Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. All right, so I
Speaker 1: have insomnia, but I've never slept better. And what's changed
Speaker 1: just a pillow. It's had such a positive impact on
Speaker 1: my life. And of course I'm talking about my pillow.
Speaker 1: I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now
Speaker 1: you can to just go to my pillow dot com
Speaker 1: or call eight hundred zero nine zero use the promo
Speaker 1: code Hannity, and Mike Lindell, the inventor of My Pillow,
Speaker 1: has the special four pack. Now you get off to
Speaker 1: my Pillow premiums and to go Anywhere pillows. My pillows
Speaker 1: made here in the USA has a sixty day unconditional
Speaker 1: money back guarantee and a ten you warranty. Go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com right now or call eight zero
Speaker 1: nine zero promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special
Speaker 1: four pack offer. You get to my Pillow Premium pillows
Speaker 1: and to Go Anywhere pillows for forty percent off. And
Speaker 1: that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the
Speaker 1: kind of peaceful and RESTful and comfortable and deep peeling
Speaker 1: and recuperative sleep that you've been eaving and you certainly
Speaker 1: deserve my pillow dot com promo code Hannity. You will
Speaker 1: love this pillow, all right. Glad you with us. Happy Wednesday.
Speaker 1: On The Sean Hannity Show. We have a lot coming
Speaker 1: up today. One of our big stories today is, of course,
Speaker 1: the well intramural battle fight over the healthcare bill. I
Speaker 1: saw all of this coming. It's infuriating to me because
Speaker 1: it didn't need to happen this way. We'll check in
Speaker 1: with Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Dave brad of the Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 1: Dr Josh Umber will join us. The Vice President will
Speaker 1: be checking in one hour from right now. In the
Speaker 1: second hour of the program. UH and Culture will also
Speaker 1: weigh in today. And we've got two award winning journalist.
Speaker 1: John Solomon was with the a P for twenty years.
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter was with the Washington Times. Along with John Solomon,
Speaker 1: they have a blockbuster story that I'm gonna share with
Speaker 1: you in in just a couple of minutes, so stay tuned.
Speaker 1: I want to start with this healthcare debate and frustration
Speaker 1: that I feel and that I have, and why I
Speaker 1: believe this rollout was not handled properly. And look, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, do I think it's all
Speaker 1: gonna probably work out? Are we gonna get a repeal
Speaker 1: and replace? Are we gonna get a better health care system?
Speaker 1: Are we gonna undo the mess of Obamacare? None of
Speaker 1: the promises kept, keep your doctor, keep your plan, save
Speaker 1: a year. Yeah. I do believe that we're gonna get there.
Speaker 1: But in the lead up to all of this, this
Speaker 1: is one of the most important pieces of legislation. And
Speaker 1: here's what I don't understand, and and I'll say this respectfully,
Speaker 1: but I'm really annoyed about it, respectfully, the fact that
Speaker 1: eight years later that this has been there, they're rallying
Speaker 1: cry to win the win control of the House in
Speaker 1: and then moving further and getting control of the Senate
Speaker 1: and getting the presidency in t and that there's not
Speaker 1: a consensus bill, and that I guess in my world,
Speaker 1: the world I live in and the way I run
Speaker 1: my life knowing and we had put all these people
Speaker 1: on beforehand that never saw the bill, but we're hearing
Speaker 1: about the bill and their concerns about the bill. In
Speaker 1: other words, does it really fully repeal Obamacare? Well, that's
Speaker 1: one of the arguments that was used all day yesterday,
Speaker 1: or that it has a new entitlement which is subsidies,
Speaker 1: or it's not block granted, but but tax um credits
Speaker 1: that are given to people so they can afford to
Speaker 1: buy their own health insurance. Now health care savings accounts
Speaker 1: are included. Money is not going to planned parenthood. There's
Speaker 1: all the things that I said yesterday that are good
Speaker 1: about the bill, that everybody agrees on. But here's my problem.
Speaker 1: Now here, just just imagine, in my own twisted mind,
Speaker 1: I actually think that Washington can work this way. Maybe
Speaker 1: all of the people in the Freedom Caucus, the Study Group,
Speaker 1: the people now that are angry, these these conservative groups
Speaker 1: like Club Club for Growth and and Americans for Prosperity
Speaker 1: and Freedom Works and Heritage Foundation and the Heritage Action Group,
Speaker 1: And then you have Senator Ram Paul and Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: and Mike Lee and and then you have Congressman Louis
Speaker 1: Gohmert and Congressman Mark Meadows and Dave brad and Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan's and and so many others. They were all saying
Speaker 1: what they were going to disagree with before the bill
Speaker 1: ever got released. And I remember, and I won't tell
Speaker 1: everybody who I talked to. But I told a lot
Speaker 1: of people, I said, you need to get everybody in
Speaker 1: the room. And wouldn't it have been better instead of
Speaker 1: having a public fight among Republicans over the repealing and
Speaker 1: replacing of this bill, if they had gotten together, worked
Speaker 1: out their differences, and maybe the way it was rolled
Speaker 1: out would be a big monumental ceremony with every Republican
Speaker 1: in the House, every Republican in the Senate. The President
Speaker 1: gives a speech, he outlines what's in the consensus bill
Speaker 1: of Republicans, how they are going to do it, and
Speaker 1: how it's gonna benefit you, the American people. Instead, if
Speaker 1: the bill was marked up, nobody knew what was in it.
Speaker 1: Then when they found out what was in it, it
Speaker 1: was the very things they would suspicious we were going
Speaker 1: to be in it. And now you've got the Freedom
Speaker 1: Caucus against it. And they went out and they had
Speaker 1: a press conference yesterday, and Ram Paul was with them yesterday,
Speaker 1: and Ted Cruiz is against the bill. All those groups
Speaker 1: that I just mentioned, they're now having to be talked
Speaker 1: into the bill. There's all these discussions about the president
Speaker 1: having the strong armed people and used the power of
Speaker 1: the presidency and the pulpit to get this thing rammed through.
Speaker 1: We don't want it rammed through, you know. I just
Speaker 1: would have hoped that after eight years of Republicans running
Speaker 1: on this, that they'd have their their darn act together
Speaker 1: and they'd get a bill that they all agreed on
Speaker 1: that would fix the problem, using all the principles of conservatism,
Speaker 1: free markets, from healthcare savings accounts, maybe even being as
Speaker 1: innovative as our buddy Dr Number and and bringing him
Speaker 1: into the mix and creating cooperatives. You know, he has
Speaker 1: what doctors in his practice, Each doctor has six hundred patients.
Speaker 1: Every patient gets to see the doctor any day. They
Speaker 1: want unlimited care, unlimited checkups. If you get stitches, you
Speaker 1: get them there. If you need medicines, you get them
Speaker 1: there at discount. If you need chemotherapy for crying out loud,
Speaker 1: they'll give you those drugs for discount, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: they're very expensive. Because he went directly to the pharmaceutical
Speaker 1: companies and said, we've got a big practice and we
Speaker 1: want to negotiate individually with you to get the rates
Speaker 1: down for our patients. There's so many different things, and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying these things aren't gonna happen. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying they just they just made themselves a huge creative
Speaker 1: for themselves a huge headache. And this to me is
Speaker 1: an unforced error. And now you've got everybody in the
Speaker 1: media that is now fighting over this, you know, in
Speaker 1: the public in public view. It's an internal intramural you
Speaker 1: know many civil war within Republican ranks when it need
Speaker 1: not have gone down on this way. It could have
Speaker 1: been handled differently, It could have been handled behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: Get it right, get together, unify, come out with a plan,
Speaker 1: and celebrate your great success as one. Now maybe there's
Speaker 1: five people that say, no, okay, you can't please everybody.
Speaker 1: There's no way when you're doing legislation that everybody's gonna
Speaker 1: be happy. At the end of the day. It's good,
Speaker 1: you know, as as new Gig Ridge describes it, just
Speaker 1: here's a box. Within the box, you have health care
Speaker 1: savings accounts, you have healthcare cooperatives, you have full repeal
Speaker 1: in there. Um, you have a means of somehow block
Speaker 1: granting money to states so they take care of those
Speaker 1: people that have no money cannot afford healthcare that we're
Speaker 1: never gonna turn away the truth. That's the reality. That's
Speaker 1: just a fact that they're gonna need help. That has
Speaker 1: to be factored in. Okay, And the President made that
Speaker 1: promise that nobody's gonna be laying in the street. I
Speaker 1: don't think the President means to go back on his promise.
Speaker 1: So I just think there was a better way to
Speaker 1: handle this, a better way to roll this out. I
Speaker 1: think that, you know, I don't know how long this
Speaker 1: battle goes on. Now, there's meeting after meeting after meeting
Speaker 1: with this individual group and and that individual group. And
Speaker 1: now it's taken the president's time, the Vice president's time,
Speaker 1: it's taking, you know, the time away from putting a
Speaker 1: budget together. They're gonna have two budgets put together. And
Speaker 1: I just, you know, I'm just saying, I just I
Speaker 1: don't roll this way. That's not how I do things.
Speaker 1: I I just don't understand. This is so unnecessary on
Speaker 1: so many different levels. Now, yeah, there's a good chance
Speaker 1: they'll get it right. But they come off as being unprepared,
Speaker 1: they come off as not knowing what they're doing. And
Speaker 1: they had eight years to build a consensus plan that
Speaker 1: everybody would be satisfied with, not completely satisfied but something
Speaker 1: that everybody would would deal with and that would serve
Speaker 1: their public servants, the American people, And I think it
Speaker 1: would have been a hell of a lot better than
Speaker 1: the NonStop battles that are now gonna go on. I
Speaker 1: I'm I'm naive, right, Linda, I'm naive. This couldn't have
Speaker 1: possibly happened the way I say, right, There's no way
Speaker 1: they could have done this beforehand, because at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, if a bill is gonna pass, they're
Speaker 1: gonna need the Freedom Caucus. They're gonna need Cruis and
Speaker 1: Lee and Rand and Rubio in the Senate. Am I
Speaker 1: write about that? So maybe it would have been a
Speaker 1: good idea. Maybe if the Club for Growth supported it,
Speaker 1: and the Heritage Action Group supported it, and Americans for
Speaker 1: Prosperity supported it, and Freedom Work supported it, all strong
Speaker 1: independent conservative groups. Maybe not all. Let's say three of
Speaker 1: the four or three or four of the five, whatever
Speaker 1: the group's number happens to be. Maybe they if they
Speaker 1: came out and praised the bill and said this, this, this, this,
Speaker 1: and this that this is what we've been waiting for,
Speaker 1: it would have maybe caused fewer headaches, given the Democrats
Speaker 1: less ammunition against the Republicans, and I don't think. I
Speaker 1: don't know how this gets resolved at this point. You know,
Speaker 1: my answer would be throw everybody in a room, bring
Speaker 1: the Freedom Caucus. Oh, this is how I do things.
Speaker 1: You got a problem, Just get in my office, close
Speaker 1: the door, lock it. That's what I'll do. Lock the door,
Speaker 1: take everybody's phone away. There's no better negotiator in the
Speaker 1: country than the president. Let him negotiate right there. Nobody
Speaker 1: leaves that room until they all agree. How's that? And
Speaker 1: it has to be on the principles and the promises
Speaker 1: that they all made when they ran what since against Obamacare,
Speaker 1: that's seven years ago. It's just it's just unfathomable to
Speaker 1: me that this was not produced earlier, that this wasn't
Speaker 1: read until it was released two nights ago, and now
Speaker 1: you have all the opposition coming out and they were
Speaker 1: all telegraphing their opposition. It's not like we didn't know
Speaker 1: they were going to be opponents of the bill. If
Speaker 1: it was what they were saying, what they were hearing,
Speaker 1: what they were believing. I you know, my job here
Speaker 1: is to hold them a countable. Well, they made a
Speaker 1: pretty stupid This is a pretty dumb way to on
Speaker 1: unveil or roll out a bill. So I think they
Speaker 1: can get there. Yeah, but you better get like fifty
Speaker 1: tho bottles of Eccentric extra strength because it's not gonna
Speaker 1: be easy and you might as well have done it
Speaker 1: beforehand rather than doing it publicly. I get that this disagreements.
Speaker 1: No two people are alike in the Republican Party, but this,
Speaker 1: to me was the worst possible way to put it
Speaker 1: out there, to roll this thing out. All those people
Speaker 1: were on this program telling me exactly what they didn't
Speaker 1: want to have in the bill, and that's exactly what
Speaker 1: I ended up in the bill. And what do I do?
Speaker 1: I I you know, I I feel like bagging my
Speaker 1: head against the wall because I was telling everybody to
Speaker 1: get together and meet and talk and resolve and fix
Speaker 1: and make it right. It's not that complicated. Repeal the
Speaker 1: old bill, replace it with a market solutions that include
Speaker 1: healthcare savings accounts, cooperatives. Uh. Maybe the government now goes
Speaker 1: to pharmaceutical companies. Maybe they buy like Atlas m D
Speaker 1: and Wichita, Kansas is doing. Maybe they buy the pharmaceuticals
Speaker 1: that if Josh Humber can get it for off. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure if that includes see Allis and Viagora, but whatever,
Speaker 1: but they buy all the major medicines. All right, your
Speaker 1: left the sea Allis ad is my favorite. Two people
Speaker 1: and two separate tubs. How does that work? That? That
Speaker 1: that's gymnastics that I can't even conceive of. That is
Speaker 1: the dumbest dad I've ever seen in a She's in
Speaker 1: her tub, he's in his tub. Anytime you're ready? What
Speaker 1: is one person moved to the other tub and they
Speaker 1: just leave it with the two tubs individually? There who's
Speaker 1: tub gets picked? That could be a big fight among
Speaker 1: a couple. No, you come to minctub. No you come
Speaker 1: to nctub. I'm not going to your tub. Your tub
Speaker 1: does dirty water in it. You come to my tub.
