Speaker 1: Hey, it's Linda from the Hannity Show here. And as
Speaker 1: you know, Sean and I never promote the stock market
Speaker 1: or investing in it, but now we've discovered doctor Richard
Speaker 1: Smith and his incredible financial software tools. It's trusted by
Speaker 1: thousands to track over twenty billion dollars of investments. So
Speaker 1: if you're planning for your retirement and have any money
Speaker 1: at all invested in the stock market, go to Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com forward slash retirement. All right, glad you with us,
Speaker 1: and right down this Thursday are toll free telephone number.
Speaker 1: It's eight hundred and ninety four one. Sean. If you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of this extravaganza, we'll have
Speaker 1: some big breaking news in about an hour. I've been
Speaker 1: giving heads up on it thanks to our friend John Solomon.
Speaker 1: He's got more breaking news that everybody knew, everybody was warned,
Speaker 1: everybody was told before the first FISA application ever went
Speaker 1: in that in fact, it was a dirty dossier that
Speaker 1: was not even something that was verify a bowl if
Speaker 1: you can believe it, because that's true. And it gets
Speaker 1: even worse than that when we get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of it, and it is basically the steel story falling apart.
Speaker 1: Now we have real hard evidence to prove that it
Speaker 1: fell apart yesterday. As that we know we told you
Speaker 1: the story yesterday that you know, an admission, if ever
Speaker 1: there was one tainting the FBI's attempt to get the
Speaker 1: warrant to surveil the Trump campaign, Remember that there were
Speaker 1: multiple ways. Now they're spying on the Trump campaign. You've
Speaker 1: got the empowerment of Stefan Helper to go and sort
Speaker 1: of try and entrap Papadopolis, Carter Page and Sam Clovis,
Speaker 1: and we get more details about the blonde bombshell agent,
Speaker 1: the thirty something blonde that was flirting with being suggestive
Speaker 1: too and pretty much offering services in exchange for information
Speaker 1: Papadopolis might have as it relates to, well, well, what
Speaker 1: is what is Trump for working on with Russia? On
Speaker 1: are they working to get out the Hillary Clinton emails? Well,
Speaker 1: it is a little ironic that three days ago that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton is saying to China, I hope you can
Speaker 1: release this information about tax returns on Trump and outcome
Speaker 1: the tax returns, which by the way, are a big dud.
Speaker 1: And so anyway, we told you some of the story yesterday.
Speaker 1: We now have new information. But yesterday's story was about
Speaker 1: the Deputy Assistant Secretary State, Catholien Cavalacs written account of
Speaker 1: her October eleventh, twenty sixteen, meeting with Christopher Steele, who
Speaker 1: put together the dossier and more importantly, the confession. This
Speaker 1: is ten days out of the first FISA application being
Speaker 1: put in and before Steele's now discredited dossier that was
Speaker 1: used to justify the FISA application in the bulk of
Speaker 1: information to surveil Trump campaign adviser and thus backdoor the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, you know, showing their ties to Russia. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Steal's client is keen to use this information to come
Speaker 1: to light. November eighth, the date of the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: He wanted to get it out for political reasons. And
Speaker 1: I won't step on what I know about John Solomon's
Speaker 1: breaking news, but we've got these newly unearthed memos of
Speaker 1: high ranking government officials meeting with Steele again in October
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, he being determined that he wants to get
Speaker 1: dirt on Donald Trump out, because that's what Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and the DNC with funneled money through Perkins Cooey paying
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS. That's what she's that's what she wants. She
Speaker 1: wants dirt on Trump out as quickly as possible, and
Speaker 1: that that was basically given to him. But that was
Speaker 1: all flagged and put in a type memo and handwritten
Speaker 1: notes by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, this woman,
Speaker 1: Kathleen Cavllac. That's October eleven, twenty six, ten days before
Speaker 1: the FBI used Steal and his informations dirty Russian dossier,
Speaker 1: even the New York Times suggesting it might have been
Speaker 1: from the get go Russian disinformation. By the way, Robert Muller,
Speaker 1: I know you had time to look into Farah violations
Speaker 1: and business dealings from the eighties and nineties with Ukraine
Speaker 1: and Paul Maniford and taxi medallions and loan applications. Here
Speaker 1: you have a dirty Russian dossier, and everybody in the
Speaker 1: FBI and Department of Justice knew about it. Even your
Speaker 1: top deputy, Andrew Weissman was warned about it when Bruce
Speaker 1: or under enclosed door testimony revealed that he warned everybody
Speaker 1: it was dirty that Steele hated Donald Trump. Hillary paid
Speaker 1: for all of this. Again, they hid that fact from
Speaker 1: the FISA court in their application remember Irvy Pies application
Speaker 1: has on top verified and true. I didn't know that
Speaker 1: until Jason Chaffet told me that he had interviewed John Ratcliffe,
Speaker 1: and I had no idea what FISA warrant looked like anyway,
Speaker 1: So when nothing was verified, this is now an unverifiable document.
Speaker 1: But anyway, the FBI swore on October twenty first, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: to FISA judges that Steele's reporting had been corroborated and
Speaker 1: used in the incriminal proceedings, and the FBI determined Steel
Speaker 1: to be reliable, and then they were unaware of any
Speaker 1: derogatory information pertaining to their informant, who was working simultaneously,
Speaker 1: by the way, being paid by the FBI, being paid
Speaker 1: by Fusion, GPS, VISA, the funneled money from Hillary and
Speaker 1: the money she ran from the DNC and apparently some
Speaker 1: oligarchy's got four people paying for the same information and
Speaker 1: a pretty remarkable declaration. You got a footnote five, page
Speaker 1: fifteen of the FISA application. Considering it took Cavlac a
Speaker 1: single encounter with Steele to find in one of his
Speaker 1: claims about the Trump Russian collusion to be blatantly false
Speaker 1: and actually had pointed it all out. Everybody knew. I'll
Speaker 1: let John tell that story himself coming up at the
Speaker 1: top of the next hour. But everybody knew. Everybody was warned,
Speaker 1: and they did it anyway. They were willing to commit
Speaker 1: a conspiracy and fraud on the FISA Court with unverified
Speaker 1: Russian lies that now have been debunked. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about, well that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: now now he is using executive privilege. Well, it's the
Speaker 1: same topic. It's the same nonsense. We've had four separate
Speaker 1: occasions now where Donald Trump and the Trump campaign have
Speaker 1: been cleared of any conspiracy to work with Russia and
Speaker 1: collude on creating chaos and supporting the Trump campaign. But
Speaker 1: nobody can It doesn't matter. Let's have the fifth investigation
Speaker 1: and the fact that the Attorney General now they've been
Speaker 1: invoked executive privilege on them. The Muller report was out there.
Speaker 1: Now you can't, as a matter of law, release grand
Speaker 1: jury material. You you literally have an FBI that blatantly
Speaker 1: lied to spy on an opposition party candidate. So happens
Speaker 1: they're lying for the campaign where if there was real justice,
Speaker 1: Hillary would have been indicted for the Espionage Act and
Speaker 1: for also obstruction of justice, you know, on this contempt
Speaker 1: vote as to you know, forcing the full unredacted version, well,
Speaker 1: Jerry Nadler can drag his you know, backside over to
Speaker 1: the and see the entire thing with only point one
Speaker 1: percent redacted. It's illegal to release grand jury information. It's
Speaker 1: illegal to give up sources and methods. It's a matter
Speaker 1: of fact. The Department of Justice now pushing back against this,
Speaker 1: this stupid circus that took place yesterday, and it's frankly
Speaker 1: embarrassing if you ask me, you contempt or we want
Speaker 1: the full report, you know, And that's after trying to
Speaker 1: get the Attorney General bar to testify before the House
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee. But they don't want to be the ones
Speaker 1: in asking the questions. They'd rather put their lawyers in
Speaker 1: place of them, which never happened in the two hundred
Speaker 1: and six year history of the House Judiciary Committee. I mean,
Speaker 1: so they want now, they want what the Attorney General
Speaker 1: to just allow two hundred and six years of precedents
Speaker 1: and history to go by the wayside because Jerry Nadler
Speaker 1: and his band of Trump paters can't come up with
Speaker 1: their own questions or can't respond to the legal answers
Speaker 1: they're gonna get from a highly intelligent Attorney General that
Speaker 1: knows the law inside and out, upwards and down and
Speaker 1: any no is it better than all of them. Now
Speaker 1: they're free to have their lawyers write the questions for them,
Speaker 1: but they've got to ask them themselves. And as it
Speaker 1: relates to the vote circus yesterday in the Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: to recommend the Attorney General beheld in contempt of Congress
Speaker 1: for refusing to release the full, unredacted report of the
Speaker 1: Special Council of Investigation, the Department of Justice rightly was
Speaker 1: defiant because what they're asking them to do is break
Speaker 1: the law their statements is said the Attorney General could
Speaker 1: not comply with the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena without violating
Speaker 1: the law, and Chairman Nadler's actions have prematurely terminated the
Speaker 1: accommodation process and forced the President to assert executive privilege
Speaker 1: to preserve the status quo. No one, including Chairman Nadler
Speaker 1: and his committee, will force the Department of Justice to
Speaker 1: break the law. You have twenty four Democrats trying to
Speaker 1: get the Attorney General to break the law, and if
Speaker 1: he did, they'd be the first people to say lock
Speaker 1: him up. They almost tried that. Well, we may have
Speaker 1: to if it doesn't testify before all lawyers. Well, the
Speaker 1: lawyers are unelected, the lawyers are unaccountable to their constituents.
Speaker 1: That they are, they're supposed to ask the question. I
Speaker 1: would be their job. I actually had a funny moment
Speaker 1: once in my career. Or we had a new person
Speaker 1: working on the TV show and I don't remember what
Speaker 1: other shows. Apparently the person worked on it came in
Speaker 1: my office. Oh, by the way, mister Hannity, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to give these two, Um, like, what is it.
Speaker 1: There are questions for tonight show. Really, let me look
Speaker 1: at them. Look at the questions. They're all nice blue
Speaker 1: cards written clearly, and I'm like, that's very nice. As
Speaker 1: if you've done this in the past for other people.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, well no, I did it every day. And
Speaker 1: I was like, um, that's my job. I'm the host.
Speaker 1: I gotta do something here, and I set up I
Speaker 1: thought it was very actually interesting interesting interesting. But bar
Speaker 1: in the you know, for the Department of Justice, you know,
Speaker 1: the subpoena was premature. The Attorney General could not legally
Speaker 1: release the sections of the report that Nadler's asking for.
Speaker 1: But Nadler has access to it, he hasn't apparently taken
Speaker 1: the time to go walk over and see it. That's
Speaker 1: his problem. And Republicans supported the attorney general. You have
Speaker 1: a Republican Ken Buck, a Colorado reading Nadler his own
Speaker 1: quotes from the nineteen nineties. I'll get into these later
Speaker 1: in the program today. If top Democrats they have access
Speaker 1: to all but two full and seven partial lines as
Speaker 1: it relates to the Muller Report, that's it. They can
Speaker 1: have access to everything else, and you know, so you
Speaker 1: can hold them in contempt. But it's worth remembering that
Speaker 1: he made available to the top Democrats the entirety of
Speaker 1: the Muller Reports, save for two full lines and seven
Speaker 1: partial lines, were adapted to protect grand jury secrecy in
Speaker 1: keeping with federal law. Last I checked, the only people
Speaker 1: to go look were Mitch McConnell, Doug Collins of Georgia,
Speaker 1: and Lindsey Graham. I mean, it's really outrageous. But the
Speaker 1: bigger story here is, and I know Coomy is not
Speaker 1: going to take my advice, but Comy really needs to
Speaker 1: start paying attention. Comy signed the first FISA application. Now
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein reminds us that means a career law enforcement. Well,
Speaker 1: that is an affidavid And to the best of their ability,
Speaker 1: they are swearing that what is in that is verified
Speaker 1: and true, and they were warned that none of it's true,
Speaker 1: and they did it anyway. Well, that would be a
Speaker 1: fraud on the court. But don't worry. They want to
Speaker 1: go after Tom Junior again. Let's rehash everything again. This
Speaker 1: is now harassment, this is abuse of power. How many
Speaker 1: more times are people going to have to pay lawyers
Speaker 1: up to a thousand dollars an hour to answer the
Speaker 1: same questions some of them have answered three four times?
