Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity radio show podcast. Hey, take control of
Speaker 1: your family's future with an a state Plan Bundle at
Speaker 1: legal zoom dot com. Now, whether it's a will or
Speaker 1: a living trust, you work with an independent attorney now
Speaker 1: available in forty eight states, on a plan that works
Speaker 1: best for you. And since legal zoom is not a
Speaker 1: law firm, well you're not gonna get charged by the hour.
Speaker 1: So get an a state Plan bundle at legal zoom
Speaker 1: dot com today. Just use Hannity one when you check
Speaker 1: out and save even more legal zoom dot com. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump mentioned Peter Schweitzer, the author of the New York
Speaker 1: Times bestseller Clinton Cash. He will be back on the
Speaker 1: program and later in the program. Today, we're learning a
Speaker 1: lot of new details as it relates to the Orlando shooter.
Speaker 1: He may very well have had an accomplice. And of course,
Speaker 1: our Attorney General is saying, our most effective response to
Speaker 1: terror and hatred is is love. We got surveillance video
Speaker 1: showing the terrorists shooting wounded people. Uh, we'll get to that.
Speaker 1: And of course the redaction idiocy I pledge allegiance to redacted.
Speaker 1: I pledge allegiance to redacted, and I'm sure he didn't
Speaker 1: say God. I'm sure. I'm pretty sure he said Allah.
Speaker 1: Considering we now know the redaction was the Islamic state,
Speaker 1: and may God no, I think it said Allah. And
Speaker 1: the administration as a history of removing Allah from when
Speaker 1: they have any type of interpretation out of the Arabic anyway,
Speaker 1: I pledge allegiance to omitted. I pledge allegiance to omitt it.
Speaker 1: And may God really Allah protect on behalf of omitted. Wow.
Speaker 1: All we need is love. That's all we need. By
Speaker 1: the way, recovered phones have recordings of the Orlando jihadi
Speaker 1: talking to co conspirators regarding tactic tactics. We have a
Speaker 1: Senate study that chose terrorists convicted in the US our
Speaker 1: first generation immigrants. We have an Orlando terrorist friend saying
Speaker 1: I contacted the FBI about this guy. Nobody paid attention.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna tell you the tragic story about a
Speaker 1: five year old girl raped by two migrants. Where is
Speaker 1: this out in Idaho? I mean, it's an unbelievable story.
Speaker 1: There's actually an eyewitness that saw the whole thing. Now,
Speaker 1: I say that to you on the very day after
Speaker 1: John Kerry went out public and John Kerry made the
Speaker 1: assertion on his own that in fact, migrants refugees making
Speaker 1: it through the screening process posed no greater risk than
Speaker 1: any other group. There is absolutely no evidence, my friends,
Speaker 1: zero evidence the refugees who make it through this arduous
Speaker 1: process it's any greater threat to our society than the
Speaker 1: members of any other group. And it is important to
Speaker 1: people to know that we need to remember the bigoted
Speaker 1: and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims plays right into the hands
Speaker 1: of the terrorist recruiters who propagate the lie. It plays
Speaker 1: into the hands of people who propagate the lie that
Speaker 1: America is at war with Islam, when in fact, there
Speaker 1: is no country on Earth where Muslims enjoy more freedom
Speaker 1: than in the United States of America. You know a law,
Speaker 1: luck about a law look athough. Yeah, the guy sang
Speaker 1: that next to John Kerry after he's done lyne to you. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not what our CIA director Brennan just said this week.
Speaker 1: That's not what our FBI director said. That's not what
Speaker 1: our assistant FBI director said. That's not what our State
Speaker 1: Department spokesman said. That's not what our U S director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence said, that's not what the former envoy
Speaker 1: to defeat isis has said. He's lying. What's the why lie?
Speaker 1: Why do these people lie? Zero evidence will tell that
Speaker 1: to the family of the five year old girl? Where
Speaker 1: was that rape? It was an Idaho, right, good grief.
Speaker 1: And what they do is they're sneaking them in this
Speaker 1: town and that town and that town, in this town
Speaker 1: and that town, and Hillary Clinton wants a five increase,
Speaker 1: and the numbers of refugees were having in spite of
Speaker 1: all of the intelligence officials. By the way, there were
Speaker 1: three kids, two of them raped the girl stripper down, naked,
Speaker 1: raped this little girl. We got an eye witness that
Speaker 1: actually saw it. And they got third kid is sitting
Speaker 1: there filming this girl being raped. Yeah, migrant immigrant, Excuse me,
Speaker 1: what did I say? I said that if one person
Speaker 1: dies as a result of Hillary and Obama's policy, they
Speaker 1: have blood on their hands. I hold them responsible because
Speaker 1: they're not listening to James Clapper, James Calwy, Michael Steinbeck,
Speaker 1: James Clapper, General John Allen, the House Homeland Security Chairman,
Speaker 1: and all these other people. They refused to listen to them.
Speaker 1: Here's an eighty nine year old woman eyewitness of a
Speaker 1: five year old getting raped. He's out there plan where
Speaker 1: the camera taking pictures, And I thought, is that kid
Speaker 1: never see a horse machine or something before? I'll go
Speaker 1: see what he's taking pictures for. And so when I
Speaker 1: went out there, there was trouble and the little girl
Speaker 1: and the boys. The boys were being mean to my
Speaker 1: little girl. When you opened up the door of the
Speaker 1: laundry room, what did you see the boaved with no
Speaker 1: clothes on a little girl. Huh? Did you Were they
Speaker 1: touching the little girl? Yeah? I guess so. They were
Speaker 1: doing enough that nobody wanted to be around her because
Speaker 1: they even pete on her. What did she say? Pete
Speaker 1: on her? Oh? My gosh, the urinated on the girl too.
Speaker 1: Oh excuse me if it's yeah, I do. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that on on radio. Thank you very much. Now,
Speaker 1: last night we saw the modern day Democratic Party of
Speaker 1: Barack Hussain Obama and Hillary Clinton on full display. Angry, petulant, radicalized,
Speaker 1: catering to radical groups like the Occupy movement, the Black
Speaker 1: Lives Matter movement, the Bernie Sanders movement. This is what
Speaker 1: happened when you what happens when you elect a guy
Speaker 1: that learned at the altar of communist Frank Marshall Davis,
Speaker 1: an olinsky Hite disciple, an acorn organizer that went to
Speaker 1: Reverend Rights Church for twenty years and started his political
Speaker 1: career in the home of Bill Ayres and Bernardine dorn
Speaker 1: to unrepentant domestic terrorists. And by the way, Hillary herself
Speaker 1: is also an Olinskyite disciple. Radicals, you know, in our
Speaker 1: own way. And so the Democrats they don't want to
Speaker 1: say radical Islam. They won't can they go through the admissions?
Speaker 1: You know, we can't say, well, I'm committed to hang
Speaker 1: on a second, i gotta get this right, because this
Speaker 1: you can't even make this stuff up. It's so dumb
Speaker 1: and so stupid. But you know, they're out there denying
Speaker 1: the most simple and the most basic parts of actually
Speaker 1: what happened here, and that is you have somebody that
Speaker 1: is sympathetic and says they're sympathetic to isis as long
Speaker 1: as you look at the non redacted version that is
Speaker 1: inspired by radicalism. And then their answer is, well, let's
Speaker 1: have more gun control, and our most effective response the
Speaker 1: terror is unity, compassion, and love. Loretta Lynch said, So,
Speaker 1: how does that result well, Democrats angry, they can't take
Speaker 1: away your weapons. Now, let me ask you a question.
Speaker 1: If you're in Sam Bernardino, God forbid and your watch
Speaker 1: this shooting unfold, and in both Sam Bernardino and Orlando
Speaker 1: at the Pulse nightclub, both you know in both instances
Speaker 1: the terrorists stop to reload. Well, that would mean somebody
Speaker 1: that maybe had a legal weapon in the ability to
Speaker 1: use it, that was in that room, had an opportunity
Speaker 1: to save lives. But of course, if you listen to Democrats,
Speaker 1: they were chanting last night, no bill, no break as
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan was calling for a vote, then they were singing,
Speaker 1: we shall overcome. The only one that had enough courage
Speaker 1: to step up and try and remind them it's radical
Speaker 1: Islamic terrorism was our buddy Louie Gomert. Let's play some
Speaker 1: of the madness from last night and the House Joint resolution.
Speaker 1: The Clerk will report the title of the joints of
Speaker 1: Resolution resolution by the condition to term the question is
Speaker 1: with the House and reconsideration passed the joint resolution, the
Speaker 1: objectives of the President to the contrary. Notwithstanding, the gentleman
Speaker 1: from Minnesota, Mr. Klein is recognized for one hour. Remember
Speaker 1: time poring over ride in present treat I held back
Speaker 1: about time rum the career. You sort of yields back.
Speaker 1: The question needs to day. No man is to break
Speaker 1: the bolt and a bread to the bay. And given
Speaker 1: the weakness of this arguments in this position, his fear
Speaker 1: is well founded. Time we'll debate on the issues prom
Speaker 1: talking him about radical the gun it's it's it's like
Speaker 1: we're becoming You ever see these countries where the legislators
Speaker 1: breakout and fist fights. It's this is what America is
Speaker 1: now descending into, now that the Party of Hillary and
Speaker 1: Obama have now taken complete hold. There used to be
Speaker 1: a time where there were moderate Democrats. Remember Joe Lieberman.
Speaker 1: They went after him. He actually was a liberal Democrat
Speaker 1: on so show issues, but he believed the national security
Speaker 1: and because of that they ran him out of the party.
Speaker 1: How to run independent to win and then he's still
Speaker 1: align with these people. I don't know why he did,
Speaker 1: but he did. Or you know, the school Jackson Democrats,
Speaker 1: blue Dog Democrats, they're all gone. Zell Miller years ago
Speaker 1: left the party. So you got this democratic sit in
Speaker 1: this whole gun control agenda. I think it's worth bearing
Speaker 1: in mind that you know, we've made points repeatedly on
Speaker 1: this program, and you know John lotspent on this program
Speaker 1: many times. You know, all of these mass killings, you know,
Speaker 1: from the Charleston killer, the Aurora killer to others, they
Speaker 1: choose as their targets the places that are what gun
Speaker 1: free zones. In other words, when they case out places
Speaker 1: they want to strike, they stay away from places like
Speaker 1: certain colleges and airports that have security that would make
Speaker 1: their killing spree far more difficult to achieve. And in
Speaker 1: the Aurora killer case, he chose the one theater that
Speaker 1: did not allow concealed weapons. And other mass killers we
Speaker 1: have learned after the fact, you know, mock the idea
Speaker 1: of gun free zones. You know, my point is that
Speaker 1: in the context of this madness that unfolded last night.
Speaker 1: If you haven't seen it, we'll show you on Annity tonight,
Speaker 1: is that the real aim should be to save lives
Speaker 1: rather than advance and ideology. You know, that's what they
Speaker 1: should be arguing for in many cases that would be
Speaker 1: concealed Carrie Permits, now, I'm telling you right now, I
Speaker 1: hope this never happens to you. And I said that,
Speaker 1: al right, Obama and Hillary they're insisting Hillary, especially, they're
Speaker 1: gonna bring in refugees that every single intelligence official in
Speaker 1: this country is warning against. We have a five year
Speaker 1: old girl raped in Idaho, we have this case in Orlando.
Speaker 1: Their answer is not to say the word words radical Islam.
Speaker 1: Their their argument is we can even We've got to
Speaker 1: redact the words of the terrorists because it's too offensive
Speaker 1: to let people know the actual truth about what this
Speaker 1: guy stands for. So they redacted. Okay, and the net
Speaker 1: result of that, the net result of their failed policies.
