Speaker 1: All right, glad you with us Happy Tuesday. Right down
Speaker 1: on toe free telephone number. We'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: It's eight hundred and nine four one sewn if you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program. We don't
Speaker 1: promote it enough, but we're on Twitter at Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: and great news and information on Hannity dot com every
Speaker 1: day that we are putting out there, all right, a
Speaker 1: lot to cover. Congressman Doug Collins has done it again
Speaker 1: and done us a huge service, and that is he
Speaker 1: released the transcripts of Lisa Pages testimony, closed door testimony,
Speaker 1: with many, many huge revelations about how right we were
Speaker 1: from the get go, from the beginning, and how much
Speaker 1: more deeper this really goes. This transcript and I'll get
Speaker 1: into the details, brings us to the point where now
Speaker 1: we're getting close to Brennan. Now we're getting close to
Speaker 1: our Lauretta Lynch. Now we're getting close to the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice under Obama. Now we're getting close to Uma
Speaker 1: and Mills and others. Um and I'll give you the
Speaker 1: specifics of all this coming up. Of course, you know,
Speaker 1: did you hear the scandal that's going on? But these
Speaker 1: parents paying this money, cheating on tasks. Uh, these these
Speaker 1: college entrance exams, bribing athletic officials saying their kids are athletes,
Speaker 1: and they never played a sport in their life. Um,
Speaker 1: and getting into you know, all these prestigious colleges. Pretty scary.
Speaker 1: What's going on. Um, we'll get to that later in
Speaker 1: the program. We'll look at the media. You know, had
Speaker 1: their you know, Jeff Zucker, you know, literally the porn
Speaker 1: king network that they've got of a stormy stormy, stormy
Speaker 1: stormy stormy, stormy stormy, Peachman and Peachman, peach but Rusia, Russia, RuSHA,
Speaker 1: you know, Shole, Sholes, all of this. It's it's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: And the same network that is getting sued for two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollars why because they picked on
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old kid sixteen years old and they
Speaker 1: didn't they didn't even bother to lift a finger to
Speaker 1: corroborate a single part of that story. And they just
Speaker 1: went with a narrative that was completely wrong, totally and completely.
Speaker 1: It was just a myth. We'll go through all the
Speaker 1: other times fake news. CNN's gonna pay my prediction, I
Speaker 1: would not be shocked at all if they have to
Speaker 1: pay the two hundred and fifty million dollars, same with
Speaker 1: the Washington Posts, and it may even be more. People
Speaker 1: are so fed up. And the only reason they went
Speaker 1: after this poor kid is because he had to make
Speaker 1: America great hat on again. Apparently that hat is the
Speaker 1: great trigger of all liberals in America. The sight of
Speaker 1: it causes them to get violent and rip it off
Speaker 1: people's heads and assume that that person is a horrible person.
Speaker 1: Sixteen year old kid and you just out there every
Speaker 1: single solitary name that they could call this kid. And
Speaker 1: in the end, it turns out what Nicholas sandmant not
Speaker 1: only didn't do a thing wrong. Everything they said about
Speaker 1: him was false. He handled what was an extremely acutely
Speaker 1: dangerous situation with the black Hebrew Israelites screaming at them
Speaker 1: and cursing at them and calling them every name they can.
Speaker 1: They stayed silent, those kids, and Nathan Phillips, the Native
Speaker 1: American activists, walked right into this kid's face banging that drum,
Speaker 1: and in that particular case, the kid just smiled. The
Speaker 1: only thing he said was to another student, don't talk
Speaker 1: back to them, you know, don't say anything, which was
Speaker 1: the right thing. I would not have had the loving
Speaker 1: patience of this kid. And then what they did to him,
Speaker 1: how do you get your good name back after that?
Speaker 1: It's gonna forever follow him. Well, Lynnwood is on the
Speaker 1: case and they're gonna pay. We've got the Democrats now
Speaker 1: in open warfare. And first, let me just remind people,
Speaker 1: I don't trust anything that Nancy Pelosi says. I don't
Speaker 1: think Nancy Pelosi is the real Speaker of the House.
Speaker 1: He's Speaker of the House in name only. But now
Speaker 1: that we have the New Green Deal, let's ban oil gas,
Speaker 1: cars with combustion engines. Let's let's offer everybody everything for free.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about the costs. Cost don't matter. And let's
Speaker 1: also well, we might not be able to do it
Speaker 1: in ten years, but we got to do it very soon.
Speaker 1: Airplanes and cows. That's and of course, supporting abortion even
Speaker 1: during the labor process, when when dilation occurs, or even
Speaker 1: after the baby's born, as long as you deliver the baby,
Speaker 1: keep the baby comfortable, and then the mother gets to decide.
Speaker 1: It's so sick and ugly and distorted, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think of um there's some missing chip in people
Speaker 1: that if they don't have any sensibility towards that, if
Speaker 1: you can't how a governor of a state, you know,
Speaker 1: the Commonwealth of Virginia can literally say, well, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you exactly what's going to happen. We're going to deliver
Speaker 1: the baby. We'll make sure that that baby is comfortable.
Speaker 1: So he's now trying to sound like he's all compassionate.
Speaker 1: And then where'll let the mother decide if babies needs
Speaker 1: resuscitation or not. He gets to decide if a mother
Speaker 1: is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.
Speaker 1: The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable,
Speaker 1: the infant would be resuscitated if if that's what the
Speaker 1: mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would
Speaker 1: ensue between the physicians and the mother. Cushion AfOR what
Speaker 1: are we gonna have tea and grumpets and cocktail. So
Speaker 1: this is a party now that has gone so hard
Speaker 1: hard radical extreme left. And remember it's old, and now
Speaker 1: we've got eight separate congressional investigations into Donald Trump. Now
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi saying what she did can be taken a
Speaker 1: lot of different ways. I'm taking it the way that
Speaker 1: I just see it, and really, simply, I don't think
Speaker 1: that Nancy Pelosi has any more say over this Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: You know, when she ruled out impeachment, it didn't take
Speaker 1: long for Acasio Cortez or Congresswoman phelib or a bunch
Speaker 1: of others to come out there and say, excuse me, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's on the table. And Nancy Pelosi didn't win by
Speaker 1: a very big margin, matter of fact, wasn't big at all.
Speaker 1: And at some point she knows if she keeps bucking
Speaker 1: this radical trend in her own party, she's gonna lose
Speaker 1: that position. She's not she's speaker in name only at
Speaker 1: this point, So it doesn't matter if she says that.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's just not worth impeaching Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: it also gives you some insight why did she say it?