Speaker 1: Mine tubs cleaner water. I have roses in my water.
Speaker 1: And it's just it's so dumb. But if Josh Humber
Speaker 1: Dr Rumber, I'm glad. I'm I'm cracking everybody up. If
Speaker 1: he can get the pharmaceuticals and for all the major
Speaker 1: drugs including chemotherapy drugs and blood pressure medicine and diabetes
Speaker 1: and insulin, and he can get cholesterol medicine and anxiety medicine,
Speaker 1: I mean, we have pills for everything, Pills to wake up,
Speaker 1: pills to sleep, pills to be skinny, pills to be fast.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's ridiculous. We got pills for everything, happy pills,
Speaker 1: not happy pills. It's amazing how many pills people take. Crazy,
Speaker 1: It's nuts. Anyway, one Sean way, do you hear? I'll
Speaker 1: give you a preview that in fact confirms what we've
Speaker 1: been saying, that a FISA warrant was issued in October.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was right, surveillance took place. Now, he said,
Speaker 1: why are tapping? The New York Times said wire tapping.
Speaker 1: But it's really surveillance of the computer server Trump tower,
Speaker 1: and we have confirmation of that today and those authors
Speaker 1: will be with us in the final hour of the
Speaker 1: program Today fighting the Trump eighty liberal media One day
Speaker 1: at a time is the Sean Ny Show. M So,
Speaker 1: I wanted you to follow me, and I'm gonna set
Speaker 1: this up and then we'll take it into the next
Speaker 1: half hour. So headline today by John Solomon, twenty year,
Speaker 1: a p Washington Examiner reporter, well known Sarah Carter, same thing,
Speaker 1: FBI monitored computer server and Trump tower at the end
Speaker 1: of the election. No Chris mental charges expected. Well wait
Speaker 1: a second, so President Obama says he didn't order it,
Speaker 1: but that they confirm in this report. I'll give you
Speaker 1: a summary. They confirm the Fieser warrant in their reporting,
Speaker 1: citing US officials, intelligence professionals who they are describing as
Speaker 1: watching in horror. As they say, I've never seen a
Speaker 1: case so misrepresented, leaks so damaging to a process that
Speaker 1: was meant to be conducted in secret, so that foreign
Speaker 1: powers don't know what we know and people's reputations aren't
Speaker 1: tarnished unfairly. He is saying that everything in the media,
Speaker 1: left wing, all propaganda media, destroy Trump at all costs,
Speaker 1: media said to you, this article contradicts that there is
Speaker 1: no evidence whatsoever. In other words, Hannity right again, mainstream
Speaker 1: media wrong again. And in fact, yes, there was surveillance
Speaker 1: at Trump Tower, they confirm and corroborated. They confirm it
Speaker 1: wasn't technically a wire tap. But the New York Times, McClatchy,
Speaker 1: BBC all the initial reporting that said wire tap, Well
Speaker 1: it depends. Now we're parsing words. Does wire tap mean
Speaker 1: surveillance on the server in Trump Tower? Could it be
Speaker 1: the same server where I know for a fact that
Speaker 1: every single Trump surrogate during the campaign was using a
Speaker 1: Trump organization email. How do I know because I emailed them,
Speaker 1: So I guess my emails were surveilled to great can't
Speaker 1: wait to them a public I no, I can't making
Speaker 1: public go ahead, And that the Russian narrative was never
Speaker 1: really the focus at all, and that this narrow allowance
Speaker 1: that you know, and you gotta think back. Remember Hillary
Speaker 1: tweeted it out a week before the election. Remember the
Speaker 1: letter from Harry Reid just before the election. Remember all
Speaker 1: the associations, they were tipped off. They knew what was happening,
Speaker 1: and they knew the investigation going on, and they wanted
Speaker 1: it leaked. And they had people within the intelligence community
Speaker 1: telling them when we come back, I'm gonna tear this
Speaker 1: apart and we're gonna tie it to the Wiki leaks
Speaker 1: revelations from yesterday. Because I think there's a connection. One
Speaker 1: of the big developments that I see in that well
Speaker 1: that was actually a headline on I think Bright part
Speaker 1: today c i A uses stolen malware to attribute cyber
Speaker 1: attacks to other nations like Russia. Could this all have
Speaker 1: originated in our own government? Accountable Sean gets the answers.
Speaker 1: No one else does. America deserts and know the truth
Speaker 1: about Congress. Now till the top of the hour. Now
Speaker 1: we're gonna have an exclusive interview, and I have an
Speaker 1: early copy, and I'm told I'm allowed to share it
Speaker 1: because it's just breaking John Solomon, I said, when I
Speaker 1: said the Washington Examiner, he's really He spent years with
Speaker 1: the Washington Times, as did Sarah Carter, and John Solomon
Speaker 1: worked for the AP about twenty years. So they have
Speaker 1: a column out today. FBI monitored computer server and Trump
Speaker 1: Tower at the end of the election, but doesn't expect
Speaker 1: criminal charges. Well, I thought, wait, first of all, we
Speaker 1: didn't know it happened. Donald Trump falsely said that he
Speaker 1: was being surveilled or that he was wire tapped. Now,
Speaker 1: what's the different if if you find out a sitting
Speaker 1: president and his administration saw its FISA approval and FISA
Speaker 1: warrants to surveil and opposition candidate in the middle of
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign. I want to know what did they know?
Speaker 1: Did Loretta Lynch approved this? She would have had to.
Speaker 1: You know, Loretta Lynch who met with Bill Clinton and
Speaker 1: the tarmac and they talked about their kids for fifty minutes.
Speaker 1: Who talks about their kids for fifty minutes? With all
Speaker 1: due respect to your kids? How are your kids? They're
Speaker 1: doing really good, Susie's doing well, she's playing lacrosse. Johnny
Speaker 1: just got into such and such college, and and he's
Speaker 1: really happy, and or they broke their leg and and
Speaker 1: they're healing, or you know, whatever it is. Does that
Speaker 1: go on for thirty minutes? No? No, I mean it's
Speaker 1: like half the time when people asking hey, how are
Speaker 1: you doing? They don't really want you to say I'm awful,
Speaker 1: I'm having a crappy day. Yeah, what they want you
Speaker 1: to say, I'm good? How are you? And then they
Speaker 1: say I'm good? What's going on? Then that nobody wants
Speaker 1: the answer. We're so wrapped up in them ourselves. It's
Speaker 1: it's just nonsense, you know. That's why everybody you know
Speaker 1: talks about well, other people of different sexual orientation. I did,
Speaker 1: like I care. I don't care about anybody's sex life.
Speaker 1: It's at my own, that's it. They have. Seriously, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's ridiculous people think that they actually care anyway. Putting
Speaker 1: that aside, I digress. So they wrote this piece. Let
Speaker 1: me read some of it to you. The months long
Speaker 1: FBI counterintelligence investigation into Russian efforts to influence the US
Speaker 1: election briefly monitored a computer server inside of Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: office building near the end of the election. Let me
Speaker 1: let me stop there. So there was a in fact,
Speaker 1: a surveillance that took place inside a Trump tower in
Speaker 1: his office. And it wasn't officially a wire tap. What
Speaker 1: do you call it when you're surveilling the server of
Speaker 1: a presidential candidates company. Anyway, it goes on and um
Speaker 1: at the end of the election, but has gathered, but
Speaker 1: has not gathered evidence to warrant any criminal charges at present.
Speaker 1: In other words, everything the media has been hyping, hyper
Speaker 1: ventilating over, hysterically reporting, apparently none of it's true. According
Speaker 1: to John Solomon and Sarah Carter and Circa dot com,
Speaker 1: which is their website. Now, US officials, who spoke only
Speaker 1: on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature
Speaker 1: the information, said there is widespread frustration among intelligence professionals
Speaker 1: who have watched in horror as a normally secretive process
Speaker 1: has now been distorted by media leaks and politicians uneducated
Speaker 1: about how counterintelligence operations actually work. Well you know, with
Speaker 1: all due respect, the leaks are severe. The leaks ruin
Speaker 1: the career and hurt the reputation of General Flynn. What
Speaker 1: happened to him was a thousand percent a felony and
Speaker 1: a violation of the Espionage Act because while they were
Speaker 1: using surveillance against the Russian ambassador, which they're supposed to do,
Speaker 1: once an American is identified on that call, they're supposed
Speaker 1: to minimize. Now you might say, well he had security clearance.
Speaker 1: Because he had security clearance, it makes it legitimate. Okay,
Speaker 1: if they did, it's unprecedented that they would leak the conversation.
Speaker 1: Usually standard operating procedure is such that if they an
Speaker 1: Americans picked up on an intelligence gathering you know, signal
Speaker 1: UH monitor such as that, then they say in in
Speaker 1: their actual righte up of the conversation, they will say
Speaker 1: an American, Okay, he had top security clearance. Maybe he's different.
Speaker 1: And then it said we have people spouting off and
Speaker 1: don't know the difference between fiser surveillance and a wire
Speaker 1: tap or counterintelligence probe. I explained the difference earlier Michael
Speaker 1: uh Andrew McCarthy's piece versus a special prosecutor criminal case
Speaker 1: and it is hurt our ability, meaning intelligence the intelligence
Speaker 1: community to get to the truth, and has wrongly created
Speaker 1: the impression that intelligence officials have a political agenda. Well,
Speaker 1: there's some of the intelligence community that have an agenda,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to just like you get an
Speaker 1: occasional bad cop. Doesn't mean all cops are bad. I
Speaker 1: support police officers. I admire them. They serve their communities,
Speaker 1: They risk their lives. People involved in intelligence similarly risk
Speaker 1: their lives often times, and they're doing deep, deep undercover
Speaker 1: corvert operations. Is not a game. This is about life
Speaker 1: and death and securing the homeland. It's not a game intelligence.
Speaker 1: But if people are leaking sensitive information in part because
Speaker 1: the president changed the rules as walking out the door,
Speaker 1: it's a problem. And anyway, it goes on to say
Speaker 1: many of the leaks have surface since President Obama and
Speaker 1: his waning days in office, signed an executive order. They're
Speaker 1: referring to Executive Order twelve three three three. What he
Speaker 1: did is put an addendum on there which vastly expanded
Speaker 1: the number of federal agencies and workers with access to
Speaker 1: this sensitive surveillance. In other words, if there if they
Speaker 1: are monitoring the Russian ambassador and they're monitoring his phone call.
Speaker 1: It used to be that very few people would ever
Speaker 1: have access to that information. But because Obama two weeks
Speaker 1: before he left redid Executive Order twelve three three and
Speaker 1: allowed that that secret information to be shared with sixteen
Speaker 1: other agencies, it means it's in a million people's hands.
Speaker 1: Now why would that matter? Because it makes it more
Speaker 1: difficult to find out who the leaker is. That's what's
Speaker 1: so stats when I say shadow government, deep state. Now
Speaker 1: you understanding where I'm coming from here. Those leaks have
Speaker 1: created a false narrative that the FBI has been predominantly
Speaker 1: focused on Trump's ties to Russia. Officials said, in fact,
Speaker 1: any FBI activity involving the president's associates or advisors was
Speaker 1: mostly ancillary to a wider counterintelligence probe into Russian efforts
Speaker 1: to influence the election or curry favor with US figures.
Speaker 1: He wasn't the target. In other words, everything that has
Speaker 1: been reported is false. According to this report, the Trump
Speaker 1: Russia narrative and the media has not been our primary
Speaker 1: focus and mostly involves pieces of information that came out incidentally.
Speaker 1: We check item, we'll check an item out, we move on,
Speaker 1: adding most of the work is involved old fashioned investigative tactics,
Speaker 1: not surveillance. But in this case, there was surveillance of
Speaker 1: Trump Tower and one of their primate servers. And I
Speaker 1: know because I emailed during the campaign everybody that was
Speaker 1: working for Trump, all the people you know, Kelly Anne
Speaker 1: and and Hope pix and and Corey Lewin DAW's getting
Speaker 1: they all had Trump email addresses, Trump organization email addresses.