Speaker 1: You know, now we're gonna bring in five more. So
Speaker 1: does that mean that every rape, every murder, every crime
Speaker 1: by every refugee could have been prevented but for Obama
Speaker 1: and Hillary insisting that we take these people in and
Speaker 1: insisting and fighting to prevent you law abiding people from
Speaker 1: being being armed to protect yourselves. By the way, and
Speaker 1: I understand that many of you may choose not to
Speaker 1: be armed. I get that they are friends of mine.
Speaker 1: I go, you want to go shooting? No, I don't
Speaker 1: like to shoot? Okay, well I do, But you know
Speaker 1: what if something happens and my friends with me, they're
Speaker 1: gonna be it'sa Nardino I'm gonna do everything I can
Speaker 1: do to save their life. I'm gonna do everything. If
Speaker 1: I'm in the Pulse Nightclub, I'm gonna try and prevent
Speaker 1: as much pain for all those families that lost love ones.
Speaker 1: If I'm in San Bernardino, I'm gonna try and take
Speaker 1: matters into my own hands and stop terrorists as soon
Speaker 1: as they start reloading. I'm hiding, I'm coming out. I'm
Speaker 1: putting my laser on my clock forty right on their forehead.
Speaker 1: Probably i'd go for upper body mass. For those of
Speaker 1: you in law enforcement out there, don't worry. I am
Speaker 1: extremely extraordinarily well trained. I do have a laser because
Speaker 1: my sight is not quite as good as it used
Speaker 1: to be, but I can still shoot, you know, a
Speaker 1: pretty well, pretty effectively. You know, attention to detail is
Speaker 1: critical when you own your own business. That's why you
Speaker 1: need to use legal zoom dot com. Now. They take
Speaker 1: care of all the legal details so you can focus
Speaker 1: on growing your business. You already know that legal Zoom
Speaker 1: is a great way to start your business, and they've
Speaker 1: helped over one million people get up and started the
Speaker 1: right way. But there's more to running your business than
Speaker 1: getting started. Supplier and customer contracts come with the territory.
Speaker 1: And if you need to hire help, well, every state
Speaker 1: has its own employment laws, so don't spend your valuable
Speaker 1: time researching laws and reading small print. Let the experts
Speaker 1: at legal zoom dot com handle this. They have a
Speaker 1: network of independent attorneys licensed in forty eight states who
Speaker 1: know your local laws and regulations. They'll provide the best
Speaker 1: legal answers for your day to day questions. And the
Speaker 1: best part is you don't pay by the hour, since
Speaker 1: legal zoom is not a law firm. Instead, you pay
Speaker 1: a low monthly fee. You know exactly what you're getting
Speaker 1: up front. Go to legal zoom dot com today and
Speaker 1: spend your time growing your business instead of worrying about
Speaker 1: the legal details. Just use Hannity one when you check
Speaker 1: out and save even more legal zoom dot com. Alright,
Speaker 1: so we have some Supreme Court decisions I want to
Speaker 1: go or also breaksit the British exiting the European Union
Speaker 1: that uh. I know that maybe a lot of you
Speaker 1: are saying that's probably not at the top of your
Speaker 1: list the priorities of things to pay attention to, but
Speaker 1: it might be in ways that you don't imagine. I
Speaker 1: think Britain struggling like the rest of Europe with the
Speaker 1: Islamization and migration issues that they're facing. Let me actually
Speaker 1: I have some thoughts on this, by the way, So
Speaker 1: anyway breaksit is what it's known as, and British exit
Speaker 1: from the European Union, and I my belief is they're
Speaker 1: gonna leave. And if they do, I mean the polls
Speaker 1: are neck and neck. It would be a huge resurgence
Speaker 1: in British nationalism, almost what Donald Trump is trying to
Speaker 1: establish here in the US, and I think it would
Speaker 1: be a good thing. Now, the argument that if Britain
Speaker 1: leaves the EU it will be shut out from trade
Speaker 1: and other economies, it's just silly. But it has the
Speaker 1: fifth largest economy in the world and Britain standalone economy
Speaker 1: is very strong and they're gonna do just fine. And
Speaker 1: there's like no other nations that will shut them out
Speaker 1: if they leave the EU. Now, if Britain does leave,
Speaker 1: I suspect, as some have predicted that the markets could
Speaker 1: be spooked for the short term, but probably in the
Speaker 1: long term it will be better and stronger. And I
Speaker 1: don't think most people have any idea of the insane
Speaker 1: and crazy regulations that these bureaucrats and Brussels, you know,
Speaker 1: they make Obama look like Milton Friedman for crying out loud.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's suffocating, it's oppressive, and it's just been
Speaker 1: overwhelming in terms of anti growth for the economy of
Speaker 1: of all of the continent of Europe. But anyway, so
Speaker 1: I think Britain will do much better at standing on
Speaker 1: their own. But beyond that, this is really rooted in
Speaker 1: what we're discussing, and that's immigration. I mean, it's real,
Speaker 1: it's much worse than the US, and that is in
Speaker 1: part because of Britain's membership into the EU. For example,
Speaker 1: let's say you're Romanian, you get an EU passport, it
Speaker 1: you get to go to Britain and then you get
Speaker 1: access to everything in Britain. That means schools, their health
Speaker 1: care system, which has already overwhelmed the National Institute of Health.
Speaker 1: And by the way, they do have death panels in
Speaker 1: Great Britain. No, let's see your seventies six years old,
Speaker 1: you have exceeded the life expectancy. Oh, I'm sorry, you
Speaker 1: need a new hip. We can't afford to give it
Speaker 1: to you. Good luck. Here's a screw, here's a screwdriver,
Speaker 1: take care of it yourself. Uh, And that's how their
Speaker 1: system works. Anyway. Unemployment and everything else also overwhelmed, just
Speaker 1: like the rest of the world economy. And you know,
Speaker 1: it should be the US leading us out of all
Speaker 1: of this, and we're not. But so, it's an enormous
Speaker 1: financial burden placed on Britain and it's pulling it down.
Speaker 1: And it also impacts security and you know it's uh,
Speaker 1: it's scare tactics that are being used again by those
Speaker 1: that want this world government that you know, to pretend
Speaker 1: that Britain leaving the EU is gonna jeopardize security relationships
Speaker 1: that they have. Um No, that's not exactly what's gonna
Speaker 1: happen in any way, shape, matter or form. But again
Speaker 1: that's you know, typical of the left everywhere around the world.
Speaker 1: They're all pretty much the same, and that is they
Speaker 1: lie and they scare. And that's what Hillary is trying
Speaker 1: to do, scare everybody about Donald Trump. But that you know,
Speaker 1: Britain leaving the EU will jeopardize security relationships with nations
Speaker 1: like France and Germany. No, it won't. The US has
Speaker 1: great relationships with those countries and we're not involved in
Speaker 1: the European Union. But I hope the EU, if if
Speaker 1: not collapses, I hope that they lose significant influence. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna have any influence as I would have
Speaker 1: discussed this. I'm just interested in how this comes out.
Speaker 1: But I don't think it's good for Europe or America
Speaker 1: or the world order. And I think a weak Europe
Speaker 1: is bad for all of us. That's why the Islamization
Speaker 1: of France and Belgium and even Sweden and other countries
Speaker 1: in between, and Germany taking in all these migrants is bad.
Speaker 1: You know. That's why you have eighty eight separate Sharia
Speaker 1: courts just in Great Britain. That's why you have no
Speaker 1: go zones in France. And if Europe is weak and
Speaker 1: the EU is making European nations weaker and not stronger,
Speaker 1: that's bad for the world. And by the way, that's
Speaker 1: you know, these countries Britain, Germany, France, just to name three,
Speaker 1: are more powerful on their own. And why should the
Speaker 1: better run nations be financially responsible for those that are
Speaker 1: poorly run? Why should the Brits and Germans be obligated
Speaker 1: to bail out Greece or Spain if their governments overspend
Speaker 1: and mismanage their money, because you've had huge amounts of
Speaker 1: money being taken out of Britain and fees and regulations
Speaker 1: to take care of these poorly run nations, which take
Speaker 1: away the incentive for them to improve because they keep
Speaker 1: getting bailed out, and weak countries keep dragging down the
Speaker 1: stronger ones where it should be that the stronger one
Speaker 1: with their success. You know, it's a rising tide lifting
Speaker 1: all boats. Anyway. It threatens British sovereignty and I think
Speaker 1: is part of a larger effort by the left to
Speaker 1: weaken national sovereignty. They want the integration of these huge
Speaker 1: transnational organizations and I think in the end that's all
Speaker 1: part of the socialist dream. You know, the lyrics John
Speaker 1: Lennon song, Imagine, imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard
Speaker 1: to do nothing to kill or die for no religion too.
Speaker 1: Imagine all the people living life in peace. It sounds
Speaker 1: a lot like Laretta Lynch, we just gotta love, if
Speaker 1: we just love our way out of radical Islamism. It's nonsense.
Speaker 1: It's detached from truth. It's detached from reality and now
Speaker 1: and and it's detached from how we'se human beings, live
Speaker 1: our lives and how we develop our loyalties. We pledge
Speaker 1: allegiance to nations, not transnational entities, you know, to the
Speaker 1: United States, not the United Nations, although there are some
Speaker 1: that would love that to happen, and the British pledge loyalty.
Speaker 1: By the way, there will be a press at some
Speaker 1: point for the US to go into you know, we
Speaker 1: should bail out all of Africa, all of Asia, all
Speaker 1: of Europe. You know, we should bail out the entire world.
Speaker 1: And then we'd be poor too, like everybody else. We'll
Speaker 1: all drag down with each other. There was a significant
Speaker 1: movement at the courts today, the Supreme Court a four
Speaker 1: four tie blocking the president's illegal, unconstitutional executive amnesty, in
Speaker 1: which he sought to shield millions of people living in
Speaker 1: this country illegally from deportation. His answer was, Oh, the
Speaker 1: only differences between them and us that they just don't
Speaker 1: have the right papers, know the differences. They didn't obey
Speaker 1: the law. They're here, they're undocumented, they're illegal. They violated
Speaker 1: the law, and this president wanted to violate the Constitution,
Speaker 1: the precepts, the concepts of separate ration of powers, and
Speaker 1: coequal branches of government, and he didn't like the laws
Speaker 1: as they were written and signed into law by previous presidents,
Speaker 1: so he decided through executive FIATI was just rewriting on
Speaker 1: his own. Anyway, As a result of the decision, as
Speaker 1: many as five million undocumented immigrants will not be shielded
Speaker 1: from deportation or allowed to legally work in the US.
Speaker 1: So the four or four deadlock left in place and
Speaker 1: appeals court ruling blocking the ban. And what's important a
Speaker 1: note here is that the issue has less to do
Speaker 1: with the policy merits of Obama's decision than the fact
Speaker 1: that it was simply and transparently unconstitutional. And Obama himself
Speaker 1: had said so many times that he didn't have the
Speaker 1: authority to do that, but he did it anyway, no
Speaker 1: respect for the law, no respect for the constitution he
Speaker 1: sworn to uphold. So in this case, the federal appeals court,
Speaker 1: this was in New Orleans, said the administration lacked the
Speaker 1: constitutional authority to shield these eagle immigrants from deportation and
Speaker 1: make them eligible to work with work permits without approval
Speaker 1: from Congress. Now Texas, by the way, give him credit.
Speaker 1: They led twenty six Republican dominated States and challenging the
Speaker 1: program that Obama announced in November. By the way, the
Speaker 1: only reason this even went to the courts is because
Speaker 1: Republicans were too timid and weak to use the power
Speaker 1: of the purse, as they promised in the election to
Speaker 1: stop Obama's illegal, unconstitutional executive amnesty. So a nine justice
Speaker 1: court agreed to hear the case in January. By the
Speaker 1: time the arguments took place in late April, Anton and
Speaker 1: Scalia had tragically died, and that left eight justices to
Speaker 1: decide the case, and the court presumably split along liberal
Speaker 1: conservative lines predictably, i should say, and the court did
Speaker 1: not say how each justice voted, but I'm I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty certain. But anyway, had Scalia been alive, certainly
Speaker 1: would have voted with his fellow conservatives, and they would
Speaker 1: have formed a majority in favor of the dates, and
Speaker 1: that would have been significant, both because this is an
Speaker 1: issue Obama hoped would become one of his central legacies,
Speaker 1: and now it will not. The effort is effectively dead.