Speaker 1: Does she think it's bad for the Democrats politically and therefore,
Speaker 1: you know, it didn't work out well for Republicans in
Speaker 1: terms of politics when Bill Clinton was impeached or is
Speaker 1: she's saying it to obfuse skate and say, oh, the
Speaker 1: evidence is so overwhelming, I didn't want to do it.
Speaker 1: But I have to do it, or does she have
Speaker 1: some insight into the fact that there's really no Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion and we might even get this week the
Speaker 1: Muller Report. If we get it this week, let me
Speaker 1: just warn you you're not going to get any details
Speaker 1: on it. You know. Nancy Pelosi's scolding Americans. She's trying
Speaker 1: to herself to move so hard left for being against
Speaker 1: democratic measures allowing it illegals the right to vote. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, you're not a citizen. You didn't respect our laws,
Speaker 1: you didn't respect our constitution, you didn't respect our sovereignty.
Speaker 1: You entered the country illegally. And Nancy Pelosi is mad
Speaker 1: at Americans because they're against the democratic measure that they're
Speaker 1: pushing in the House that would allow illegal immigrants aliens
Speaker 1: the right to vote. How many millions are we going
Speaker 1: to have here? You know? How often have I said
Speaker 1: there's there's different groups that didn't want open borders for
Speaker 1: different reasons. There are people that want the cheapest labor
Speaker 1: they can get and they don't want to pay people,
Speaker 1: and so that that is part of the coalition of
Speaker 1: open borders. Others are thinking, well, hang on, if we
Speaker 1: let you know where our thinking tells us that maybe
Speaker 1: immigrants are going to be more likely liberal and left wing,
Speaker 1: and if we tell them we're going to give them benefits,
Speaker 1: then maybe they'll like us a lot better. The President
Speaker 1: made the comment, I don't want to have anyone coming
Speaker 1: in that's on welfare. Well, currently we're paying seventy thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a year per every illegal immigrant in this country
Speaker 1: over the years. Do you don't have any billions and
Speaker 1: billions and billions of taxpayer money has been spent because
Speaker 1: of all of the millions of illegal immigrants that use
Speaker 1: our healthcare system, that end up in the criminal justice system,
Speaker 1: the educational system. Who's paying for that? That would be us,
Speaker 1: We the people of America. So it's it's it's stunning
Speaker 1: where this party is headed. And it's not just that,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a great piece I said, you know,
Speaker 1: what is democratic socialism? Remember Frederick Engels who was part
Speaker 1: of the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx It talked about
Speaker 1: democratic socialists. What do I say, this is a stream
Speaker 1: radical new democratic socialist party. You know, well, they favor
Speaker 1: the same measures that communist advocate. That's his description, not mine.
Speaker 1: And but he used to hate them because they weren't
Speaker 1: pursuing the total and complete revolution to each according to
Speaker 1: his need, from each according to his ability. But they want,
Speaker 1: of course, they wanted state run industry. What does it
Speaker 1: Consio Cortesica Consio Cortes came out and said she wants
Speaker 1: a ninety percent corporate tax nine percent. Okay, just stop
Speaker 1: per minute. You're a business owner. You're gonna pay ninety
Speaker 1: percent in taxes and stay in the United States? Or
Speaker 1: are you gonna look abroad and say, well, I can
Speaker 1: build a factory in Mexico or Central America or Europe
Speaker 1: or wherever, and I'm never gonna one. I won't have
Speaker 1: to deal with the burdens regulations that the radical left
Speaker 1: has put on business that Donald Trump has at least
Speaker 1: temporarily gotten rid of that has resulted in great economic
Speaker 1: growth and opportunity and job creation. Or am I gonna
Speaker 1: stay here and at what? Where's the incentive for people
Speaker 1: to risk and reward? Where is the incentive for them
Speaker 1: to create good services? The people want, need and desire,
Speaker 1: and Alexandriacasio Cortez wants to control and tell businesses how
Speaker 1: they will be run. And then they want to take
Speaker 1: over whole industries like healthcare. Okay, how did Obamacare work
Speaker 1: out for you? Okay, so we're gonna have the Medicare
Speaker 1: for all estimated in ten years at least three point
Speaker 1: three trillion dollars a year even that just for healthcare,
Speaker 1: and you can't have the choice of your own provider.
Speaker 1: That's what they're twenty twenty candidates like Kamala Harris, that's
Speaker 1: their position. Bernie Sanders say that that is their position,
Speaker 1: and you know, well, then they want to control all education.
Speaker 1: You know, K through twelve. They didn't ruin kids enough.
Speaker 1: But that was a big part of socialism, Marxism, and
Speaker 1: of course nationalizing industry, which we be healthcare and the
Speaker 1: energy industry, which that we're going to get rid of
Speaker 1: the lifeblood of our economy in ten years if America
Speaker 1: gave up on oil and gas. We even had the
Speaker 1: Greenspeace guy on TV I guess a week or so ago,
Speaker 1: and he's like, this is madness. We can't feed the
Speaker 1: world's population without the lifeblood of our economy. You know,
Speaker 1: right now we're we are on the precipice of creating
Speaker 1: more wealth in America because of Donald Trump opening up
Speaker 1: natural gas and oil that we're not. Well, First, we're
Speaker 1: energy independent for the first time in one however many
Speaker 1: years to seventy years. And not only that, we're net
Speaker 1: exporter of energy. It makes the world a safer place
Speaker 1: and we don't have to bow and beg at the
Speaker 1: altar of countries that hate our guts and charge whatever
Speaker 1: the hell they want to keep our factories running in
Speaker 1: our lives moving along. You know, there are more than
Speaker 1: thirty four million American smokers. I bet that finding a
Speaker 1: satisfying alternative to cigarettes is at the top of your
Speaker 1: list if you're a smoker. Look, I've been there before,
Speaker 1: but after many years of smoking, I finally made the
Speaker 1: switch to Jewel. Is no more worrying about the way
Speaker 1: my clothes smell, worrying about what people are gonna say.
Speaker 1: With Jewel, everything is so much easier now. Jewel is
Speaker 1: a vaporizer that contains nicotine for a satisfying transition. When
Speaker 1: I found Jewel, it was a complete game changer. Jewel
Speaker 1: was designed by smokers for smokers to be an alternative
Speaker 1: to cigarettes. From it's simple to use interface to its
Speaker 1: clean technology. Well, Jewel has no cigarette ash, odor or mess,
Speaker 1: so if you're one of the thirty four million adults
Speaker 1: who smoke, know that there is an alternative to cigarettes.