Speaker 1: Why because they're gonna get one inconsistent answered. There you go,
Speaker 1: Now you had another perjury trap. It's so disgusting, a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of them. What's up, everybody, Linda executive producer
Speaker 1: from the Sean Hannity Show here to talk to you
Speaker 1: about your money, your retirement. Your money is like your health.
Speaker 1: It's something that you don't think about until you need it.
Speaker 1: So many people make disastrous retirement mistakes and they're retiring
Speaker 1: without enough money, and that is just wrong. But to
Speaker 1: have no fear, one of the most incredible financial minds
Speaker 1: in America, doctor Richard Smith, and Richard's extraordinary tools are
Speaker 1: trusted by thousands of Americans to track over twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollars in the stock market, and his tools can help
Speaker 1: you reset your retirement. You're going to be hearing a
Speaker 1: lot from on to me about Richard and literally we
Speaker 1: have never endorsed any financial software until now. Why well,
Speaker 1: because some of his customers say he's created lightning in
Speaker 1: the bottle. So go see for yourself. Go to Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com Retirement. That's Hannity dot com forward slash retirement.
Speaker 1: I'm just actually enjoying the show that is actually unfolding,
Speaker 1: and that is all things Democrat are just imploding. I
Speaker 1: mean Nancy Pelosi's statement Donald Trump is becoming self impeachable.
Speaker 1: What does that even mean? Self impeachable? I mean, it
Speaker 1: makes no sense. And then you know, if this is
Speaker 1: they want to double down on dumb and stupid, let
Speaker 1: them do it. You know, the idea that they're asking
Speaker 1: the attorney general to break the law and hold him
Speaker 1: in contempt because he won't break the law shows how
Speaker 1: dumb they are. Now, Pelosi has been signaling left and right.
Speaker 1: She's scared to death that her lunatic nut jobs in
Speaker 1: the House are gonna keep pushing this idea of impeaching Trump,
Speaker 1: so she's trying to come up with some alternative that
Speaker 1: she hopes will pacify. Nothing is going to work for her.
Speaker 1: And suggesting the House could pursue contempt charges against multiple
Speaker 1: people in Trump's orbit, not just the Attorney General, okay,
Speaker 1: for what you know, she couldn't give a timeline for
Speaker 1: when the House would vote to whole Bar and contempt
Speaker 1: for failing to provide the unredacted Mueller Report, which would
Speaker 1: be illegal. I mean, do they not they want their
Speaker 1: lawyers on the House Judiciary to be the ones to
Speaker 1: question Bar because they're too weak and not smart enough
Speaker 1: to do it themselves. Hasn't happened in two hundred and
Speaker 1: six years. And Bar will tear them to shreds and
Speaker 1: they know it, and they'll do it looking half bared
Speaker 1: while he's, you know, literally ripping them to shreds intellectually
Speaker 1: and on the law. When we're ready to come to
Speaker 1: the floor, Pelosi said, and we'll just see, because there
Speaker 1: may be some other contempt of Congress shooes me we
Speaker 1: may want to deal with at the same time. Okay,
Speaker 1: who else do you want to hold in contempt because
Speaker 1: they refuse your order to break the law? I mean
Speaker 1: it's you know, go right ahead. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm watching the whole party collapse. Wait, wait,
Speaker 1: we're gonna update you on the twenty twenty candidates. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you why the president is winning this battle
Speaker 1: with China and America just sees the cargo ship of
Speaker 1: North Korea. We'll tell you about that breaking news as
Speaker 1: well as we continue. Hey guys, this is Linda, executive
Speaker 1: producer for the Sean Hannity Show. You might also know
Speaker 1: me as Shawn's daily sparring partner now that he's a ninja,
Speaker 1: of course. Well, today I'm here to tell you about
Speaker 1: how to fight for your retirement. And that's right. Fight.
Speaker 1: There's a huge crisis in America. Millions of people are
Speaker 1: retiring without enough money and don't make that you. We
Speaker 1: have one of the brightest financial minds to help you
Speaker 1: make sure your investments for your future retirement are on
Speaker 1: the right track. And I'm talking about doctor Richard Smith,
Speaker 1: the founder of Trade Smith. His mission is to help
Speaker 1: Americans be more financially literate, better investment decisions and avoid
Speaker 1: the catastrophic mistakes that could cause your retirement to be
Speaker 1: a disaster. Thousands of people trust Doctor Smith's investment tools
Speaker 1: to track over twenty billion dollars in the stock market,
Speaker 1: and I'm telling you you should too. When we're talking
Speaker 1: about retirement. You're in a financial fight for your future.
Speaker 1: Do yourself a serious favor of folks. Register right now
Speaker 1: for Doctor Smith's special online event, the Great Retirement Reset.
Speaker 1: Go to hannity dot com forward slash Retirement. That's Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com forward slash retirement. Eliminate the stress and worry
Speaker 1: of investing in the stock market. Register now at Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com Forward slash Retirement. All right, twenty five till
Speaker 1: the top of the hour. Thanks for being with us.
Speaker 1: Our toll free numbers eight hundred and ninety four one Sean.
Speaker 1: If you want to be a part of the program
Speaker 1: Breaking news with John Solomon, it'll break it right here
Speaker 1: coming up at the top of the next hour. By
Speaker 1: the way, another blockbuster film not Hollywood produced. This is
Speaker 1: this Hollywood's dead. They don't get it yet that there's
Speaker 1: so many options and so many content providers looking for
Speaker 1: good material that the monopoly they once had is over.
Speaker 1: And their formulaic movie making. Oh, I mean it's they've
Speaker 1: gotten so dull and uncreative that all these other movies.
Speaker 1: You know, look at the faith based movies for example,
Speaker 1: look at you know, our little movie Let There Be
Speaker 1: Light that did so well pull up. I can only imagine, Jason,
Speaker 1: if you get a minute, you know, here's the two
Speaker 1: things I've learned as a communicator in radio and TV.
Speaker 1: The radio and TV are not the most powerful forms
Speaker 1: of communication. I'd like to say that they are, but
Speaker 1: in reality they're not. There's you know, I don't make well,
Speaker 1: maybe I do. I don't know. We should maybe we
Speaker 1: should take a vote on this. I generally don't think
Speaker 1: I make people cry and touch their heart, their mind,
Speaker 1: their soul when I'm doing a radio, TV V show.
Speaker 1: But if you watch a movie, you know what how
Speaker 1: many times? You know, if you watch the Passion of
Speaker 1: the Christ, watch the last scene of Braveheart, Freedom, Freedom,
Speaker 1: and I watch um Gladiator. I love Gladiator, Marcus Aurelius
Speaker 1: saying to Maximus Maximus, when I die, I will pass
Speaker 1: my powers onto you and and you will make Rome
Speaker 1: a republic. And will you not accept this great honor,
Speaker 1: Maximus says with all my heart. No, that is why
Speaker 1: it must be you. You know, my son Commonus is
Speaker 1: not a moral man. You've known this since your youth.
Speaker 1: That's pretty good, right. The worst part is if you
Speaker 1: watch these movies with me, I'm throwing out the lines
Speaker 1: before they happen. And how many times I've watched it
Speaker 1: exactly how many times though movies just and it's the
Speaker 1: other thing is music. I mean, we all have our
Speaker 1: favorite go to music that kind of touches your heart
Speaker 1: and you know, you really love it and you can
Speaker 1: play it over and over again and you can relate
Speaker 1: to it. That's why I you know, I can't get
Speaker 1: into heavy to most heavy metal music. I mean I
Speaker 1: can listen to Sandman. That's great guitar playing. Who does
Speaker 1: that Metallica? Right? I mean, that's pretty That's probably one
Speaker 1: of the best opening guitar solos ever in the history
Speaker 1: of music, and a lot of fun and then but
Speaker 1: I can't understand like ninety percent of the words and
Speaker 1: most of their songs and it's just a lot of
Speaker 1: headbanging and got you know, kids in the audience thrashing
Speaker 1: their heads back and forth like crazy people. I don't
Speaker 1: particularly like most rap. Some of it I can stand,
Speaker 1: but I'm not a big fan of the genre. I
Speaker 1: do like old like soul music for sure, and seventies
Speaker 1: and even some of the eighties stuff. I can tolerate
Speaker 1: Bruce Springsteen and man Jovi. The fact that this old
Speaker 1: liberal makes it hard, that really does at this point.
Speaker 1: But country is probably my favorite. Even some Christian contemporary music.
Speaker 1: I like that too, because it's inspiring and uplifting, but
Speaker 1: it's not, you know, pull up that. I can only
Speaker 1: imagine they take a song and they turn this. This
Speaker 1: is an anthem, So all right, play a little bit
Speaker 1: of it here when I walk by side. I can
Speaker 1: only imagine what my eyes will see when you face
Speaker 1: is perform me. I can only imagine. Just play a
Speaker 1: little more here, surrounding by young LORI one will my
Speaker 1: heart fee you? Will I dance for you Jesus? Or
Speaker 1: in all of you? Be still? We're lasting in your presence,
Speaker 1: but you my knees when we lassing hallelujh. Will I
Speaker 1: be able to speaking? Oh? I can only imagine. I
Speaker 1: can only imagine. That's the group Mercy Me. So they
Speaker 1: turned that into a movie about the song where it
Speaker 1: came from um and it did so well and it
Speaker 1: didn't need Hollywood. Let there be Light Now I'm on
Speaker 1: DVD if you haven't seen it one day. There's another
Speaker 1: one out called Breakthrough and it's a true life story
Speaker 1: or Heaven Gonna Be Real as another one. You know,
Speaker 1: a kid fell through the ice in Missouri in a
Speaker 1: Missouri lake, fifteen minutes under the frigid waters before first
Speaker 1: responders recovered his lifeless body. His mother never never left
Speaker 1: his kid's side, you know, she prayed that he'd come back,
Speaker 1: and he did. It was number three this It came
Speaker 1: out April seventeenth, I think, and even this week it's
Speaker 1: holding strong against all the Hollywood blockbusters. Just this past
Speaker 1: weekend thirty three point five million. Well that's it's not
Speaker 1: Hollywood that's producing these films. And now content producers have
Speaker 1: let's see Amazon Prime, they have Netflix, Hulu and many more.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're looking for content, so they don't have
Speaker 1: a monopoly in Hollywood anymore. Hey, how many more cartoon
Speaker 1: movies or comic book movies are we gonna see? I mean,
Speaker 1: I maybe I know people like them. I like Star
Speaker 1: War movies, but I'm kind of sick of them at
Speaker 1: this point. And but you know, or they the Jennifer
Speaker 1: Anniston formula called no no dig on Jennifer Anniston. She's
Speaker 1: a you know, a pretty woman and is good in
Speaker 1: the movies. It's has nothing to do with her. But
Speaker 1: how many times are we gonna have a movie of
Speaker 1: Jennifer Aniston falling in love, falling out of love, getting married,
Speaker 1: getting divorced, getting remarried again. I mean, it's pretty much formulaic.
Speaker 1: Same with the cartoon movie so the or the comic
Speaker 1: book version of whatever superheroes on superheroes, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a place for it, but it's it's that's their like
Speaker 1: main formula. Now you're seeing the people putting together faith
Speaker 1: based films and patriotic films and films that don't insult
Speaker 1: those of us that are smelly Walmart voters, irredeemable, deplorable
Speaker 1: voters that like Donald Trump, you know, people like us
Speaker 1: that cling to God, guns, our Bibles, and our religion.