Speaker 1: And this also marked yet another time Obama has been
Speaker 1: slapped down by the Supreme Court for acting unconstitutionally. Almost
Speaker 1: exactly two summers ago, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that
Speaker 1: Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high level government appointments.
Speaker 1: Remember the recess appointments. I was back in when he
Speaker 1: declared that the Senate to be in recess even though
Speaker 1: they weren't in recess and unable to act on his
Speaker 1: nominations to the National Labor Relations Board. So what we're
Speaker 1: seeing unfolds is a system of government the founders designed,
Speaker 1: working as it's supposed to. The great insight of our
Speaker 1: federalist founders, people like James Madison, was the importance of
Speaker 1: separation of powers, checks and balance, says one branch of
Speaker 1: government checking the power of another. In this case, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, not for the first time, restrained and pulled
Speaker 1: back the unconstitutional acts of an American president who himself
Speaker 1: acknowledge what he was doing. Was he illegal and unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: He got a president that, in spite of what his
Speaker 1: own teachings tell him, repeatedly pushes the limits of power,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court slaps him right down on his
Speaker 1: knuckles saying no, no, you don't sorry. And today was
Speaker 1: a good day in that sense. And it's a good
Speaker 1: time as any to give thanks for the wisdom, the insight,
Speaker 1: the foresight of our framers and our founders who understood
Speaker 1: that people like Obama would rise and need to be restrained.
Speaker 1: By the way, there was another development today the third
Speaker 1: police officer in Baltimore, this time its officer Caesar Goodson.
Speaker 1: This is the guy that if they were going to
Speaker 1: find a guilty verdict probably would have been it. He
Speaker 1: was driving the police fan in which Freddy Gray incurred
Speaker 1: the fatal neck injury last April. Well now he was
Speaker 1: found not guilty of second degree depraved heart murder for
Speaker 1: by the Baltimore UH City Circuit Judge Berry Williams. Here's
Speaker 1: a guy forty six years old, found not guilty on
Speaker 1: charges of manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office, and reckless endangerment.
Speaker 1: He waved his right to trial by jury. His bench
Speaker 1: trial began June ninth. Final arguments were heard Monday, and Gray,
Speaker 1: year old Baltimore resident, Remember he ran from the police
Speaker 1: at eight in the morning, known as a drug dealer
Speaker 1: by the police officers, died of those injuries. Anyway, and
Speaker 1: then we saw what unfolded in Baltimore at the time. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we they ended up shackling this guy handcuffing this guy.
Speaker 1: They didn't have a seat belt. That's not the cops
Speaker 1: fault that the Patty wagon doesn't have a seatbelt. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the judge said that the evidence simply was not there.
Speaker 1: There was no way that Officer Goodson would have known
Speaker 1: that Pretty Gray was injured until the final stop at
Speaker 1: the Western District, and that's when a medic was called.
Speaker 1: The judge chided the state for using the term rough ride,
Speaker 1: saying it's highly charged, a highly charged term, and they
Speaker 1: failed to define it total slapped down. The prosecution's theory
Speaker 1: of this case did not fit the facts that they
Speaker 1: had presented to the judge, and he was troubled by this.
Speaker 1: According to w jay z's Helgred reporter, I find it
Speaker 1: hard to believe that he would convict any of the
Speaker 1: officers in any of the four remaining trials to come.
Speaker 1: So why are you gonna wait waste the people's money.
Speaker 1: But once again, just like in the Michael Brown case
Speaker 1: with their Darren Wilson, and just like the Trayvon Martin
Speaker 1: case and every other case, is this rush to judgment.
Speaker 1: They create the expectation in the minds of community members
Speaker 1: that there's going to be a certain verdict and result,
Speaker 1: and it never ends up working out that way. The
Speaker 1: President weighs in on Michael Brown and Darren Wilson, he
Speaker 1: didn't know that there are all these eyewitnesses that actually
Speaker 1: saw Michael Brown trying to struggle and grab Darren Wilson's gun,
Speaker 1: or all of the black eye witnesses that testified that
Speaker 1: Michael Brown kept charging right after Officer Wilson even though
Speaker 1: he told him to stop, or in the case of
Speaker 1: Trayvon Martin, somebody would look like his son. In that case,
Speaker 1: he didn't predict that there'd be an eyewitness that saw
Speaker 1: Trayvon grounding and pounding his head George Zimmerman's head into
Speaker 1: the cement. It's another example prosecutorial overreach, and it was
Speaker 1: obvious from the day was brought. And I told you
Speaker 1: from day one this was a likely outcome. So you
Speaker 1: see an overly aggressive of restless prosecutors trying to placate
Speaker 1: and politicize the case without evidence, overcharging looking stupid. In
Speaker 1: the end, the justice system in this particular case, in
Speaker 1: the person of Judge Williams, stepped in to prevent an
Speaker 1: injustice from occurring. But you know what, the net result
Speaker 1: of this is cops don't want to do their job anymore,
Speaker 1: the Ferguson effect, it's called the Baltimore effect. It's called
Speaker 1: they don't want to do their job. You know why,
Speaker 1: because they don't feel like risking their lives with a
Speaker 1: jury or a judge and the rest of their lives
Speaker 1: in jail, because they're being put up in a political trial,
Speaker 1: which is what this was, you know, sorry to say it.
Speaker 1: Blue lives matter. By the way, all the rush to judgment,
Speaker 1: don't cops who fight for the presumption of innocence until
Speaker 1: proven guilty. How come we don't give them that right?
Speaker 1: How come we don't stand up for their right to
Speaker 1: be presumed innocent? Anyway? Uh, where do you see this thing? Tonight?
Speaker 1: We're gonna show you about how crazy and saying the
Speaker 1: Democrats were. The whole episode is pathetic melodrama. Democratic party
Speaker 1: that has now been radicalized. Hillary Clinton gave China millions
Speaker 1: of jobs and our best jobs and effectively let China
Speaker 1: completely rebuild itself. In return, Hillary Clinton got rich. The
Speaker 1: book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweitzer documents how Bill and
Speaker 1: Hillary used the State Department to enrich their family and
Speaker 1: America's and at America's expense, she gets rich making you poor.
Speaker 1: Here is a quote from the book. At the center
Speaker 1: of US policy towards China was Hillary Clinton at this
Speaker 1: critical time for U S. China relations. Bill Clinton gave
Speaker 1: her a number of speeches that were underwritten by the
Speaker 1: Chinese government, and it's a orders. These funds were paid
Speaker 1: to the Clinton's bank account directly while Hillary was negotiating
Speaker 1: with China on behalf of the United States. Tell me, folks,
Speaker 1: does that work? She sold out our workers and our
Speaker 1: country for Beijing. Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest
Speaker 1: promoter of the Transpacific Partnership, which will ship millions more
Speaker 1: of our jobs overseas and give up Congressional power to
Speaker 1: an international foreign Commission. Now, because I have pointed out
Speaker 1: why it would be such a disastrous deal, she's pretending
Speaker 1: that she's against it. She's given and deleted, as you know,
Speaker 1: and most people have heard about this. Have we ever
Speaker 1: heard about her deleting anything? No, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: She deleted the entire record from her book, and deletion
Speaker 1: is something she really does know something about, because she's
Speaker 1: deleted at least thirty emails, which, by the way, shouldn't
Speaker 1: be handled to be sad. All right. That was Donald
Speaker 1: Trump our to Sean Hannity show. That was his big
Speaker 1: speech yesterday, a big takedown of Hillary Clinton. And he
Speaker 1: mentioned our friend Peter Schweitzer, author of the New York
Speaker 1: Times bestselling book called Clinton Cash, The Untold story of
Speaker 1: how and why foreign governments and businesses helped make Bill
Speaker 1: and Hillary rich. And he joins us right now, sir,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the program, Thanks for having me. And
Speaker 1: now you think about the things world class liar, the
Speaker 1: most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, perfecting the
Speaker 1: politics of personal profit and even theft. When she ran
Speaker 1: the State Department, she ran it like her own personal
Speaker 1: hedge fund, doing favors for oppressive regimes and many others.
Speaker 1: And you know, are we really talking over a thousand
Speaker 1: foreign donations going to the Clinton's over the years. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's a massive, massive, unprecedented circumstance in
Speaker 1: American political history where you have America's chief diplomat, the
Speaker 1: Secretary Estate, Hillary Clinton, and at the time she is
Speaker 1: making critical decisions, there is a flood of money. I'm
Speaker 1: talking hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to the Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation or ending up in the Clinton's pockets from foreign entities. Now,
Speaker 1: now think about that, Sean. I mean, we're used to, okay,
Speaker 1: Wall Street, oil companies, labor unions trying to influence our politicians.
Speaker 1: Foreign entities can't do that because they can't contribute to campaigns.
Speaker 1: They can't give moneies to superpacts. It's against the law.
Speaker 1: The Clintons established this mechanism around it. So the problem
Speaker 1: today is not Wall Street or oil companies in Texas.
Speaker 1: The problem is foreign oligarchs in Nigeria and Russia are
Speaker 1: giving sometimes more than a hundred million dollars to the
Speaker 1: Clintons while she's making decisions that affect their country. And
Speaker 1: I don't think most people know exactly what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: It's been a while. You've been way ahead of the
Speaker 1: curve when you when your book first came out. I
Speaker 1: know now it's out in DVD and video for arm
Speaker 1: and I'll tell people later how they can get it.
Speaker 1: But I think the most important thing we've got to
Speaker 1: understand here. You know, for example, she's at the State Department,
Speaker 1: fifty five million dollars she gives to a for profit
Speaker 1: university laureate university while her husband simultaneously is the chancellor
Speaker 1: getting paid sixteen and a half million dollars. Now, in
Speaker 1: the real world, that's a quid pro quo. That's illegal.
Speaker 1: You go to jail. But it's a massive conflict of interest, massive,
Speaker 1: all right. So the Clintons just in a two year
Speaker 1: period between them make close to fifty five million dollars
Speaker 1: in speeches. But where are the speeches we're talking about?
Speaker 1: It's Wall Street, it's big banks, insurance companies, lobbyists, CEOs,
Speaker 1: and foreign governments. How much money have they made from
Speaker 1: foreign governments? It's it's it's hard to estimate, it's hard
Speaker 1: to know. But but you're looking at tens of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars. And here's what people have to recognize, and
Speaker 1: common sense provides the guide. Here. Bill Clinton leaves the
Speaker 1: White House in two thousand one, and his speaking fees
Speaker 1: are pretty high, and they start to go time down
Speaker 1: over time because he's no longer as relevant. He's been
Speaker 1: out of office five or six seven years. When his
Speaker 1: wife becomes Secretary of State in late two thousand eight,
Speaker 1: his speaking fees from foreign entities triple overnight. So people
Speaker 1: that before she was Secretary of State, We're gonna pay
Speaker 1: him maybe a hundred and fifty thousand dollars of speech.
Speaker 1: Are now saying we want to give you five hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars for a single speech. You know, did he
Speaker 1: become three times more eloquent? Is? Is he? Sometimes three times?