Speaker 1: How to discover the smoking alternative that's nothing like you've
Speaker 1: tried it. Juul dot com slash switch America. That's Juul
Speaker 1: dot com slash switch America. And warning this product does
Speaker 1: contain nicotine and nicotine is an addictive chemical. It's amazing
Speaker 1: that pole I mentioned yesterday that fifty of this next
Speaker 1: generation a young be they love socialism, but they want
Speaker 1: limited government. Like okay, um, you know socialism is what
Speaker 1: it is. The Democratic Socialists as they call themselves, Um,
Speaker 1: it's like an umbrella terms. This is in a Fox
Speaker 1: News article Quota guy from Georgetown that encompasses all those
Speaker 1: who favor a more egalitarian, collectively run society. And yeah,
Speaker 1: that would include the former Soviet Union and Mars. Although
Speaker 1: on a different level an angle in particular, like the
Speaker 1: way the description of democratic socialists didn't they went far
Speaker 1: enough economic policies, where like a Cosio Quartez wants seventy
Speaker 1: percent top marginal rates, ninety percent top marginal rates for
Speaker 1: for businesses. That's going to destroy business. And then you
Speaker 1: would add to that Elizabeth Warren's quote wealth tax, and
Speaker 1: then the promises of socialism always the same. It's gonna
Speaker 1: take care of you from the minute you're born to
Speaker 1: the minute you die. In this case, that means education, healthcare,
Speaker 1: you can't buy your own insurance, retirement, a job, government,
Speaker 1: healthy food. It's gonna mean, you know, pretty much, even
Speaker 1: if you're unwilling to work. Well. It kind of ruined
Speaker 1: Venezuela former Soviet Union. Their experiments didn't work out particularly
Speaker 1: well either. And historically, while they give you all the
Speaker 1: platitudes and all the promises, you know, look no further
Speaker 1: than keep your doctor and keep your planing, save money.
Speaker 1: And you know we've had, for example, you know, Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders praising socialist regimes like in Cuba. People in Cuba.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at what Jorge Ramos found in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: which should be one of the richest countries in the world.
Speaker 1: What people eating out of garbage trucks, the lights going
Speaker 1: out for however many hours, and dictatorship always emerges. The elite,
Speaker 1: you know, they always promise everything. Grebrick Kayak once argued
Speaker 1: that because social ebisom requies so much government, a central
Speaker 1: planner will be forced to choose between assuming dictatorial powers
Speaker 1: or abandoning their plans pretty much been proven over and
Speaker 1: over again. All right, twenty five now till the top
Speaker 1: of the hour. Gladuate with US eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: for one, Shawn. If you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of hang on this important program. All right. So Acasio Cortez,
Speaker 1: get this, she said. This is what's she's telling workers.
Speaker 1: Don't fear being automated out of work. Automation will mean
Speaker 1: more time creating art. Oh many? And who's gonna pay
Speaker 1: the bills? You know, it's more time for art. Oh,
Speaker 1: don't bother work? And you got more time for art? Wow?
Speaker 1: All right? So the first in what is many revelations?
Speaker 1: So about what was it? Either maybe about two hours
Speaker 1: before the show we got a hold of thanks to
Speaker 1: Congressman Collins, who's been amazing, he's now releasing the transcripts.
Speaker 1: First he did Bruce Orr and today he released the
Speaker 1: transcript of Lisa Page. And we are confirming some things
Speaker 1: we knew, and then we're learning other things that we
Speaker 1: never knew that are really damning. Now, it had been
Speaker 1: out there that she had testified, meaning Lisa Page. Now,
Speaker 1: just to give me background, she was as Peter Struck's lover.
Speaker 1: Whatever text messages will go over those remind you of
Speaker 1: those in a little bit. But she was the general
Speaker 1: council also for the second in charge of the FBI,
Speaker 1: and that would be Andrew McCabe. She was his chief
Speaker 1: council lawyer in that case. So one of the things
Speaker 1: jumped right off the page to me was in its
Speaker 1: page one fourteen some long transcript page testified the FBI
Speaker 1: hadn't seen any evidence of collusion by the time that
Speaker 1: Mueller was appointed. The problem is, remember when did they
Speaker 1: start the Trump Russia collusion story. Well that was just
Speaker 1: days after and it was the same players. And she
Speaker 1: talks about, really she's exposing a lot more people here
Speaker 1: than I think people understand this. This now brings this
Speaker 1: entire abuse of power, corrupt and scandal. Now it opens
Speaker 1: up the door to Brennan's involvement. Now it opens up
Speaker 1: the door to Lauretta Lynch's involvement, and the DJ in
Speaker 1: its entirety's involvement, and a dual justice system. All of
Speaker 1: this is now revealed in this testimony. But she said,
Speaker 1: I think it's a reflection of us still not knowing
Speaker 1: it still existed in the scope of possibility that there
Speaker 1: would be literally nothing. But as we probably knew that
Speaker 1: at that point. But in the scheme of possible outcomes,
Speaker 1: the most serious and obvious one being crime serious enough
Speaker 1: to impeach a president. On the other scale, and she
Speaker 1: goes on to say, but it didn't ultimately touch any
Speaker 1: senior people in the Trump administration or in the Trump campaign. Now,
Speaker 1: this is almost a year of FBI investigations going on,
Speaker 1: almost an entire year, and so the question is, well,
Speaker 1: why this then brings us to the eighty in May
Speaker 1: when they wanted after the firing of Comey, they wanted
Speaker 1: this so desperately, which is why Comy probably broke the law,
Speaker 1: at least some people think, and revealed classified information with
Speaker 1: the President Center, and he went on an offensive, and
Speaker 1: he did it and knowingly said that he wanted to
Speaker 1: get a special counsel appointed. Of course he's been BFF
Speaker 1: friends with Muller forever. And then it gets even more interesting.
Speaker 1: You know, we now see actions of the CIA director.
Speaker 1: We've always I've always known I want to get to
Speaker 1: what Brennan is involved in in this, and I want
Speaker 1: to get to what Clappers involved in in this. Brennan,
Speaker 1: we find out here was aware of the Steel dossier
Speaker 1: in early August twenty sixteen. Well that's the same time
Speaker 1: that Bruce Or when we learned this from the testimony,
Speaker 1: and Or's testimony that he had briefed everybody top echelondj
Speaker 1: FBI about the dossier and warned everybody about the dossier.