Speaker 1: Is this the server that was connected that they were
Speaker 1: spying on surveilling? Why are tapping us? The New York Times,
Speaker 1: I'll use the New York Times. They wire tapped it
Speaker 1: because that's what they said. Trump is right. This article
Speaker 1: says he is correct, and there's no way on God's
Speaker 1: green Earth that Obama and his surrogates didn't know about it. Anyway,
Speaker 1: added another official, I've never seen a case so misrepresented
Speaker 1: and leak so damaging to a process, that process that's
Speaker 1: meant to be conducted in secret, so foreign powers do
Speaker 1: not know what we know and people's reputations aren't tarnished unfairly. Oh,
Speaker 1: you mean, like General Flynn President Trump by a media
Speaker 1: all left propaganda destroyed Trump at all costs. Media, of course,
Speaker 1: they want to destroy him. Several sources that goes on
Speaker 1: with direct knowledge of the FBI's interest in investigating possible
Speaker 1: Moscow efforts to influence the election was born out of
Speaker 1: its long expertise on Russian players, gathered back from two
Speaker 1: thousand and one and Robert Hansen and the espionage affair
Speaker 1: in the and a Chapman spy ring scandal. Other intelligence
Speaker 1: agencies were also gathering similar evidence highlighting Russian activity like
Speaker 1: computer hacking and propaganda. Well, we know that we spy
Speaker 1: on them. We hacked them, they hack us, and it's
Speaker 1: just the way the world rolls. Now. The Bureau it
Speaker 1: goes on along with other intelligence agencies at early signs
Speaker 1: of politically motivated hacking by Russia and uncorroborated information from,
Speaker 1: among others, the former British intelligence officer about possible contacts
Speaker 1: between the Russian intelligence and people close to Trump. By
Speaker 1: the way, that's the dossier that CNN and BuzzFeed ran
Speaker 1: with that talked about Trump. May they may have compromising
Speaker 1: information that he had hookers and the Ritz Carlton that
Speaker 1: was you know, peeing all over the bed, urinating over
Speaker 1: the bed. If that offends you, really, Donald Trump the
Speaker 1: germ fobe not happening, so ridic lists and it was
Speaker 1: proven to be false anyway, And it says there were
Speaker 1: indicators Russian activity on corroborate, corroborated, blah blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: associate allegations of Trump associates having contacts with key figures.
Speaker 1: We needed to know if they connected or not. One
Speaker 1: source said, we'd be remissed if we did not answer
Speaker 1: that question for the national security community. They found nothing.
Speaker 1: Officials decided the best course of action was pursue a
Speaker 1: classic counterintelligence investigation focused on what the Russians were actually doing,
Speaker 1: whether anyone in the US, including the Trump team, might
Speaker 1: be encouraging or facilitating those actions or financially benefiting from them.
Speaker 1: One of the documents that agents tried to corroborate became
Speaker 1: known as the Trump Dossier, the work of this trusted
Speaker 1: ex British intelligence agent. By the way, the FBI wanted
Speaker 1: to pay this guy, hired by political operatives to find
Speaker 1: damaging evidence on Trump in Russia. Some of the information
Speaker 1: in the dossier was explicit and salacious and keyword uncorroborated.
Speaker 1: It like an alleged interlude between Trump and a prostitute
Speaker 1: in Moscow a few years back, and an alleged Russian
Speaker 1: bribe that could have spelled uh millions of miss that
Speaker 1: would have meant millions and billions of dollars for Trump's companies.
Speaker 1: None of it was true. Trump wasn't in a bed
Speaker 1: with hookers that were urinating in the bed, but CNN
Speaker 1: breathlessly reporting when puzzfees reported, so sick, what these people do?
Speaker 1: You think I'm wrong in saying they're all left propaganda
Speaker 1: destroyed Trump at all costs media. That's who they are.
Speaker 1: They're all hacks, they're all lazy, and they're all agenda
Speaker 1: driven on top of being overpaid. Agents were able to
Speaker 1: corroborate some details in the dossier, mostly public source intelligence
Speaker 1: in other words, already available about meetings and decisions involving
Speaker 1: Russian figures, but much of the information about Trump and
Speaker 1: associates could not be corroborated, and some was disproven, and
Speaker 1: other facts took new connotation when additional investigation was concluded,
Speaker 1: in other words, that found nothing. Then, it says the
Speaker 1: FBI Justice Department requested and received a FISA warrant to
Speaker 1: monitor a specific computer server inside of Trump Towers. Trump
Speaker 1: is right. They surveiled him. The pises story is corroborated
Speaker 1: by their sources as being true. The towers is the
Speaker 1: home of Trump's business, personal residents, and then campaign headquarters.
Speaker 1: The court approved defies the application. As we said in October,
Speaker 1: weeks before an election. That's the opposition party. Do you
Speaker 1: understand how dangerous this is, including just as the election
Speaker 1: was turning the Trump's way and other controversial FBI probe
Speaker 1: and the Hillary Clinton's email was ending. Well, Hill, that
Speaker 1: explains where Hillary got all this from. That explains where
Speaker 1: Harry Reid came out. Remember Chuck Schumer in January said
Speaker 1: Trump really is dumb for attacking intelligence agencies. They have
Speaker 1: six ways from Sunday to get back at you. Is
Speaker 1: that what our intelligence community does? Remember all that. Very
Speaker 1: quickly agents concluded the computer activity in question involved no
Speaker 1: nefarious contacts, bank transactions, or encrypted communications with the Russians
Speaker 1: and likely involved routine computer signals. The exonerate Trump, exonerate completely,
Speaker 1: and corroborate that he was being surveiled. Now let me
Speaker 1: take it a step further, just something to think about.
Speaker 1: I won't go any further here because I don't have time.
Speaker 1: But they're gonna join us in our final hour today.
Speaker 1: Let me take it a step further Wiki leaks. Let's
Speaker 1: go to this headline in bright bart and similar one
Speaker 1: was in where was at the Washington Post today? Wiki leaks.
Speaker 1: There's a lot here. In other words, they tried to
Speaker 1: make it so that you couldn't secure your phone. One
Speaker 1: of the reasons I like iPhone is because of its encryption. Well,
Speaker 1: to the wiki leaks, Wiki leaks hasn't been wrong and
Speaker 1: almost eleven years, never proven wrong once about the information
Speaker 1: they disseminate. Okay, so the Android phones, Apple phones, and
Speaker 1: even smart TVs can become listening devices even if they're
Speaker 1: shut off. That's just some of the revelations that came out.
Speaker 1: But here's the one that interests me the most. That
Speaker 1: the c i A, according to these Wiki leaks leaks,
Speaker 1: uses stolen malware to attribute cyber attacks to nations like Russia.
Speaker 1: In other words, what they're saying is the c i
Speaker 1: A can actually blame Russia for an attack on an
Speaker 1: American and because they'll put their fingerprints all over the attack,
Speaker 1: meanwhile it came from within. Well did that happen in
Speaker 1: this case or do you think Hannity's really paranoid now
Speaker 1: and losing is just you know what, maybe I'm not
Speaker 1: so paranoid? Is anybody in the meat you see? Ann
Speaker 1: tonight gonna highlight John Solomon and Sarah Carter. No, They're
Speaker 1: exclusively gonna be on my radio show, in my TV shows.
Speaker 1: The New York Time is going to apologize. All these
Speaker 1: news outlets going to apologize for being wrong. Are they
Speaker 1: gonna say Trump was right about he was being surveilled?
Speaker 1: I doubt it. They're a bunch of hacks, the whole
Speaker 1: bunch of them. Jean Hannity, all right, a lot of
Speaker 1: get to today, a lot of top stories. Now, the
Speaker 1: Vice President will join us next to talk about the
Speaker 1: healthcare bill. Then Jim Jordan's and Congressman Dave Brad and
Speaker 1: Dr John Chaumber, the people that I just read the
Speaker 1: story of, John Solomon, Sarah Carter, and Ann Coulter are
Speaker 1: all coming up. Stay with us, busy day to day.
Speaker 1: A consensus plan that's now being scored by the CBO. Correct,
Speaker 1: Dave Brad seen it, But I haven't seen any plan
Speaker 1: at this point that has been rolled out. Dave Brad, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was asking him specifically, where's the consensus plan. Well,
Speaker 1: in healthcare, I don't think there is one because we
Speaker 1: haven't seen it. Right. Much of it was modeled off
Speaker 1: the Tom Price legislation, which which we have Conservatives have
Speaker 1: always seen a sort of the gold standard for replacing Obamacare.
Speaker 1: He's now the Secretary of HSS. That is the bill,
Speaker 1: the plan that we ran on in seen we told America,
Speaker 1: here's our vision for how we replaced Obamacare. After we
Speaker 1: repeal Obamacare, we're all working off the same piece of paper,
Speaker 1: the same plan, so we are in sync, the House,
Speaker 1: the Senate, and the Trump administration. Because this law is
Speaker 1: collapsing and you can't just repeal it. You have to
Speaker 1: repeal it and replace it with a system that actually works.
Speaker 1: And that is exactly what we're doing. And I am
Speaker 1: perfectly confident that when it's all said and done, we're
Speaker 1: going to unify because we all, every Republican ran on
Speaker 1: repealing and replacing and we're going to keep our promises.
Speaker 1: Is there a consensus bill, because when I interviewed the Speaker,
Speaker 1: he said there was, and it was being scored, and
Speaker 1: after it was scored, he said, of course there's going
Speaker 1: to be amendments to it. But why the secrecy at
Speaker 1: this point, Well, there is a consensus of ideas and
Speaker 1: a consensus bill, but it's not the leadership bill. The
Speaker 1: leadership bill is Obamacare light, and they're embarrassed about it,
Speaker 1: so they keep it in secret because they don't want
Speaker 1: any of us to point out the Obamacare light features.
Speaker 1: Hopefully they will not put forward a Bottlecare light. But
Speaker 1: the bill they're keeping under lock and key that they
Speaker 1: won't let us see. They would not let me have
Speaker 1: a copy of this morning. That bill is Obamacare light,
Speaker 1: and that's why they don't want conservatives across the country
Speaker 1: to see it. All Right, there you hear of varying
Speaker 1: opinions yesterday. Of course, the healthcare bill or late the
Speaker 1: night before, was released on Monday night, and there is
Speaker 1: opposition to it. Obviously, it was not a consensus bill
Speaker 1: in the sense the Freedom Caucus and others, some of
Speaker 1: the study group, Senator Rampaul, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Mike Lee,
Speaker 1: Senator Marco Rubio seemed to have problems with it. Here
Speaker 1: to help sort all of this out is the Vice
Speaker 1: President of the United States, and that is Vice President
Speaker 1: Mike Pence was back with those Mr. Vice President It's
Speaker 1: always an honor to have you on the show. Thank
Speaker 1: you for being with us. Thank you, Sean. Great to
Speaker 1: be with you. This is an exciting time in the
Speaker 1: life of our nation. It is truly historic that after
Speaker 1: the after Democrats and and the Obama administration passed a
Speaker 1: government takeover of healthcare, that we are literally on the
Speaker 1: cusp through through a vigorous legislative process of repealing and
Speaker 1: replacing Obamacare. And I'm I'm just truly humbled and grateful
Speaker 1: to be a small part of that. The only thing
Speaker 1: in my mind, and maybe it was wishful thinking on
Speaker 1: my part, because I know legislation. You once told me
Speaker 1: it's like sausage making in that sense, and you know
Speaker 1: New Gingrich describes, well, you work within a box. What
Speaker 1: what do you need to pass a bill? What do
Speaker 1: you need to pass a bill? And within that box
Speaker 1: you come to agreement. Nobody gets everything that they want.
Speaker 1: I guess my My only confusion and and concern is
Speaker 1: considering this started eight years ago. I'm just a little
Speaker 1: bit frustrated that there wasn't a consensus bill and now
Speaker 1: we've got a public fight going on between Republicans and
Speaker 1: this is only one item of the Trump Agenda, the
Speaker 1: Trump Pencil Agenda that needs to get passed. We've got
Speaker 1: to get the economic bill passed. We gotta get energy independence,
Speaker 1: We've we've got to get the vetting done and the
Speaker 1: wall built. There's a lot of work to do. And
Speaker 1: I just wish that maybe these these public battles we're
Speaker 1: seeing now could have been resolved behind closed doors and
Speaker 1: everybody could have got behind the president from day one
Speaker 1: and said, yeah, we agreed, this is our bill, we
Speaker 1: all vote, We're all going to vote for it. Well,
Speaker 1: and I think I think one of the soundbites that
Speaker 1: you played from from the speaker, Paul Ryan, reflected on
Speaker 1: the fact that they a working group in the Congress
Speaker 1: last year. Uh, they built this legislation at the president's
Speaker 1: direction around a framework included in then Congressman Tom Price's legislation,
Speaker 1: which was very broadly endorsed by conservatives and Republicans in
Speaker 1: the Congress. But look, this is this is a different
Speaker 1: kind of legislative process than happened in two thousand nine.
Speaker 1: I was there, you were, you were on the airways
Speaker 1: of America trying to stop that freight train called Obamacare,
Speaker 1: and we came pretty close remember, shop, we almost stopped
Speaker 1: the thing, but the way it was written, it was
Speaker 1: hard for us argue against it because literally, Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: as Speaker of the House, and the Obama team literally
Speaker 1: wrote Obamacare in a back room and that almost the
Speaker 1: day of the vote, brought it out onto the floor
Speaker 1: of the House of Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi famously said, quote,
Speaker 1: we have to vote for this bill so we can
Speaker 1: find out what's in a closed quote. Now that the
Speaker 1: American people found out what's in it, higher insurance premiums,
Speaker 1: lost the ability to choose your doctor, losing your insurance coverage. Literally,
Speaker 1: it is a spiraling disaster in healthcare, and Republicans, with
Speaker 1: the President's strong leadership, are determined to keep our promise
Speaker 1: of the American people. We're going to repeal this this
Speaker 1: disastrous policy. And what's been presented is just this is
Speaker 1: the most important thing I can tell you, Sean, is
Speaker 1: what's been presented in the Congress and has begun to
Speaker 1: be debated is simply phase one of the President's three
Speaker 1: phase process, which by this summer will succeed in repealing
Speaker 1: Obamacare and replacing it with healthcare reform that lets of
Speaker 1: the American people choose their health insurance, purchase health insurance
Speaker 1: across state lines. It will lower the cost of health
Speaker 1: insurance through free market choices. It will respect the doctor
Speaker 1: patient relationship. It will give states, literally, as the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal said today, unprecedented freedom and flexibility in tailoring
Speaker 1: their own Medicaid systems on a state by state basis.