Speaker 1: They get seven hundred and fifty grand from China? At
Speaker 1: some point he got seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: from a foreign company, Ericsson, that was in trouble with
Speaker 1: the State Department. We know that from State Department cables
Speaker 1: because they were selling telecom equipment to Iran. He gets
Speaker 1: her single biggest pay day ever, seven hundred fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars in a single speech from Ericsson. Literally seven days later, Sean,
Speaker 1: the State Department issues and says we're not going to
Speaker 1: apply technology restrictions to ericson. So, when Donald Trump said
Speaker 1: yesterday that hill Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of
Speaker 1: personal profit and and she ran a state department like
Speaker 1: her own personal hedge fund, doing favors for oppressive regimes, Well,
Speaker 1: in this case it's China. In this case, it's them
Speaker 1: doing business with Iran at a time when we have
Speaker 1: sanctions on Iran and it's her husband getting seven fifty
Speaker 1: grand and them overlooking what is a a violation of
Speaker 1: of what we had set out in terms of sanctions. Correct,
Speaker 1: that's that's exactly right. That's exactly right. And you see
Speaker 1: this pattern over and over and over again, whether it's
Speaker 1: human rights policy in Africa, whether it's a policy ins
Speaker 1: Latin America, you see the same pattern. It's impossible for
Speaker 1: them to be this many coincidence. So when I talk
Speaker 1: about money that was given by the Clinton given to
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation, to the Clinton Library from oppressive regimes
Speaker 1: that oppressed women, gays, Lesbians, Christians, and Jews, and up
Speaker 1: to twenty five million of the Clinton Foundation from the
Speaker 1: Saudi's ten million to the Clinton UH facility, the Library
Speaker 1: and Little Rock UH and they treat women, minorities, etcetera horribly.
Speaker 1: And the money from Kuwait and and the money from
Speaker 1: the UAE, and the money from Brunei, and the money
Speaker 1: from Cutter and the money from Oh Mom again oppressive
Speaker 1: regimes towards women, gays, lesbians, Christians, and Jews. She never
Speaker 1: criticizes them. They all take the money, and wouldn't it
Speaker 1: be really foolish to believe that they're not expecting something
Speaker 1: in return for those millions of dollars. What did they
Speaker 1: get in return that? You're exactly right, Sean, If you know,
Speaker 1: it's human nature. If if somebody comes up and says,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you a twenty five million dollar check
Speaker 1: for something that you believe in, the Clintons would say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: that's not going to affect our behavior. Of course, it's
Speaker 1: going to affect your behavior, and it's in the actions
Speaker 1: that they took or they didn't take. So you know,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton was certainly not a critic of of Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia and these other regimes in terms of their treatment
Speaker 1: of women, or or gays or or other group. She
Speaker 1: simply was not. And in terms of the policy positions
Speaker 1: that she took, they were highly favorable to those regimes. Well,
Speaker 1: let me tell you two things off the top of
Speaker 1: my head that I think that that she paid them back.
Speaker 1: Number One, we're still dependent on foreign oil. Meanwhile, we
Speaker 1: have more natural gas than the entire world combined. We
Speaker 1: are the Saudi Arabia or the Middle East of natural gas.
Speaker 1: We have the ability to be energy and dependent. New
Speaker 1: technologies and horizontal drilling would allow us to be energy independent.
Speaker 1: In three years. Add to that coal mining, add to
Speaker 1: that nuclear technology, all the things she's against. So one
Speaker 1: thing they're benefiting from is her being against America being
Speaker 1: energy independent. A second thing is they certainly seem to
Speaker 1: have bought her silence. I've done an extensive, exhaustive search.
Speaker 1: I don't see Hillary Clinton criticizing the mistreatment of gays, lesbians, women, Christians,
Speaker 1: and Jews in these countries that practice Shariah. So did
Speaker 1: they buy her silence here too? Well, you know, it
Speaker 1: certainly seems like it because you would expect her to
Speaker 1: be outspoken on those issues. She's been outspoken on those
Speaker 1: issues in other instances and and I think rightfully so,
Speaker 1: but not when it comes to these specific regimes. And
Speaker 1: you know, you have to wonder what is the connection
Speaker 1: between the two And and the problem that the Clinton
Speaker 1: defenders have is they want us to suspend disbelief. They
Speaker 1: want us to say that these regimes are shoveling this
Speaker 1: money at the Clinton's completely out of a sense of
Speaker 1: beneficent love. They just love the Clintons. They don't care
Speaker 1: what they get or do in return. That's not the
Speaker 1: way that these regimes operate. It's not the way that
Speaker 1: oligarchs in Nigeria or Russia operate, so they are sending
Speaker 1: large sums of money to the Clintons. They want things
Speaker 1: in a return. And the evidence is pretty clear that
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State took numerous favorable
Speaker 1: policies for all of these individuals that were sending her money.
Speaker 1: Why are they so fascinated with money and enrichment of themselves?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, at some point there's only so
Speaker 1: much money that anybody can spend them five lifetimes for
Speaker 1: crying out loud. But but it seems on their side,
Speaker 1: maybe it's because they didn't grow up with money or something,
Speaker 1: but you know, this is very obviously, very very important
Speaker 1: to them. But they keep getting money, they keep buying.
Speaker 1: They certainly influences being bought. If you look at all
Speaker 1: of the money that she was being paid on average,
Speaker 1: sometimes more so very rarely less two thousand dollars of speech.
Speaker 1: She required nothing less than a G for fifty, which
Speaker 1: is a nineteen seat jet by Gulf Stream UH for
Speaker 1: her travel to these events. And by the way, these
Speaker 1: events we're talking about, you fly from A to B,
Speaker 1: you go in, you do maybe a hundred clicks of
Speaker 1: a camera not everyone gets a picture. She you have
Speaker 1: to be a really high donor to get a picture.
Speaker 1: Then after the clicks, she gives a forty five minute
Speaker 1: speech or a thirty minute speech, fifteen minute Q and A,
Speaker 1: and she walks out the door, gets on the Gulf Stream.
Speaker 1: Now on top of that, she needs the Presidential Suite,
Speaker 1: and then she also needs additional air fair, first class
Speaker 1: air fair for her staff and people to get there early.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about a three hundred thousand dollar proposition
Speaker 1: just for her to give one hour speech. And and
Speaker 1: she's made for example, between twenty thirteen and fifteen, between
Speaker 1: the two of them, want to make close to million dollars. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. I mean the sums are astronomical. And again
Speaker 1: when you look at who is paying them and when
Speaker 1: they're paying them. I mean, you know, I point this
Speaker 1: out in the book, and Sean, we've talked about it.
Speaker 1: You know, the Keystone Xcel pipeline. Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary
Speaker 1: of State and Bill Clinton, for the first time ever,
Speaker 1: gets gets a contract to to give two million dollars
Speaker 1: worth of speeches in Canada for this investment firm. They
Speaker 1: had never expressed an interest in him speaking before suddenly
Speaker 1: they want him to give ten speeches for two million dollars.
Speaker 1: It's the largest shareholder in the Keystone Xcel pipeline. After
Speaker 1: he gives the last speech, three months later, Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: in two thousand eleven gives the green light and does
Speaker 1: the economic and environmental impact, the Secretary of State saying,
Speaker 1: I have no reason to to stop this project from
Speaker 1: going forward. So yeah, it's it's very very clear. It's
Speaker 1: repeated again and again. And you know the psychology of
Speaker 1: what motivates them, you know who knows the The argument
Speaker 1: though that the Clinton friends have it over the years
Speaker 1: that they're not motivated by money is laughable. They would
Speaker 1: not be doing what they're doing. And well, let me
Speaker 1: ask you this as they are, as you mentioned the speech,
Speaker 1: actually for a minute, by accident, had CNN on yesterday
Speaker 1: right after the speech, there's David Gergen, a liberal leftist
Speaker 1: hack for Hillary, and he basically accused Trump of slander.
Speaker 1: And you owe that book has been largely debunked, and
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, no, it hasn't. It never was debunked in
Speaker 1: any capacity. Although George Stefanopolis tried to do a hip
Speaker 1: piece on you. Uh, it shows how in the pocket.
Speaker 1: He still is for the Clintons. But I don't know
Speaker 1: that anybody debunked the truth of your book and the
Speaker 1: exhaustive research and footnotes that you put in that book. No, Sean,
Speaker 1: I mean, in fact, look and here I have to
Speaker 1: give some positive comments to to certain media outlets. Um
Speaker 1: The New York Times did a four thousand words from
Speaker 1: page piece on the uranium deal, confirmed what we found.
Speaker 1: Their investigative team Washington posted a front page piece confirming
Speaker 1: our stuff on Haiti about how Hillary's brother got a
Speaker 1: gold mine and other problems with Haiti reconstruction. The less
Speaker 1: free journal news division, Fox News, of course, even ABC
Speaker 1: News the investigative unit, confirmed a large portion of the findings.
Speaker 1: The real outliers here in the coverage of this book, frankly,
Speaker 1: have been NBC and CNN. They have had zero, zero
Speaker 1: curiosity of even asking people questions about this. Think about this, Sean.
Speaker 1: New York Times does a four thousand word front page
Speaker 1: investigative piece about the Clinton's getting a hundred forty five
Speaker 1: million dollars from shareholders involved in this Russian uranium deal.
Speaker 1: CNN has Hillary Clinton on repeatedly. They didn't ask her
Speaker 1: one question about this any other politician in America that
Speaker 1: had been subject to a four thousand word front page
Speaker 1: New York Times investigation, CNN would ask them repeated questions
Speaker 1: about it. CNN has zero curiosity on these subjects. They're
Speaker 1: they're too busy taking time out of Trump speed each
Speaker 1: to see if he breathes in deeply. That's the extent
Speaker 1: of their stupid coverage. Uh. You know the sad thing too,
Speaker 1: is I mean all these Wall Street corporations. You can
Speaker 1: look at Goldman Sacks, Goldman Sacs, Goldman Sachs, you know,
Speaker 1: all these big firms on Wall Street, big banks, big
Speaker 1: insurance companies. Um. Clearly, you know there's a report in
Speaker 1: the Politico the other day that Wall Street fact cat's
Speaker 1: warning Hillary, don't choose Loney Liz Warren for VP. Why
Speaker 1: won't you release the transcripts? What did she say? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean that's that's a great point. And look this
Speaker 1: this is the thing. If if you give a a
Speaker 1: you know, a politician like Hillary Clinton a hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars in cash, Uh, that could be construed as a bribe.
Speaker 1: But if you pay her two five thousand dollars as
Speaker 1: a quote includes speaking, see and she comes and gives
Speaker 1: a speech, and you're able to talk to her and
Speaker 1: communicate to her what you want and what you would like.
Speaker 1: It's buying access. That's exactly right, all right, I gotta run,
Speaker 1: But how can people get your DVD real quick? Uh?
Speaker 1: It's it's a look at a Clinton Cash movie dot com.
Speaker 1: And the book is also available as well. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. He's got their plan where the camera taking pictures?
Speaker 1: And I thought, is that kid never see a horse
Speaker 1: machine or something before? I'll go see what he's taking
Speaker 1: pictures for. And so when I went out there, there
Speaker 1: was trouble and the little girl and boy, the boys
Speaker 1: were being mean to my little girl. When you opened
Speaker 1: up the door of the laundry room, what did you
Speaker 1: see the boys with no clothes on a little girl? Huh?
Speaker 1: Did you were they touching the little girl? Yeah? I
Speaker 1: guess so. They were doing enough that nobody wanted to
Speaker 1: be around her, because they even did on her. And
Speaker 1: I know that the LGBTQP community in particular has been
Speaker 1: shaken by this attack. It is indeed a cruel irony
Speaker 1: that a community that is defined almost exclusively by whom
Speaker 1: they love is so often a target of hate and
Speaker 1: let me say to our LGBT friends and family, particularly
Speaker 1: to anyone who might view this tragedy as an indication
Speaker 1: that there I identities that their essential selves might somehow
Speaker 1: be better left unexpressed or in the shadows. This Department
Speaker 1: of Justice and your country stands with you. In the light.