Speaker 1: But it's clear that the dossier is at the heart
Speaker 1: and soul of all of this. Now we also know
Speaker 1: that Steele hated Trump, hated him, wanted him to lose
Speaker 1: in the worst way, and that not only was he
Speaker 1: being paid by Hillary and the money she was controlling
Speaker 1: at the DNC, you know, Steele's also getting paid by
Speaker 1: the FBI for a long while and some Russian oligarch
Speaker 1: of all people. So they they've considered all of this
Speaker 1: even long before they firing of Coomy. They were investigating
Speaker 1: it long before she said the dj refused to pursue
Speaker 1: the gross negligence. That explains why Struck and Comy when
Speaker 1: they were writing the exoneration before the investigation even began
Speaker 1: really into Hillary Clinton or even talked to the key
Speaker 1: players or or got the laptops of everybody. Remember that
Speaker 1: was a bizarre series of events. Paige said, the JAY
Speaker 1: refused it outright, and the FBI maintained a quote unknown
Speaker 1: verification file for the Steel dossier. She said, the only
Speaker 1: problem with that remark because congressional investigators didn't know of
Speaker 1: its existence. It can't exist. There can be no verification
Speaker 1: document that was So that made them confident because we
Speaker 1: know Steele didn't believe his own dossier, and we know
Speaker 1: he had an agenda, and he was being paid to
Speaker 1: print this by four different outlets. We know the page
Speaker 1: worked also not only with McCabe and Struck, but also
Speaker 1: with Bruce Or at the DOJ and at least five
Speaker 1: years and had met his wife, Nellie, who was getting
Speaker 1: paid by Fusion GPFC. It's all incestuous here. And the
Speaker 1: fact that unclassified setting the appropriate agency Council President sure
Speaker 1: the classified information didn't enter into the testimony, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: She talked about her and pay her and Peter Struck
Speaker 1: working for Muller. Well, everybody didn't take long to find
Speaker 1: out that, you know, these two were involved in this relationship,
Speaker 1: and you know, just to give you some of the highlights,
Speaker 1: page kind of puts all the focus on the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. Well, that would be Louretta Lynch, the same
Speaker 1: Luretta Lynch that just a couple of weeks before the
Speaker 1: exoneration of Hillary's sitting in a private plane at a
Speaker 1: tarmac and a Phoenix airport or an FBO with their
Speaker 1: private jets sitting next to each other and they're talking
Speaker 1: about their kids for fifty minutes were supposed to believe.
Speaker 1: And then she went on to say that the notion
Speaker 1: there might be more emails that have not previously been
Speaker 1: seen that existed on Hillary Clinton's email server just simply
Speaker 1: don't even enter into the realm of the same room
Speaker 1: as seriousness based on a charge that we now know
Speaker 1: was governed with fake, fraudulent, bought and paid for information.
Speaker 1: But the problem for them is their story doesn't add
Speaker 1: up because they were warned from the get go not
Speaker 1: to trust the docier that was again that's August the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, But they in spite of not verifying it,
Speaker 1: in spite of remember, extreme carelessness replaces the legal gross negligence.
Speaker 1: Remember Tomy confronts Loretta Lynch and all, Loretta Lynch does
Speaker 1: it says, you know the Hillary investigation, No, it's it's
Speaker 1: a matter, and that gets more interesting as this testimony
Speaker 1: goes on, and Paige admits her personal dislike for Trump, said,
Speaker 1: but she didn't say she had a favorable view of Hillary,
Speaker 1: which I think it kind of gets blown out of
Speaker 1: the water when you look at all the text messages
Speaker 1: that we talked about. She talked a lot about the
Speaker 1: d o J was far more cautious in their approach
Speaker 1: to matters and responsibility for the decision not to prosecute
Speaker 1: the Clinton case. She says, the DOJ did that the
Speaker 1: same Loretta Lynch who met with Bill Clinton, the same
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch in the tarmac, same Loretta Lynch that said
Speaker 1: it's a matter, it's not an investigation. And she talked
Speaker 1: about a developing dynamic between the DOJ and FBI and
Speaker 1: how the FBI was being pressured from the DOJ to
Speaker 1: do it their way. And Paige said, as soon as
Speaker 1: the planning started to begin to interview some of the
Speaker 1: more high profile witnesses, not just Clinton, but Uma Aberdeen,
Speaker 1: Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, her core team, Well, the DOJ
Speaker 1: wanted to change the structure and the number of people
Speaker 1: who were involved. You gotta understand, this is none of
Speaker 1: this is normal procedure, and she talks at length about
Speaker 1: the disagreements between the FBI. Is a good summer. We
Speaker 1: should put the summary from the epic Times up on
Speaker 1: the website. There are lots and lots at disagreements with
Speaker 1: the FBI and the DOJ. One was the ongoing contention,
Speaker 1: you know, Clinton's actual email server and the FBI and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. You know, why didn't they proceed
Speaker 1: and obtain the server which had the bulk of Hillary's emails?
Speaker 1: You know, why were the laptops of these Clinton aids
Speaker 1: and personal lawyers, you know, why weren't they handed over
Speaker 1: and given more scrutiny. She talked about this rub between
Speaker 1: the FBI and the DOJ with respect to Mills and Samuelson,
Speaker 1: Heather Samuelson and lawyers engaging in the you know, not
Speaker 1: doing this it Once it had been identified that Clinton
Speaker 1: had these emails, some sixty plus thousand of them, and
Speaker 1: she deleted them. You know, her answer to that was
Speaker 1: so lame, and that well to the extent the other
Speaker 1: thirty thousand existed anywhere that it is the best place
Speaker 1: that they may have existed, meeting on those laptops. Well,
Speaker 1: they didn't take them they had been deleted. You know,
Speaker 1: they wanted to try, she said, forensically to recover them.
Speaker 1: And according to Page you know, the dispute got even
Speaker 1: more acute when the FBI couldn't execute a warrant without
Speaker 1: the approval from the Justice Department. In other words, they
Speaker 1: couldn't They were not allowed to do their job because
Speaker 1: a Loretta Lynch and HERDJ and who else we may
Speaker 1: know from the Clinton from the Obama world that might
Speaker 1: be involved in this. And you know, why weren't those
Speaker 1: laptops made available? She said, they should have been made
Speaker 1: available for forensic examination. She said the FBI was frustrated,
Speaker 1: in part over the DOJ's unwillingness to explain, why won't
Speaker 1: you give us these this opportunity to get them forensically?
Speaker 1: Do you see? I mean it was all about protecting Hillary.
