter. i think it's too juicy of a story not to run with. i mean, how consequential this reporting is. if true, never in a history of the supreme court, in modern history, to have an opinion like this leaked. it makes you wonder how it leaked, was it a clerk that may be disagreed with the opinion and took this unprecedented step to put public pressure on justices as they are still making the decisions? i don't know, but someone, it would seem to me, with a motive, clearly leaked this in a way that is very unusual for the supreme court. >> sean: thank you both. shannon bream, we will be watching it tonight, and kayleigh mcenany, as always we will be watching it tomorrow. thank you for being with us. herewith more in the break developers from the supreme court, harvard law professor alan dershowitz along with fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett. we will begin with you tonight. i want to stay a little bit focused on -- we have not confirmed this. this is a politico report.

the writing, what you think of it, what you read into it, draft are sent around many, many times in the process of forming a final opinion before it's released, usually in june, and i guess my main question to you is does this seem legitimate to you? does this sound alitoesque to you? do believe that this is likely where the decision goes and what would be the ramifications for people? because i know it will be demagogued and meanwhile it only would mean that the states would decide, not the federal government. >> well, it is a rough draft, so it is not as let's say elegant in its pros as the final draft would be. and i'm skeptical too along with you. for example, let me just read one portion of this alleged draft opinion. roe was egregiously wrong from the start, it's reasoning was exceptionally weak, the decision

has had damaging circumstance -- consequences far from bringing about a national settlement of abortion issue. roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. i must tell you that sounds very much like a politician wrote it. not that i disagree with that. in fact i have long argued those very sentences, that roe was wrongly decided, inventing out of thin air this right to privacy and abortion. it was wrong then, it's been wrong over the last 50 years, and i think it's still wrong, and i do suspect that the supreme court may, in the end, have enough votes to overturn roe vs. wade. but right now i'm in the skeptical category. votes can change as the drafts go around. people have further conferences privately. sometimes minds are changed.

there have been some very famous cases in which powerful supreme court justices have been to the arms of their colleagues on the high court and managed to shift completely decisions that went one way and eventually turned the other way. so i would be very cautious and skeptical. i think you are right, sean. it doesn't seem to me that portion i read doesn't seem to be written by an eloquent supreme court justice. maybe it's a clerk. >> sean: you. professor, i'm really curious your thoughts on this, because we might actually disagree. i'm not sure where you stand on roe v. wade. whether you think it's good law or bad law. constitutionalists, conservatives have argued it's bad law, that this is a right not enumerated in the constitution. in that it actually is the role of the states to to make their own laws here. and it wasn't the right of the federal government.

i'm curious on your position. >> i strongly oppose overruling roe vs. wade after 50 years but i think it will be overruled. i am less skeptical than you are. i know justice alito, i know his writings. this sounds like the decision, a majority decision of the supreme court overruling roe vs. wade. and i have a theory, and it's only a theory. i think this was leaked by a liberal law clerk who was trying to change the outcome of the case. either by putting pressure on some of the justices to change their minds, or by getting congress to pack the court even before june, which is very unlikely. or to get congress to pass a national right to abortion law, which would apply to all the states, and that would have to come to the supreme court to see whether that could be upheld under the commerce clause. but i think this is real and i think that my theory is that it was leaked to somebody who change the outcome.

i've been watching supreme court for 55 years. and this has all the hallmarks of reality and it does not have the hallmarks of a decision that's likely to be changed. maybe chief justice roberts will go with the minority, but i think they seem to have five votes at this point to overrule roe vs. wade. look, it was always -- >> sean: let me interrupt you for a second. let's stay with your theory, because it's a fascinating one. in all the time that you've been a constitutional professor, at harvard, and may add, and you have taught some of the best and brightest people, do you -- i can't think of an instance, not one, that a leak like this ever occurred. can you? >> never has. it never has, and it could only be done if somebody thinks this is an active civil disobedience, an act which might get him disbarred, fired from the supreme court -- or her. if it's a law clerk.