Speaker 1: And Hollywood, like Washington, has contempt for we the people.
Speaker 1: All right, So we'll see, you know, it's so fun.
Speaker 1: Look I'll give you an example. So a friend of
Speaker 1: mine tipped me off to this, and I hate giving
Speaker 1: it away on radio because you know, I don't. We
Speaker 1: don't watch or listen to other shows. We just don't.
Speaker 1: I don't have time radio and TV. I know the
Speaker 1: people that I do, like like Rush and Mark. I
Speaker 1: wish I did have time to listen, and when I do,
Speaker 1: it's you know, like on a day off. I'll listen
Speaker 1: to them, but I won't listen to me on replay
Speaker 1: or guest host. I just refuse Otherwise, why am I
Speaker 1: off work? Anyway? So they thought they have this big blockbuster.
Speaker 1: Now all right, we get well, there's no more collusion.
Speaker 1: They know by the way they know it's over. When
Speaker 1: when the Attorney General said he's done with the Muller report,
Speaker 1: it's over. It's not gonna be any indictments, it's not
Speaker 1: gonna be there's no collusion, there's no obstruction, it's done.
Speaker 1: The decision has been made, and all this talk and
Speaker 1: they can't let it go and four separate. All they're
Speaker 1: doing is is committing political suicide, which I guess we
Speaker 1: should just let them do. So then when they get
Speaker 1: the next rather than ever admit that this phony medium
Speaker 1: mob is wrong, No, they're just gonna double down. On
Speaker 1: new lies, more breathless report reporting, more hysteria. If anything,
Speaker 1: they're more angry than they've ever been because they've been
Speaker 1: exposed as fake news liars and conspiracy theorists, those that
Speaker 1: have advanced hoaxes now for two plus years, God forbid,
Speaker 1: they have a moment of introspection and say, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe we screwed up. Here, you know, here we go again.
Speaker 1: New York Times blockbuster report that they got some of
Speaker 1: Trump's tax returns from like thirty years ago, thirty five
Speaker 1: years ago, and a bombshell, Oh my gosh, you lost
Speaker 1: a trillion, one trillion, no sorry, one point one seven
Speaker 1: billion dollars between nineteen eighty five in nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear, don Lemon, that's what they say.
Speaker 1: I thought it was their big headline they've done, breathlessly
Speaker 1: reporting He's what a crappy business. But that's not the story,
Speaker 1: and it's a story Trump has told himself, and a
Speaker 1: friend of mine said, go back and look at the
Speaker 1: first Apprentice. The Apprentice debuted January eighth, two thousand and four.
Speaker 1: At the top of the show the very first episode,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump himself laid out a summarized version of the
Speaker 1: same story blockbuster that The Times so proudly ran on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Trump in two thousand and four on The Apprentice, it
Speaker 1: wasn't always so easy. About thirteen years ago, I was
Speaker 1: seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt. Oh,
Speaker 1: he said it himself. New York Times in their blockbuster
Speaker 1: report this week, the numbers show that in nineteen eighty five,
Speaker 1: Trump reported losses of forty six point one million dollars
Speaker 1: from his core businesses, largely casinos, hotels, retail space, etc.
Speaker 1: Apartment buildings. And then the Apprentice open continues. But I
Speaker 1: fought back and I won big league. I used my brain,
Speaker 1: I used my negotiating skills, and I worked it all out.
Speaker 1: Mister Trump's two thousand and five returns, the Time says,
Speaker 1: showed that by then he had significant sources of income
Speaker 1: and was paying taxes. So where's the blockbuster now? Trump
Speaker 1: goes on again, opening episode. I'm gonna show you this
Speaker 1: tonight on Hannity. Now, my company's bigger than it ever was,
Speaker 1: stronger than it ever was, and I'm having more fun
Speaker 1: than I've ever had. I've mastered the art of the deal,
Speaker 1: and I've turned the name Trump into the highest quality brand.
Speaker 1: And then the New York Times Tuesday, mister Trump built
Speaker 1: a business licensing his name, became a television celebrity, and
Speaker 1: ran for the White House by branding himself a self
Speaker 1: made billionaire. Okay, so end of the story is he's
Speaker 1: still a billionaire now. Everybody in Atlantic City with the
Speaker 1: casino business they went, they all went belly up the
Speaker 1: whole thing. I've got the tape, So consider the breathless
Speaker 1: coverage and just listen to Trump at his own words.
Speaker 1: All they're doing is repeating his story that he's told
Speaker 1: many times. Listen, hit it. But it wasn't always so easy.
Speaker 1: About thirteen years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I
Speaker 1: was billions of dollars in debt. But I fought back
Speaker 1: and I won big league. I used my brain, I
Speaker 1: used my negotiating skills, and I worked it all out.
Speaker 1: Now my company's bigger than it ever was, it's stronger
Speaker 1: than it ever was, and I'm having more fun than
Speaker 1: I ever had. Okay, where's the blockbuster? You look at
Speaker 1: these twenty twenty candidates. You know they're gonna run on
Speaker 1: the New Green Deal and hating and raging Trump. I
Speaker 1: don't think they're gonna win. You gotta you know. I
Speaker 1: know every polio reads broken down demographically, here's a question
Speaker 1: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workforce,
Speaker 1: youth on all record lows. Survey now out shows that
Speaker 1: a significant percentage of African American voters are likely to
Speaker 1: abandon their support for Biden once they find out he
Speaker 1: favored keeping public schools segregated in the seventies rather than
Speaker 1: support force busing Biden's miss mixed record on civil rights
Speaker 1: dances support with the Democratic Party's most loyal constituency. Now,
Speaker 1: who was most disproportionately impacted by the horrific failed economic
Speaker 1: policies of Biden Obama? Yeah, Minorities, Hispanic Americans, Black Americans, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they were hurt the most. Who has now disproportionately been
Speaker 1: impacted positively? Well, that would be even people that don't
Speaker 1: have high school diplomas and people that have no college.
Speaker 1: They are the They are by far the biggest beneficiaries
Speaker 1: of the of the economic boom under Trump. By the way,
Speaker 1: Bernie's numbers are imploding could spell doom for him. A
Speaker 1: month ago, he had The Hill found Biden at thirty
Speaker 1: six percent of support and Bernie nineteen. Now Biden is
Speaker 1: at forty six. Sandra's fourteen. What's happening in the Birnie?
Speaker 1: And of course now he has Biden has big problems
Speaker 1: with the Ukraine and firing the prosecutor that was investigating
Speaker 1: his son and leveraging American tax dollars to do it.
Speaker 1: I'm leaving in six hours. He said, you either fire
Speaker 1: that guy that's investigating my son or I'm not giving
Speaker 1: you the billion. Okay. Then he has other problems with
Speaker 1: his son flying on Air Force two to China. And
Speaker 1: while Biden is in China, guess what's happening. Biden's son
Speaker 1: is making a fortune. Biden's you know, recent China gaff
Speaker 1: is now creating difficulty for him. You know, as he
Speaker 1: says about, you know, China is not America's competition. Well
Speaker 1: that's dumb number one. Like everything else he says, you know,
Speaker 1: foreign leaders. Trump says one Biden the wins that they
Speaker 1: can rip off America again, That's there's some truth to that.
Speaker 1: Then you got the president last night. I think the
Speaker 1: best line is what up in to Beto? Where's Beto
Speaker 1: they're all hypocrites, they're all, none of them all. They
Speaker 1: want the New Green Deal and they want to run
Speaker 1: on hating Donald Trump. Listen, people, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, they're gonna vote their pocketbooks, peace and prosperity.
Speaker 1: That's it. And what's happening and the Democrats can't figure
Speaker 1: this out yet is people now have adjusted to the new, unique, disruptive,
Speaker 1: iconoclastic style of Donald Trump. You'd get it. He's gonna tweet.
Speaker 1: Nobody's gonna stop him, but he's gonna fight like a
Speaker 1: hell to keep his promises. And the economy's working thanks
Speaker 1: to him. Way were operating. If we're gonna accuse somebody wrong,
Speaker 1: we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses. We
Speaker 1: need to prepare to prove our case in court, and
Speaker 1: we have to fix our signature to the charging document.
Speaker 1: That's something that not everybody appreciates. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see
Speaker 1: talking about it seem not to recognize what a FIES application.
Speaker 1: FIESE application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
Speaker 1: In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need
Speaker 1: an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer
Speaker 1: who swears that the information in the affidavit is true
Speaker 1: and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Speaker 1: And that's the way we operate. And if it's wrong
Speaker 1: sometimes it is. If you find out there's anything incorrect
Speaker 1: in there, that person is going to face consequences, all right, there,
Speaker 1: of course, Rob Rosenstein saying once again there should be consequences.
Speaker 1: Career law enforcement put their name and their reputation that
Speaker 1: what they are signing and a FIZA warrant is true
Speaker 1: to the best of the ability, and if they get
Speaker 1: it wrong, there are consequences. Well, we've been following the
Speaker 1: stories of John Solomon and now we're learning a lot.
Speaker 1: We're also learning the testimony behind closed doors of Bruce
Speaker 1: Or and he's telling everybody. He warned everyone at the DOJ,
Speaker 1: the FBI, the upper echelon, and even Andrew Weissman of
Speaker 1: Muller's team that in fact the dossier was unverified. Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele hated Trump, and it was paid for by Hillary.
Speaker 1: Now we have for the first time direct evidence thanks
Speaker 1: to John Solomon's great reporting earlier in the week, and
Speaker 1: that is the Deputy Secretary Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen
Speaker 1: Cavalex written account of an October eleventh, twenty sixteen, meeting
Speaker 1: with FBI informing Christopher Steele and the Clinton campaign funded
Speaker 1: you know, British intelligence operative, admitting his research was in
Speaker 1: fact political with an election day dead line. Now, that
Speaker 1: was said ten days before the FBI, according to the
Speaker 1: Grassly Graham new Nest Memos, used a FISA application with
Speaker 1: the bulk of that information being the Russian disinformation according
Speaker 1: to the New York Times but discredited dossier. Well, now
Speaker 1: it takes an even deeper turn. Just breaking now. By
Speaker 1: the way, New Hour two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine for one Shawn is a toll free number. Literally
Speaker 1: just in the last minute. The updated column by John Solomon,
Speaker 1: investigative reporter with The Hill, the FBI steal story is
Speaker 1: now falling apart completely because of the intelligence being false
Speaker 1: media contacts that were flagged before the FISA application in
Speaker 1: October that in spite of what Komi says, there was
Speaker 1: no spying spied on Carter Page and spied on the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. And he should know because he signed that
Speaker 1: first warrant. And we have newly unearthed memo show that,
Speaker 1: in fact, a high ranking government official who met with
Speaker 1: Steele in October twenty sixteen determined some of Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: dirt was simultaneously digging up for both the FBI and
Speaker 1: Clinton's campaign was inaccurate. They knew it was inaccurate. And
Speaker 1: remember Steele was getting paid by the FBI even at
Speaker 1: this time, and by a Russian oligarchs, and by Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton and by the DNC. Great gig for one piece
Speaker 1: of information if he can get it. John Solomon gives
Speaker 1: us the details. He joins us, now, how are you.
Speaker 1: I'm doing well, Sean, Yeah, yeah, you got this one right.