Speaker 1: The fix was in from the beginning. Even James Baker,
Speaker 1: the FBI top league lawyer legal counsel, even he said
Speaker 1: that she should have been indicted for the Espionage Act.
Speaker 1: And Paige was like, the whole thing was baffling to
Speaker 1: me that they weren't handling this like any other investigation.
Speaker 1: Information from the Inspector General of the Intelligence community anomalies
Speaker 1: that would suggest. She says there were copies of every
Speaker 1: email going to a third party. She was asked if
Speaker 1: that was news, said, yeah, that's completely baffling to me.
Speaker 1: My understanding is the Intelligence Community Inspector General did refer
Speaker 1: the existence of the server to the FBI, but that
Speaker 1: was because of the existence of classified information on that
Speaker 1: server that's illegal, not because of any anomaly in terms
Speaker 1: of activity, not because of potential and truth of activity,
Speaker 1: because it's not my understanding the ICIG conducted any sort
Speaker 1: of forensics. Then the question, so you're telling me it
Speaker 1: would surprise you to know today that there were, if
Speaker 1: there were anomalies, that the Inspector General's forensic team found
Speaker 1: those before they referred to the FBI. And she said,
Speaker 1: to the extent that a foreign government or even a
Speaker 1: criminal outlet at access to kept Senator Clinton's private email server,
Speaker 1: that would have been something we cared very much about.
Speaker 1: My understanding, there was no evidence that would have supported
Speaker 1: that kind of conclusion, But even Comy and the end
Speaker 1: had to admit it. He just said it didn't reach
Speaker 1: the standard because they changed the standard. And she talked
Speaker 1: about everybody with the Justice Department they were all Democrats,
Speaker 1: and pointed out that they would essentially do everything to
Speaker 1: absolve Clinton. She's pretty much saying the fixes in without
Speaker 1: saying it, and so she admits that Hillary is a
Speaker 1: polarizing figure. We know it was one hundred percent consistent
Speaker 1: in universe. She was not. You know, we don't agree.
Speaker 1: It was a prosecutable case, and we had the FI.
Speaker 1: I thought that message was more credible coming from the FBI,
Speaker 1: not the DOJ. And I don't have any sense that
Speaker 1: the Attorney General was ultimately disappointed, and it was, but
Speaker 1: we know where she stood. But there was not a
Speaker 1: single investigative step that we did that was not first
Speaker 1: approved and consulted with by the Director of the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: And she never recused herself, meaning a Lauretta Lynch. And
Speaker 1: they talk a lot about gross negligence and intent. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not what the loss calls for. It's you know,
Speaker 1: as we stated earlier, they changed it from gross negligence
Speaker 1: to intent and to extreme carelessness. That was just to
Speaker 1: save Hillary and take her out of what the real
Speaker 1: legal justification was. This is what we're all learning today
Speaker 1: and we didn't know before. There's a lot more to
Speaker 1: this and we're gonna pull out a lot of it.
Speaker 1: They talk about Brennan's role and Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI's
Speaker 1: name for this Trump Russia investigation, and Brennan admitted that
Speaker 1: his intelligence helped establish the FBI countertelligence investigation. But he,
Speaker 1: as we now know, is a partisan hack now a
Speaker 1: paid liberal commentator on cable. And you know, this is
Speaker 1: why we've got to get all this information out. And
Speaker 1: if we don't get it out, we're never going to
Speaker 1: have what we're What she's describing is an unequal justice system,
Speaker 1: no dual justice under the law, no equal application of laws,
Speaker 1: no equal there's it is a separate justice system for
Speaker 1: the Clintons. And with a vengeance. Even after nine straight
Speaker 1: months of investigation, they've now put us on another two
Speaker 1: years investigating this conspiracy theory and still coming out with
Speaker 1: nothing as it relates to collusion. And look what they
Speaker 1: put the country through. And so it was an attempt
Speaker 1: to keep a candidate that's favored in the election. Then
Speaker 1: it was using her paid for Russian lies they never verified,
Speaker 1: to bludgeon and leak and tell the American people, and
Speaker 1: then use it to spy on the Trump campaign, lying
Speaker 1: and committing fraud to a FISA court and then after
Speaker 1: the election, after James Comey says, you know, signs the
Speaker 1: FISA warrant, which means it's accurate and true and the
Speaker 1: bulk of information as the phony Clinton Russian Dassier tells
Speaker 1: Trump in January before he becomes sworn in as president
Speaker 1: on it's sillatious, but it's unverified. Then why did he
Speaker 1: sign off that it was verified? All right? Glad you
Speaker 1: with us our two Sean Hannity show right down our
Speaker 1: to free telephone number. You want to be a part
Speaker 1: of this extravaganza, so revealing this new information that we
Speaker 1: have today, As relates to the transcript closed door transcript
Speaker 1: testimony provided by Lisa Page, one thing, we were learning
Speaker 1: so many new things that oh, yeah, what we've been
Speaker 1: telling you the fix was in. There was not a
Speaker 1: single investigative step that we did not do in consultation
Speaker 1: with or at the direction of the Justice Department. Was
Speaker 1: By the way, even Lisa Page admits that's really not
Speaker 1: the usual protocol the way things happen, and that even
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch didn't fully recuse herself. Remember what she said
Speaker 1: to James Comy, it's a matter. Okay, so we know
Speaker 1: where she was. She felt the Justice Department, led by Democrats, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that they would be essentially do everything they can absolve
Speaker 1: the Democratic candidate. That's where we get into the whole
Speaker 1: gross negligence versus extreme carelessness shift in change by Comy
Speaker 1: and Struck. Remember it was Lisa Page's boyfriend that wrote
Speaker 1: that in May before even interview Clinton in July and
Speaker 1: three days later. Oh, then they exonerate Clinton, and then
Speaker 1: for nine months they investigate Trump, and even by her
Speaker 1: own words in this closed door testimony, she says, we
Speaker 1: found nothing about Trump or Trump campaign high collusion of
Speaker 1: any kind. It had gone on for months, and you know,
Speaker 1: contrary to what so many others have said, you know,
Speaker 1: beamoring about in all of this. Now we also bring
Speaker 1: into this a lot of other people, including John Brennan,
Speaker 1: who add the dossier, and it brings up the question
Speaker 1: of him leaking to Harry Reid, what other what other
Speaker 1: uses did he have? Now keep in mind that dossier
Speaker 1: also becomes that Hillary paid for full of Russian lies,
Speaker 1: funneled money. That that was everybody was warned by Bruce Or.
Speaker 1: When we got Bruce Or's testimony last week Oh, thank god.