and yet they want to go to the mass because they think is one chance to try to preserve a roe vs. wade, and that's by leaking this decision to politico. they didn't leak it to fox, they leaked it to politico. and it fits together. it's just a theory. i have no information to support it, but it seems to me the most plausible theory as to who leaked this, why it was leaked, and how this does sound like it's extremely realistic. >> sean: gregg if, in fact, somebody did leak it, what with the consequences be? >> oh, disbarment. if the professor has more courage than i do. i was thinking the same thing. this was leaked for a purpose, but i hesitated to say it because it is so serious, such an egregious violation of the sublimity in the confidentiality of the united states

supreme court proceedings. i mean, this is -- this is a terrible, terrible breach, but the only explanation i can offer is consistent with the professor, that this is someone who is angry or upset at the way this is moving to eliminate roe vs. wade as the law of the land. and has decided that they are going to try to gin up opposition to it publicly in order to put pressure on the supreme court justices. i don't think that would -- it might work with someone like john roberts who may be on the fence here according to politico, hasn't yet committed to which side he'll be on, but as for the other, you know, solid five justices, you know, public pressure will have the opposite effect. it will only steal their resolve to remain consistent with

fidelity to their initial decision, if indeed this is real, and again, i still remain skeptical. maybe that's the journalist and me. >> you may be right but there is some history here. you're a member the switch in time that saved nine. factoring the roosevelt time when there was the threat to pack the court, the court shifted its approach and upheld new deal legislation in order to avoid being packed, and i could imagine that there could be that kind of pressure on a justice. not so much fear of anything recriminations or anything or political consequences, but that they don't want court packing. nobody out that court wants court packing and i think that the fear -- i do think that tomorrow we're going to to see people proposing legislations to pack the court. i think that's going to be the immediate impact of this leak. >> sean: i got to be honest. professor, you make one hell of a compelling argument, you really do. and i think a very viable one

and i think there is a great chance you might be right on the money on this. we all don't know -- we won't give in our caveats. >> my judgments interfere with how i predict the outcome or analyze a case. i want roe vs. wade to be upheld. but i am telling you -- >> sean: we understand, you were very clear. you were clear. we're losing your picture, professor. thank you. thank you, greg. here on the phone now on the latest breaking news about roe vs. wade is senator josh hawley. senator, i want to go back to this one more time and what they are saying in this article is that the supreme court has voted to overturn abortion rights according to a draft opinion. roe was egregiously wrong from the start, it's reasoning was exceptionally weak, the decision has had damaging consequences and far from bringing about a national settlement on the abortion issue, in case you have in flames debate and deep division, we hold that roe and

kc must be overruled, it's time to heed the constitution, return the issue of abortion to the people's elective representatives. there's been a lot -- i have a lot of skepticism, although i do find professor dershowitz's theory very fascinating, interesting, plausible, all the above, so i really don't know what to tell this audience because i don't think anybody does know. what's your reaction to the article? >> my reaction is that the draft, sean, liselotte like justice alito. i clerked at that court, i've litigated at that court, in reading this leaked opinion tonight, and i think it's legitimate. this to me, there are details in this that would be very hard to know, details of the reporting of when the justice's voted about how they voted at conference, it's pretty hard to make that up out of whole cloth and there are all kinds of indicators here that it sounds like somebody who really does know, and i could tell you, there's a small universe of people who would know the details that are in that report. basically were talking about a

justice or clerks or maybe, maybe an employee, you know, somebody who works in one of the justice's offices, but it's not very big, sean, i have to tell you it sounds real to me and i think it's plainly an attempt by the left to try and change the outcome in this case and corrupt the process, and the court must not allow that to happen. >> sean: senator, this has never happened in the history of the court. certainly not in my lifetime. professor dershowitz can't remember a single instance. what does that mean if somebody would leak what is only a draft, not a completed document to potentially alter the outcome of a supreme court case? i've got to laws might apply their to the person responsible, no? >> certainly the ethics rule for lawyers. if this was a lawyer who did this, clerk, or anyone who practices law, who is currently a member of the bar, they should be disbarred. at have to say, i think the chief justice tomorrow morning is going to have a lot of work to do on this court.