Speaker 1: This is a very big revelation. And let me tell
Speaker 1: you what's happened since the last story broke. The State
Speaker 1: Department has released more documents about Steele's contact with Kathleen Cavalac,
Speaker 1: that deputy Assistant secretary you mentioned. It's all on this
Speaker 1: October eleventh meeting. So it turns out she also had
Speaker 1: a set of handwritten notes, and they originally gave us
Speaker 1: a type meend when they redacted most of the information
Speaker 1: out of him. That's now been unredacted, so we can
Speaker 1: see what she wrote. And what she wrote is very
Speaker 1: significant to the question of fights abuses. Let me set
Speaker 1: it up this quickly. What's remind everybody that in the
Speaker 1: first application for the FISA on October twenty one, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: the FBI said that they considered Steele reliable, accurate, and
Speaker 1: they had no derogatory information on him. Now, I'm going
Speaker 1: to take you to Kathleen Cavali's notes with by the way,
Speaker 1: she distributed to the intelligence community right after she met
Speaker 1: with Steele. She writes that she detected he was inaccurate
Speaker 1: or erroneous with one of his allegations involving Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and alleged Russia collusion. Let me tell you what the
Speaker 1: allegation was. There was somehow Manafort and Carter Page and
Speaker 1: all those Trump people who have now been shown not
Speaker 1: to have colluded with Russia. They had they were working
Speaker 1: with the Russians on a hacking operation, and the people
Speaker 1: who are doing the hacking were getting paid out of
Speaker 1: the Russian consulate in Miami. And immediately after Kathleen Cavalik Harris,
Speaker 1: she writes in her notes or as an add up,
Speaker 1: there is no such thing as a Russian consulate in Miami.
Speaker 1: They don't even have a consulate in Miami. So the
Speaker 1: very allegation Steele was making in real time she debunked
Speaker 1: in her notes and in her memo immediately. That's very important.
Speaker 1: That's considered derogatory information inaccurate information from an FBI source.
Speaker 1: The second thing she detected that would be a real
Speaker 1: problem is that she wrote down he told her on
Speaker 1: two occasions during her meeting that he was leaking to
Speaker 1: the Washington Post and the New York Times. An FBI
Speaker 1: confidential informant may not leak to the news media while
Speaker 1: he's working for the FBI unless instructed by the FBI.
Speaker 1: These revelations occurred ten days before the FISA. She sends
Speaker 1: this email up the chain. It is improbable that the
Speaker 1: FBI didn't know it. It means that there was substantial evidence.
Speaker 1: Not only that Christopher Steele was admitted he was pulled
Speaker 1: up partisan and had an election day deadline. It was
Speaker 1: determined he was giving the government false and inaccurate information,
Speaker 1: and he was leaking to the news media. All three
Speaker 1: things are derogatory information under the standard, and it ended
Speaker 1: up getting him fired. I believe it was November. Was
Speaker 1: am I wrong on that? Or yeah? Okay. So, and
Speaker 1: then the interesting thing is we know from closed door
Speaker 1: testimony he stayed in he stayed in contact with Bruce Orr,
Speaker 1: then the fourth highest ranking member of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: And we know from notes of Bruce Or that Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele was desperately trying to get information even though he'd
Speaker 1: been fired for lying and leaking to the special counsel.
Speaker 1: And we know that Andrew Weissman, Muller's number one, had
Speaker 1: been briefed by Bruce Or about the contents being false
Speaker 1: and questionable and put together by a Trump paiter and
Speaker 1: paid for by Hillary. And of course Weissman was the
Speaker 1: guy that was at Hillary's victory party the night of
Speaker 1: the election. Didn't turn out to be one, but he
Speaker 1: was there. And Jeanie Ray, of course, was an attorney
Speaker 1: for the Clinton's on the foundation. So what you're really
Speaker 1: saying here is there is no excuse. There is now
Speaker 1: direct evidence that chose that all of these people that
Speaker 1: signed on that FISA application the first one that they
Speaker 1: were told, and they were told directly that this is unverified.
Speaker 1: We now know it's by the way, John, we know
Speaker 1: it's unverifiable because Steel doesn't stand behind it, and that
Speaker 1: Hillary paid for it, and that Steele hated Trump and
Speaker 1: had an agenda. Yeah, and keep in mind that the
Speaker 1: timing of his firing was after they had already used
Speaker 1: them to secure the dossier. Right, they used steel and
Speaker 1: then they dump them a few weeks later. There is
Speaker 1: now incontrovertible evidence that the FBI should have known and
Speaker 1: had grounds for firing Christopher Steele before the FISA warrant
Speaker 1: was issue, meaning they should not have used him to
Speaker 1: get this warrant. And here's why. Well, they were paying
Speaker 1: him John, they were actually giving him money for the
Speaker 1: same thing that Hillary and her and the DNC, which
Speaker 1: he controlled the finances of. Yeah, they were planning to
Speaker 1: pay him, but they ended up not paying him because
Speaker 1: they fired him. But this is very important. He didn't
Speaker 1: he get paid beforehand for other work, prior work that's correct,
Speaker 1: but not related to the Russia Trump investigation. He never
Speaker 1: got paid for the Russia Trump investigation by the FBI.
Speaker 1: He was going to be paid, but then he got
Speaker 1: fired before he could get his paycheck. But here is
Speaker 1: the important thing. It doesn't matter whether he's paid or not.
Speaker 1: As soon as he has an informed agreement with the FBI,
Speaker 1: he breaks protocol ghosts of State Department. That's a violation.
Speaker 1: He gives inaccurate information to the government, that's a violation.
Speaker 1: He acknowledges he's leaking to the news media, that's a violation.
Speaker 1: All of those things were established by October tenth, ten
Speaker 1: days before they used him for the FISA warrant. This
Speaker 1: is the most incontrovertible evidence that the FBI should have
Speaker 1: and almost certainly did know Christopher Steele did have derogatory information.
Speaker 1: He was rogue, he was political, he was inaccurate, he
Speaker 1: was violation of his agreement, and yet they continued to
Speaker 1: use his information until they got their FIS A warrant,
Speaker 1: and then they threw them under the bus after the fact.
Speaker 1: So the question then remains that if there's no way,
Speaker 1: there's no way they could have verified the dossier, correct, right, right, Okay,
Speaker 1: I've been making the point. Now we know James Coomey
Speaker 1: signed the first FIER application, and again I can replay
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein's wards again, but Rod Rosenstein says no, and
Speaker 1: a fieser application, you know, you need a career law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer, to the best of the knowledge and ability
Speaker 1: that what they're signing off to is accurate and true
Speaker 1: and been verified, and if that's not the case, they
Speaker 1: are a major consequences. So there's no way that Comy
Speaker 1: or anyone in the FBI could have verified something that
Speaker 1: is unverifiable. Because the dossier author, Christopher Steele, in an
Speaker 1: interrogatory says, I don't have any idea of any of
Speaker 1: it's true. New York Times is now suggesting as Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: I'd like to ask this question because I know there's
Speaker 1: issues about whether Muller will testify. I want to know
Speaker 1: when he knew that there was no quote collusion or
Speaker 1: conspiracy with Russia. Number two, why didn't he tell the
Speaker 1: American people in the president Number Three? I want to
Speaker 1: know about Robert Muller if he's investigating Russia influence on
Speaker 1: our elections and the chaos that ensued. Well, we know
Speaker 1: that this dossier was leaked to the media Korn and Iszikoff,
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, to name a few. You're also reporting
Speaker 1: that Steele was passing out information of the dossier to others. Correct,
Speaker 1: and the New York Times and Washington Posts are specifically cited.
Speaker 1: In fact, he says in the notes. He's quoted in
Speaker 1: the notesic thing. They had the information almost as soon
Speaker 1: as he started his work in June and July. So
Speaker 1: how does Muller justify doing an investigation on Russian interference?
Speaker 1: Know all about this and not even blink an eye
Speaker 1: and go into it. You said something before that's really important.
Speaker 1: The FBI has not been able to verify. But let's
Speaker 1: say something it could have done. It was able to
Speaker 1: debunk very specific information very quickly. I found five things
Speaker 1: in these notes that within one hour I was able
Speaker 1: to debunk by making a couple of phone calls and
Speaker 1: a couple of Google searches. Yeah, I'm gonna give me
Speaker 1: to you a second. The State Department woman during the
Speaker 1: meeting detected something that was overtly false by Steel. Right,
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as a Russian consulate in Miami.
Speaker 1: That allegation can't be true. Well, I was able to
Speaker 1: confirm that one of the allegations that Carter Page met
Speaker 1: with the head of gas Prom, we know that's not true.
Speaker 1: That he met with a senior intelligence officer, we know
Speaker 1: that's not true. How did I know that? I called him,
Speaker 1: and I called the Russians and they both said, no,
Speaker 1: we never meet met with each other. They said, The
Speaker 1: notes say Paul Manaford had one hundred million dollar debt
Speaker 1: he owed Russia. There's no record of a debt and
Speaker 1: Russia in the United States. It was never found by Muller.
Speaker 1: That was overtly it could be checked in five to
Speaker 1: ten minutes and determined if it's true or not. And
Speaker 1: here's the big one. In these notes, just like in
Speaker 1: the dossier, it said Michael Cohen went to Prague. We
Speaker 1: now know from Muller's report there's no visa record of
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen in Prague. In less than a half hour
Speaker 1: or hour of diligence, the FBI could have find five
Speaker 1: factually false things in the information still was providing him.
Speaker 1: So that what you're saying then is they absolutely did
Speaker 1: zero due diligence, and what they ended up presenting to
Speaker 1: the FISA court and adjustice abilities they didn't they okay,
Speaker 1: And then but more importantly, they knew, which means that
Speaker 1: they were willing to commit a fraud on the court.
Speaker 1: And they did commit a conspiracy to commit a fraud
Speaker 1: on the court. Because at the top of I just
Speaker 1: found this out, John Ratcliffe has said verified is actually
Speaker 1: at the top of the actual word verified application. It
Speaker 1: does that on every one of the four and there's
Speaker 1: no evidence that the allegations are very as we now
Speaker 1: know them. In fact, there were many things that could
Speaker 1: have been debunked on a few hours notice. There's only
Speaker 1: two possible How did Mueller not even ask a single
Speaker 1: question about those that, well, we don't listen. We don't
Speaker 1: know what he asked behind closed doors. He certainly doesn't
Speaker 1: make any mention of the report except well, but hang
Speaker 1: on a second. He had time for taxi medallions, Farah
Speaker 1: violations from the eighties. He had time for loan applications,
Speaker 1: and time for taxes that were not paid. But he
Speaker 1: didn't have time for real Russia collusion. And his mandate
Speaker 1: was so broad it sent him out in a thousand
Speaker 1: other directions. One of the things that I think we
Speaker 1: should look for if if Special Council Muller finally testifies
Speaker 1: next week, if he's allowed to testify, is the question
Speaker 1: of did he communicate concerns to the Justice Department into
Speaker 1: the IG. There is a strong possibility from the reporting
Speaker 1: I've done that Director Mueller very quickly dismissed the dossier
Speaker 1: as a piece of garbage and may have reported his
Speaker 1: concerns to the Justice Department, impossibly to the eye. That
Speaker 1: would be a very significant revelation. If the Mueller did that,
Speaker 1: it would suggest he understood the origins of this case.
Speaker 1: We're flawed from the beginning. That that would be a
Speaker 1: very if he didn't and he ignored the you know,
Speaker 1: pretty clear, willful evidence that this was a bad investigation
Speaker 1: at the beginning. Either one is a good not a
Speaker 1: good scenario for the people who ran this investigation. Everything
Speaker 1: we're talking about here that went on ignorance, political involved.
Speaker 1: I got our comment to what FBI agents are trained
Speaker 1: to do when they do counterintelligence investigations. This is the
Speaker 1: antithesis of a traditional counterintelligence investigation. All right, great work,
Speaker 1: John Solomon. We'll have more reporting on those blockbuster breaking
Speaker 1: news tonight as the layers that the onion now begin
Speaker 1: to get unpeeled more quickly. John Solomon, great work, Thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us. We'll see you tonight on Hannity. Okay,
Speaker 1: sound good, all right, eight hundred ninety four one sewn.