Speaker 1: Somebody's saying, if the DJ won't release it, I'm releasing it.
Speaker 1: That's Congressman Doug Collins. We wouldn't be at this point
Speaker 1: were it not for Congressman Devin Newness at California. He's
Speaker 1: the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Sir,
Speaker 1: how are you doing well, Sean? More and more is
Speaker 1: coming into focus. The American people are learning the truth slowly.
Speaker 1: You know, you've known a lot more than I have.
Speaker 1: And it's you know, we have a little team here
Speaker 1: on our show radio and TV, Solomon Carter, Jarrett and
Speaker 1: I'm going to forget people, so I don't want to
Speaker 1: name everybody. And we've been up peeling a layer of
Speaker 1: the onion. That's how we describe it. And periodically when
Speaker 1: i'd interview, I'd ask you, is there anything that we're
Speaker 1: saying the tronk and you'd say no, I'd say, you're
Speaker 1: right over the target. I think. I also said there's
Speaker 1: a lot more to come, and so slowly, yeah, I
Speaker 1: call it tilling back the onion. I call it running
Speaker 1: into a brick wall every single day and eventually, you know,
Speaker 1: brick by brick, we're just breaking it. Apart, Well, did
Speaker 1: you have any time. I know you guys were busy
Speaker 1: in Congress today trying to steal our money because Casio
Speaker 1: Cortez one of taxes on business and seventy percent marginal tax.
Speaker 1: But let's go through what you learn from the Ore
Speaker 1: testimony and the Page testimony in particular that was just
Speaker 1: released a few hours ago. Well, as you know, we've
Speaker 1: had the Page testimony for some time because that was
Speaker 1: part of the task force that we set up last Congress.
Speaker 1: And so the frustrating part of this is is that
Speaker 1: we've been asking for the Department of Justice to release
Speaker 1: these transcripts for months now. And don't forget, there are
Speaker 1: still about seventy some interviews that the House Intelligence Committee did,
Speaker 1: and then you have to add on the fifty roughly
Speaker 1: transcripts that the interviews that the task force did. So
Speaker 1: there's a d in total, and of which you've only
Speaker 1: seen a couple of them. So as this starts to
Speaker 1: come out, I think what you'll see is that all
Speaker 1: of this is unusual. That's probably the first thing I
Speaker 1: would start with. There was the activity that was being
Speaker 1: undertaken by the Justice Department and the FBI. They would
Speaker 1: say unusual, I would say more like corruption, but steps
Speaker 1: that never have been taken before at the DOJ or
Speaker 1: the FBI, Starting with the fact that they used the
Speaker 1: counter intelligence capabilities, the capabilities that are used to target
Speaker 1: terrorists and bad guys overseas, and they turned it onto
Speaker 1: a political party. She talks about for the first time
Speaker 1: that there was some verification file as it relates to
Speaker 1: the dossier. Now, I would argue that that is a
Speaker 1: complete impossibility, considering that under sworn testimony in derogatory in
Speaker 1: Great Britain that in fact, Christopher Stile said he can't
Speaker 1: corroborate his own dossier and it's raw intelligence and he
Speaker 1: has no idea if it's true at all, maybe fifty fifty.
Speaker 1: So how could anyone corroborate something that the author of
Speaker 1: says he can't corroborate. That's impossible. Well, I think what
Speaker 1: you're going to see when this all, when this all
Speaker 1: comes out, and look, there's going to have to be
Speaker 1: more interviews are going to have to be conducted. The
Speaker 1: best thing that could possibly happen is the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice to actually take a deep look at this and
Speaker 1: analyze it. But as it comes to the dossier, my
Speaker 1: personal belief, Now we don't have anyone who testifies to
Speaker 1: this yet, okay, but my personal belief is that Christopher
Speaker 1: Stile really didn't draft most of that dossier. I believe
Speaker 1: the dossier was draft to in advance by Fusion GPS
Speaker 1: and other operatives, including Nelly or by the way, which
Speaker 1: be the spouse to Bruce or who was working Fusion GPS.
Speaker 1: I believe that dossier was generated and then they used
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele as the guy to put his name on
Speaker 1: it and then helped to spread it around, feed it
Speaker 1: to places like the FBI, feed it to press outlets,
Speaker 1: be the person who So you're basically saying that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton likely well, by the way, and the FBI apparently
Speaker 1: they paid Christopher Steele was getting paid by a lot
Speaker 1: of people for the same work or maybe work. Now
Speaker 1: you're saying he didn't do Russian oligarch, the FBI, DNC
Speaker 1: and Hillary Yes, yes, and probably didn't do much. So
Speaker 1: you know, we we've we've now you know, through our investigation,
Speaker 1: you know, we have found you know, other evidence that's
Speaker 1: out there about pre existing information that is that is
Speaker 1: very similar to what is in the Steel dossie. So
Speaker 1: so I would pre existing Bill was more of a
Speaker 1: guy that was just hired to add his name to
Speaker 1: it and helped spread it. I'm not saying that he
Speaker 1: didn't add something. He could have a couple sources, but
Speaker 1: the bulk of the information in the dossier is not
Speaker 1: Christopher Steels. And in fact, a lot of this comes
Speaker 1: from work that Glenn Simpson did back in the late
Speaker 1: two thousands when he was a reporter at the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal. So you're you're saying this is a this
Speaker 1: was This was literally made out a whole cloth and
Speaker 1: then used and abused by the highest ranking people in
Speaker 1: the DOJ and the FBI, who also Now we learned
Speaker 1: a lot today about the dioj's role in exonerating Clinton,
Speaker 1: even though they were obvious. You know, even James Baker
Speaker 1: thoughts you should be indicted for the Espionage Act. Any
Speaker 1: intelligent person would notice thirty three thousand deleted emails and
Speaker 1: the would wash of the hard drive and the hammers
Speaker 1: on the devices. That's obstruction. So those people that put
Speaker 1: the fix in and then they began a Russian investigation
Speaker 1: just days later in July of twenty sixty nine months later,
Speaker 1: she testified Lisa Page that they had found nothing. Yeah, well, look,
Speaker 1: that's that's the date that they're all sticking to. Okay,
Speaker 1: so they're all sticking to essentially their fake narrative, which
Speaker 1: is this whole concept that this five Eyes partner brought
Speaker 1: a very important intelligence to us and we had to
Speaker 1: do nothing but open up the investigation. Sounds really nice,
Speaker 1: sounds great to open up to be the reason to
Speaker 1: open up the investigation into the Trump campaign. However, we
Speaker 1: don't have any evidence of that. I mean, there was
Speaker 1: no intelligence we have. There's a lot of information out
Speaker 1: there that tells us that the FBI was thick into
Speaker 1: this all through twenty sixteen, not just starting at the
Speaker 1: end of July I like they like to claim. In
Speaker 1: other words, you're talking about some of the highest ranking
Speaker 1: members of our Department of Justice and the most prestigious
Speaker 1: law enforcement agency in the world. Not rank and file,
Speaker 1: but the upper echelon. Right. The reason that they kept
Speaker 1: it they had to have known what they were doing,
Speaker 1: so they wanted it to be a counterintelligence investigation because
Speaker 1: it's siloed. It's very few people are read into this,
Speaker 1: so they were able to keep it to a very
Speaker 1: small quadre of people, which allowed them to feed all
Speaker 1: this information in and then boom low and behold. So
Speaker 1: there were several people that were bringing in different forms
Speaker 1: of the dossier into the FBI, into the State Department,
Speaker 1: producing what I would call fake news articles based on
Speaker 1: the dossier, generating these fake news articles and spreading them
Speaker 1: all over the place, not just not just to the FBI,
Speaker 1: but into the State Apartment in other places. And if
Speaker 1: you go back and look, you can really find these
Speaker 1: these stories that look awfully similar to the dossier that
Speaker 1: we're written in April, May, June, and July of two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen. This is even before they open up
Speaker 1: the counterintelligence investigation at the end of July. Everybody wants
Speaker 1: to know, and my sources are now telling me that
Speaker 1: all of these people that did these horrible things are
Speaker 1: going to be held accountable. Do you believe that? Well?