tomorrow morning the chief justice of the united states is going to have to convene the justices, is going to have to convene the clerks and all employees of the court it is going to have to say that the leaker needs to come forward. this is very, very serious, this is an unprecedented breach of the courts confidentiality and it is plainly meant to corrupt the process within a court. it's an assault on the court, sean, and it's got to be taken seriously in the chief justice is now going to be the one that has to do this inside the court. >> sean: let's ask you, senator, one last question. as conservatives, as constitutionalists, we believe -- and i've argued for years that this is bad law, and enumerated not in the constitution. and according to part of the draft, it addresses that question by saying the constitution does not prohibit citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. roe and casey arrogated that authority. we now overrule those decisions, return that authority to the

people and their elected representatives. isn't that the argument conservatives have made for a long time? because i would anticipate if this were the final decision, that this would be an issue that would be demagogued to death and we hear things like back alley abortions and coat hangers, you know, things for example that the late senator ted kennedy tried to say about justice bourque, which were not true about him the time. >> yeah, what this draft opinion says is that this is an issue for the voters. that's exact the right, sean. the constitution is silent on this issue. that means it is up to the people that reside in the 50 states, and it's really an issue that should be debated in the democratic process in the states, and that's where this opinion, if indeed this becomes the majority opinion, that's where it would lead it, and that is exact the right. that's the constitution. the people should get to decide, not nine justices wearing robes who aren't accountable to anybody. >> sean: we really appreciate it, senator josh hawley.

there with more, offer of the big new book suppression, deception, snobbery and bias, where the press gets so much wrong and just doesn't care, ari fleischer is with us along with former arkansas governor mike huckabee and fox news contributor joe concha. i know we got a lot going on with the story breaking here and you guys are free to talk about it. one of the things that america is dealing with, especially with what we call the ministry of truth issue, which seems to be a big part of the topic of your book, ari fleischer, your new book that's coming out soon, people can get a first edition copy at amazon or hannity.com, but the fact is the media gets it wrong constantly. they get it wrong on purpose, they get it wrong because they have an agenda. they get it wrong -- the very things they accuse talk show hosts, members of the press, the two straight news investigative reporting and say they give opinion, they do themselves, don't they?

>> particularly during the trump era when they made a decision that their job to as objective reporters was to get donald trump and at the american people aired by electing him and he was a threat to the republic, so they thought their job was to fix with the america people did instead of leaving it to us. i think in this instance though, sean, i don't put that leak from the supreme court in that category. what really troubles me not about the ruling itself -- that's the ruling itself. i accept and respect that ruling. but the weeker. make no mistake, sean, this is an insurrection against the supreme court. i've already seen people on the left celebrating this leaker, calling him brave, trying to throw a hail mary to stop the ruling from being issued. who at the supreme court will trust each other now if they know that their drafts are going to be leaked, just like everything else in washington? the supreme court seemed to be the last institution standing that had internal integrity. this is an insurrection against the court and it needs to be found who did it and whatever

legal means can be taken against them needs to be taken. >> sean: that's a powerful statement. governor, i'd like your reaction to that. >> first of all, i can't wait to read his book, i know it's going to be amazingly good. but i am so glad that he used the term insurrection. that's exactly what it is. but let's take it one step further. this is an insurrection not by some guy from some state who got hot under the collar and went to d.c. and got overheated at a rally. this is insurrection by a person who is paid for by the taxpayers and who has a duty under his particular job and employment to keep his mouth shut, and he didn't do it. so it's an egregious form, if you will, of insurrection, and i hope that everyone will use that term, because if what happened january 6th was an insurrection, this absolutely is an insurrection. >> sean: that's a powerful statement.