Speaker 1: If you want to be a part of this program,
Speaker 1: we'll get to your calls some of your reaction to
Speaker 1: this straight ahead, all right, twenty five now till the
Speaker 1: top of the hour. We'll get to your calls here
Speaker 1: in a second. I want to go back last night.
Speaker 1: The President was on fire last night. I mean he
Speaker 1: was in Panama City, in Florida and the Panhandle. I
Speaker 1: mean he was just letting it rip, you know, going
Speaker 1: after the Democrats their radical positions, going over his record,
Speaker 1: which by the way, is so uniquely better, distinctly better
Speaker 1: than Biden Obama. Then he actually made fun of the
Speaker 1: Democrats and Biden and Sanders and Buddha Judge, and one
Speaker 1: point he goes, what happened to Beato, you know, and
Speaker 1: et cetera. So let me play a little of this
Speaker 1: then we'll get your reaction. We'll go right to the
Speaker 1: phones out of this. But this is the president from
Speaker 1: last night in Panama City, in the Panhandle, in Florida,
Speaker 1: on issue after issue. The Democrat Party has never been
Speaker 1: further outside the American mainstream, has never been I've never
Speaker 1: heard of anything like what's going on. I want to
Speaker 1: run so bad. What does racist start immediately? Now? Democrats
Speaker 1: are pushing a one hundred trillion dollar takeover of the
Speaker 1: US economy known as the Green New Deal that was
Speaker 1: written up by real genius the new Democrat party believes
Speaker 1: in socialism. Take a look at Venezuela, and Democrats are
Speaker 1: aggressively pushing late term abortion, allowing children to be ripped
Speaker 1: from their mother's womb right up until the moment of birth,
Speaker 1: prohibiting extreme late term abortion. Democrats are now the party
Speaker 1: of high taxes, high crime, open borders, late term abortion,
Speaker 1: which hunts and delusions. The Republican Party is the party
Speaker 1: for all Americans. We want to make America great again.
Speaker 1: That's what we're doing, and our policy can be summed
Speaker 1: up in three very simple words. Jobs, jobs, jobs. The
Speaker 1: United States economy created another two hundred and sixty thousand
Speaker 1: jobs last month, way way way above what people thought.
Speaker 1: They were making predictions, much lower than the big one.
Speaker 1: They were thinking about one percent, one point two percent,
Speaker 1: maybe one point five. And our growth number came in
Speaker 1: for the first quarter, which is almost always the lowest
Speaker 1: quarter of the year historically, three point two percent, crushing expectation.
Speaker 1: A lot of surprise to people. I wasn't surprised. Since
Speaker 1: the election, we've created nearly six million new jobs, including
Speaker 1: more than half a million manufacturing jobs and nearly seven
Speaker 1: hundred thousand new construction jobs. Unemployment just reached the lowest
Speaker 1: rate in more than fifty years. The women's unemployment rate
Speaker 1: is the lowest in more than sixty five years, and
Speaker 1: soon will be a record jumper women women. Remember last election, Oh,
Speaker 1: he's going to do so bad with women. I degree
Speaker 1: with women great. Instead of wasting time, energy, taxpayer dollars
Speaker 1: on potters and stunts and hoaxes and which hunts, Democrats
Speaker 1: should be focused on building up our country. Did you
Speaker 1: see what just happened? By the way, no collusion, no obstruction,
Speaker 1: no anything. Two years on the winch hunt. I could
Speaker 1: have gotten anybody in this audience. I could have found
Speaker 1: something on you. Two years, almost forty million dollars. Twenty
Speaker 1: Trump haters Democrats and call them angry Democrats. After two years, nothing,
Speaker 1: no collusion, and now the Democrats we have a great
Speaker 1: attorney general. Now the Democrats are saying we want more.
Speaker 1: You know it was gonna be like we want the
Speaker 1: Muller Report. Now they say Muller Report, No, we want
Speaker 1: to start it all over again. It is a disgrace.
Speaker 1: We got to focus on infrastructure. We have to focus
Speaker 1: on lowering medical prices and medicine. Always focused on our
Speaker 1: military and our vets, which we've done, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: really should be focused now on restoring and helping the
Speaker 1: Emerald Coast to Florida, because that's what it is. It's
Speaker 1: time to come together for the people of Panama City,
Speaker 1: for the people of Florida, for the people of our country.
Speaker 1: It's time to stop this nonsense. America is thriving again,
Speaker 1: America is winning again, and America is being respected again.
Speaker 1: We're respected. In fact, one of the Democrats today said
Speaker 1: that he he sleepy person, said that he heard from
Speaker 1: a lot of foreign leaders and they want him to
Speaker 1: be president. Of course they do so they can continue
Speaker 1: to rip off the United States. Of course. Of course
Speaker 1: I think if I heard that, I'd never vote for.
Speaker 1: And then you have Bernie Bernie, and you have Bernie.
Speaker 1: He got some real beauties, crazy Bernie. He got a
Speaker 1: choice between sleepy Joe and crazy Bernie. And I'll take
Speaker 1: any or Let's just pick somebody, please, and let's start
Speaker 1: this thing. Let's start it. Pick somebody there. We haven't
Speaker 1: been boot edge edge, boot edge Edge, they say, edge Edge.
Speaker 1: He's got a great chance, says he'll be great, He'll
Speaker 1: be great representing us against President Chief of China. That'll
Speaker 1: be great, that'd be great. I want to be in
Speaker 1: that room. I want to watch that one. I went
Speaker 1: to Texas and I made a speech and Beato, Beto.
Speaker 1: Boy is he fallen like a rock? What the hell
Speaker 1: happened to Beto? So we went to El Paso and
Speaker 1: I made a speech and we had an areta that
Speaker 1: holds eight or nine thousand people. The areta was backed.
Speaker 1: We had thirty five thousand people outside. We had these
Speaker 1: massive movie screens outside so those people that couldn't get
Speaker 1: in could see. He had five hundred and two people.
Speaker 1: The next day in the news the New York Times,
Speaker 1: guy actually wrote a story that he thinks that he
Speaker 1: had more people than me. Can you believe this? No? No,
Speaker 1: can you believe it? No? So dishonest, And most of
Speaker 1: them just said two massive crowds were well, his crowd
Speaker 1: was not massive. He had like five hundred and two
Speaker 1: people according to the people that count crowds. So we
Speaker 1: get a very bum press. But that's okay because we're
Speaker 1: here and they're not right. By the way, you see
Speaker 1: the tariffs we're doing because they broke the deal. They
Speaker 1: broke the deal, so they're flying in the vice premiere
Speaker 1: tomorrow is flying in good Man. But they broke the deal.
Speaker 1: They can't do that, so they'll be paying. We don't
Speaker 1: make the deal. Nothing wrong. We're taking in over one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars a year, one hundred billions. We never
Speaker 1: did that before, and we have that happening. A lot
Speaker 1: of good things happening with a lot of countries. So
Speaker 1: I just announced will increase tariffs un China. Now we
Speaker 1: walked back out until China stops cheating our workers and
Speaker 1: stealing our jobs. And that's what's going to happen. Otherwise
Speaker 1: we don't have to do business with them. We don't
Speaker 1: have to do business. We can make the product right
Speaker 1: here if we have to, like we used to remember,
Speaker 1: like we used to. By the way, what did happen
Speaker 1: to Beto? What happened? Where is Beato? Where did he go?
Speaker 1: Last I heard he had thirty five people show up
Speaker 1: at an event. You know, last night, we actually did
Speaker 1: something that nobody else in the media does. We panned
Speaker 1: the crowd. We you know, we literally a pan in
Speaker 1: the crowd and it's massive. There's twelve thousand, five hundred
Speaker 1: strong and a Pact arena and people outside and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden couldn't get a thousand people in Iowa. Unbelievable. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to our phones. Uh, let's go to jeffees
Speaker 1: listening to the all New AM seven ten War talk
Speaker 1: in New York, New Jersey, Long Island. What's up? How
Speaker 1: are you, Jeff? Glad you cult sir, Thank you for
Speaker 1: taking my call. Basically, I listened to you all the time.
Speaker 1: Love everything you say, but one thing I haven't heard
Speaker 1: you say yet, and it's been bugging me. I have
Speaker 1: to say. I was thinking about Pelosi and how the
Speaker 1: Democrats continue to weaken the country on purpose. They try
Speaker 1: to weaken the prestige of the president, which then weakens
Speaker 1: our country. They want to give up the borders. Remember
Speaker 1: the country Kuwait, when they all of a sudden din't
Speaker 1: have a border, they became part of Iraq. People seem
Speaker 1: to forget the number one job of the president is
Speaker 1: to maintain the country. Without a border, you don't have
Speaker 1: a country. And when I see them working so hard
Speaker 1: to diminish the power and prestige of the president, the
Speaker 1: office of the presidency of the United States itself, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, we have missiles going off again. They're
Speaker 1: having an effect. They're weakening us. I'd call traders. They're
Speaker 1: not patriots. You know. It's everything we do is to
Speaker 1: improve the country. Why are they tearing it down? I
Speaker 1: don't I don't go as far as you. I don't
Speaker 1: know what people's motivations are. I can't they It's sort
Speaker 1: of like hate crimes, you know, Okay, it's you know,
Speaker 1: what whatever is in the person's mind, unless they're really
Speaker 1: openly expressing it. I think you punish people for the crimes. Look,
Speaker 1: these are people some sincere. There are people that really, really, truly,
Speaker 1: honestly believe, well, I'll put in my share and you
Speaker 1: put in your share, and we'll also have it equal.
Speaker 1: Everything is equal. It's never work. It's never going to work.
Speaker 1: There's never been a greater system, economic and otherwise, or
Speaker 1: country that has accumulated more power and wealth and used
Speaker 1: it for good than the United States when not perfect.
Speaker 1: It has never been a country that has created more
Speaker 1: power and wealth, used it for the advancement of the
Speaker 1: human condition, and abused it less than the United States
Speaker 1: acknowledging imperfections. And what I think is, you know, the
Speaker 1: greatest thing about capitalism and working is every one of
Speaker 1: us is born with talent and ability. I believe from God,
Speaker 1: and I think you can't really live your life, fill
Speaker 1: your life unless you tap into and find what it
Speaker 1: is that you are best designed to do. You know,
Speaker 1: people have very special and unique talents. And you know,
Speaker 1: whenever you work, you're serving other people. You're either in
Speaker 1: the service business or you're producing goods and services that
Speaker 1: people want, need or desire, or services they want need
Speaker 1: a desire. And in the process, well, okay, you get
Speaker 1: money to buy a house, rent a house, buy a car,
Speaker 1: new or used, it doesn't matter. But so it is.
Speaker 1: It's a system where it is. It works with the
Speaker 1: human condition, which is too I think we are at
Speaker 1: our best when we do that which we were born
Speaker 1: to do to the extent possible. I mean, without getting
Speaker 1: too esoteric or philosophical here, but I do believe God
Speaker 1: created every man, woman and child on this earth, and
Speaker 1: many are inclined to good. Some people, you know, give
Speaker 1: into the dark side. Some people buy sick, evil, ugly
Speaker 1: twisted ideologies, and unfortunately, good people have to risk their
Speaker 1: lives to defeat evil in their time. We've dealt with
Speaker 1: it in the last hundred years. I've talked about it often,
Speaker 1: and governments and governmental systems and wars have killed you know,
Speaker 1: over one hundred million people in the last century. I
Speaker 1: do think there's another group of people that see dependency
Speaker 1: as a path for their own powerbase, and there's a
Speaker 1: far more sinister side to their motives. While they'll claim
Speaker 1: that they want to help people, their real interest is
Speaker 1: in helping themselves to focus only on Russia. Russia with
Speaker 1: four investigations clearing the president at this point is an
Speaker 1: abuse of the system, an abuse of power, and frankly,
Speaker 1: a disservice to the American people. I think I think
Speaker 1: that'll all get sorted out in the next election. American
Speaker 1: people are pretty smart. I think they'll figure it all out. Right.