Speaker 1: Well as you know, because I said this the other
Speaker 1: night with you on television, and that is that you know,
Speaker 1: we are preparing a criminal referral based on Five's abuse
Speaker 1: and other matters, is what I will tell you right now.
Speaker 1: And by other matters, are you talking about what you're
Speaker 1: describing here? This is the first time I've ever heard
Speaker 1: you say that Christopher Steel my not of even written
Speaker 1: a dossier. Well, I'm pretty sure that I don't think
Speaker 1: that's you know, it's not a big part of the
Speaker 1: story other than it's pretty big to me. You know
Speaker 1: that people manufactured on a whole cloth, a lying narrative
Speaker 1: to to stop an elector presidential election and shift it
Speaker 1: in the favor of their candidate, and then later use
Speaker 1: it to bludge in the one that won. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not lessening it at all. Show on.
Speaker 1: What my point is that I'm making is is that
Speaker 1: it shouldn't surprise us that Christopher Steele was working in
Speaker 1: conjunction with Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson. Don't. So don't
Speaker 1: forget I said it earlier in the interview here, and
Speaker 1: that is that this story originates in two thousand to
Speaker 1: late two thousands. So so Glenn Simpson was involved working
Speaker 1: for the Wall Street Journal and his wife doing um
Speaker 1: stories on Paul Maniford and Ukraine and other other types
Speaker 1: of stories. So a lot of the originations. You can
Speaker 1: follow it there. Then you can follow it to FIFA.
Speaker 1: So remember the FIFA case is supposedly why everybody trusts
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele because at that point he was, you know,
Speaker 1: this operative working, you know, as a former intelligence officer.
Speaker 1: And if you look at Glenn Simpson's testimony, he worked
Speaker 1: with he worked with Christopher Still then Bruce Orr was
Speaker 1: involved in that. If you look at Bruce Orr's testimony.
Speaker 1: So all these characters from Playgether in FIFA and then
Speaker 1: they they all they did. It was just a it
Speaker 1: was just basically a movie script that they didn't they
Speaker 1: just applied to the Trump campaign and they went with
Speaker 1: the same movie a lot of the same characters. But
Speaker 1: the fact of the matter is, do you believe muellers
Speaker 1: of information and you don't think Muller's going to find
Speaker 1: any in collusion because there wasn't on him. Well, well,
Speaker 1: there's definitely no collusion. What concerns me is is that
Speaker 1: is that you know, really it's Muller and his team
Speaker 1: that are colluding. Okay, so Weissman, who's running the operation,
Speaker 1: he was lost on anyone. I have said this from
Speaker 1: the from the get go. Um, all right, but I
Speaker 1: want to get back some up real quick. Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: got all worked up because you went over to the
Speaker 1: White House. Then you had to recuse yourself ethics complaint, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, you've been exonerated. As I understand uh
Speaker 1: ten of his office people to go to see Michael
Speaker 1: Comb before his testimony. Um, and I believe that that
Speaker 1: he himself has told uh lies to the American people,
Speaker 1: and you know what he knew and he did it
Speaker 1: anyway to advance the false narrative. Is that true? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: remember it was right at two years ago every left
Speaker 1: wing organization in America, including all the media, started you know,
Speaker 1: just pouring gasoline to the lack of a better term,
Speaker 1: all over me with fake news stories. And then they
Speaker 1: came out and said that I disclosed something to the
Speaker 1: White House. So I did the honorable thing, and I said, look,
Speaker 1: there was no information disclosed. Why don't you guys just
Speaker 1: take a look at this if you want to, that's fine.
Speaker 1: So they so the Ethics Committee waspsed to just look
Speaker 1: at this and dismiss it. Well, the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is is that then it became political and it
Speaker 1: got held up for eight months even though they had
Speaker 1: absolutely no shred of evidence ever that I had disclosed anything.
Speaker 1: And so then you fast forward and you look at
Speaker 1: the you know, you look at what's happening today and
Speaker 1: the fact of you know this, look, this is witness tampering. Okay,
Speaker 1: witness coaching. I mean that's what they're doing here. Now,
Speaker 1: that's not illegal in the legislative sense. You know, there's
Speaker 1: nothing illegal that Shift did or his people, but it
Speaker 1: sure doesn't. It looks ridiculous, right, I mean, if we
Speaker 1: had done that over the last couple of years, they
Speaker 1: would have been calling for all of us to be
Speaker 1: removed from the from the House Intelligence Committee. Wow. Wow,
Speaker 1: this is a mind numbing all right, Devin Newness, you've
Speaker 1: been a rock star in all this and you've taken
Speaker 1: a lot of heat and it wasn't for you. Now,
Speaker 1: Doug Collins, Ad Meadows in Jordan and Ratcliffe and a
Speaker 1: few others, we'd never be here and this every day
Speaker 1: we bust out another brick. So we're gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: we're hoping to last question. How much more information based
Speaker 1: we got the Lisa Page testimony today? How much more
Speaker 1: out there is there that give me? Like, is it
Speaker 1: massive amounts of information we haven't gotten yet? There's still
Speaker 1: there's still a lot, Yeah, there's still a lot. What
Speaker 1: percent of the story do we know? Probably two thirds
Speaker 1: and the last third is going to be the blockbuster. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a lot of what you've seen in the first
Speaker 1: two thirds. So it's all it's all really bad. It's
Speaker 1: all right, I got all right, Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Devin Newness. We'll continue, all right as we roll along.