Speaker 1: We stand with you to say that the good in
Speaker 1: this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity
Speaker 1: transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to
Speaker 1: terror and to hatred is compassion, to unity, and its love.
Speaker 1: All right, That was Lauretta Lynch. Our most effective response
Speaker 1: to terror and to hatred is love. It's compassion. You know.
Speaker 1: The idea that compassion and love will defeat radical Islamic
Speaker 1: terrorists that are sliding a slicing people's throats and terrorizing
Speaker 1: all of us and bombing and killing innocent men, women
Speaker 1: and children and going into nightclubs and shooting them up,
Speaker 1: you know, is beyond anything I have ever heard in
Speaker 1: terms of its ignorance. And I said this yesterday. Just
Speaker 1: just imagine Winston Church of Tiles sweat and tells will
Speaker 1: beat them here, We'll beat them in the hills, will
Speaker 1: beat them in the land. On sea and in the
Speaker 1: Ah he was a hero or FDR's response to the
Speaker 1: Japanese at Pearl Harbor. You know, I just cannot believe
Speaker 1: the mindset, the same mindset that redacted this guy saying
Speaker 1: Allah and they put in the word God as the interpretation,
Speaker 1: which is a lie, or the same mindset. I I
Speaker 1: am a committed soldier of ISIS and they redact ISIS
Speaker 1: because they don't want to offend uh quote the Muslim community.
Speaker 1: It's not the Muslim we're talking about radical Islam as
Speaker 1: they want to kill us. Now the tape you heard before,
Speaker 1: that was an eye witness. And there is a case
Speaker 1: where five year old girl was literally raped by migrant
Speaker 1: boys apparently Muslim in America, and the media's response, their
Speaker 1: first instinct is to dismiss the story and label local
Speaker 1: residents racist and bigots and islamophobes. You know, it's sort
Speaker 1: of like the don't ask, don't tell doctrine on the
Speaker 1: refugee follows becoming just a little too routine. Five year
Speaker 1: old girl sexually assaulted in a laundry room by two
Speaker 1: refugee boys as a third boy looks on and film
Speaker 1: the attack. Nine year old neighbor saw suspicious activity approach
Speaker 1: the area and was the one eye witness that described
Speaker 1: what actually happened there. And that's what you just heard.
Speaker 1: You know. You can add to this the stupidity of
Speaker 1: the the comments of John Kerry just the other day.
Speaker 1: There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is a threat,
Speaker 1: zero evidence refugees making it through the US screening process
Speaker 1: pose a greater risk than other groups. Well that's not
Speaker 1: what the CIA director said, the FBI director said, the
Speaker 1: assistant FBI Director for er Special Amboid to defeat IS
Speaker 1: has said. The House Homeland Security Committee chair said, or
Speaker 1: anybody else, there is a great threat. We saw it
Speaker 1: in Belgium. He saw it in Brussels, we saw it
Speaker 1: in Paris. So what's it gonna take? Unbelievable? Joining us now,
Speaker 1: Rich Higgins, vice President Intelligence National Security Program's former manager
Speaker 1: with the Department of Defense Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office
Speaker 1: and Irregular Warfare Support Program. And Pam Geller is the
Speaker 1: president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and editor and
Speaker 1: publisher of Atlas Shrugs. And welcome both of you back
Speaker 1: to the program. Appreciate you being will us. You know,
Speaker 1: there's one of the things that I didn't mention here.
Speaker 1: Apparently some of the recovered phones from the nightclub in
Speaker 1: Orlando Pulse have recordings of the jihadi UH talking to
Speaker 1: a co conspirator regarding tactics. We do know during the
Speaker 1: attack that he stopped to see if he was trending
Speaker 1: on social medi media. We do know during the attack
Speaker 1: that he contacted his wife, and we don't know where
Speaker 1: she is right now. Um, is there a co conspirator here?
Speaker 1: I saw this on your website, Pam Well. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the latest bombshell coming out of the Orlando
Speaker 1: gehat attack, and it's consistent with the obfuscation, the scrubbing,
Speaker 1: and the whitewashing of this worst terrorist attack since nine eleven. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know. And it's coming from the victims. You know,
Speaker 1: they said they recorded it on their phones. So you
Speaker 1: have a massive intel failure you have, as you know,
Speaker 1: I think it was a relative of yours, a gunshop
Speaker 1: owner who had called the FBI when he had tried
Speaker 1: to purchase weapons at his shop. They never even came
Speaker 1: down to the store. You have Disney. You have Disney
Speaker 1: who called the FBI saying that he and his wife
Speaker 1: had been casing Disney. He'd been sharing nine eleven uh
Speaker 1: in school. He has a history not one, but two
Speaker 1: FBI investigations, one that was quashed when he said that
Speaker 1: the co workers that he had threatened and said he
Speaker 1: was a member of an Islamic jihad group. He said,
Speaker 1: they will quote on islamophobic and they killed that investigation.
Speaker 1: This is a massive intel failure. I don't know why
Speaker 1: the Obama administration wants Americans to die. There were more
Speaker 1: red flags here than a China National Day parade. I
Speaker 1: keep saying this whole thing. Now, Rich, I had you
Speaker 1: on with Phil Hainey and both both of your ore whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: Now yours was a little bit different. He was part
Speaker 1: of the Department of Homeland Security formation, and when Obama
Speaker 1: became president, both of you talked about a scrubbing of
Speaker 1: the names that you had acquired over a long period
Speaker 1: of time of Muslims associated with radicalism, and those names
Speaker 1: were then scrubbed. But when you worked in irregular warfare
Speaker 1: support programs, aren't we really talking about special ops? Aren't
Speaker 1: we talking about covert operations? Plausible deniability? Exactly? Sean, and
Speaker 1: I think what we saw in there was not just
Speaker 1: Phil scrubbing of names but the systematic removal of anything
Speaker 1: pertaining to Islam at the at the strategic intelligence, at
Speaker 1: the policy levels, where we couldn't even say Islam, we
Speaker 1: couldn't talk about Muslim, we couldn't say, well, hang on
Speaker 1: a side, why will you could not say radical Islam
Speaker 1: at the state, at the Department of Defense, at levels
Speaker 1: in the Pentagon where the where the political sphere meets
Speaker 1: the operational sphere, anywhere that touched off limits. So what
Speaker 1: you'll see as national military strategies, national security strategies that
Speaker 1: use this obdus skating term violent extremism, which if you
Speaker 1: really ask what that is, it collapses into nothing. And
Speaker 1: I think I would probably, as a former soldier, be
Speaker 1: defined as a violent extremist. I and you, meanwhile, we
Speaker 1: had the names of terrorists or known terrorists, known uh people,
Speaker 1: known sympathizers of terrorism in your database and you were
Speaker 1: told and forced to erase their names that that was
Speaker 1: Phills a specific story, and it's it's well, tell us
Speaker 1: your specific tell us your specific story. I don't want
Speaker 1: to put words in your mouth. My specific story is
Speaker 1: as someone who wanted to work on this issue, you
Speaker 1: charged with developing capabilities to combat and terrorism. We wanted
Speaker 1: to build a robust understanding of how Islam at the
Speaker 1: doctrinal level functions, understanding that jihad is part of Islam
Speaker 1: and the solutions to stopping the jihad are also inside Islam.
Speaker 1: But we were prohibitive from even looking in there. Anyone
Speaker 1: who did the diligence to understand this at at a
Speaker 1: at a at a level that you could actually interpret
Speaker 1: the deliberate decision making process of our enemy was quashed
Speaker 1: by the system, hunted down and pushed out of the
Speaker 1: system actively. So while we play lip service to understanding
Speaker 1: the threat doctrine, we don't actually understand it. Our jungles
Speaker 1: are saying, we don't have a strategy, We're wasting trillions
Speaker 1: of dollars. And you know, my commentates to Attorney General Lynch,
Speaker 1: how about some compassion for your fellow Americans, you know,
Speaker 1: how about putting Americans first? You know this is where
Speaker 1: where Donald Trump is right. Well, so you're you're describing
Speaker 1: a Department of Defense that are so politically correct, we
Speaker 1: can identify an enemy. You're you're you're talking about major
Speaker 1: failings on just a surface level. And this is supposed
Speaker 1: to supposed to be covert ops um that can't even
Speaker 1: be put into place because of political correctness. And then
Speaker 1: Phil Haney is describing a scrubbing of names that have
Speaker 1: been developed by agents out in the field for years
Speaker 1: and years, and just you know, why are we not
Speaker 1: surprised that events like what happened in Orlando we don't
Speaker 1: have more of it now? Pam, you had written a
Speaker 1: column about how the Orlando terrorist friend had contacted the
Speaker 1: FBI directly about this guy ahead of time, and and
Speaker 1: and they never followed up. Look, this is ongoing. There
Speaker 1: are very bad people out there, and we know, I
Speaker 1: know from readers that have been contacting the FBI. They
Speaker 1: do not follow up. This is not their own initiative.
Speaker 1: This is coming from on high. The idea that the
Speaker 1: Attorney General would say love and compassion will defeat you
Speaker 1: hot is chat amount to saying we must surrender. And
Speaker 1: it's not that just these agregious, gruesome, ghastly attacks. The
Speaker 1: story of that little girl, the five year old girls, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, was special need in Idaho. Idaho should
Speaker 1: be the clarion call. Idaho should be the clarion call
Speaker 1: of every suburban mom out there. Idaho should be Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's clarion call on immigration. Five year old special needs
Speaker 1: girls who was smaller for her aide, so she was
Speaker 1: smaller than five okay, who was stripped naked, who was
Speaker 1: urinated on and in her mouth, and rape and the meeting.
Speaker 1: When I first reported the story, one of one of
Speaker 1: two or three um Um websites that reported it, we
Speaker 1: came under enormous criticism, you know, visceral attacks by the
Speaker 1: left that the story didn't happen. And then when of
Speaker 1: course it did happen, because you heard the eye witness
Speaker 1: um they said we got the story wrong because we
Speaker 1: had said, and this I had gotten from someone who
Speaker 1: was there, uh Syrian refugees. But they were from Iraq
Speaker 1: and Sudan. That's like saying we got their sock color wrong.
Speaker 1: It's not an issue of whether they were from Syria
Speaker 1: or Iraq or Sudan, Afghanistan. They're from jihad nations. And
Speaker 1: this is exactly the kind of immigration that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: wants to halt, and that we must halt, I mean
Speaker 1: our special needs to where did they come from? These people?
Speaker 1: Iraq and Sudan. Now you know Sudan more than Sudan
Speaker 1: is wait. But John Kerry, I just read you what
Speaker 1: he had said. I mean, John Kerry said, there's no evidence,
Speaker 1: zero evidence refugees pose greater risk than other groups because
Speaker 1: they're imposing, they have santasist narrative on the American people,
Speaker 1: and they know that the media is going to run
Speaker 1: it verbatim without questioning, and they do, which is why
Speaker 1: so many, at least half of the American people are misinformed.
Speaker 1: But this story, I think is a game changer. If
Speaker 1: our special needs children are not safe, no one is safe.
Speaker 1: Who we I mean, who in the media Europe. Who
Speaker 1: in the media is focusing on this five year old,
Speaker 1: this five year old girl in the rape case. I'll
Speaker 1: be honest. I searched the news exhaustively every day, and
Speaker 1: I didn't see it my own. My producer Linda pointed
Speaker 1: it out to me, like, how did I miss this? Why?