Speaker 1: As we continue back to our busy phones, less Miami,
Speaker 1: what's up, less WIOD, what's going on? Sir? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: agree with you. I think the American people will figure
Speaker 1: it out. I just want to state I'm a Democrat,
Speaker 1: but I'm a reasonable wall democraft. So I look at
Speaker 1: this Wall Street, this New York Times article of hut
Speaker 1: Trump's tax returns, and I would say to myself, Okay,
Speaker 1: here's a guy. In order to lose that much he
Speaker 1: had to make that much. He didn't get it from
Speaker 1: the government, He made it himself. If there was anybody
Speaker 1: that I wanted to run this country from an academic perspective,
Speaker 1: somebody who could actually take us from where we are
Speaker 1: to where we need to be, it would be a
Speaker 1: guy like that we are. I mean, for the New
Speaker 1: York Times to ignore the fact that the Congress, which
Speaker 1: is the most the least popular of any entity in
Speaker 1: the country, has put US twenty two trillion dollars in debt,
Speaker 1: and they're talking about Donald Trump losing a billion dollars
Speaker 1: or two billion dollars. That's not even pocket change. When
Speaker 1: you're talking about trillions of dollars. It's so insignificant that
Speaker 1: it's not it's not even in the scale anywhere. So
Speaker 1: for them to take the position, for the people on
Speaker 1: the crazy media to make fun of Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: giggle about it, it's just it's so to me. It's
Speaker 1: it's a story he has told himself. Yeah, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: actually do this tonight on TV. He's another boomerang. It's
Speaker 1: another boomerang. Yeah. I mean, everybody knows Atlantic City Casinos collapsed.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows that the stock that the real estate market
Speaker 1: took off nosedive in in two thousand and seven and eight.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows their cycles economically. Uh. The story to me
Speaker 1: is and one that he tells himself, is that he
Speaker 1: was able to climb his way out of being a
Speaker 1: billion dollars in debt and he was able to build
Speaker 1: back his empire. And you know that. You know, he
Speaker 1: still is a billionaire, he still has a seven fifty seven,
Speaker 1: he still became president. Um, you know part of life.
Speaker 1: I think I've learned more from my failures than any
Speaker 1: of my successes. Everyone has both, and if you're introspective enough,
Speaker 1: you should learn from your from your failures as well.
Speaker 1: I gotta take a quick break here when we come back,
Speaker 1: Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillham on the issue of Yeah,
Speaker 1: Nadler's lying and they want now a fifth investigation into
Speaker 1: so called Russia collusion. They can't let it go. Stay
Speaker 1: right here for our final news round up and information
Speaker 1: overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: It is the culmination of nearly three months of requests, discussions,
Speaker 1: and negotiations with the Department of Justice for a complete,
Speaker 1: unredacted report by special counsel, mother, somebody the staff of
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking man already
Speaker 1: members of the Judiciary Committee, is going to have to
Speaker 1: go over this material, at least the four or five
Speaker 1: hundred pages in the report, to determine what is fit
Speaker 1: for release and what is, as a matter of decency
Speaker 1: and protecting people, those privacy rights, people who may be
Speaker 1: totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.
Speaker 1: Do you think the president of structed justice? Yes, I do.
Speaker 1: It's very clear that the president struct the justice. We
Speaker 1: must not overturn an election and remove a president from office.
Speaker 1: Accept to defend our system of government or our constitutional
Speaker 1: liberties against the dire threats. We have to protect the
Speaker 1: rule of law, and that means we have to investigate
Speaker 1: and hold hearings and lay out for the American people
Speaker 1: if the administration is involved in abuses of power or
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. The American people have heard the allegations
Speaker 1: against the president, and they overwhelmingly opposed impeaching him. They
Speaker 1: elected President Clinton, they still support him. We have no
Speaker 1: right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.
Speaker 1: If this truly is a constitution of a crisis. How
Speaker 1: can that not change your teaking? How the parting teachers, Well,
Speaker 1: we have investigations that will give us the facts and
Speaker 1: the truth. This is not about Congress or any committee
Speaker 1: of Congress. It's about the American people and their right
Speaker 1: to know and their election that is at stake, and
Speaker 1: that a foreign government intervened in our election and the
Speaker 1: president thinks it is a laughing matter. It's appalling that
Speaker 1: this administration would not even pretend to want to protect
Speaker 1: our elections and in fact be an obstacle to our
Speaker 1: finding out more about how it happened so we can
Speaker 1: prevent it from happening. Again, as I said, yes, the
Speaker 1: president is almost self impeaching because he is every day
Speaker 1: demonstrating more obstruction of justice and disrespect for Congress's legitimate
Speaker 1: role to subpoena. So well, again, this is very methodical,
Speaker 1: it's very constitution based, it's very law based. It's a
Speaker 1: very fact willy based. It's not about pressure, it's about patriotism.
Speaker 1: Do you really, good, Chairman Nadler, The country currently in
Speaker 1: a constitutional prefer Yes. I do agree with Chairman Nadler,
Speaker 1: because the administration has decided that they are not going
Speaker 1: to honor their oath of office. Now he's staked out
Speaker 1: because he has seen so much in the Committee committee work.
Speaker 1: I'm very proud of the Judiciary Committee in the work
Speaker 1: that they have done in Termber of timing when we're
Speaker 1: ready will come to the floor and we'll just see it,
Speaker 1: because there may be some other contempt of Congress issues
Speaker 1: that we want to deal with at the same time,
Speaker 1: and he wants to do it as soon as possible,
Speaker 1: and so do we all Right there it is with
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi. Jerry Nadler, What a hypocrite. He didn't even
Speaker 1: want the Star Report. The Star Report had eleven specific
Speaker 1: felonies that had been committed by Bill Clinton. Now that
Speaker 1: was under the old Independent Council's Statute. Then people like
Speaker 1: Jerry Nadler now they want everything public. But it was
Speaker 1: people like Jerry Nadler that got rid of the Independent
Speaker 1: Council's Statute because they didn't like the report being released.
Speaker 1: Now they're trying to hold the Attorney General in contempt.
Speaker 1: When the Attorney General he won't give us the full report.
Speaker 1: He's giving you everything that he legally can, and there's
Speaker 1: only point one percent that he's had to redact for
Speaker 1: members of Congress. And that's it, you know everything, and
Speaker 1: then everything else. He didn't have to give one word
Speaker 1: to the American people, and he did it all the
Speaker 1: new statute the Attorney General does not have to give
Speaker 1: a single thing to the public or anybody, period. But
Speaker 1: he did it to be transparent. And the President gave
Speaker 1: one point five million documents over to the Muller team
Speaker 1: of partisans, and you know, think think beyond that. Then
Speaker 1: they couraged every person in the White House to testify
Speaker 1: before Congress before Muller's team. They also allowed Don McGann
Speaker 1: the White House Council. That was a flabbergas that they
Speaker 1: let that happen. Don McGann, the White House Counsel, is
Speaker 1: allowed to give Muller thirty hours. It's ridiculous, Unpresident, not
Speaker 1: one time, unlike every past president in a case not
Speaker 1: even close to this, invoking executive privilege. Well, now the president,
Speaker 1: after two plus years now the fourth determination of no collusion,
Speaker 1: no obstruction. The Democrats cannot accept the results, just like
Speaker 1: they couldn't accept the twenty sixteen results, and they can't
Speaker 1: let it go. So they're not gonna let it go.
Speaker 1: And you know what, the President is saying enough is enough.
Speaker 1: I don't blame him. It was round up Information Overload
Speaker 1: Hour eight hundred and nine four one. Shawn is a
Speaker 1: toll free telephone number you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. We are joined by Danielle McLaughlin, attorney
Speaker 1: and constitutional expert Jonathan Gillham, former FBI agent, federal air marshal,
Speaker 1: author of Sheep No More. Welcome both of you to
Speaker 1: the program. There are a bunch of hypocrites on every level,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure you're going to find a where you
Speaker 1: to give some excuse to them. Somehow, some way you'll
Speaker 1: thread that needle. Danielle McLaughlin, I'm just guessing, Hey, Sean,
Speaker 1: Hey Jonathan, so good to be with you. Of course,
Speaker 1: I am sure. Isn't y come on every week to
Speaker 1: do Look, Yes, they're hypocrites. I have seen all the
Speaker 1: clips where Nadler was talking about the Star Report. I've
Speaker 1: also seen the clips of Republicans talking about Eric Holder
Speaker 1: and his obstruction of justice in the Fast and the
Speaker 1: Furious and the Obama administration and the fight over those documents.
Speaker 1: So both sides are doing this. It just happens to
Speaker 1: be the Democrats going after the Republicans at this point
Speaker 1: in time, So the people that are most hypocritical would
Speaker 1: be the Democrats, and you acknowledge that the Democrats changed
Speaker 1: the law. Nadler, who didn't want the Star Report. One
Speaker 1: big difference, Danielle. The Star Report had eleven specific fella
Speaker 1: these that they found Bill Clinton had committed and could
Speaker 1: be indicted for eleven, and he was impeached, and he
Speaker 1: paid nearly a million dollars to Paula Jones. And he
Speaker 1: also lost his law license, his licensed to practice law
Speaker 1: because of his behavior. So we have very distinct differences here.
Speaker 1: Jonathan gild Yeah, I mean, listen, I am going to
Speaker 1: agree with Danielle. And one thing, I think that there's
Speaker 1: a lack of leadership constantly in Congress. Every time there's
Speaker 1: a president elected, they go to doing impeachments. I looked
Speaker 1: over that somebody sent out a meme that was talking
Speaker 1: about how the Democrats have impeached every president that was Republican,
Speaker 1: all the way back to Eisenhower or somebody. I can't
Speaker 1: remember the meme, but once you start researching that, you
Speaker 1: see that it's happening on both sides. And I don't
Speaker 1: really agree with that because I look at that more
Speaker 1: of tactics than anything. I do agree with you, though, Sean,
Speaker 1: when it comes to Bill Clinton in the difference there
Speaker 1: versus this is that he was making a mockery of
Speaker 1: the White House, and when you talk to people who
Speaker 1: worked in the White House back in those days, it
Speaker 1: was kind of a madhouse, and that it was Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton's one world tour. And so I do agree with
Speaker 1: the way the prosecution handled Bill Clinton. But I frankly
Speaker 1: see no leadership in converse on the left or the right.
Speaker 1: I just see two different parties that are using the
Speaker 1: presidency every four year or two eight years to be
Speaker 1: prepared for the next presidential election. That's it, I mean.
Speaker 1: And the way that these special prosecutors handle these things
Speaker 1: and spend millions and millions of dollars. I mean. Now,
Speaker 1: I think what separates President Trump's investigation from all these
Speaker 1: others is that we know that it was built on
Speaker 1: false evidence. And I don't think we could ever have
Speaker 1: said that before. This was literally false evidence, and now
Speaker 1: they're trying to go after this guy. One good thing
Speaker 1: about driving across the country as you get to listen
Speaker 1: on serious and all this different testimony that's going on
Speaker 1: and it's really not testimony, it's really congressman spouting off.
Speaker 1: And I gotta tell you, Jerry Nadler, that is the
Speaker 1: most He is the weirdest person I've ever heard. When
Speaker 1: he runs this committee, there is zero leadership and one
Speaker 1: hundred percent of favoritism for the Democrat Party versus Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Every Republican that spoke said exactly what they needed to
Speaker 1: say to prove the reality what was happening in that committee,
Speaker 1: and then they would just go right back over and
Speaker 1: repeat their lie every time. It was the craziest thing
Speaker 1: I've heard. You know, I'm just trying to understand now
Speaker 1: with John Solomon's big breaking news report, Danielle. And you know,
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of breaking news reports from John Solomon,
Speaker 1: but not the least of which is every single person.