Speaker 1: And we really do be that at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, at the end of this three phase process,
Speaker 1: the American people will will see that President Trump and
Speaker 1: Republicans in Congress kept their word and seized this historic
Speaker 1: healthcare moment to literally improve the healthcare economy based upon
Speaker 1: American principles and the free market. I guess, Mr Vice President,
Speaker 1: from my perspective, all of the people that came out
Speaker 1: yesterday opposing the bill within the Republican Party had telegraphed
Speaker 1: the very arguments long before they got an opportunity to
Speaker 1: see the bill, and I guess maybe wishful thinking on
Speaker 1: my part, I would have hoped that maybe a lot
Speaker 1: of those differences could have been resolved behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: Look at just even the lower third on on any
Speaker 1: of these news channels. All day, it's talks about an
Speaker 1: internal strife, civil war within the Republican Party, and um,
Speaker 1: I'm not so sure that's helpful. And and all these
Speaker 1: things now are going to be played out in public.
Speaker 1: Apparently that's I think playing into the Democrats hands a
Speaker 1: little bit. Or should the American people understand this is
Speaker 1: how digislation is made. And are you confident you're gonna
Speaker 1: bring these guys along? Well, first off, I'm very confident
Speaker 1: we're going to keep our promise to the American people
Speaker 1: with the with President Trump's strong leadership and the support
Speaker 1: of Republicans in the House and Senate, we're going to
Speaker 1: repeal and replace Obamacare. We're going to give the American
Speaker 1: people a health care system based on individual choice, personal responsibility,
Speaker 1: and freedom. Remember, the very core offense of Obamacare was
Speaker 1: that they decided to solve the problem what they perceived
Speaker 1: to be of coverage in America by ordering every American
Speaker 1: to buy health insurance, whether you want it or not.
Speaker 1: That we always believe that the issue of costs could
Speaker 1: be dealt with by by increasing the amount of choice
Speaker 1: that Americans had. That's the President of the core of
Speaker 1: the President's vision begins with repealing that the tax penalties,
Speaker 1: repealing the you know, the mandates and the heavy hand
Speaker 1: of government in Obamacare letting people purchase across state lines
Speaker 1: and then sending medicaid to the states, so that state,
Speaker 1: it's like my old home state of Indiana, have the
Speaker 1: ability to tailor those programs for the under privileged in
Speaker 1: ways that will serve their best needs, their best health.
Speaker 1: And truly, uh and and truly it advanced the choices
Speaker 1: that uh, that our most vulnerable citizens have in a
Speaker 1: healthcare economy in ways that will improve their lives. That
Speaker 1: that all I believe is going to happen. But look,
Speaker 1: we're we are. It is early in the legislative process.
Speaker 1: The President has said this is the bill, but he's
Speaker 1: also he told leaders in Congress yesterday. I told him
Speaker 1: when I was on Capitol Hill in the House, and
Speaker 1: we're certainly open to improvements the House proposal. We believe,
Speaker 1: you know, you know is you know, can be improved.
Speaker 1: We're gonna listen to thoughtful recommendations to do that. But
Speaker 1: the overall framework of this process, we truly believe, as
Speaker 1: the President said, has to begin with our effort to
Speaker 1: simultaneously repeal and replace Obamacare. And that's what this first
Speaker 1: bill does begins to do. And the end of this
Speaker 1: three phase process. I truly do believe that your listeners
Speaker 1: and and frankly, I think the broad broad mainstream of
Speaker 1: the American public. Uh, we'll see that we have. We
Speaker 1: took what was a disaster in healthcare and we turned
Speaker 1: it around to put it on a pathway for for
Speaker 1: better health, better health care choices, and a more prosperous
Speaker 1: fut The argument of the Freedom Caucus, both them and
Speaker 1: Senator Paul for example, is that this does not represent
Speaker 1: a full repeal, and it creates a new entitlement, and
Speaker 1: that is the subsidies that would come from the federal
Speaker 1: government and be sent into terms of in terms of
Speaker 1: tax credits to individuals. Um, do you feel they're right
Speaker 1: on that or do you agree with the free Do
Speaker 1: you think the Freedom Caucus is right or do you
Speaker 1: think Paul Ryan has that right? Well, I have to
Speaker 1: be honest with you. Obamacare, they subsidize the purchase of
Speaker 1: health insurance through these exchanges. I think that giving people
Speaker 1: a credit on taxes is a better way to go.
Speaker 1: If if if people don't have coverage through their employer
Speaker 1: and they're purchasing on the individual market, allowing them to
Speaker 1: have a credit against their tax liability. That's to me,
Speaker 1: that's always been a good free market means of encouraging
Speaker 1: and creating an incentive for behavior. Remember, the core difference
Speaker 1: between Obamacare and what's been proposed in the Congress today
Speaker 1: is freedom. In Obamacare, with the federal government ordered every
Speaker 1: American to buy health insurance or pay attacks, we're essentially
Speaker 1: saying we're creating incentives for people to be able to
Speaker 1: better afford health insurance. But whether you buy health insurance
Speaker 1: is your decision, and it's your call. And to me,
Speaker 1: that's more than a small matter. That's it really goes
Speaker 1: to the heart of when I was in that battle
Speaker 1: in two thousand nine against Obamacare. To me, it was
Speaker 1: the intrusion on freedom that I found most offensive. I mean,
Speaker 1: if the federal government can order you to buy one
Speaker 1: thing whatever, to say down the road in the future,
Speaker 1: they can't order you to spend your money in other
Speaker 1: different ways, you know. To me, that's the where we
Speaker 1: all begin. And in bill, remember this is a budget bill.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be too granular here, but this
Speaker 1: is a bill that only requires fifty one votes in
Speaker 1: the Senate. There's there's a chat by the way, that
Speaker 1: is a real hurdle. That that's right, But but it's
Speaker 1: not sixty votes. Okay, the next the phase three of
Speaker 1: this will take sixty votes. And the President and I
Speaker 1: and our whole team are committed to go across the
Speaker 1: country and fight hard for all the balance of reforms
Speaker 1: like like uh, you know, completing the authority to buy
Speaker 1: health insurance across state lines, and creating association health plans
Speaker 1: so that people can join insurance pools on a nationwide basis,
Speaker 1: of bringing together medical liability, legal reform, to to to
Speaker 1: bring some common sense to litigation that drives up the
Speaker 1: cost of health insurance across the country. All those things
Speaker 1: will have to get well left to get sixty votes
Speaker 1: to do them, and and well Spring, I promise you
Speaker 1: were going to fight for them. But in this bill,
Speaker 1: we can repeal the taxes, we can we can start
Speaker 1: down the road of replacing Obamacare, and that combined with
Speaker 1: what Dr Price can do at HHS and our Phase
Speaker 1: three bill can deliver a great victory for the American people.
Speaker 1: Stay up to date with the latest news and expert
Speaker 1: opinions as Donald Trump takes office. Stick right here will
Speaker 1: Shawn Hendy show. We continue with the Vice President of
Speaker 1: the United States, Vice President Mike Pence, Mr. Vice President.
Speaker 1: I guess the next question I have is, you know
Speaker 1: we've been following this guy in Wichita, Kansas. You're gonna
Speaker 1: join us later in the program. And I know you're
Speaker 1: pretty busy and you probably don't have time to watch
Speaker 1: my TV show ever, but we had them on last night,
Speaker 1: and this guy in Wichita has a system where people pay.
Speaker 1: Kids pay ten bucks a month, the adults pay fifty
Speaker 1: bucks a month. It includes as many visits as you
Speaker 1: ever need, takes care of stitches and broken bones and
Speaker 1: m ririse, and they even have a negotiated directly with
Speaker 1: the pharmaceutical companies and gets reduction on the cost of
Speaker 1: most medicines and including chemotherapy medicines. And they have five
Speaker 1: doctors in his practice, six patients per doctor. And then
Speaker 1: the patients usually get a catastrophic plan, which is very
Speaker 1: inexpensive depending on what your deductible is. And that would
Speaker 1: be in case God forbid you have an accident, God
Speaker 1: forbid you out a heart attack, or God forbid you
Speaker 1: got cancer. These cooperatives, there are about a thousand of
Speaker 1: them now that have popped up around the country. Between
Speaker 1: that and health care savings accounts, so we onto something
Speaker 1: that could really in his case, he cuts the cost
Speaker 1: for his patients at becuse, cuts the cost of pharmaceutic
Speaker 1: and it seems that these innovative ideas that are popping
Speaker 1: up around the country could be utilized. Thoughts well, nothing
Speaker 1: false about it at all, And health savings accounts are
Speaker 1: at the very center of the president's vision here. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, we introduced, really for the first time ever,
Speaker 1: health savings accounts in to medicate when I was governor
Speaker 1: of the state of Indiana. When when people are able
Speaker 1: to make a deposit into a health savings account that
Speaker 1: they can pay a first dollar out of to pay
Speaker 1: for their their healthcare, it creates an incentive for preventive
Speaker 1: medicine and encourages people to to make better health care choices.
Speaker 1: And then you add to that a catastrophic plan that's
Speaker 1: much more affordable. It all makes sense. But everything you're
Speaker 1: talking about, I know to your bone marrow, Sean Hannity,
Speaker 1: you're a free market guy, yes, sir, you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's no I love what Phil Graham said one time.
Speaker 1: He said, there's no problem in America too big or
Speaker 1: too complex that the market can't solve if we let
Speaker 1: the markets solve it. What what happened into thousand nine
Speaker 1: that were committed to repeal and replace was that it
Speaker 1: was nothing short of a government takeover of healthcare. They
Speaker 1: looked at the issue of uninsured in America, and instead
Speaker 1: of freeing up the marketplace, allowing people to buy health
Speaker 1: insurance across state lines, giving people more freedom and more
Speaker 1: flexibility to innovate programs like health savings accounts and association
Speaker 1: health plans, instead they came out with this massive government
Speaker 1: mandate ordering every American to buy health insurance whether they
Speaker 1: wanted or needed or not, and then layered on top
Speaker 1: of that attacks penalty if you didn't pay that, and
Speaker 1: that was that. That's the core of Obamacare that goes
Speaker 1: away in the bill that was introduced this week with
Speaker 1: a tax penalty is gone, and by the end of
Speaker 1: this three phase process, everything about Obamacare will be swept
Speaker 1: away and we will replace it with exactly the kind
Speaker 1: of framework that will invite the innovation that you're talking
Speaker 1: about in which talk. I'm just really hoping and praying
Speaker 1: that Republicans can come to consensus quickly. There's so much
Speaker 1: on the agenda, and as a credit to both you
Speaker 1: and the President, you have gotten so much done in
Speaker 1: such a short period of time, and many big items
Speaker 1: remain and I know you will get to them expeditiously.
Speaker 1: Mr Vice President, Thank you as always for your time.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you always being on the program. Thank you, sir,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sean. Great to be with you one Sean
Speaker 1: are toll free telephone number, and Culture will get her
Speaker 1: thoughts on all of this when we get back straight ahead,
Speaker 1: holding them accountable. Sean gets the answers no one else does.
Speaker 1: America desserts and know the truth about Congress. The plan
Speaker 1: is to repeal and replaced this law. Like we said,
Speaker 1: we ran on a plan to repeal and replace it.
Speaker 1: Tom Chrice helped write that plan. He is now Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's secretary of a consensus plan that's now being scored
Speaker 1: by the CBO. Correct. He said, there's a plan currently
Speaker 1: being scored by the CBO that was a consensus plan.
Speaker 1: That's what he told me. Well, I understand that, and
Speaker 1: and uh, it is not a consensus plan. I haven't
Speaker 1: seen it. Maybe Dave Brad seen it, but I haven't
Speaker 1: seen any plan at this point that has been rolled
Speaker 1: out Dave Brad Yeah, I was asking him specifically, where's
Speaker 1: the consensus plan? Well, and help, I don't think there
Speaker 1: is one because we haven't seen it. Right. We have
Speaker 1: been running on repealing and replacing Obamacare since two thousand.
Speaker 1: In two thousand sixteen, the House, in a bottom up way,
Speaker 1: set a working group together the Commerce Committee, the Ways
Speaker 1: Means Committe, the Education Workforce Committee, and then any other
Speaker 1: member of Congress who cares about this issue participated in
Speaker 1: a working group to come up with a plan for
Speaker 1: what we replace Obamacare. Uh. Much of it was modeled
Speaker 1: off the Tom Price legislation, which which we have conservatives
Speaker 1: have always seen a sort of the gold standard for
Speaker 1: replacing Obamacare. He's now the Secretary of hs S. That
Speaker 1: is the bill, the plan that we ran on in Sie.
Speaker 1: We told America, here's our vision for how we replace
Speaker 1: Obamacare after we repeal Obamacare. That's the bill we're working
Speaker 1: on right now. That's the bill we're working on with
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. We're all working off the same piece
Speaker 1: of paper, the same plan, so we are in sync,
Speaker 1: the House, the Senate, and the Trump administration. Because this
Speaker 1: law is collapsing and you can't just repeal it. You
Speaker 1: have to repeal it and replace it with a system
Speaker 1: that actually works, and that is exactly what we're doing.