Speaker 1: Why wasn't this posted everywhere? It wasn't. I'll tell you
Speaker 1: who posted It's Alan posted with this headline, no Syrian
Speaker 1: refugees didn't rape a child in Idaho. Right wing urban
Speaker 1: blog blah blah blah. Jezebel posted no Syrian refugees didn't
Speaker 1: rape a child in Idaho. The Inquisitor Syrian refugees didn't
Speaker 1: gang rape a five year old raw story, Idaho prosecute
Speaker 1: anti Muslim Bigott made up shocking gang rate. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of media that people are getting. And that's why
Speaker 1: what we do and what you do showan is so
Speaker 1: crucial what we do on Facebook. Look, in the wake
Speaker 1: of the Orlando gihad, Facebook took down my page and
Speaker 1: took down Stop Islamization of America fifty I have over
Speaker 1: fifty thousand members and my own page has three and
Speaker 1: fifty thousands of followers. I mean, there is a there
Speaker 1: is a considered effort by the leftist Islamic machine to
Speaker 1: shut down any discussion it accordance with Well, look at
Speaker 1: look at what the Attorney General did this week. You
Speaker 1: know that they released the transcripts. I pledge allegiance to Omitted,
Speaker 1: pledge allegiance to Omitted. May God, and I guarantee you
Speaker 1: it wasn't God, that it was Allah protect him on
Speaker 1: behalf of Omitted. And then she says, our most effective
Speaker 1: response to terror and hatred is compassion and its love surrender.
Speaker 1: Look the very first words he uttered on his first
Speaker 1: nine one one called was the Bismala was Allah the
Speaker 1: merciful the beneficent, the same bismala that they made over
Speaker 1: Daniel Pearl when they beheaded him, when they made over
Speaker 1: James Foley, when they behead every infidel, every non Muslim,
Speaker 1: every heretic, every apost state, every homosexual. Let me, let
Speaker 1: me give the last word up to our good friend
Speaker 1: rich Richard's pretty scary. I mean, this is a state
Speaker 1: of denial. It's sort of like the nine eleven Commission
Speaker 1: report there at war with us. We're not award them
Speaker 1: and a new report will be written after thousands are
Speaker 1: killed again. Sean, we've become dislocated from reality. One last
Speaker 1: anecdote for you. Just in the past couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: we saw as Twitter moved to shut down in the
Speaker 1: United States intelligence community's access of their account, there was
Speaker 1: a program run called Dana Minor. We also look back
Speaker 1: and we'll see that Prince Walid been tallal, the bell occurrences,
Speaker 1: Audi Arabia, probably the most prominent fiscal jihadi in the world,
Speaker 1: the guy who offered ten million dollars to Giuliani. He's
Speaker 1: now a large, large majority owner inside Twitter corporation. And
Speaker 1: we see where these decisions leave the amount of influence
Speaker 1: that these guys have inside the United States government, inside
Speaker 1: the deliberate decision making process of our national security apparatus
Speaker 1: has compromised our national security apparatus. You're basically saying we're screwed.
Speaker 1: We're in deep trouble. Shawn. I'm not gonna lie to you,
Speaker 1: all right. I wish I had better news, I don't.
Speaker 1: More than seven hundred and thirty thousand lives have been
Speaker 1: changed as a result. These are students, their teachers, their doctors,
Speaker 1: their lawyers. They're Americans in every way but on paper.
Speaker 1: And fortunately, today's decision does not affect this policy. It
Speaker 1: does not affect the existing Dreamers. Two years ago, we
Speaker 1: announced similar expanded approach for others who are also low
Speaker 1: priorities for enforcement. We said that if you've been in
Speaker 1: America for more than five years with children who are
Speaker 1: American citizens or legal residents, then you two can come forward,
Speaker 1: get right with the law, and work in this country
Speaker 1: temporarily without fear of deportation. Both were the kinds of
Speaker 1: actions taken by Republican and Democratic presidents over the past
Speaker 1: half century. Neither granted anybody a free pass. All they
Speaker 1: did was focus our enforcement resources, which are necessarily limited,
Speaker 1: on the highest priorities, convicted criminals, recent border crossers, and
Speaker 1: threats to our national security. This is an election year,
Speaker 1: and during election years, politicians tend to use the immigration
Speaker 1: issue to scare people for words like amnesty and hopes
Speaker 1: that a will whip up votes. Keep in mind, the
Speaker 1: millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this
Speaker 1: country with ancestors put in the painstaking effort to become citizens.
Speaker 1: And we don't like the notion that anyone might get
Speaker 1: a free pass to American citizenship. But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Millions of people who have come forward and worked to
Speaker 1: get right with the law under this policy, they've been
Speaker 1: living here for years too, in some cases even decades,
Speaker 1: So leaving the broken system the way it is, that's
Speaker 1: that's not a solution. In fact, that's the real amnesty.
Speaker 1: Pretending we can deport eleven million people or build a
Speaker 1: wall without spending tens of billions of dollars a taxpayer
Speaker 1: money is a betting. What is really just factually incorrect.
Speaker 1: It's it's not gonna work, it's not good for this country.
Speaker 1: It's a fantasy that offers nothing to help the mental
Speaker 1: class and demeans our tradition of being both a nation
Speaker 1: of laws and a nation of immigrants. All right, that's
Speaker 1: the President responding today to the Supreme Court of four
Speaker 1: or four split on the challenge to the president's immigration
Speaker 1: executive action, which we've all said from the beginning is
Speaker 1: illegal and unconstitutional because he's bypassing laws that were passed
Speaker 1: by previous congresses and through executive fiat, just rewriting the
Speaker 1: law as he decides he wants to write it. Now,
Speaker 1: the decision is not a full opinion, but just at
Speaker 1: one sentence line that says the judgment is affirmed by
Speaker 1: an equally divided court, and what that means is the
Speaker 1: fate of the president's immigration programs hinge on the next election.
Speaker 1: In other words, this lawsuit started the US versus Texas,
Speaker 1: and it had been brought by twenty six states, led
Speaker 1: by Texas, objecting to the administration's executive actions that should
Speaker 1: have could have shielded millions of undocumented workers or as
Speaker 1: the President say says, they're American in every way, but
Speaker 1: on paper. Uh, that would mean they're here illegally on paper. Anyway.
Speaker 1: We've got that, We've got the Supreme Court upholding affirmative
Speaker 1: action in university admissions and a lot of other court
Speaker 1: rulings were that we'll get to as well. Also, we
Speaker 1: have the third officer in the Fretty Gray case acquitted
Speaker 1: once again. How could they be so wrong after so
Speaker 1: many people had their hopes driven so high that they
Speaker 1: expected convictions for all of these police officers all right
Speaker 1: here to weigh in on all of this, Danielle McLaughlin,
Speaker 1: attorney expert, and co wrote The Federal Society How Conservatives
Speaker 1: took the law back from Liberals. J Sekulo is the
Speaker 1: Chief council for the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay,
Speaker 1: let's talk first about how this four four tie ostensibly
Speaker 1: blocks Obama's executive action on immigration. Well, it does, at
Speaker 1: least for now. The decision of the court basically affirms
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit said that the President
Speaker 1: violated what it's called the separation of powers, that he
Speaker 1: did not have the authority to change the law on
Speaker 1: his own, that that was an executive overreach the president.
Speaker 1: You played the sound there and where the President says
Speaker 1: they are Americans in every way but on paper. But
Speaker 1: that but on papers really important because if you don't
Speaker 1: have legal papers to be in the United States, of America.
Speaker 1: Guess what, You're not here legally, So that that's one
Speaker 1: significant aspect. Number two, it does highlight that the next
Speaker 1: presidential election because we know they're the vacancy. Look, Sean,
Speaker 1: if if if Justice Scalia had not been deceased, we
Speaker 1: would have had a five four merits win and it
Speaker 1: would have ended the case period. I still think I'd
Speaker 1: rather be four four tied than on the other end losing,
Speaker 1: but five justices would have made a fifth justice would
Speaker 1: have made a difference. So the death of Justice Scalia
Speaker 1: highlights what is at stake in the next presidential election,
Speaker 1: at least as it relates to the courts, and that's
Speaker 1: a big issue. What do you make about the other
Speaker 1: decisions up today, Well, the the case involving the admissions requirement.
Speaker 1: People are saying this was a big win for affirmative action,
Speaker 1: but they need to read the opinion because even in
Speaker 1: the majority opinion, there is clearly an indication that this
Speaker 1: kind of preferential treatment needs to be constantly re evaluated
Speaker 1: and probably brought to an end sooner rather than later.
Speaker 1: So again, you know it splintered courts, here's what you're
Speaker 1: gonna have. But I wasn't shocked with this one in
Speaker 1: the nature of the case, but I think it even
Speaker 1: even the majority opinion, there is some concern where it
Speaker 1: ends up ultimately on affirmative action. I think affirmative action
Speaker 1: has has probably seen its day, and it may be
Speaker 1: a case or two way because generally they've been gutted
Speaker 1: pretty successfully over the last couple of years. So this
Speaker 1: breathed a little bit of life into it, but I
Speaker 1: don't think life so long. I let's say one other
Speaker 1: things shown this immigration thing, which is big. The President
Speaker 1: kept threatening to use his phone and his pen, and
Speaker 1: I think what even this four four split did was
Speaker 1: showed that his pens out of ink and his phone
Speaker 1: ran out of battery. Because he's not gonna be able
Speaker 1: to between now and the end of his term. He
Speaker 1: can't do this again. Let me bring Danielle in here.
Speaker 1: Danielle on these two big issues on the four or
Speaker 1: fourth tie and the affirmative action case being upheld and
Speaker 1: admissions your thoughts. You know, I'm actually largely in agreement
Speaker 1: with j on his analysis, certainly. So first we go
Speaker 1: to the data case, which is the immigration case, you know,
Speaker 1: the upholding of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals really
Speaker 1: did say that the administration didn't follow what it was
Speaker 1: required to do administratively, and part of that was a
Speaker 1: notice and comic period when ordinary people were meant to
Speaker 1: be able to come and put their thoughts forth about
Speaker 1: what the signal. Actually, I actually read it a little differently.
Speaker 1: I mean what I think it's very clear that this
Speaker 1: was about if you go to the earlier court decision,
Speaker 1: this was about separation of powers and coequal branches of government.
Speaker 1: And the president doesn't unilaterally have a constitutional writer a
Speaker 1: legal right to rewrite laws on his own. No, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I don't disagree. And actually the second part of that
Speaker 1: was that the court had said that the i n S.
Speaker 1: Immigration and Naturalization Service in the statutory basis for that,
Speaker 1: you know, that agency that overrides the president's power here. So,
Speaker 1: and I think Obama admitted it himself. He has reached
Speaker 1: the limits of his power. The court has basically said that.
Speaker 1: So it's back to the drawing board and it's back
Speaker 1: to Congress to find a solution to immigration. Well, I
Speaker 1: think that's all true. What are your what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on the affirmative action case. I again, I agree
Speaker 1: with Jay. I think this was a very closely circumscrised case.
Speaker 1: I thought it was interesting that Justice Kennedy, as you
Speaker 1: well know, a swing voter, sided with affirmative action this time,
Speaker 1: whereas normally he has voted against it. Um this ongoing
Speaker 1: obligation for the adversity of Texas to show by data
Speaker 1: that their race conscious admissions process is actually doing what
Speaker 1: it is designed to do is very important and is
Speaker 1: required by this this opinion, and wait for any other
Speaker 1: institution of higher learning. But I tend to agree with Jay.
Speaker 1: I think that this is a smaller victory even perhaps
Speaker 1: advocates of assimative action would have liked. If discrimination is wrong,
Speaker 1: and I think we all agree with that is is
Speaker 1: another kind of discrimination as a remedy. Is that equally wrong? Well,
Speaker 1: this is the eternal question. And John Roberts famously said
Speaker 1: the way to to stop discriminating on the basis of
Speaker 1: race is to stop discrimining on the basis of race.
Speaker 1: And J are the interested in your thoughts, But you know,
Speaker 1: the sort of the liberal view is that African Americans, Hispanics,
Speaker 1: basically non whites have had a long history of discrimination
Speaker 1: in this country, and that we still are required to
Speaker 1: have some kind of consciousness in terms of writing those
Speaker 1: historic wrongs. You know, part of it is this kind
Speaker 1: of this enabling I think the vestiges of Jim Crow.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is but except it's a long time ago.