Speaker 1: We had documented evidence that the Russian dossier of Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton was known to everyone before they put in the
Speaker 1: first FISA warrant. Everybody had a full, complete heads up
Speaker 1: that it was unverified and Hillary paid for it. It
Speaker 1: was tainted with bias because of Steele's rage and hatred
Speaker 1: to ards all things Trump, and it was political because
Speaker 1: he was demanding to get this out by election day
Speaker 1: before election day, So that would mean, as a matter
Speaker 1: of law that they presented false, unverified information to a
Speaker 1: FISA Court judge in their application. And remember it was
Speaker 1: McCabe that said no, there would be no FISA without
Speaker 1: the dossier, and they purposely lied to the FISA Court judges. Well,
Speaker 1: wouldn't that be committing fraud on the court. What's the
Speaker 1: penalty for that, Danielle, you're the constitutional expert. A couple
Speaker 1: of things. Number one, it was a dossier. It was
Speaker 1: intelligence collected. And Jonathan, you know as well as anybody
Speaker 1: that if B I M I six you collect information,
Speaker 1: you can't necessarily verify it, don't. You don't come to
Speaker 1: an investigative inclusion. But you collect information. That's the nature
Speaker 1: of the dossier. And as to the FISER Court, there
Speaker 1: was a footnote in that application that made it very
Speaker 1: clear that this was the information that was collected on
Speaker 1: behalf of a political opponent. The judge is the person
Speaker 1: that makes the determination about what weights to give what evidence,
Speaker 1: and we have those judges and they have lifetime to
Speaker 1: excuse me. It has when the FBI and James Comey,
Speaker 1: who signed the first FISER application, he is testifying that
Speaker 1: everything in that FISER application is it says at the top,
Speaker 1: verified and true. None of it was verified because it's
Speaker 1: unverifiable because the author of the dossier, in an interrogatory
Speaker 1: himself said he has no idea if it's true any
Speaker 1: of it. Well, because he was collecting information and the
Speaker 1: FBI did, but they you no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: Look play Rod Rosenstein. That's what Rod Rosenstein says about
Speaker 1: a FISER warrant when you presented to a FISER court.
Speaker 1: Let's listen to his own wor the way we operate
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice. If we're going to accuse
Speaker 1: somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and
Speaker 1: credible witnesses. We need to prepare to prove our case
Speaker 1: in court, and we have to fix our signature to
Speaker 1: the charging document. That's something that not everybody appreciates. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people
Speaker 1: that I see talking about it seem not to recognize
Speaker 1: what a FIES application. FIES application is actually a warrant,
Speaker 1: just like a search warrant. In order to get a
Speaker 1: FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a
Speaker 1: career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information
Speaker 1: in the affidavit is true and correct to the best
Speaker 1: of his knowledge and belief, and that's the way we operate.
Speaker 1: And if it's wrong sometimes it is. If you find
Speaker 1: out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going
Speaker 1: to face consequences. Okay, that's absolutely absolutely true. Okay, what
Speaker 1: are the consequences except they're testifying that they know it's
Speaker 1: true to the best of their ability. But we now
Speaker 1: know they were warned that it's an illegitimate document, warned
Speaker 1: it was political. They we now know it was unverifiable.
Speaker 1: So the fact is that that was a conscious effort,
Speaker 1: premeditated effort to commit a fraud on a FISA court
Speaker 1: to demolish the civil liberties of one American citizen and
Speaker 1: frankly the entire Trump campaign because through which Carter Page's
Speaker 1: FISA warrant they got into all things Trump campaign. So
Speaker 1: if they were trying to defraud the court. But Daniel,
Speaker 1: I d say this different one. There's a big said
Speaker 1: it's true. That's the point, Jonathan. There's a big difference
Speaker 1: between collecting information and creating the information that will be collected.
Speaker 1: See That's the thing that's being left out of Daniel
Speaker 1: statements is that they did collect information, but they also
Speaker 1: hired somebody to create that information. And so you can
Speaker 1: see with Peter Struck and the Democrat Party and even
Speaker 1: some Republicans hate Trump, there was a coordination between them
Speaker 1: and the people that created this dossier. And the way
Speaker 1: that dossier was passed over the top into the FBI
Speaker 1: and the DOJ and straight to a FISA court, there
Speaker 1: was none of that checking that Rod Rosenstein was talking about.
Speaker 1: It was just approval, approval, approval, approval. There was no research,
Speaker 1: make sure it's verified. I can't see where there was
Speaker 1: any of that. It was just approval, approval, approval, FISA.
Speaker 1: And basically what they did was a swore to an
Speaker 1: affidavit illegally saying it was real, it wasn't real, saying
Speaker 1: it was truthful, it wasn't truthful. Those were lies under oath,
Speaker 1: And then they went and got a federal warrant to
Speaker 1: spy on a president, all based on things that were created,
Speaker 1: not verified, but they were approved. No, you swear an
Speaker 1: affidavit to the best of your knowledge that the things
Speaker 1: contained with them, that application for a warrant are true.
Speaker 1: They were used reports and that fier application. You don't
Speaker 1: thing that the people had to go and we don't.
Speaker 1: We don't use news reports as facts. We go out
Speaker 1: the reason for the reasons there is the reason they
Speaker 1: were let me explain. There's a reason that news reports
Speaker 1: were in the fires the application, and they were to
Speaker 1: contradict things that carter Page had said privately. So they
Speaker 1: use news reports to show that carter Page was being
Speaker 1: inconsistent with his states that were pertinent to the nature.
Speaker 1: So that was shot. It was it was a public
Speaker 1: statement showed used to show that he was lying. Okay,
Speaker 1: that that he was lying. We don't use those and
Speaker 1: when we go to get a warrant, you don't use
Speaker 1: public opinion, you don't use hearsay, and you certainly don't
Speaker 1: use news reports. I mean that that is the way.
Speaker 1: The reason they did that is so they could verify
Speaker 1: the things that they were lying. I'd say checkmate today
Speaker 1: it is Jonathan, checkmate. These dead are accurate, all right,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and nine for one Sean, Thank you, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Danielle the training for the Olympics, Sir, see me,
Speaker 1: he's been underwater for more than fifteen minutes. It's gonna
Speaker 1: be a recovery, gonna rescue. Got it. They've done everything
Speaker 1: medically possible. There's nothing more. What you do? Please God
Speaker 1: send the spirit? Do you say must? I was ready
Speaker 1: to give up, but then I hear this voice is
Speaker 1: telling me go back, you better I'm nuts or Good's
Speaker 1: talking to you. All right, glad you're with us twenty
Speaker 1: four now till the top of the hour. You know.
Speaker 1: One of the things that's happening is Hollywood is losing
Speaker 1: its grip, their monopoly on their formulaic movies that you know,
Speaker 1: Oh how many more cartoon movies or Spider Man movies
Speaker 1: or Batman movies or Superman movies are Captain whatever America
Speaker 1: movies are they going to make? Or Jennifer Anniston falls
Speaker 1: in love again and then out of love, then gets married,
Speaker 1: then it gets divorced, then gets married again type of
Speaker 1: movies which we see all the time, and a lot
Speaker 1: of movies out. What's happening is you're seeing movies literally
Speaker 1: breakthrough pun intended. And one of them is a new
Speaker 1: film it's called Breakthrough, which is released was released April seventeenth.
Speaker 1: It's based on the true life experience of a teenager,
Speaker 1: John Smith, he fell through the ice of a Missouri
Speaker 1: lake spent fifteen minutes under frigid waters before first responders
Speaker 1: ended up recovering his then lifeless body. Mother never left
Speaker 1: his side, you know, praying and fasting that our some
Speaker 1: would come back, and it actually worked. It was number
Speaker 1: three in the nation this past weekend, holding strong against
Speaker 1: a lot of huge blockbusters, bringing in thirty three point
Speaker 1: five million, which is huge for an independent film and
Speaker 1: joining us now as the doucer and author Devon Franklin,
Speaker 1: Joyce Smith, John's mother and John Smith. John was fourteen
Speaker 1: when he drowned and was without a pulse for over
Speaker 1: an hour. He's now eighteen and headed a college, John,
Speaker 1: where you headed a college. I will be going up
Speaker 1: to North Central University to study to become a pastor
Speaker 1: this fall. Wow, Now, what do you remember about that day?
Speaker 1: You know, I really remember the ice cracking and you
Speaker 1: know that fireflight moment and our minds just you know,
Speaker 1: switching to you know, we're either going to die or
Speaker 1: we're going to live. And it did not look like
Speaker 1: we were going to live. We were trying to break
Speaker 1: the ice to get back to the dock. We were
Speaker 1: twenty five to fifty feet out. There was no way
Speaker 1: we could get back because there was so much ice
Speaker 1: in between us. I remember that shock of how just
Speaker 1: cold the water was, and you know, just trying to
Speaker 1: fight the waterline of my head going above and below water,
Speaker 1: as well as just the ice. Every time we would
Speaker 1: break a piece to try and float on, that would
Speaker 1: eventually break in the sharp edges of the ice would
Speaker 1: just pierce our skin. And that's honestly what I remember. Um,
Speaker 1: did you have any of the afterlife? A lot of
Speaker 1: people I would led ninety minutes in heaven and what's
Speaker 1: the name of heaven is real? And I've read a
Speaker 1: lot of books about people and dying, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of similar experiences. For example, people that their whole
Speaker 1: lives flash before their eyes. There's a tunnel, they're drawn
Speaker 1: to a light. Many often talk about choirs of angels,
Speaker 1: multiple choirs of angels singing simultaneously, but you have an
Speaker 1: understanding of all that is being sung, even though one
Speaker 1: earth that would be impossible to comprehend. Pearly gates, meeting
Speaker 1: relatives that have passed, any of that happened. No, we
Speaker 1: truly believe that if I would have seen heaven and
Speaker 1: the story would just be about me and break through.
Speaker 1: The story is about a family, you know, It's about
Speaker 1: Saint Louis coming together and praying for my for my
Speaker 1: the needs that needed to be met, and God just
Speaker 1: should have been provided in a way for all of them.
Speaker 1: And we truly believe that it's everybody's own encounter with
Speaker 1: this story rather than just my own personal encounter. No,
Speaker 1: pretty amazing, mom. I'm just assuming here for a minute
Speaker 1: that that was not a fun time in your life. No,
Speaker 1: when you get a telephone call telling me you that
Speaker 1: they just told your son out of the water and
Speaker 1: he has no heartbeat, that's a telephone called. No adult,
Speaker 1: no parent ever wants why were you so? Why did
Speaker 1: you have the faith that others maybe didn't have. I mean,
Speaker 1: what was because you? You apparently you know, you would
Speaker 1: not give up, You would not not believe in spite
Speaker 1: look a lot of medical data saying no way, this
Speaker 1: is going to happen. This kid's done, he's you know,
Speaker 1: it's too long. The odds of recovery is so high
Speaker 1: it's probably not going to happen. And you heard all
Speaker 1: of that. We were doing a Bible study at church
Speaker 1: by Bethmore called Believing God, and we've been about three
Speaker 1: weeks into it, and did the soul fast one if
Speaker 1: I remember right, didn't she do that? Pardon me? Didn't
Speaker 1: she also do one called the soul Fast? Yes, yes, okay,
Speaker 1: And it's just powerful and every morning we would repeat
Speaker 1: when we do at homework. I believe God iss so
Speaker 1: he says he is. I believe God could do what
Speaker 1: he says it can do. And I'm believing God. And
Speaker 1: so it was one of those moments either you believe
Speaker 1: what you're studying and going into or you don't. And
Speaker 1: I have always seen that God. It always been faithful
Speaker 1: all through my life. And so we were going to
Speaker 1: put him to his test at that point in time.