joe concha, you cover the media. you understand the media as well, like ari. and it's interesting that this came out of politico. what does that say to you? >> tells me that there are no excellences -- accidents and there are no consequence is. they went to politico for a reason and documents in draft like this are leaked because -- and greg pointed out before and professor dershowitz and ari and the governor, this was leaked to set off devcon one among liberals, that this could happen and you better start mobilizing if you hope to stop it. so for this to come out now in an election year, no less, this will also mobilize liberal voters that may have thought i'm not going to go to the polls. >> sean: but we knew this decision -- >> this will mobilize them. >> sean: we knew this decision was coming one way or the other, but i think it would mobilize both sides, wouldn't it? both bases? both that have very strong opinions. latest polls that have been

seen, america is still fairly split down the middle on the issue. are they not? this would not end or make abortion illegal. it would return the decision to the states and with the people and their elected representatives decide. i think it's a very important distinction they have to make out. i will let you finish. >> absolutely. and i look at this not too long ago. and it's something like 46-46 right now as far as pro-life and pro-choice in his country. you may think when you listen to many in the media that we are an overwhelmingly pro-choice country, but that number has stayed incredibly stubborn and static over many years as far as pro-life or pro-choice, but to your point, this is going to happen before the election. it very interesting, a blog that is an independent sorceress far as covering this up in court, they said this will be devastating in terms of within the supreme court, no one is

going to trust each other and it's just something that is a complete dereliction of duty, whoever did this come into gregg jarrett's point, will be disbarred and probably worse once that person is discovered, if he or she is discovered, sean. >> sean: governor, i saw you shaking your head. go ahead, weigh in on your comments. >> i think we need to remind everybody that the liberals have used the big lie. we've heard that term before, here's the big lie, the overturning of roe v. wade does not end abortion. that is not within us -- that's what they have said and it is a big lie. simple takes it out of the hands of nine people wearing robes, appointed for life, and he puts it in the hands of of the american people through their elected representatives, where it should have been all along. some states will have more abortions, some states like my home state won't have any. if that's what it will do, and it's unfair to say it ends abortion. i wish it did, but it won't. it simple gives it back. >> sean: util believed the state of arkansas would have any exceptions at all?

>> we passed a constitutional amendment in 1986 that made life from conception as part of our constitution. so the reason that we have waited is to see a court ruling from the supreme court that gave us the capacity to fulfill that, so that's exactly what it would be. >> sean: i will give you the last word on this, ari fleischer. >> i think it was wrongly decided, i don't see what in the constitution grade of the so-called right to privacy that extends to the right to have an abortion. like everything, these are matters that belong to the people in their state representative. that's where health care, these types of issues are regularly settled. that's the way we solve our disputes and arrive at solutions. it never should have been decided by the supreme court in the first place. >> sean: i think that's the real message, i know it will get demagogued to death and we will hear probably a lot of echoing the themes of the late

senator ted kennedy against robert bork, the lies that he told about robert bork in the days ahead, especially if this decision does come down this way. ari, looking for to your book. governor, good to see you, joe, always good to have a buried joining is now former secretary of state mike pompeo is with us. you went to west point, you graduated one or two in your class, i can't remember. forgive me. i still love you. but you're also an attorney, so people might not know that. add that to your list of incredible credentials, and secretary of state. i'd love to get your thoughts generally on number one the report, do you take it seriously, do you think -- does it seem legitimate to you, and what it would mean if, in fact, this where the final decision. >> sean, i read about the first two-thirds of it. it read like the writing of a first draft from someone who believes deeply in the united states constitution in the very way that i know justice alito does.

so i'm going to give you short odds that it's likely his writing from a first draft. doesn't mean that's how it ends. second, decision that were affected largely within that draft would be a glorious thing for the united states of in the first instance it would be a return to constitutional judging. wave a series of justices returning to our foundational roots, breaking off the books something even liberal justices understood makes no real sense. they had to defend it because of their own views on abortion, but this is a good piece of judging, a good piece of constitutional work if it ends the way that this draft appears to be heading. second, states will get to sort this out. that's the right place but is to be sorted out, but i am also that when these rights are returned to people all across america, that we will save lives, save lives of the unborn all across this country and that would make a decision that would make what's indestructible glorious thing for the united states. good constitutional law and protecting unborn children, a really good outcome, sean.