Speaker 1: And if you talk to a lot of academics, African
Speaker 1: American academics, they're saying that these young men and women
Speaker 1: that are coming out of high school or college are
Speaker 1: going into the professions that are minorities compete very well
Speaker 1: with their nin minority counterpart. So the point is, I
Speaker 1: think what John Roberts Daniel said was right. John Roberts
Speaker 1: was right. You know, the way you end discrimination based
Speaker 1: on racist to stop discriminating based on race. So I
Speaker 1: think it needs to be more of an equal playing field. Now,
Speaker 1: I think that's where this should go. I think it
Speaker 1: was going in that director from Janiel is also I
Speaker 1: think right. I mean, it was surprising in a sense
Speaker 1: that Justice Kennedy went the way he did here. Although
Speaker 1: this case had the opinion itself, the majority opinion has
Speaker 1: a lot of caveats. All right, let me go another
Speaker 1: case that came down today. The Supreme Court placed new
Speaker 1: limits on state laws that make it a crime from
Speaker 1: motorists suspected of drunken driving or d u I to
Speaker 1: refuse alcohol test. The Justice was ruled the police must
Speaker 1: obtain a rich warrant before requiring drivers excuse me, drivers
Speaker 1: to take blood and alcohol tests, but not breath tests,
Speaker 1: which the court considers less intrusive. And this came in
Speaker 1: response to three cases in which drivers actually challenged the
Speaker 1: so called implied consent laws in Minnesota. North Dakota is
Speaker 1: violating the constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. What's
Speaker 1: your take on it? Can I say one thing real quick?
Speaker 1: Or Kagan opinions in that case said that they don't
Speaker 1: even think that a breath test. They think for a
Speaker 1: breath test, you'd have to have a search warrant, a
Speaker 1: warrant to do the test. I think that by the
Speaker 1: time you get look, I actually came this is a
Speaker 1: true story. One day. So we were doing Man on
Speaker 1: the Street in a nightclub when we did Hannity's America
Speaker 1: years ago in New York. Now the nightclub doesn't get
Speaker 1: going until like twelve o'clock. I mean, these night owls
Speaker 1: lived very different lives than I do. Obviously, anyway, so
Speaker 1: I waited for the place to get busy, and I
Speaker 1: actually did buy drinks for my I did not have
Speaker 1: a single drop of alcohol. And when I was driving home,
Speaker 1: I had driven myself there anyway. I walk out of
Speaker 1: the club. But like one in the morning, after we
Speaker 1: got the filming done, I get in my car and
Speaker 1: I drove. I make a right turn, I fount on
Speaker 1: a green light. Now at this particular location in New York,
Speaker 1: it's lit up like a summer day. There's so many
Speaker 1: people on the street. Cops says, get out of the car,
Speaker 1: and you gotta blow into this, and I'm like, I
Speaker 1: didn't have a single drink. I promise you not one drink,
Speaker 1: and he made me blow. It blows zero zero and
Speaker 1: then he goes, no, this can't be right. Blow again,
Speaker 1: zero zero. And you know, I had to call my
Speaker 1: boss and say, well, there might be a picture of
Speaker 1: me in the paper tomorrow getting a breathalyzer test because
Speaker 1: the cop was being obnoxious. And the only evidence that
Speaker 1: they would have had that I had any alcohol was
Speaker 1: I came out of a club at one in the morning,
Speaker 1: and I guess it's a fair assumption that somebody would
Speaker 1: have had a drink, but I didn't have one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, this this case is all about the tension
Speaker 1: between your privacy rights and then you know the laws
Speaker 1: of the road that keep us all safe. And basically
Speaker 1: what the court came out and said was the impact
Speaker 1: of breath testing on your your privacy is slight, but
Speaker 1: the need for breath testing is high because of the
Speaker 1: enormous of number of death and injury that results from
Speaker 1: drunk driving. Jay, Yeah, I think. Look, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: the expectation of privacy is always the legal issue when
Speaker 1: you when you get to the invasion of privacy or
Speaker 1: whether there's an ability to get a warrant or do
Speaker 1: you need a warrant. It's the old stop in first,
Speaker 1: let's say somebody's clothes. Let's say the average state laws
Speaker 1: is point oh eight in terms of the legal limit
Speaker 1: of alcohol you can have in your blood and your
Speaker 1: your breath. And you know, let's say you're one point though,
Speaker 1: so you're above the legal limit by the time they
Speaker 1: get a search warrant, and you sober up and eat
Speaker 1: like a you know, eat and absorbed the alcohol in
Speaker 1: your system and drink a lot of water. I mean,
Speaker 1: and so they can be manipulated. And then that's why
Speaker 1: majority has to do. You know, I think that the
Speaker 1: breath test is the easier case. And it's been the law,
Speaker 1: by the way, for a long time that the blood
Speaker 1: tests have always been deemed to be more intrusive though
Speaker 1: anything and by the way, not just in this contact
Speaker 1: any blood withdrawal blood for medical purposes. You remember all
Speaker 1: those cases. So this has always been a different issue. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the government then has a blood sample of yours um,
Speaker 1: and then the Christmas what do they do with it? Actually,
Speaker 1: to your point, Sewan about this notion of warrantless search
Speaker 1: is actually on Monday, there was another case with the
Speaker 1: court ruled that if you have an outstanding warrant for
Speaker 1: basically anything um and you are the victim of an
Speaker 1: unconstitutional search and seizure if it was conducted in good faith,
Speaker 1: being the fruits of that search and seizure can actually
Speaker 1: be admitted against you because of the fact of that
Speaker 1: outstanding warrant. Yeah, all right, let's go to Baltimore, and
Speaker 1: it looks like the Baltimore prosecutor, Maryland Mosby is now
Speaker 1: you know, strike three in her so called quest for justice.
Speaker 1: We all witnessed and horror what happened in Baltimore. The
Speaker 1: thing that frustrates me is the continuous rush to judgment.
Speaker 1: We saw it in Ferguson. Even the President weighed in
Speaker 1: on that case, Mr Constitutional Attorney himself without hearing from
Speaker 1: the eyewitnesses who corre ober rated Officer Darren Wilson's story
Speaker 1: that he was being charged at repeatedly and threatened. And
Speaker 1: this guy, you know, Michael Brown, fought for his gun
Speaker 1: and he was not indicted in that case. Or jumping
Speaker 1: into the case. President jumped into the Trayvon Martin case
Speaker 1: and my son would look like Trayvon, and he didn't
Speaker 1: account for an eyewitness that actually identified Trayvon Martin on
Speaker 1: top of George Zimmerman, grounding and pounding his head into cement,
Speaker 1: just like the Cambridge police. Well, this is the third
Speaker 1: time this prosecutors tried to get a conviction and she's
Speaker 1: zero for three, and at some point you got to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: there was not a crime committed here. And I think
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, that's what the juries
Speaker 1: are saying, right, And this is the really opinion today.
Speaker 1: This was a judge who is acquitted, as you say,
Speaker 1: the other defenants, this was the most serious number of crimes.
Speaker 1: This is nine charges against this police officer, including secondary
Speaker 1: degree depraved heart murder, but based on the officer's testimony um,
Speaker 1: the judge determined that there was no criminal conduct here.
Speaker 1: Well there, I think at some point we've got to
Speaker 1: examine and you know, whether you know the so called
Speaker 1: Ferguson effect to Baltimore effect, cops can't do their jobs
Speaker 1: because that's the problem. You know now they're now they're
Speaker 1: scared to death to do their jobs for fear they're
Speaker 1: gonna get indicted. But House Joint Resolution, the Clerk will
Speaker 1: report the title of the joints of resolution resolutions and
Speaker 1: condition of the term. The question is with the House
Speaker 1: and reconsideration passed the joint resolution the objectives of the
Speaker 1: President to the contrary, notwithstanding the gentleman from Minnesota Mr
Speaker 1: klen Is recognized for one hour ride the President, are
Speaker 1: the necessarily yields back. The question is on ordering the
Speaker 1: previous questions. Those in ever say I, those opposed say no.
Speaker 1: The opinion that share the eyes have it. Gentle from
Speaker 1: Minnesota quos requested. Those favoring of recorded vote will rise
Speaker 1: a sufficient number having risen, a reported vote is ordered.
Speaker 1: Members will record their vote by electronic device bos gone
Speaker 1: of rule. This fifteen moment, This fifteen minute votes on
Speaker 1: ordering the previous question will be followed by a five
Speaker 1: minute vote on passing the joint resolution that pread the
Speaker 1: vote and a bread to debate. And given the weakness
Speaker 1: of his arguments in his possession, his fear is well founded.
Speaker 1: Take time for a real ultivate on these issues. Just
Speaker 1: to vote. If you won't buy him talking about radical
Speaker 1: is loo buy no gun, no fine, no no fine,
Speaker 1: fine for getting the guns? Pretty mr? Why do you
Speaker 1: want to let terrorists buy a gun? Oh? My killer?
Speaker 1: Why do you want to protect terrorists from buying a gun?
Speaker 1: Why do you want to let terrorists from buying like?
Speaker 1: Why do you want to let terrorist to buy? Done?
Speaker 1: You're don't play you? Why do you protecting terry freak?
Speaker 1: You tell shaking first kill if you with a gun.
Speaker 1: Don't let terences have a gun. Don't let terrorists have
Speaker 1: a good. Don't let terists have a good. People in
Speaker 1: your district, a number of them who are law binding citizens,
Speaker 1: many of them would want to carry. Until carry, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't want him to have it. I know what you're
Speaker 1: trying to say. But corruption, corruption is bad. But But
Speaker 1: about for a second, why should say the uber wealthy
Speaker 1: who have protection had that protection, but individuals are lawbiding
Speaker 1: citizens in your district should not. Let's talk about that.
Speaker 1: Lawbiding citizens just shouldn't have to carry a gun, you
Speaker 1: know that. So you're not going to place me in
Speaker 1: that direction. But you're protected by guns all over the
Speaker 1: place here in the capital, Well, that's a little different.
Speaker 1: I think we just here. I think we need to
Speaker 1: be protected down here, we need to be protected. Not
Speaker 1: the people. Of course, that was the Occupy Democratic Party
Speaker 1: last night having a little fun on the House floor,
Speaker 1: and they were out there chanting no Bill, no break
Speaker 1: and singing we shall overcome. And that was Louis Gohmert,
Speaker 1: you know, saying radical Islamic terrorism. And it went on
Speaker 1: and al. We'll show you a lot of the video
Speaker 1: of this tonight on Hannity ten Eastern on the Fox
Speaker 1: News Channel. Pretty you know, I will say this what
Speaker 1: I said earlier. This is Barack Hussain, Obama and Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's party. This is what you'd expected Occupy Wall Street,
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter, This is what you'd expect from a
Speaker 1: guy that learned at the altar of radical communist Frank
Speaker 1: Marshall Davis was radicalized through Acorn and Olynsky. By the way,
Speaker 1: both Hillary and Obama Olynskyite disciples. This is a guy
Speaker 1: that went to Reverend Wrights Church. This is a guy
Speaker 1: that hung out with Airs and Dorn. This is now
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. You see this on the streets with
Speaker 1: different demonstrations as they they pop up. You see it
Speaker 1: with Occupy Wall Street. And this is now the representative representation.
Speaker 1: There is no such thing any longer as a moderate
Speaker 1: blue dog Democrat. They don't exist. This party has been
Speaker 1: taken over by the hard left. That's why Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: is doing so well. That's why Obama got elected twice.