Speaker 1: And I am perfectly confident that when it's all said
Speaker 1: and done, we're going to unify because we all, every
Speaker 1: Republican ran on repealing and replacing, and we're going to
Speaker 1: keep our promises. Is there a consensus bill, because when
Speaker 1: I interviewed the Speaker, he said there was, and it
Speaker 1: was being scored, And after it was scored, he said,
Speaker 1: of course it's going to be amendments to it. But
Speaker 1: why the secrecy at this point, Well, there is a
Speaker 1: consensus of ideas and a consense this bill, but it's
Speaker 1: not the leadership bill. The leadership bill is Obamacare light,
Speaker 1: and they're embarrassed about it, so they keep it in
Speaker 1: secret because they don't want any of us to point
Speaker 1: out the Obamacare light features. Hopefully they will not put
Speaker 1: forward a binalcare light. But the bill they're keeping under
Speaker 1: lock and key that they won't let us see. They
Speaker 1: would not let me have a copy of this morning.
Speaker 1: That bill is Obamacare light, and that's why they don't
Speaker 1: want conservatives across the country to see it. All right,
Speaker 1: twenty four now, till the top of the hour. You know,
Speaker 1: I just want to reset the table here and we're
Speaker 1: gonna get to Ann Coulter. So for eight years, eight
Speaker 1: long years, repeal and replace. So here, Donald Trump wins
Speaker 1: the election, and they had all these show votes, phony
Speaker 1: votes that would absolutely meaningless. Ted Cruz filibusters in the
Speaker 1: Senate and says, let's use our enumerated constitutional power of
Speaker 1: the purse and we can repeal Obamacare. We can stop it,
Speaker 1: we cannot fund it. And they had that option. Now
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz has gone off the deep end. We're gonna
Speaker 1: lose seats in teen. Well, you didn't lose seats, Ineen,
Speaker 1: they won seats. So this is their their signature. And
Speaker 1: we get in January. It's now March, and they still
Speaker 1: never had a consensus bill. Now, let me tell you
Speaker 1: how I would have rolled this bill out, because I
Speaker 1: had interviewed everybody, and I knew there wasn't consensus. The
Speaker 1: Freedom Caucuses against it, Americans for Prosperity or against it.
Speaker 1: The Freedom Works is against it, Heritage Action is against it.
Speaker 1: Forbes's Group is against everybody's against it. Grand Paul's against it.
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is against it. Mike Lea's against it, Freedom
Speaker 1: Caucuses against it, Rubio is against it. And why didn't
Speaker 1: they work out all of these problems behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: then as a United Republican House and Senate and President
Speaker 1: reveal it and say we're gonna pass this bill anyway
Speaker 1: and cultures. So it's infuriating. I mean, it's almost dereliction
Speaker 1: of duty. How bad this was rolled out yesterday. I know, Sean,
Speaker 1: I know it's a joke and sad. First of all,
Speaker 1: you can I don't understand why no one in Congress
Speaker 1: understands the free market. We constantly have this ratchet effect
Speaker 1: where Democrats are in office, they pushed through massive socialist schemes,
Speaker 1: and then Republicans come in with a Republican House, Republican Senate,
Speaker 1: Republican president. And what do they do. They keep the
Speaker 1: the overall framework of the government running our lives in
Speaker 1: this or that area. Take Department of Education invented by
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter as a stop to the teachers unions. Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan ran on eliminating the Department of Education, and twenty
Speaker 1: years later George Bush is tinkering around the edges who
Speaker 1: have no child left behind. No, we don't want tinkering.
Speaker 1: We want a free market. And whenever you hear people
Speaker 1: saying as as they always do, well, how are we
Speaker 1: going to make sure everyone has health insurance? Okay, for
Speaker 1: most of the last century, Soviet Union couldn't clothe its people,
Speaker 1: couldn't feed its people. Here in America, we totally solved
Speaker 1: the everyone be closed problem. Everyone have shoes, everyone have food,
Speaker 1: in fact, an infinite, very variety of food, even of
Speaker 1: something something like orange juice. That that is, as I
Speaker 1: wrote in a column recently, Russian President Yelson walked through
Speaker 1: a supermarket in Austin, Texas and was blown away by
Speaker 1: the orange juice sile. How did we do that, Sean?
Speaker 1: We did that through the free market, not by the
Speaker 1: government saying well, if you're going to make orange juice,
Speaker 1: we have a series of mandates for you, and we're
Speaker 1: going to have the State Orange Juice Commission tell you
Speaker 1: that it has to have a spout at an easy,
Speaker 1: poor spout, and only pure orange juice. You can't make
Speaker 1: mix in mango juice. Please just give us a free
Speaker 1: market and health insurance. Yes, there are people who will
Speaker 1: not be able to afford that health insurance or they
Speaker 1: either because they're irresponsible, or they're not making enough money,
Speaker 1: or they're young people, or because they just drew a
Speaker 1: bad lottery ticket in life. Okay, that's probably at most
Speaker 1: three percent of the country. Let's say it's something wild
Speaker 1: like seven ten. That doesn't mean you do pride the
Speaker 1: other three hundred million of us of being able to
Speaker 1: buy health insurance on the free market. And I would
Speaker 1: also add, we already have a model of this yere
Speaker 1: in America, not only with car insurance that's sold on
Speaker 1: the free market. A cute little get commercial number two Obamacare, Um,
Speaker 1: thank Heavin for the establishment clause was forced to give
Speaker 1: waivers to Christian groups who provide something they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to call insurance, but it's insurance. And you know how
Speaker 1: much that is? Fifty dollars a month. And that's with
Speaker 1: a teeny tiny little pool. If if health insurance for
Speaker 1: young people, for healthy people, for the risk averse, if
Speaker 1: you could get catastrophic health insurance just in case you're
Speaker 1: hit by a car, you have a terrible skiing accident,
Speaker 1: you get a dread disease. If if it were fifty
Speaker 1: dollars a month, so many people would be buying it
Speaker 1: would probably go down to twenty or thirty dollars a month.
Speaker 1: Please just give us a free market and stop putting mandates.
Speaker 1: Are sending it back to the state insurance commissioners, the
Speaker 1: most corrupt institutions in the Could you imagine. And meanwhile,
Speaker 1: all of this, I'm being told there's a consensus bill
Speaker 1: being scored by the CBO. And then I put on
Speaker 1: let's see Dave brad and Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: and Louis Gohmert, and then Marcia Blackburn and I put
Speaker 1: on Grand Paul other people, and they all say, Nope,
Speaker 1: we're hearing this is in it. This is in it,
Speaker 1: this is in it, this is in it. And I
Speaker 1: go and I write people and I'm like, guys, they're
Speaker 1: not on board, and they have enough votes to kill it.
Speaker 1: I'm like, why aren't you talking together? Could you imagine
Speaker 1: if they actually got had gotten in a room, they
Speaker 1: put together a bill that everybody agreed on and supported.
Speaker 1: Nobody gets everything they want. That's the way bills are written.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, it was on
Speaker 1: the principles. You just describe simple, basic, fundamental conservative free
Speaker 1: market principles and imagine that if the president held a
Speaker 1: big event with all members of the House and Senate
Speaker 1: that a Republican supporting the bill and say we are unified.
Speaker 1: This is our bill. Now maybe I'm not, maybe I'm
Speaker 1: maybe I'm just two outside the bubble. It's I mean,
Speaker 1: there are complications, but not for of the American people.
Speaker 1: If you can make of us happy, wouldn't you do it?
Speaker 1: You could do it in a single sentence in the bill.
Speaker 1: There shall be a free market in health insurance. Period.
Speaker 1: The rest of the bill is all dealing with with Medicaid,
Speaker 1: with trial lawyers, with laws that require hospitals to treat
Speaker 1: anyone who walks in UM. You have to have fraud investigators.
Speaker 1: But that's the ten percent of people who are going
Speaker 1: to need either fully subsidized or partially subsidized healthcare for
Speaker 1: one reason or another. Often not their fault, because I'm
Speaker 1: not saying this with any with any venom here. Some
Speaker 1: people are just born with horrible problems. Of course we're
Speaker 1: going to pay for that. You have to make sure
Speaker 1: there isn't fraud. There's a lot of fraud in Medicare
Speaker 1: and Medicaid right now. Again thanks to our hard working immigrants,
Speaker 1: mostly UM, but nine of us just let us buy
Speaker 1: on the free market. It is the most baffling thing.
Speaker 1: I always feel like I'm talking to, you know, an
Speaker 1: old Soviet woman, sir, explaining how bread will get to
Speaker 1: the market. No, we don't need the government to write
Speaker 1: these regulations. And and don't tell the healthcare is important,
Speaker 1: food is important, housing is important, clothes are important, and
Speaker 1: we are just you know, we're rolling in all of it.
Speaker 1: Why it gets better and cheaper every year because of
Speaker 1: the free market, as with as with car insurance, as
Speaker 1: with the Christian health insurance. It isn't allowed to call
Speaker 1: it self insurance. I just to me, it's very very simple.
Speaker 1: You repeal the old bill, you replace it with you know,
Speaker 1: I had this guy on TV last night. I put
Speaker 1: him on radio today, Josh Umbers with his name, and
Speaker 1: he's a great guy. He has the very type of
Speaker 1: of what you call cooperative that you're discussing ten bucks
Speaker 1: a month for kids, fifty bucks a month for adults,
Speaker 1: all the medical care testing you want. And he negotiated
Speaker 1: directly with the pharmaceutical companies and he has reductions and
Speaker 1: what you would pay at Walmart. Oh yeah, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: to sell it outfuly. Free market, let people compete. Um,
Speaker 1: Let the pharmaceutical companies compete for the businesses. Uh No,
Speaker 1: it's it's magic, the free market. I don't understand why
Speaker 1: Republicans don't understand. Um. I I am glad to see
Speaker 1: Rand Paul Um. He seems to have imbibed well from
Speaker 1: his father, Ron Paul. He appears to be the only
Speaker 1: one who grasps the concept of the free market, which
Speaker 1: again solves the problem of health insurance, as it has
Speaker 1: solved the problem of clothing ourselves and and and buying food.
Speaker 1: It solves it for the people. You don't screw three
Speaker 1: million people because you have special cases with another ten millions. Well,
Speaker 1: I think at the end of the day, there's a
Speaker 1: way to get this right. And you know, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is the great negotiator, and it looks like he's going
Speaker 1: to have to go in and clean up the mess
Speaker 1: that Congress created. Well, what's frustrating about that is Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is one man. He's he's working on the wall,
Speaker 1: he's imposing the travel band, You're bringing jobs back. Um.
Speaker 1: He's just a world wind of activity. We have hundreds
Speaker 1: of Republicans, Um, in the United States Congress. They can't
Speaker 1: do this one thing because there are complicated portions to it. Again,
Speaker 1: the part that deals with the ten percent of Americans
Speaker 1: who are incapable of of being covered by insurance on
Speaker 1: the free market, either because they have some very expensive
Speaker 1: disease or they're just they're just incapable. As Trump said,
Speaker 1: we don't let them die on the street. Don't worry.
Speaker 1: We never have. We have Medicaid, we have Medicare, we
Speaker 1: have veterans, hospitals. All of that stuff needs to be fixed.
Speaker 1: But you don't wreck the free market for of the public.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if they've done this with food and
Speaker 1: clothes and culture. I gotta I gotta tell you listen.
Speaker 1: We love having you come back often when you're back
Speaker 1: up in New York. You did great on TV the
Speaker 1: other night. Thank you as always for being with us.
Speaker 1: Absolutely good to talk to you. Shan by One, Shawn
Speaker 1: toll Free telephone number, Next Star, Final round up and
Speaker 1: information overload our All right, let's hit our busy telephones here.
Speaker 1: Michelle is in Hampton, Virginia listening on w n I S.
Speaker 1: What's going on? How are you? Yes? Thank you so
Speaker 1: much Mr Hannity for taking my call. Ma'am um. Well,
Speaker 1: I want you to just share with the American people.
Speaker 1: Is have we forgotten that that compassionate, loving speech that
Speaker 1: he gave that address to Congress, who the gentleman and
Speaker 1: the women who had to sit and ignore him as
Speaker 1: he spoke to us, the American people and them to
Speaker 1: try and get their act together. And now those are
Speaker 1: the same ones that are standing up. You're attacking him
Speaker 1: with life and falsehood. I think they should come out
Speaker 1: and show the proof of their attacks in their lives.
Speaker 1: If they can't show it, they all get a year
Speaker 1: in one Pattamo along with the owner and CEO of
Speaker 1: that news media outlets, put them all over there for
Speaker 1: a year. Listen, let me tell you something. The best
Speaker 1: thing that Trump can do. You know, I was interviewed
Speaker 1: by Ted Cobble a BC. This is Nightline, uh yesterday
Speaker 1: for you know. He interviews me for an hour and
Speaker 1: and literally three minutes will show up on the show.
Speaker 1: He told me, I give my first answer goes none
Speaker 1: of that's going to get in. I'm like, well, why
Speaker 1: am I even here? You know, I mean, I get
Speaker 1: along with Copple, you know, he loves to be a
Speaker 1: hardass with me. But I I said, all right, I'll
Speaker 1: sit down I'm like, why am I sitting here for
Speaker 1: an hour? For three minutes? It's such a waste of
Speaker 1: my time. Anyway, and one of the things that he
Speaker 1: just wanted to focus, well, does Trump telling the truth?
Speaker 1: Do we need journalists? I said, not really we we
Speaker 1: journalism is dead. It's not coming back, as my opinion,
Speaker 1: but anyway, Yeah, they've all Hell's broken loose. The media
Speaker 1: is calling him a liar every day, and it is
Speaker 1: absolutely repugnant to me, how abusively biased, how lazy, and
Speaker 1: how wrong the media is. They're the ones that said,
Speaker 1: why are tapping not the president? They first, They said
Speaker 1: it first, and it turns out and we'll learn this
Speaker 1: later in the program. Don't miss this interview at the
Speaker 1: last half hour of the show today, John Solomon and
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter. They have a piece that confirms the FISA
Speaker 1: warrant was issued. They go into great specificity in detail.