>> sean: okay, the thing is it would go back to the states. i doubt very much, mr. secretary, that new york, california, oregon, washington state, illinois, are going to change the law in any way, shape, or form. we now have states -- remember, the infamous comments of governor northam. first the baby will be born, and then we will give the baby care and then we will let the mother talked to the doctor and then they decide whether the baby lives or dies. at that point -- that's called infanticide. >> that is certainly true, sean. there will be states that have already put themselves in the business of doing precisely what governor northam described. they are not likely to change in the short. unconvinced over time when people all because america had the opportunity to see the good that can come from changing that, maybe not new york, maybe not california, but a state that has data governor like

governor youngkin, a state like virginia, states that are much closer calls, overall i think this will have a really net positive effect on america's capacity not only to have a right to privacy defined in the right way, but also protect my children. >> sean: how do you respond to respect professor dershowitz's theory and he said it's only a theory that this was leaked on purpose to instigate a packing of the court, which we know the left in this country wants to do badly? >> i think it's a really well elf wow to well thought out theory. i was a student of his head full of years ago, i learned at his feet, we didn't agree necessarily on every think literally but it almost seems like this is a decision by somebody inside the court to undermine the integrity of the court with an effort to substantively change how justices made their decision. i think that will fail there's no doubt that was likely the intent of the person who leaked this if, in fact, there was a leak, i hope that justice roberts gets his hands on the individual or individuals who worked on this and makes it very clear that this is on excitable and they pay a real

price. >> sean: times have changed certainly in washington and the issue of privacy, interestingly, i would argue doesn't exist in america, especially for conservatives. mr. secretary, always good to have you, thank you for been with us. back with the very latest from the supreme court is "fox news @ night" host, our own shannon bream. shannon, i'm sensing that maybe you talked to a few people since you were just on, what did you learn? >> yeah. i am increasingly convinced that at some point this was a draft that was circulated within the court. again, what eventually ends up being devoted on, signed off on, released from the court official opinion could be wildly different than what i'm holding in my hands right now, but at some point, this was being circulated at the court for consideration, and as we talked about, this is what justices do. they trade the stuff back and forth, they modify opinions, they try to gain votes, get more people to sign on. so my gut says, and what i'm being told, is that this was at

some point a legit draft that circulated at the court. now, here's the thing. if this is still in process, they are still writing concurrences, dissent, people are making decisions about their votes and where they're going to land, this could still take a while, but now the chief justice has a real problem on his hands because this is floating around out there, who knows what the final opinion is going to look like. he is never going to rush something, especially as important as this case, which could be potentially landmark, but he's going to have to get something done. he cares very much about the integrity of the court. i can only imagine how furious he is about this, because you'll hear him repeatedly when he does speak publicly about the institution of the court, how important it is for him especially as the chief to protect the court, so i've got to imagine at this point he is not happy about this at all and will very much do what a number of your guests have suggested, ferret down, put the pressure on, figure out where this came from. somebody had a motivation. people have their theories about whether it was on the left or the right. somebody had a motivation to do

this, and he is most assuredly going to spend whatever time and energy he has to to get to the bottom of that. >> sean: it's interesting, because we both acknowledged earlier the disclaimer that you had -- you have been a reporter at the supreme court for many years and you never saw this type of leak ever before. i can't think of an instance. alan dershowitz couldn't think of an instance, and then he put forth this theory that this might have been done by an activist to change the decision or to begin the process of proposing and following through on the idea of packing the court, which we now know -- we've known for some time, democrats want to do. any thoughts on that? >> yeah, listen, there are very few people who would have access to something like this. no clerk in their right mind would leak it certainly without the knowledge or consent in some way of the justice they serve. it would be almost unimaginable because they wouldn't be employable. they would probably lose their