Speaker 1: That's why Hillary is just a third term of Obama,
Speaker 1: maybe worse in the end. Who knows. Alright, eight nine
Speaker 1: four one, Sean Tolfree telephone number. You want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program, all right, we gotta go
Speaker 1: to our buddy to Varus. I guess we can't play
Speaker 1: the music anymore because of the massive legal fees that
Speaker 1: the band to Varus wants to charge me for playing
Speaker 1: the stupid song more than a woman. The lawyers for
Speaker 1: Tavars not to VARs lawyers for all musicians won't let
Speaker 1: us play their songs except Florida Georgia Line, which gave
Speaker 1: us direct permission to play anything we want, and we
Speaker 1: love Florida Georgia Line. There are buddies. What's up to virus?
Speaker 1: How are you? Hey, Sean Hannity? Let me tell you
Speaker 1: one thing, man, but I'm great. First of all, I
Speaker 1: know you don't like your humble guy. You do things
Speaker 1: out the contents of your heart, your your callers might
Speaker 1: not know, might not notice. You always have my back.
Speaker 1: Ever since I was single, eight years been eight years now,
Speaker 1: Ever since I was a single male out here. You
Speaker 1: just trying to put a chat to be felt on
Speaker 1: me years ago, telling me to stop having sex. And
Speaker 1: before I was married, when I lost my job, you
Speaker 1: were like, what can I do? I don't know what
Speaker 1: is it that I can do to get you another job?
Speaker 1: I was like, no, Sean, but find my own job. Recently, Sean,
Speaker 1: you just you just uh, you did a big thing man.
Speaker 1: You You paid for my school, my CDL school, and
Speaker 1: you did I gave you. I only had one condition.
Speaker 1: What was my condition that I stepped through it? And
Speaker 1: I and I and uh, that's what I wouldn't quit that.
Speaker 1: I can't quit. I didn't quit. Didn't quit. Oh, you're finished.
Speaker 1: I got my CDL today, Sean. Today's the day you graduate.
Speaker 1: So you graduated today. I finished the course. Actually I
Speaker 1: still have hours to go. But Monday we have to
Speaker 1: make up for a Memorial Day and I have to
Speaker 1: make that. So you're gonna be in over the road
Speaker 1: trucker and they're gonna help you get a job and everything. Yeah,
Speaker 1: my school is gonna help me get a job. I
Speaker 1: have fantastic instructors. Instructors, uh me and I w I
Speaker 1: wanted from not knowing how to basically do anything on
Speaker 1: the truck, now I can. I can do doughnuts in it.
Speaker 1: Now you know I'm not. I'm not gonna do it.
Speaker 1: But Sean Handy, let me tell you, man, go ahead. Appreciate.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you. You've been a blessing to my family.
Speaker 1: Just just changed my life completely. Man. Although you know
Speaker 1: people might think that we have differences, you're my best friend.
Speaker 1: People don't understand it. I'm I'm I'm a better friend.
Speaker 1: And big Baby James, you know what I mean. I mean.
Speaker 1: I don't know if anyone can top sweet baby James.
Speaker 1: He's family, so he's married to my sister. Let me
Speaker 1: just let me just say this to our listen. Listen,
Speaker 1: all you wanted was a ladder, and all I gave
Speaker 1: you was a ladder. This is was your dream. You
Speaker 1: wanted to get this done. You know, God has put
Speaker 1: me in a position a little bit that I can
Speaker 1: help people, and I like to do that. And all
Speaker 1: I can say is, you know, there's a good feeling,
Speaker 1: isn't there that you now know? I mean, this happens
Speaker 1: to be an area where there are a lot of
Speaker 1: jobs right now. It happens to be. You know, your
Speaker 1: training now is gonna make you a valuable employee for
Speaker 1: a lot of companies. When oil gets back up and
Speaker 1: running again. They're paying drivers for oil massive amounts of money. Massive,
Speaker 1: and uh, that's that's gonna represent. You may have to
Speaker 1: move at some point. I know you you like it
Speaker 1: there in Greenville, but we're out of here. We're out
Speaker 1: of here, my and my wife, my son, we're out
Speaker 1: of here. Where you're going you know where you're going yet,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure you know where my wife likes. It's
Speaker 1: something you know what, Linda, why don't we be wife happy? Life.
Speaker 1: Why don't we put why don't we put them in
Speaker 1: touch with our friends in the oil industry, because they're
Speaker 1: still looking for drivers, even though there's been a little
Speaker 1: bit of a slowdown. But with your training, we can
Speaker 1: get you a job that's probably gonna pay you six figures.
Speaker 1: I know, what are you gonna do with What are
Speaker 1: you gonna do with all that money? You know, here's
Speaker 1: the thing. I talk on this program and I throw
Speaker 1: out numbers every day, and people think it's because I
Speaker 1: like to hear myself talk. It's not. That's not it.
Speaker 1: You know, my life experience to bars of really struggling
Speaker 1: early in my life. I mean, I didn't have I
Speaker 1: had two hundred bucks in the old Own bank when
Speaker 1: I lived in Rhode Island. That was it. I had
Speaker 1: no money. I worked with my landlord. I fixed up
Speaker 1: his apartment so that would pay my rent, or I
Speaker 1: fix his barn, or i'd pay in his house, or
Speaker 1: i'd you know, cut his lawn. I did whatever I
Speaker 1: had to do, and I remember not being able to
Speaker 1: afford to go out for McDonald's, never mind anything else.
Speaker 1: And that life lesson taught me more than I could
Speaker 1: ever learn in any school, any place anywhere. All right,
Speaker 1: So now I have money. But when I got into radio,
Speaker 1: I work for free. I want to got into radio.
Speaker 1: I never thought i'd be successful. I got into radio.
Speaker 1: My first paid job was nineteen thousand dollars a year
Speaker 1: and you know, barely enough to pay your rent and
Speaker 1: in a cheap little car that I had. So anyway,
Speaker 1: I just tell you this. You take this valuable skill
Speaker 1: you've developed and you worked hard to get you take
Speaker 1: care of your family first and foremost. You gotta be
Speaker 1: a good dad and a good husband. And uh, you
Speaker 1: go be successful, save your money. Money equals freedom, and
Speaker 1: enjoy your life. All right. Yes, you told me what
Speaker 1: I would What would I do with a nice paide job?
Speaker 1: First of all, I'm gonna pay it for it. What
Speaker 1: you did for me. I can't stop until I help
Speaker 1: somebody else and do the same thing that you did
Speaker 1: for me. And uh, by the way, if you vote
Speaker 1: for Hillary, if you vote for Hillary, you're gonna screw
Speaker 1: it all up. Your opportunities are gonna you know, wind.
Speaker 1: And I think and see, I think it's illegal. Now
Speaker 1: you sound like you buy my vote. I'm not. No, No,
Speaker 1: I I didn't not offer money for I'm just saying
Speaker 1: you did. I you didn't know you didn't. That's just me.
Speaker 1: You know that, you being a typical wise ass Tavares.
Speaker 1: I know who you are. No, man, you're great. Man.
Speaker 1: I love you, man, My family loves you. Man. Listen,
Speaker 1: I I'm there for you. Man. I want you to
Speaker 1: go live your life, go and be happy, and go
Speaker 1: take care of your family and work hard. Work as
Speaker 1: much over time as you can, tackle as much money
Speaker 1: in the bank as you can. Don't risk it, you know,
Speaker 1: be you know, one of the things. One other way
Speaker 1: to make money, um, try and buy like the cheapest
Speaker 1: house on the block, and running by the house that
Speaker 1: needs to be fixed up, needs paint, maybe needs you know,
Speaker 1: some work, some some elbow grease, and maybe as you
Speaker 1: live in there with your family. All right, you work
Speaker 1: on the kitchen first. You you paint it first, You
Speaker 1: do this, you do that, and then you build up
Speaker 1: equity and value in that home and by the time
Speaker 1: you sell it, you make an extra hundred grand and
Speaker 1: that's that's serious money for your future. All right, my friend,
Speaker 1: God bless you, thank you well. That turned out, you
Speaker 1: know what. I'm very proud of him. He did so well.
Speaker 1: With that course he finished it pretty fast. I mean,
Speaker 1: was it three or four month thing? But you know what,
Speaker 1: that's all he wanted. He wants to work. Bill is
Speaker 1: in Florida. Bill, how are you glad you called what's up? Bill?
Speaker 1: Big sexy? I've been called a lot of stuff of
Speaker 1: my day, not that I wanted to know how to
Speaker 1: vote for you? For all the fame, I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about it. I'm not, but I'll talk about it. Bill. No,
Speaker 1: no turn turn Bill, Good grief. Here we go. You
Speaker 1: set this call up, didn't you. I would never do that, right.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to hear this, Jason, and maybe later on
Speaker 1: shoot a little more and maybe n't call the Linda
Speaker 1: Laurence Sean show. But Lauren hear Lauren laughing in the background.
Speaker 1: Lauren doesn't talk. Lauren just kind of sits there. She's quiet.
Speaker 1: Days when you encouraged her to talk it too well.
Speaker 1: Linda never shuts up. Since today I met her for
Speaker 1: crying out loud. I don't like your funny You love
Speaker 1: your God, country and your people. I do. I think
Speaker 1: you deserve it. So now that we've got that out
Speaker 1: of the way, all right, you can cast your vote.
Speaker 1: You can text Handity to thirty six five hundred three
Speaker 1: six five zero zero. It's free and um you know
Speaker 1: check with your check, with your you know little waste
Speaker 1: your money, your wherever you subscribe Rising a teen team,
Speaker 1: make sure your local rates apply. I can't get in
Speaker 1: all that legal least, but look it up. Make sure
Speaker 1: find out if you can afford to U Text Handity
Speaker 1: to thirty six D and you can go to Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com for more information. And you can always call
Speaker 1: one sewn and talk to Lauren and Lyndon and Ethan
Speaker 1: and Jason and will be more than have you done
Speaker 1: this information? You have until June thirty people, So get
Speaker 1: out there and text are you done? Are you done? Now?
Speaker 1: Let's get back to our phones. Raley Durham Scott is next.
Speaker 1: What's up Scott? How are you hey? Song? Thanks for
Speaker 1: taking my call. I am I just wanted to give
Speaker 1: you a call shout out uh and just to let
Speaker 1: you know a lot of your discussions regarding the abuse
Speaker 1: of citizens within the Muslims country, that how they're treated
Speaker 1: at they're they're nonbelievers, and and how they perceived. But
Speaker 1: a physician colleague who is a studying the stand and
Speaker 1: grew up in KUWAITI from a pretty well to do family,
Speaker 1: and I've worked with him for the last four years
Speaker 1: on a day to day basis. We talked about the
Speaker 1: just the general chit chat. Never once that we ever
Speaker 1: discussed religion or political views from from any means we got.
Speaker 1: We got about thirty seconds, so make your point. I'm
Speaker 1: interested general. Uh. This individual came to mean just passed
Speaker 1: Monday and literally shoot my door. And he broke down
Speaker 1: and crying. He said that I just want you know,
Speaker 1: said my whole my whole life. From time that I
Speaker 1: grew up, I was taught that Islam, if you are
Speaker 1: a nonbeliever as a Muslim, you who you know, you
Speaker 1: should be killed. And he basically verified everything that you've
Speaker 1: been challenged individuals and people denied. That's from the San
Speaker 1: Bernardinos in France to Belgium and nol Orlando. Listen, let
Speaker 1: me say this in response, and I appreciate you confirming that,
Speaker 1: but I want to say this. You see the Islamization
Speaker 1: of Europe, you see it happening all over the world.
Speaker 1: There is a clash of culture that is so severe.
Speaker 1: I personally think if you come from a country and
Speaker 1: you grow up under Sharia. It's so incompatible with our values.
Speaker 1: Either we must have a perfect vetting system or no system.
Speaker 1: That's the way it's got to be, or we're gonna
Speaker 1: lose our country, like Europe is being lost before our eyes.