Speaker 1: You didn't need to test him. He was going to
Speaker 1: do it. And let's talk to you, I mean the
Speaker 1: von Franklin. I mean you really wanted this movie from
Speaker 1: everything I've read that you wanted this movie to be
Speaker 1: as close and as reflective of the real experience as possible. Yes, yes, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I mean you know, for me, this is what I
Speaker 1: live to do, you know, to be a part of
Speaker 1: Hollywood and bring true stories of faith to the big screen.
Speaker 1: That can play all around the world with the breakthrough story.
Speaker 1: For me, it's a movie, but for Joyce and John,
Speaker 1: it's their life. So it's really important to make sure
Speaker 1: that it was authentic and that this is something that
Speaker 1: they said, Yes, you got it right, and I'm so
Speaker 1: thankful that they did. And when audiences all around the
Speaker 1: world seeing this movie, they're being inspired, they're being uplifted,
Speaker 1: you know, by Joyce and John's story, and the fact
Speaker 1: that it is authentic just adds another level to the experience.
Speaker 1: You know. It's really interesting because I dipped my toe
Speaker 1: into the movie making business. I had a film that
Speaker 1: we put out called Let There Be Light that did very,
Speaker 1: very well, and I was, you know, particularly proud of it,
Speaker 1: and I thought I loved the product. But I go
Speaker 1: to and watched screenings and I'd see all these people cry.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've always said, and I don't know
Speaker 1: if you've seen the Christian film, I can only imagine
Speaker 1: I've watched it like five times based on that anthem
Speaker 1: Christian song. I thought it was a phenomenal movie. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: and something has happened. How long have you been in Hollywood, Divan,
Speaker 1: I've been in Hollywood since I was eighteen years old
Speaker 1: and I just turned forty one. So I've been in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: I started as an intern for Will Smith while I
Speaker 1: was going to college to USC and this it seems
Speaker 1: like a really cool guy. Am I right about that?
Speaker 1: You are absolutely right. He's even better in person than
Speaker 1: he is in the public. He's an incredible dude. Blessed
Speaker 1: to know him and be one of his minties and
Speaker 1: all that. And so yeah, I've been in Hollywood for
Speaker 1: twenty three years and definitely have seen a lot of
Speaker 1: change happen in the business where audiences are saying, we
Speaker 1: want more inspiration, want more faith, we want more God,
Speaker 1: we want more hope. But why is Hollywood so resistant?
Speaker 1: I don't want to focus that much on this, but
Speaker 1: it's it's almost like I think they've run themselves out
Speaker 1: of business. And because there's now so many content providers
Speaker 1: that are looking for good content, from Netflix to Amazon,
Speaker 1: Hulu and everything else that the monopoly Hollywood once had
Speaker 1: which rejected a lot of you know, either faith based
Speaker 1: movies or movies that you know were you know, pro
Speaker 1: America in a sense that you know, didn't have a
Speaker 1: political component. There was I think they had a belief
Speaker 1: that well people don't like those movies because these movies
Speaker 1: are kicking you know what, and they missed the boat.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, well, you know, a lot of it
Speaker 1: has to truly do with people in the business that
Speaker 1: have a passion for this type of content. You know, Hollywood,
Speaker 1: in my experience, you know, really does respond to that.
Speaker 1: So for example, you know, on the horror side, like
Speaker 1: Jason Blum is passionate about horror films, so he really
Speaker 1: goes to the studios and says, I've got to make
Speaker 1: these movies, and they give him the money to do it.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm passionate about films of faith, and I
Speaker 1: go to the studios and and to be honest, I've
Speaker 1: had no resistance. I mean, that's been the amazing thing.
Speaker 1: I've had no resistance to studios wanting to be in business.
Speaker 1: It's just a lot of times they don't understand how
Speaker 1: to do it. So it requires Lionsgate, is they did.
Speaker 1: I can only imagine Lionsgate seems to understand this phenomenon.
Speaker 1: They see and I don't know who did your film,
Speaker 1: but right Fox did, Fox, Fox twenty Century Fox, and
Speaker 1: then now Fox Disney with the Lions Gate situation they
Speaker 1: actually acquired I can only imagine after it was done independently,
Speaker 1: so Roadside Attraction was really the studio behind it, and
Speaker 1: then Lionsgate, you know, distributed it. And then now since
Speaker 1: the movie was so successful, they made a big overall
Speaker 1: deal with the Irwin Brothers, my good friends who made
Speaker 1: I can only imagine, and so now they have a
Speaker 1: big deal with Lionsgate. Lionsgate is gonna be making two
Speaker 1: faith based films a year through the Irwin Brothers imprint
Speaker 1: called Kingdom Films. And so we are seeing, you know,
Speaker 1: definitely the needle being moved in Hollywood around this content.
Speaker 1: And it really requires people like Bart, people like Joyce
Speaker 1: and John who are opening up their lives for us
Speaker 1: to be able to touch the world. Because both of
Speaker 1: these movies are true stories. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: you're seeing such an impact the box office. What was
Speaker 1: it like, John, because this is your life when you
Speaker 1: when you see the movie and the cut of the movie,
Speaker 1: what what? What are you thinking? Because I can only
Speaker 1: imagine from my advantage point if it was me. I mean,
Speaker 1: did you relive the experienced on a scale of one
Speaker 1: to one hundred, how accurate do you think the movie
Speaker 1: portrayal is of what really happened to you in life.
Speaker 1: I'd give it one hundred percent. You know, like Devon
Speaker 1: and Roxanne, their main goal is to keep this real
Speaker 1: and I think that was me and my mom's main
Speaker 1: mission as is that what we want people to see
Speaker 1: something that is real and that is honest and that
Speaker 1: is true. And you were big and you were there
Speaker 1: for a lot of this in terms of you consulted
Speaker 1: in the movie basically, right. I mean that that was
Speaker 1: one thing that was great about Van is we were
Speaker 1: always on the phone making sure that everything was one
Speaker 1: hundred percent honest and true. And that's what I really
Speaker 1: appreciated with him and Roxanne is that we just wanted
Speaker 1: to give the world something real. And you know, the actors,
Speaker 1: they shows and the portrayal of the film was just amazing.
Speaker 1: And everything that Marcell Ruiz, who played me in the
Speaker 1: film went through, I went through in real life and
Speaker 1: he captured me perfectly. So there are there's nothing I
Speaker 1: would redoum. I think the film is amazing and I'm
Speaker 1: excited that it is being shared with the world. When
Speaker 1: he finally woke up, well, first lest let me ask John,
Speaker 1: and then I'll ask you, mom um, what do you remember?
Speaker 1: What do you first remember when you woke up? You know,
Speaker 1: I remember, you know, seeing the hospital ceiling. I knew
Speaker 1: that I was in the hospital. I knew that I'd
Speaker 1: fallen in the ice, but I didn't know the extent
Speaker 1: of the miracle. I didn't know I was dead for
Speaker 1: an hour. I didn't know, you know, I was in
Speaker 1: a water for fifteen minutes. I didn't know any of
Speaker 1: the details of how severe the miracle. And you just
Speaker 1: you just remembered. I don't, maybe not even right away,
Speaker 1: that you had fallen in the ice. That's it, Yes,
Speaker 1: it was. It's it's really just ice, blackout, waking up
Speaker 1: in the hospital, and so I the only thing I
Speaker 1: really knew is that i'd fallen in the ice and
Speaker 1: that I was you know, I lost a lot of weight.
Speaker 1: But I didn't know until even we had the first
Speaker 1: responder service, which is months later. I didn't understand the
Speaker 1: extent of everything that was wrong with me. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: when did you first realize that this miracle occurred? Choice
Speaker 1: on your end? And that you know, sometimes people wake
Speaker 1: up and they have some they're incapacitated in some way,
Speaker 1: maybe lifelong challenges that they'd face, and look, how you
Speaker 1: know your son basically wakes up and said, can I'm dinner?
Speaker 1: Can I have lunch? I'm hungry, like like any kid
Speaker 1: would do. Right. Yes, when he woke up in and
Speaker 1: I thought it was interesting. He woke up on the
Speaker 1: third day, which I thought, I think is the timeline
Speaker 1: on this. He woke up on the third day, he
Speaker 1: took the ventil On the seventh day, he was moved
Speaker 1: to another unit. On the other subday walked out, And
Speaker 1: forty days after that he woke up. He was released
Speaker 1: from all doctors. But when he woke up, we'd been
Speaker 1: told that he was brain dead and that he would
Speaker 1: be a vegetable. But he woke up. We did an
Speaker 1: interesting little thing with doctor Garrett and asking him about
Speaker 1: basketball because that's his passion, and he was able to
Speaker 1: answer all the questions correctly and recognize people in the room,
Speaker 1: and it was everyone in the room was just in
Speaker 1: tears when it happened, because we were just in awe
Speaker 1: of the miracle that had taken place. How does this
Speaker 1: change your life? John? What do you want to do
Speaker 1: with your life now? How old you I'm eighteen years old,
Speaker 1: Ring it's her nineteen in about how you just starting
Speaker 1: college and congratulations, what do you want to do with
Speaker 1: this experience now that you've made this movie, etc. You know,
Speaker 1: I really just want to share to the world that
Speaker 1: godspel doesn't impossible and they got it still alive. You
Speaker 1: know you want to be a minister? Yes, yes, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of great men that have come to
Speaker 1: my license that have had significant impacting or continue to
Speaker 1: walk with me now. And you know, I just take
Speaker 1: the time that I spent working on this film, getting
Speaker 1: to watch Dvando his interviews, getting watched Devon to preach,
Speaker 1: watching you know, the executive producer, Samiy Rodriguez, you know
Speaker 1: him take me into his wing, and um, just show
Speaker 1: me the ropes and show me what I need to learn.
Speaker 1: You know that really puts a fire in my heart
Speaker 1: to can you continue to you know, just share the
Speaker 1: word of God with the world. And so with my
Speaker 1: this platform of break through, I really just want to
Speaker 1: go and one day when I'm um, God calls me
Speaker 1: to heaven. I really just want to know how many
Speaker 1: people I took to Heaven with me, and I want
Speaker 1: to know that my time on Earth was spent trying
Speaker 1: to bring as many people. If you ever get my sorry,
Speaker 1: but there, you'd be performing a bigger miracle than I
Speaker 1: will happen in your life. Um, I'm only kidding. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: I hear you laughing there a lot. Hey, I'm just,
Speaker 1: I'm just, I just. I'm speaking the truth. Brother, The
Speaker 1: truth will make you free. I know who I am. Um,
Speaker 1: well listen. It really warms my heart to be honest.
Speaker 1: This is a great story. It's now in movie theaters
Speaker 1: all over. It's called Breakthrough, and uh, I really, um,
Speaker 1: you should be so proud of this kid as I
Speaker 1: sure you. I'm sure you are joyce and proud of
Speaker 1: people like Devon that got it right and that people
Speaker 1: are being inspired by it. I don't think there's any
Speaker 1: greater calling. And I want to wish you all the
Speaker 1: best and thanks for being one of the fine Hannity
Speaker 1: Tonight nine Eastern Big Breaking News. John Solomon, Yeah, they
Speaker 1: all knew about Christopher Steele before the first FISA application
Speaker 1: was submitted. They knew it was garbage before it was submitted,
Speaker 1: and they did it anyway. The great one, Mark Levin,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Mitch McConnell, the Senate
Speaker 1: Majority Leader, will stop by and Damn Bongino and Mike
Speaker 1: Huckabee nine Eastern hope you'll join us tonight Hannity on
Speaker 1: the Fox News Channel. See you back here tomorrow