bar license and i can imagine there would ever be able to find a job again. i can't believe justice would do this. they have such great honor and integrity and commitment to the court, so that leaves very few options. the chief is going to spend time getting down to that, but again, interesting that to damage -- >> sean: your suggesting that a clerk would never do this without the blessing of the justice? that would -- >> i have to wonder. i have to wonder because if you decided to do this on your own as a clerk you know you are blowing up your legal career because it's all most possible that somebody will not get tagged with this at some point. and i have to wonder whether you would do that on your own. your legal career is over. i used to be a lawyer, you can go do other things. but there is so much speculation about why you would ever dare to do something this dangerous. and it really chips away at the integrity of the court. >> sean: if we were to assume that this is true, and i have

the political report here, assuming that it's true and somebody did do that, i can't imagine politico whatever give up their sources. look, i'm a talk show host. i do straight news, i do investigative reporting, i do opinion, culture, sports, i'm like a whole newspaper, although people don't really seem to understand what my job is, which cracks me up a little bit. i say i'm a conservative, i give my opinion, i tell you who i support politically, and i'm very, very outspoken about it. but in this case, i would never give up a source, you would never give up a source, i can't imagine politico whatever give up a source, and i bet they had to have more than one source before going with it, right? >> i agree with you. i don't think politico would be the place we would get the name but what happens is there is that very tiny universe of people who would have had, if this turns out to be a real draft, and we've been led to believe it is, there would be a

very small universe of people who would have access to that and i wouldn't put it past the chief justice to sit down office by office, court by clark, justice by justice, and say we are going to get an answer to this and i'm not going to let this go. this is not quick to be an unresolved investigation, we are going to get an answer and a name. the very integrity of the court is at stake and that is one of the top things that he cares about and he's talking about publicly and privately since he took on that mantle of chief justice. >> sean: that's been one of my criticisms of the chief justice. i feel at times he's to political, you know, how will the roberts court be viewed through the prism of history, and i think that might have wait -- i believe -- it's only my theory, that that might have impacted his decision on obamacare. we will be watching you tonight, as always thank you for being with us. back to your old job and then you go back to your new job. here with more analysis, former florida attorney general pam bondi along with fox news

contributor leo terrell. both attorneys in their own right. first, your thoughts, pam bondi, do you believe this is real? you believe possibly that there might be some political motives behind it, maybe one of which, as professor dershowitz was saying, could be the idea of the idea of court packing. do you think this is real, first of all? >> i do think it's real because it's politico. i've never seen politico -- i can't believe politico whatever print something so important without checking their sources. they know who the leak is and the leak is credible. to your second point, i firmly agree with what professor dershowitz said. i believe this is the liberals. i believe this is something that shannon said who is risking their career, risking their career because of this opinion.

i think it's a draft, it's clearly a draft. if not finalized. but hopefully it is true. you know, there's no constitutional right to abortion. this should go back to the states, that's where it always should have been, and so i think this is a liberal who is against this and they are throwing away their entire career to leak this opinion, and they will be able to find out who it is. i've been trying quickly to look through the federal staff sheet and see if i can find any crime that would be attached to it, and i can't so far. there may be, but at that level of practicing law as a supreme court law clerk, it's unbelievable that someone is throwing their career out the window, and as shannon said, they will be disbarred and i believe justice roberts and the rest of the justices will find out who it is. it is so easy to track things now, especially that opinion was not out there publicly and it was very closely held and