Speaker 1: It did target servers at Trump Tower. I do know
Speaker 1: the servers for the campaign or in Trump Tower. And
Speaker 1: there's no way on God's green Earth that President Obama
Speaker 1: didn't know about it. He may not have warded it,
Speaker 1: but he knew about it. And that is the question
Speaker 1: that he should have been asked, and everyone runs with
Speaker 1: the statement and says the president lied, No, there was surveillance.
Speaker 1: According to John Solomon, he worked twenty years for the
Speaker 1: AP and Sarah Carter and both spend time at the
Speaker 1: Washington Times, reputable mainstream news paper, that they're saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: the in fact, the Fieser warrant was issued, and they
Speaker 1: found out in the Fiser warrant that in fact they
Speaker 1: targeted servers in Trump Tower. So maybe he was wrong
Speaker 1: and say wire tapping. But now we're just dealing with
Speaker 1: a technicality for crying out loud and it's driving me insane. Alright, one, Shawn,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program,
Speaker 1: all right, when we come back, News Round Up, Information Overload.
Speaker 1: Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Dave Bratt, both against the healthcare bill,
Speaker 1: and Dr Josh Umber, who came up with one of
Speaker 1: the most innovative, creative solutions. That's all coming up next val.
Speaker 1: This is monumental, exciting conservative reform that fixes these problems.
Speaker 1: I've been working on this for twenty years. This is exciting. Well,
Speaker 1: our plan is different. The House plan is Obamacarelite, keeps subsidies,
Speaker 1: keeps taxes, actually keeps an individual mandate. I think amidst
Speaker 1: the horse excrement, we can find a pony around here
Speaker 1: somewhere holding them accountable. Sean gets the answers no one
Speaker 1: else does. Freedom is back in style. Welcome to the Revolution,
Speaker 1: New Shawn Entity Show behind the scenes, information on breaking
Speaker 1: news and are bold inspired solutions for America. Stay right
Speaker 1: here for our final news round up and information overload
Speaker 1: and our top story. What is emerging as an intramural
Speaker 1: battle even verging on the the the precipice of a
Speaker 1: civil war over this healthcare bill. Congressman Jim Jordan of
Speaker 1: Ohio is with us, and he's one of the founders.
Speaker 1: Former chairman of the Freedom Caucus. Congressman Dave Bratt is
Speaker 1: with us as well. Congressman for Virginia, also with the
Speaker 1: Freedom Caucus, and also Dr Josh umber of Atlas M.
Speaker 1: D Out of Wichita, Kansas, who I've been talking a
Speaker 1: lot about. And Uh, Congressman Bratt, let me begin with you,
Speaker 1: and Congressman Jordan will begin with you as well. Uh.
Speaker 1: Here's what I don't understand. I interviewed all of you,
Speaker 1: I interviewed other Freedom Caucus colleagues. All of you had
Speaker 1: concerns before they released this bill. All of you expressed them,
Speaker 1: articulated them, and he didn't even have access to it.
Speaker 1: But the things you were hearing were in the bill.
Speaker 1: Then the bill is released, the President sent out to
Speaker 1: sell the bill, and none of you guys at the
Speaker 1: Freedom Caucus and there are enough of you to stop
Speaker 1: this bill from ever becoming law. And I don't understand
Speaker 1: why things weren't fixed before the bill was released. Can
Speaker 1: you explain that, Congressman Brett? Yeah, Well, the language was
Speaker 1: strong early on, and as Jim Jordan's always says, we
Speaker 1: need to do promise we're gonna do. And so the
Speaker 1: promise was very clear, we're gonna repeal Obamacare. President Trump
Speaker 1: land on, we're gonna repeal Obamacare. And we all voted
Speaker 1: on a full repeal of Obamacare, and all Republicans voted yes,
Speaker 1: and the House and the Senate a year ago. And
Speaker 1: so now, uh, the voters are just learning what's going on,
Speaker 1: and it turns out we're not going to repeal Obamacare.
Speaker 1: And so the language in d C. And you're familiar
Speaker 1: with you do with politicians talking to you all that
Speaker 1: it all hinges on that word. If you get rid
Speaker 1: of Obamacare, you get rid of the regulation, and so
Speaker 1: we assumed that's what's gonna be in the Leadership bill.
Speaker 1: We're gonna repeal Obamacare. We're gonna get rid of the rags.
Speaker 1: We're geting get rid of his Bronze Plan, Silver Plan,
Speaker 1: all that. We're gonna get rid of all the stuff disciples,
Speaker 1: you're individual choice, and instead of just dealing with coverage issues,
Speaker 1: which is what Obamacare did, we're gonna finally focus on
Speaker 1: getting the price of healthcare down by getting people the freedom.
Speaker 1: But but but I don't understand that. You know, now
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a big public fight over this. Although
Speaker 1: I heard that you guys are meeting with the president
Speaker 1: later this evening or sometime today. Is that true? Today,
Speaker 1: get to meet with you tomorrow, Sean. And you met
Speaker 1: with the Vice president yesterday, and as the Vice president
Speaker 1: sympathetic to your point of view, Congressman Jordan's yeah, he said, Look,
Speaker 1: this is this is the start of the debate, and
Speaker 1: this is how it works in American government, in American democracy.
Speaker 1: You got a bill and now it's time to debate it.
Speaker 1: I mean, frankly, the bill is introduced about thirty six
Speaker 1: hours ago and they're already marking it up. I don't
Speaker 1: know that. Well, I don't understand. But tell me. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm just because I'm not a Washington guy. Maybe I
Speaker 1: just think differently. Why if I if I'm putting out
Speaker 1: a bill and I know that a significant portion of
Speaker 1: the caucus doesn't like the bill, that, why wouldn't I
Speaker 1: resolve those issues behind closed doors together as a team,
Speaker 1: come to consensus. Not everybody's not going to get everything
Speaker 1: they want, but at least do it behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: And then maybe when you release the bill, and maybe
Speaker 1: this is just you know, you know, but the President
Speaker 1: goes out with all of you guys, every Republican in
Speaker 1: the House, and sent it behind him and says, we
Speaker 1: all agree, this is our bill. This will fix Obamacare,
Speaker 1: repeal it, and replace it as we promised. Why not
Speaker 1: do it that way? I guess I've guess I'm way
Speaker 1: out of touch of I thought that target and we
Speaker 1: would have appreciated that, But that wasn't what happened. Remember,
Speaker 1: we had the leak version a few weeks ago, and
Speaker 1: we were critical of that fact. We took a position
Speaker 1: against the leaks version a few weeks ago, and then
Speaker 1: loaning the whole thirty or six hours ago, we find
Speaker 1: out the introduced version is not in any ways really
Speaker 1: different from the leak version, so that it would have
Speaker 1: been nice if we could have got together and support
Speaker 1: a plan. So what we're doing to say now all
Speaker 1: of you go out yesterday and publicly say you can't
Speaker 1: support the bill, and then their answer as well, with
Speaker 1: this is coming out in three phases, When when couldn't
Speaker 1: it all have been done united in one phase. That's
Speaker 1: my frustration, And with all due respect to Congress, you
Speaker 1: guys have had eight years of saying you're going to
Speaker 1: repeal and replace this, and we still don't have a
Speaker 1: consensus plan. We sean here's the contents plan. Is the
Speaker 1: plan we introduced. We introduced today. We introduced the build
Speaker 1: that says do the same thing we did a year ago,
Speaker 1: will clean repeal, and then a separate piece of legislation
Speaker 1: which is replaced with what will what what Da've talked about,
Speaker 1: which will bring down the cost of insurance. That is
Speaker 1: the only plan consistent with what we told the voters.
Speaker 1: This plan is not. This plan says we're gonna repeal Obomecare,
Speaker 1: but we're going to keep the Obamacare taxes in place.
Speaker 1: It says we're gonna repeal Obomecare, but we're gonna take
Speaker 1: the Medicaid expansion and extend it. And it also says
Speaker 1: we're repeal Obamacare, but we're going to keep in place
Speaker 1: this mandate in a different form, which is sure sur
Speaker 1: charge of insurance can charge you. So that's that's not
Speaker 1: what we told the voters. So we make this way
Speaker 1: too complicated. You know, Alwa said in our plan, I
Speaker 1: just you guys have this has become a nightmare headache
Speaker 1: that need not have happened. This is an unforced error
Speaker 1: in my mind. Now the reason I brought Dr Josh Umbern.
Speaker 1: He's out of Wichita, Kansas. Uh dr Rumbers say hi
Speaker 1: to Congressman Jim Jordan's Congressman Day Bratt. Uh dr Umberg
Speaker 1: has come up with a cooperative system. Can you just
Speaker 1: in a as shorter way as you can a synopsis
Speaker 1: of what you do down there and how big this is? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Uh we have fixed healthcare with the free market and
Speaker 1: the shortest way. Um yeah. Again, we need to change
Speaker 1: the conversation over to what we actually need to ensure
Speaker 1: because what Shawn's talking about is our business model of
Speaker 1: insurance free for primary care, ten dollars for kids, fifty
Speaker 1: dollars months for adults, for unlimited offices. It's no co pays,
Speaker 1: free procedures, wholesale meadicine labs up to saving And did
Speaker 1: you negotiate with the labs and the pharmaceutical companies to
Speaker 1: get discount? Absolutely? And you were able to make deals
Speaker 1: with them on on the drugs that most people use,
Speaker 1: you know, like see Alice and Viagra. I'm kidding, like
Speaker 1: like like like, by the way, isn't that the se
Speaker 1: Alos commercial the dumbest thing you've ever seen. You've got
Speaker 1: a guy in one tub and a woman in another tub,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, they're holding hands across the tubs. It's yeah,
Speaker 1: apparently some doctors. This is not my area of expertise,
Speaker 1: but but I'm talking about serious blood pressure medicine and
Speaker 1: cholesterol medicine in other words, chemotherapy, cholesteral messin, diabetic. If
Speaker 1: you imagine, we all know the health care system is broken,
Speaker 1: we all talked about the waste, but then when there
Speaker 1: actually is an opportunity to show those savings, I think
Speaker 1: somehow we are resistant to that idea. Taking how many
Speaker 1: people are part of your practice. How many people do
Speaker 1: you and your practice serve In the Wichita area, we
Speaker 1: have five doctors aren't practice and each doctor is close
Speaker 1: to six under patients have unlimited care. I could walk
Speaker 1: into your office is as a member of your cooperative
Speaker 1: any day and if I need stitches, if I need
Speaker 1: a test, if I'm going to get it done that day,
Speaker 1: that day, you have seven access to your doctor by phone, text, email.
Speaker 1: We we broughten the idea of what care is because
Speaker 1: now you don't have to just come in and pay
Speaker 1: for a copay, you don't even have to leave work,
Speaker 1: and even you even offer some cancer treatment. But god forbid,
Speaker 1: somebody gets in a bad accident, if somebody has a
Speaker 1: heart attack, if if or if they need chemo, you know,
Speaker 1: you could even give them the chemo. But they can
Speaker 1: get catastrophic insurance that would cover all of those really
Speaker 1: big items that maybe a local office couldn't handle. It
Speaker 1: truly is the perfect blend there where where we want
Speaker 1: to work with insurance companies. We understand that they're a
Speaker 1: critical uh part of the system, but we needed to
Speaker 1: work more efficiently. Again, we are pro efficiency, not anti
Speaker 1: government or anti insurance. So the insurance companies are actually healthier,
Speaker 1: more profitable by working with this model because their waste
Speaker 1: goes down. And how many other doctors around the country
Speaker 1: did you educate them on this model and they've duplicated it.
Speaker 1: We've personally helped over two doctors convert to this mall
Speaker 1: in the last two and a half years, but there's
Speaker 1: probably five hundred to a thousand doing it or starting
Speaker 1: it is a wave of coming across the country because
Speaker 1: patients and employers are you know, maybe I'm just a
Speaker 1: dumb old talk show host congress from brad but you know,
Speaker 1: what the hell do I know? But that sounds like
Speaker 1: a genius idea to me that benefit everybody. Why can't
Speaker 1: we dumplicate that? Well, that's the free market. That's what
Speaker 1: the free market does, right. It takes creativity and innovation
Speaker 1: and allows you to execute without having to go through
Speaker 1: the red tape. So the doctor is a genius. He
Speaker 1: just told the country the solution the rest of the
Speaker 1: world who can't afford our exorbitant insurance, that's the way
Speaker 1: they operate. That's how healthcare is always operated. And that's
Speaker 1: the exactive doctor whose reputation is good at low costs
Speaker 1: are going to be good for you and your family,
Speaker 1: and you pay for it. If I'd be a part
Speaker 1: of this cooperative, That's what I would do, And then
Speaker 1: you can decrease employer's insurance by thirty I wanted to
Speaker 1: say that as the doctor list at the leadership plan,
Speaker 1: because the leadership plan, of my judgment, is subsidizing unaffordable insurance.
Speaker 1: It's it's like in your tail and just keep striving
Speaker 1: up costs. That you agree, doctor, I would agree. The
Speaker 1: Republicans are guilty of the sin of unoriginality. Um, they
Speaker 1: took something, they spun it around, they put a new
Speaker 1: hat on it, but it hasn't changed. It's not making
Speaker 1: health care great again exactly. Is more of the same aim.
Speaker 1: What we really need is to have a conversation that um,
Speaker 1: most care can be provided outside of insurance rule. Here.
Speaker 1: Insurance is still a vital part of that, but now
Speaker 1: we can afford to do have less insurance help employers.
Speaker 1: If a certain percent of small business or certain percent
Speaker 1: of jobs come from small businesses, and we can decrease
Speaker 1: insurance cost by thirty six for small businesses, Trump could
Speaker 1: have an economic boom. The likes that Reagan would be
Speaker 1: jealous of if we could fix that going forward, and
Speaker 1: then there'd be more jobs, more people have health care,
Speaker 1: and more people have everything they need. But then we're
Speaker 1: even more efficient for Medicaid dollars. Block grant that out
Speaker 1: to the states, let them do fifty experiments. But if
Speaker 1: the state's paying fifty dollars for a blood test that
Speaker 1: I get for a dollar sixty five today, then then
Speaker 1: we can do a whole lot more blood tests for
Speaker 1: Medicaid while at the same time being but this is
Speaker 1: unbelievable to me. And you know, I have passed dr
Speaker 1: numbers name and number onto a lot of important people,
Speaker 1: and nobody's gotten in touch with you as far as
Speaker 1: I know, your doctor, right, you're the only one leading
Speaker 1: the charge. This is all coming down on on your shoulders.
Speaker 1: Broad maybe a lot. You know how many teams, you
Speaker 1: know how many people hate me today? Uh? Well, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe more, but but least now they have good reasons
Speaker 1: because you're trying to fix something that not everybody wants
Speaker 1: to fix. Congressman Jordan, are you're trying to get into
Speaker 1: Is that from Dave Bratt here and the doctor You're
Speaker 1: making a point, right, and in every economics textbook across
Speaker 1: the country. The fundamental error slipped in, and the doctor
Speaker 1: just talked about the rule insurance is for insuring catastrophic event.
Speaker 1: But when when after World War Two we went to
Speaker 1: the employer provided healthcare deal, then you start with its
Speaker 1: few ensuring all of healthcare provisions. So then you put
Speaker 1: your co pay in and everything else is free to you.
Speaker 1: And once you co pay and the rest is free, well,
Speaker 1: guess what you do. You over consume, right, And that's
Speaker 1: the fundamental problem in healthcare. And so the doctor is saying,
Speaker 1: let's break that up and let's get insurance back to
Speaker 1: being what it's supposed to be. Four and then let's
Speaker 1: let people put money in their H s a s
Speaker 1: And pay for just regular healthcare. Al Right, guys, stay
Speaker 1: stay right there. We're gonna continue. Freedom Caucus members Dave Bratt,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's and Dr josh Umberg will take a quick break.
Speaker 1: We'll get to more of your calls and the final
Speaker 1: half hour. Way, do you hear the story we're about
Speaker 1: to break. There is no Russia connection. I'll explain with
Speaker 1: the reporters breaking the story. That's next to America and
Speaker 1: American's first. Now there's a novel idea. You're on the
Speaker 1: sean alright, as we continue, Congressman Jim Jordans of Ohio
Speaker 1: o in, Congressman Dave Bratt of Virginia and Dr Josh
Speaker 1: Umber which Kansas Atlas Medical or Atlas m D. Right
Speaker 1: now that we've heard Dr Rumber explain all of these things,
Speaker 1: Congressman Jordan and Congressman Brad, I guess the question for
Speaker 1: you is how do we get not only healthcare savings accounts,
Speaker 1: a full repeal, get rid of another entitlement, and get
Speaker 1: these cooperatives as part of the solution. Because it sounds
Speaker 1: so amazing to me, and it's being duplicated sort of
Speaker 1: underneath the the healthcare system that we have. Now, how
Speaker 1: does this all get incorporated based on the release of
Speaker 1: this bill. Well, the first thing you gotta doution on
Speaker 1: is repeal Obamacare. I'm sure the doctor would agree with us.
Speaker 1: You can do free market until you get rid of
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act, which has driven up the cost.
Speaker 1: Youer choices higher cost. You have to get rid of that.
Speaker 1: So that's why we have to clean repill. You do that,
Speaker 1: you repeal it, and then you focus on passing legislation
Speaker 1: that would empower people in the car. Are you confident
Speaker 1: that you can get to the president the vice president
Speaker 1: and get this done right? Because here's the problem, Congressman
Speaker 1: Jordan's if as soon as you repeal and replace, you
Speaker 1: own it, Republicans own it, the President owns it. If
Speaker 1: it doesn't work, the blame will come on all of you. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: we'll understand to repeal the effective day. We said we're
Speaker 1: going to repeal it, but it's effective on December thirty,
Speaker 1: two thousand eighteen. So you've got to have an offer
Speaker 1: him so you can begin to form a market and
Speaker 1: people the transparency that exists under under the Doctor's program,
Speaker 1: that that that will exist in the full market. You
Speaker 1: have to give us some time for that. That's what
Speaker 1: we passed just a year ago. So we're saying, why
Speaker 1: not do what we all said we were going to do,
Speaker 1: what we all voted for. Get rid of what is
Speaker 1: the answer that the leadership in the House and senator
Speaker 1: giving you, because that's not what they wrote. It's what
Speaker 1: John Casey talks about. And so we got to make
Speaker 1: sure these folks on medicate medicaid can stay there. This
Speaker 1: expanded population. We can extend that and we can put
Speaker 1: more people on Medicaid. The approach we would prefer is no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, Let's bring back a market Let's bring
Speaker 1: back affordable insurance. Instead of measuring success is how many
Speaker 1: folks who can keep on this government medicaid program. Why
Speaker 1: don't we measure success by bringing back a marketplace like
Speaker 1: the doctors doing in Kansas and have more people get
Speaker 1: the insurance they need for catastrophic care and then have
Speaker 1: the kind of health care they need at low cost
Speaker 1: with good quality. What about those that are saying that
Speaker 1: there are well, I guess congressional legislative obstacles because the
Speaker 1: original Obamacare was passed by reconciliation. Nor do they feel
Speaker 1: that they're gonna get eight Democrats in the Senate to
Speaker 1: buy into what the Republicans do. How's what's your answer
Speaker 1: to that? That's a legitimate concern, and I understand that.
Speaker 1: But we're also hearing that Dr Price at HHS is
Speaker 1: going to be able to change some rules and help
Speaker 1: us with the regulations that are driving up the costs.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of discretion in the healthcare bill that
Speaker 1: he can change almost everything. So let him do that.
Speaker 1: Nothing that nothing work. We're doing would preclude him from
Speaker 1: doing just that. All we're saying is repeal Obamacare effective
Speaker 1: date in two years, time for the marketplace to start
Speaker 1: to form. Let dr price, get rid of the regulations.
Speaker 1: I will bring down the cost of insurance, and then
Speaker 1: let's pass the legislation in the normal legislative process. Health
Speaker 1: saving the Accounts Association, health plans, the things that will
Speaker 1: help with the mark a place and help bring back
Speaker 1: affordable insurance. That's like a reasonable plan. Congressman Brad will
Speaker 1: give you a final word here. You have ten seconds. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: and and you know President Trump is from New York,
Speaker 1: You've got the big heart. And so he says, look,
Speaker 1: we want to take care of everybody. And I think
Speaker 1: that's part of the big tension here, right, And so
Speaker 1: you're talking about breakaway in the Senate. We want to
Speaker 1: cover everybody. What you got to do it the right way.
Speaker 1: So where Jim just laid out with the Dodger just
Speaker 1: laid out, that's the best health care system. And then
Speaker 1: about about five of the serious cases, right, the pre
Speaker 1: existing conditions account for over half of health care spending
Speaker 1: in the country. So that's a separable issue where the
Speaker 1: President could still say, look, we're gonna take care if
Speaker 1: we have compassions. But you don't arrange the whole healthcare
Speaker 1: architecture for the whole country based on five percent of
Speaker 1: the people. You say, look, here's our safety net, here
Speaker 1: the welfare programs we have, here's what we're gonna do
Speaker 1: for pre existing and you can take those a lot,
Speaker 1: grant the money to the states to take care of that,
Speaker 1: and then Trump's a win win win across the board.
Speaker 1: I hope you'll tell that to the President when you
Speaker 1: meet with them tomorrow. Thank you, Congressman Jordan's, Congressman Bratt,
Speaker 1: and Dr Humber. Good to talk to you all. Eight
Speaker 1: hundred nine for one, Shawn Tolfrey telephone number. Way do
Speaker 1: you hear the investigative report that just broke John Solomon,
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter and what they have come up with here
Speaker 1: explaining the FBI found no criminal activity between the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and Russia. They confirm a FISA warrant was issue
Speaker 1: in October, and they confirmed that Donald Trump, his entire
Speaker 1: campaign was surveiled in the closing weeks of that campaign.
Speaker 1: That's next Holy accountable, Sean, The answers no one else
Speaker 1: does desertion the truth about Congress. Alright now until the
Speaker 1: top of the hour one, Shawn, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. So many unanswered questions.
Speaker 1: Here's what we do know as it relates to all
Speaker 1: the leaking that's gone on. We heard and we know
Speaker 1: the New York Times, and we know the BBC, and
Speaker 1: we know McClatchy, and we know other news networks, Washington Post,
Speaker 1: they all talked about wire tapping at Trump Tower. And
Speaker 1: we heard about the June request that was supposedly denied,
Speaker 1: as it relates to a fiser request ultimately culminating in
Speaker 1: a more modified request that was granted in October. Again,
Speaker 1: this would be people within the Obama administration. And Obama's
Speaker 1: statement was was more than part when he said he
Speaker 1: or nobody at the White House ordered any type of
Speaker 1: spying or surveillance on Donald Trump and Trump Tower. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a block us. The article out today and it's
Speaker 1: written co written by John Solomon and Sarah Carter. And
Speaker 1: what's fascinating about this is, well, you have John Solomon
Speaker 1: is an award winning investigative journalist, chief operating officer at
Speaker 1: Circa dot Com. Sarah Carter, senior national correspondent there as well. Um,
Speaker 1: thank you both of me with us. John, didn't you
Speaker 1: wipe for the A P for a long time years?
Speaker 1: Twenty years? And what other places did you work before
Speaker 1: you you went to where you are now. I worked
Speaker 1: out with the editor of the Washingtime for many years.
Speaker 1: And Sarah, what's your background? Oh, I traveled all over
Speaker 1: worked with John at the Washington Times. I sent most
Speaker 1: of my time on the US Mexico border and then
Speaker 1: later in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I cover national security
Speaker 1: now for John here at CERCA dot com and within
Speaker 1: Claire Broadcast Group. Now, in this piece, tell me if
Speaker 1: I'm reading it properly, you both confirmed that a surveillance
Speaker 1: warrant was issued for the main server at Trump Towers.
Speaker 1: That true. I'm not sure it was the main service, Sean,
Speaker 1: but it was a server that had to do with
Speaker 1: email marketing, and the FBI wanted to take a look
Speaker 1: at it because it was appearing to have some sort
Speaker 1: of communication with a Russian entity. Well, I know as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact that everybody in the campaign, with
Speaker 1: maybe one or two exceptions that I know, all got
Speaker 1: on the Trump email in other words, that the Trump
Speaker 1: organization email server. So there is a possibility that everything
Speaker 1: involving the campaign was possibly surveiled once that FISA warrant
Speaker 1: was issued. Is that possible. It's possible, though. Our understanding
Speaker 1: is that this this server was actually narrowly construed to
Speaker 1: do email marketing. It predated the campaign and wasn't specifically
Speaker 1: a server that was used for campaign email. That's that's
Speaker 1: our understanding. Okay, then let's talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: what you discovered, Sarah. Yeah, one of the things that
Speaker 1: we discovered was that actually this investigation into the server
Speaker 1: was very brief. It was a very brief investigation, and
Speaker 1: they found nothing in the server at that point in
Speaker 1: time that would warrant any kind of criminal charges towards
Speaker 1: anyone on the Trump team. I thought that was very interesting. Uh.
Speaker 1: They We also discovered throughout the process of this investigation
Speaker 1: that in the in June, we hear all these reports
Speaker 1: about a June fights are warrant. What we were told
Speaker 1: was absolutely not. There was no June fight a warrant
Speaker 1: with Trump's name on it um and they was there
Speaker 1: a request for the server? Was there a request of
Speaker 1: any kind brought to the FISA courts or no um.
Speaker 1: I believe John would John would know that part of
Speaker 1: the story much better. Yean, So I think in October
Speaker 1: they did go to the FIST at court and asked
Speaker 1: specifically to check the records of this one server that
Speaker 1: appeared to be corresponding with a bank in Russia. When
Speaker 1: they when they looked into it, they found out there
Speaker 1: was an innocuous explanation for the data things doing between
Speaker 1: New York and Russia and what other words, to do
Speaker 1: with Russian influence the media, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: all the talk about Russia and the Trump campaign. They
Speaker 1: haven't found a shred of evidence at all, and yet
Speaker 1: the media keeps regurgitating this narrative. Is that true? That's true?
Speaker 1: And in fact, I think that's one of the reasons
Speaker 1: that our sources work so closely with us, which is
Speaker 1: to spell a narrative that the FBI has been obsessed
Speaker 1: with Trump connections to Russia. That we were told time
Speaker 1: and time again over the last few days that the
Speaker 1: FBI really only incidentally and on an off handed way,
Speaker 1: stumbled onto a couple of things that involved Trump, and
Speaker 1: that none of it has been a primary focus of
Speaker 1: the Russia hacking investigation. How high up can you tell
Speaker 1: us are your sources. In other words, for example, one
Speaker 1: official you quota saying I've never seen a case so
Speaker 1: misrepresented and leaks so damaging to a process that was
Speaker 1: meant to be conducted in secret, so that foreign powers
Speaker 1: don't know what we know and people's reputations aren't tarnished unfairly.