someone got it and someone licked it and they will be held accountable and the only thing i don't agree with, i think the final opinion may come out sooner rather than later because of this. this was leaked, i believe, to pressure the conservative justices, to scare them into not issuing this opinion. >> sean: and remember this would go back to the states, it would not outlaw abortion, although i guarantee you that demagoguery is next to follow. that's very protectable. leo, you've been a lawyer, a civil rights lawyer, for most of your career. now you're a tv star, which took you away from your law practice, but in all seriousness, let's put your legal hat on tonight. , get your analysis of this, does it seem real to you? >> yeah. let me tell you right now, 30 years of practicing civil rights law, constitutional law, so i was shocked when i heard it. is it real? i think it is very real. do i think there's a motivation

behind it? yes. i think it's political motivation. i think this is the type of draft to get the left fired up to change the current narrative, to focus on women, to say look what's going to happen, so i think is a political motivation. not of court packing, but to change the disastrous liberal agenda completely. i also don't rule out the fact that somebody in the higher up allow this to happen. they got -- you know, we want to believe that the supreme court is the last bastion of integrity. they are political animals. especially on the left. so i don't rule it out that they that leak occurred with the blessing of someone. i'm not going to guess who but i think there is the blessing of someone because the supreme court, like it or not, is a political branch of government and this is a unfortunate, unfortunate situation. pamela for caramel statutes.

>> sean: leo, if, in fact, that work -- that turns out to be true, and somebody, maybe a clerk on the left that slants solidly to the left, wouldn't you imagine that that person would be glorified and held up as a hero being, you know, you are heroic. and it will then of course reignite this ridiculous debate about court packings? i think that could be a very real political motivation. >> as long as the current tenure of the current senate leadership is 50/50, you got joe manchin -- i'm not worried about court packing. and mort about trying to change the narrative of the upcoming midterm elections, and you're right, that leaker will be glorified by the left. he will get employment coming he or she may not be a lawyer because they will be disbarred, they will get employment from the left. but i just find this totally motivated to change the narrative right now. that doesn't look good for the

democrats. >> sean: i mentioned earlier the late senator ted kennedy demagogy robert bork during his nomination. you know, is america is going to be in america where back alley abortions take place. we can go back, it wasn't that long ago when the coat hanger analogies were used left and right. in spite of the fact that we all know that if this decision comes down this way that the law would then be made by the states, by the people, and their elected representatives if, in fact, that language is accurate, which, by the way, would be constitutional, which is why conservatives who have argued for years that this is bad law and its a right given that was not enumerated in the constitution. but it would be demagogued, i believe leo is right on that point. >> of course it would, sean. but the law is the law, and if this opinion is accurate, true, which i think it is, it will go

back to the states, which is where it always belonged. we know that. that was bad law from the beginning, and if you wanted to live in florida, south carolina, georgia, texas, where it's going to be outlawed, especially late-term abortion, then don't live in our state. you can go to california, new york, new jersey. the liberal states. >> sean: we only have a few minutes left. >> it's not an outlaw overall of an abortion ban but it's headed in the right direction for the states to be handling it. >> sean: we have about 30 seconds left. how many states would likely ban all abortions under all circumstances? i would say not many, if any. leo. real quick. >> if i was to give an estimate, anywhere between 0-3. ban all. >> sean: zero to three. and pam, what's your estimate? >> same. i would say 3. but again, remember, sean, this

is dealing with late-term abortions as well. so i think it's going to make a tremendous difference in the pro-life movement, assuming this opinion gets issued legally. >> sean: we will have more tomorrow. leo, thank you. that's all the time we have left this evening. please never miss an episode. thank you for making the show possible, let not your heart be troubled, laura is next. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham and this is a fox news of relief. political reporting on a leaked draft of the supreme court opinion in the mississippi abortion case. and just to say milton has been assigned the majority opinion, which according to the draft, means roe vs. wade will be overturned. what does this mean? this returns the apportionment issue to the states, which preroe, which is where it was always was. some will allow, some sites might ban it, some will find what they believe is a middle ground.