Speaker 1: It's a great question our sources are in a good
Speaker 1: position to know what was really going on as opposed
Speaker 1: to west been reported. And one of the things that
Speaker 1: we highlight in this story is that a lot of
Speaker 1: this leaking began right after President Obama, in his final
Speaker 1: hours in office, issued an executive order that allowed f
Speaker 1: and surveillance intelligence data to be shared with a lot
Speaker 1: more people than it normally had been shared within sixteen
Speaker 1: other agencies. But by the way, I've talked a lot about,
Speaker 1: this is an executive Order twelve three three, which had
Speaker 1: been on the books for some time, and what Obama
Speaker 1: did is add to that that executive order, and as
Speaker 1: much as he allowed the sharing of you know, signet
Speaker 1: intelligence in other words, when General Flynn when they were
Speaker 1: were surveiling, which they should do the Russian ambassador. Isn't
Speaker 1: it true that once an American is identified on such
Speaker 1: a call, that they're supposed to minimize the listening of
Speaker 1: the American speaking, and they're not supposed to identify that
Speaker 1: American and certainly not leak it. Aren't They all felonies
Speaker 1: and violations of the espionage actly not supposed to leak it.
Speaker 1: You're certainly not supposed to leak This type of classified
Speaker 1: information is guarded heavily. But I was told, Sarah, I
Speaker 1: was told by a very high ranking intelligence official that
Speaker 1: when they do surveil and Americans are identified, that they
Speaker 1: are to minimize the listening of the American because they
Speaker 1: don't have a warrant. And number two, when they write
Speaker 1: up their report, a standard operating procedure that they do
Speaker 1: not mention that person by name. They used the term
Speaker 1: generally an American General flynn Um at the time is
Speaker 1: under a security clearance. He has a high level security clearance.
Speaker 1: When you when you sign up for a high level
Speaker 1: security clearance, basically when you're granted one, you kind of
Speaker 1: find a way You're right, So the government has the
Speaker 1: right to surveil people with high level security clearances in
Speaker 1: an effort to minimize harm. For example, if you go
Speaker 1: back to the Robert Hanson situation with espionage and the FBI,
Speaker 1: So there is this kind of disclosure. But but all
Speaker 1: of that, all of that laid out, you still do
Speaker 1: not disclose any information on those type of classified monitoring,
Speaker 1: and that would be that would be a felony by
Speaker 1: my understanding of the Espionage Act. So certainly, General Flynn, Well,
Speaker 1: let me go back to the leaks. Do you both
Speaker 1: agree with me based on your understanding of the President
Speaker 1: fourteen days before leaving office revising Executive Order twelve three
Speaker 1: three three to allow the signet intelligence, like in the
Speaker 1: case of General Flynn, to be shared with sixteen other agencies.
Speaker 1: Could that have been done as a reason to make
Speaker 1: it more difficult to find out who leakers are? Or
Speaker 1: is it a strange coincidence that as soon as they
Speaker 1: did that and left the administration and a new administration
Speaker 1: comes in that all these leaks stop happening from the
Speaker 1: intelligence communities that seemed to be a connection of dots,
Speaker 1: or is that a step too far? I think the
Speaker 1: people on the front line, seawan, the people who actually
Speaker 1: guard this intelligence on a daily basis and and trusted,
Speaker 1: were surprised by the expansion and they immediately saw the
Speaker 1: impact there were people that started to leak transcripts that
Speaker 1: were never intended to be leaked. And so just take
Speaker 1: the Flynn intercept percepting. As a result of that leak,
Speaker 1: the Russian ambassador now knows a phone that he might
Speaker 1: have thought was clean is now being monitored by the
Speaker 1: US government and also Director Flynn or Nationscarity advisor. Flynn's
Speaker 1: reputations impacted in a process career was ruined over a
Speaker 1: felony that was committed against him. Did you see James
Speaker 1: Clapper on Meet the Press this weekend. Did James Clapper
Speaker 1: lie when he said he had known knowledge of this
Speaker 1: FISA warrant? Well, he narrowed it right. He said he
Speaker 1: need no night knowledge of a FISI warrant against the
Speaker 1: President's phone, And all of our reporting indicates there's no
Speaker 1: indication that the presidents So perhaps Donald Trump misspoke when
Speaker 1: he said wire tap, but surveillance did happen. You're telling
Speaker 1: a hundred percent that VISA warrant was issued in October
Speaker 1: and it had to do with servers and Trump Tower. Correct,
Speaker 1: that's correct, correct, So that's spying on an opposition candidate.
Speaker 1: Is there any possible way based on your background and
Speaker 1: experience that the President of the United States didn't know
Speaker 1: about it, Well, that's a good question. We know he
Speaker 1: definitely knows about it when he's briefed in December, because
Speaker 1: we were told that it was part of his briefing
Speaker 1: that this went on when he knew in October. Is
Speaker 1: still something we want to report on. And also, how
Speaker 1: did the FBI find out about this server information? We're
Speaker 1: still reporting who tipped off the FBI to to that
Speaker 1: server and its activity. That's something that we still like
Speaker 1: to report on. And they found nothing. Again, there's nothing
Speaker 1: to the Russian story, and the FBI looks at it
Speaker 1: as nothing at this point, correct, right, They do believe
Speaker 1: that the Russians tried to influence the election, but that
Speaker 1: there was nothing untoward about what. Right Now, let me
Speaker 1: take with the wiki leaks revelations yesterday, and I want
Speaker 1: to be very very specific in what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks was was very very specific, and even the
Speaker 1: Washington Post had a very interesting article about this today,
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, basically they're saying that the CIA
Speaker 1: uses stolen malware to attribute cyber attacks to nations like Russia. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, is there a possibility that it could
Speaker 1: have that all of this could have originated, all of
Speaker 1: this Russia talk, all the Russia hacking, that Russians were
Speaker 1: influenced in the election. Uh, couldn't have been within our
Speaker 1: own government, except they just basically put a fingerprint of
Speaker 1: the Russian attack on it, because that's what they're saying
Speaker 1: they can do. Well, let's keep in mind that Wiki
Speaker 1: Leaks has always said that a lot of the materials
Speaker 1: that it received did not come from the Russians, right,
Speaker 1: They've always mandated that. Well. I interviewed Julian Assans John
Speaker 1: and I asked him in great detail, and he said
Speaker 1: absolutely was no state. There was another report that those
Speaker 1: documents as it relates to Hillary and the email server
Speaker 1: and Podesta, were handed at American University in a wooded area.
Speaker 1: Did you read that this? Right? That has been opposite. So,
Speaker 1: I think we don't know a lot about how all
Speaker 1: this all came to game. And as you know, the
Speaker 1: espionage game is a game of smoking mirrors, and so
Speaker 1: we may not know the full story. And I think
Speaker 1: we need to keep digging to get to the truth
Speaker 1: of questions Like you just asked, So, would it would
Speaker 1: it be wise for President Trump to to resend that
Speaker 1: change fourteen days out to Executive Order twelve three three three.
Speaker 1: Would it be wise of President Trump to get rid
Speaker 1: of Obama holdovers? Would it be wise to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of who's committing felonies and violating the the
Speaker 1: Espionage Act among other things? Yes, I think really, I
Speaker 1: think that's the most important things that they need to
Speaker 1: start looking at. I mean, we one of the things
Speaker 1: that you brought up sean earlier, and I'm you know,
Speaker 1: and I think that it requires a lot more investigation.
Speaker 1: In John also touched on it as well, is that
Speaker 1: we need to go back and we need to look
Speaker 1: and see who originally tipped off, what where did they
Speaker 1: get to tip off that there might have been something
Speaker 1: on the server. I think that will answer a lot
Speaker 1: of questions. And I'm also in agreement with you that
Speaker 1: it's something that needs to be investigated. Is when Obama
Speaker 1: the issue this executive order was it to expand it
Speaker 1: so that leaks, you know, would appear shortly afterwards, and
Speaker 1: that it would be difficult to find out who's the
Speaker 1: leaker was or were those people already leaking. That is
Speaker 1: something we don't know right now. We're looking at it
Speaker 1: and we're investigating it. But you know, could this be
Speaker 1: a ruse to expand the agencies so we can't copoint
Speaker 1: which agency leaked this or which person leaked this from
Speaker 1: which agency. That's something that really needs to be looked
Speaker 1: into as well. And I'm sure they're they're investigating this.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is something that the Inspector General is
Speaker 1: going to be looking at at the d o J
Speaker 1: as well as others who are looking for the leaks
Speaker 1: into this, uh, into this Russia hacking issue. Bill Benny
Speaker 1: was on this program. I'm not sure if you both
Speaker 1: are aware of him. Thirty two year Vet N S,
Speaker 1: a whistleblower, resigned because and he claimed right here on
Speaker 1: this radio program this weekend on TV this week that
Speaker 1: in fact, every email, every text message, every phone call
Speaker 1: of every American citizen is being gathered and monitored and
Speaker 1: put in the big made metadata storage units that the
Speaker 1: government has access to. Is that possible? Yes, in fact,
Speaker 1: it is based on congressional testimony that that is what
Speaker 1: goes on. And then what happened, Well, that means by
Speaker 1: the way that James Clapper committed perjury because he said
Speaker 1: it was not happening. Well, there's a difference between storing
Speaker 1: it and then accessing it and reviewing it. And what
Speaker 1: happens a lot of times in these vice A warrants
Speaker 1: is that data has been captured and its stored, no
Speaker 1: one's allowed to look at it. Then they go get
Speaker 1: permission from the court to go look at a period
Speaker 1: of time in the past where they weren't monitoring, but
Speaker 1: it was captured by the n s A. And so
Speaker 1: that's how the intelligence community since nine eleven has been
Speaker 1: able to solve a lot of crimes. Can we then
Speaker 1: say that Donald Trump with his tweet that remember the
Speaker 1: New York Times, all these major news organization, mainstream, not
Speaker 1: not conservative talk radio or the Fox News channel Hannity program,
Speaker 1: but when all of them reported wire tapping, those were there.
Speaker 1: That was the words used in the New York Times,
Speaker 1: not by and then it was reiterated by the president,
Speaker 1: but the president and principle, it turns out that he
Speaker 1: was that surveillance took place at Trump Tower, and it's
Speaker 1: very likely that many in the Obama administration, probably the
Speaker 1: President himself, knew that there was at least something some
Speaker 1: type of surveillance going on, and perhaps he thought it
Speaker 1: was wire tapping. Because the New York Times said, so
Speaker 1: when it turns out to be surveilling a server at
Speaker 1: Trump Towers, that a fair statement. Yeah, I think that
Speaker 1: our reporting confirms that there was surveillance of a computer,
Speaker 1: uh inside the Trump Towers at the end of the election.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt that is true. So you're confirming on Well,
Speaker 1: I'd like to know what Obama knew when and and
Speaker 1: uh what did he know? And when did he know?
Speaker 1: What did Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett and David axe
Speaker 1: Roud and Peiffer and wrote what do all these people know?
Speaker 1: And when did they know it? And did they did
Speaker 1: they share it with Hillary Clinton? Because a week before
Speaker 1: the election, Hillary Clinton suggested so much in a tweet.
Speaker 1: That's very true. I guess more than Hillary Clinton. We
Speaker 1: also saw that Harry Reid also suggested that in October
Speaker 1: that you're absolutely right. I mean, I guess Sean Hannon,
Speaker 1: he's not so paranoid. After all. I was right Obama
Speaker 1: was a horrible president. I was right that Trump could win,
Speaker 1: and I'm right that there's something really stink that's something
Speaker 1: that stinks to Hi. You have in here, do you
Speaker 1: agree with that there's a lot more stuff that needs
Speaker 1: to be done out before we know you. Guys, got
Speaker 1: to get working. You're not working hard enough. Go out
Speaker 1: and get me get more information for the country. Go
Speaker 1: called President Obama. You won't take my call. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Solomon, why are you not coming on with
Speaker 1: Sarah on TV tonight? You need to come atually. I'm
Speaker 1: on the train. I'm gonna miss you there and get
Speaker 1: a later get a later train. What's the big deal?
Speaker 1: Step up? Oh, he's putting you on the spot now, John, Hey, John,
Speaker 1: you gotta come on, step up, move you track? All right,
Speaker 1: let me see if I can move my train. All right,
Speaker 1: I'll pay that. I'll give you the twenty five bucks
Speaker 1: when you get here. All right, all right, thanks guys.
Speaker 1: Hannity's paying for interviews headline tomorrow. Still waiting to fly
Speaker 1: out all those lips you promised to leave if we're elected.
Speaker 1: The jet is ready. This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today. Let
Speaker 1: not your heart be troubled. Hannity on the Fox News Channel.
Speaker 1: That's coming up to eastern tonight. Okay, is there sabotage?
Speaker 1: We will break down the deep state, the shadow government
Speaker 1: and how Russia. There's zero proof, but the FISA court
Speaker 1: did issue a warrant a proof. We'll get reaction from
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter and John Solomon also knew. King Ridge weighs
Speaker 1: in on that the healthcare fiasco. The latest on the
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks dump. William Binny is gonna be with US
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer tonight see back here to morrow
Speaker 1: see tonight attempt l