Speaker 1: All right, this is huge what Devin Newness is saying
Speaker 1: here when we get to the bottom of this, forget
Speaker 1: what we don't know at this point, what this is
Speaker 1: now doing. This is now they're released by of this
Speaker 1: now only the second transcript of testimony. Last week it
Speaker 1: was Bruce or this week LEASA page. But this week
Speaker 1: now takes it right into the Department of Justice in
Speaker 1: the office of Lauretta Lynch. This now takes it right
Speaker 1: to the CIA director at the time, Brennan. This now
Speaker 1: raises questions whether or not you know where did this
Speaker 1: phony information come from? And those that say they verified it,
Speaker 1: that would be an impossibility because the so called author
Speaker 1: can't verify it, doesn't stand by it. Nuts crazy. I'm
Speaker 1: surprised once again nobody has stomped you into the ground,
Speaker 1: because that's exactly where you belong. You belong in the
Speaker 1: full ground. You were an idiot and you're not, which
Speaker 1: means which you know tells me that you're lying. You're lying.
Speaker 1: Ain't nobody threatened your life? I'm threatened to punch your
Speaker 1: teeth down your throat though I would do that. I
Speaker 1: would definitely do that if I saw you out on
Speaker 1: the street, because I don't like people like you. You
Speaker 1: are the reason why hell exists on earth because you're
Speaker 1: a part of it and you come from it. You
Speaker 1: are a cancer. You're a walking talking in disease to humanity.
Speaker 1: If someone were to cut yourself and right now, there
Speaker 1: would be nothing but emptiness, nothing, nothing but blackness, because
Speaker 1: you don't have a heart. And if you do step
Speaker 1: to one of us in the community, you will get
Speaker 1: dealt with in kind. How about that? Because that's sure
Speaker 1: as hell will. And if somebody does get a hold
Speaker 1: of you and wipe your off the face of the planet,
Speaker 1: maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing, all right?
Speaker 1: Clan you with us twenty four now toil the top
Speaker 1: of the hour, eight hundred and nine four one sean
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: So there are all these wanna be whatever be you know,
Speaker 1: warriors that we don't we call them keyboard warriors that
Speaker 1: you know, tweet and text and post social media things
Speaker 1: and just to get attention. Now, what you just heard
Speaker 1: there was from a YouTube channel. I hope it's been
Speaker 1: taken down. I'll find out in a second. A woman
Speaker 1: who gives the name Kimberly Frasier. That went on for
Speaker 1: thirty minutes. Now, if you threaten somebody's life, that's you
Speaker 1: can't make terroristic threats or threaten somebody's life like in
Speaker 1: that particular case. Now at rant was aimed at somebody
Speaker 1: who's been a guest for many years on this program.
Speaker 1: DC McCallister, by the way, she co authored the New
Speaker 1: York Times best selling book Spygate with Dan Bongino, and
Speaker 1: she has an upcoming book that I'm sure it is
Speaker 1: going to create a lot of corowntroverse. You haven't ready
Speaker 1: yet what men want to say to women but they can't.
Speaker 1: DC McCallister joins us, Now, how are you That is
Speaker 1: beyond scary? Tell us what happened there? Oh, thanks for
Speaker 1: having me, Sean. It is scary and it's insane actually
Speaker 1: that someone would use their own name and post something
Speaker 1: like that on social media. Two thousands of subscribers she
Speaker 1: doesn't have a small subscriber list, and this was in
Speaker 1: response to after the election, women, white women in particular,
Speaker 1: we're being attacked by many authors on the left, feminist authors,
Speaker 1: mainly black feminist authors, calling us racist for not sticking
Speaker 1: to the group, this sisterhood and voting for Democrats in
Speaker 1: the election, and because the expectation among seminists today is
Speaker 1: that we all stick together. Well, I just said, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to stick together with the feminist I'm going
Speaker 1: to stand for what's right, and that doesn't make me
Speaker 1: a racist, doesn't make me a bigot in any form.
Speaker 1: I just think that we should vote on principle according
Speaker 1: to our right thinking and not just follow along with
Speaker 1: the herd, and that I would challenge anyone, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to fight anyone politically who tries to force me
Speaker 1: or intimidate me to go along with the seminist kind
Speaker 1: of thinking. All right, but let me let me stay
Speaker 1: focused on this and then I want to get into
Speaker 1: some of the broader issues. And the provocative title of
Speaker 1: your new book, which I can only imagine is going
Speaker 1: to make liberals heads spin and they'll probably projectile vomit
Speaker 1: like Linda Blair and the exorcist. But let's stay focused.
Speaker 1: So you hear this threat. What happened. I hope you
Speaker 1: followed the police report. I hope she was arrested. I
Speaker 1: hope there are charges. What's going on? Oh yeah, So
Speaker 1: as soon as she made as soon as I found
Speaker 1: out about it, I called the police. Local police came
Speaker 1: out and took a police report here in Charlotte, in
Speaker 1: Lucumberg County. But because she doesn't live in the state,
Speaker 1: she lives in another state. I had to contact the FBI,
Speaker 1: in which it goes into the guardian lead and so
Speaker 1: they'll be in investigating that. And that's where we are
Speaker 1: right now. And she needs to be held accountable. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's not a big voice, but this is the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that people read and then they getting started.
Speaker 1: You never know what kind of crazies are going to
Speaker 1: hear this kind of threat. And she says on the tape,
Speaker 1: she says, this is not she actually says, this is
Speaker 1: not an idle threat. I mean it, And she says,
Speaker 1: and I'll explain the police why I did it to you,
Speaker 1: because I hate you that much. What happened from there?
Speaker 1: This is where, by the way, this is where, and
Speaker 1: I know, we're spending a lot of time on the
Speaker 1: upper echelon of the FBI abusing power, being corrupt, trying
Speaker 1: to alter the outcome of an election and undo an
Speaker 1: election thereafter. This is what the real FBI does. These
Speaker 1: are the rank and file guys. What did they do? Yeah,
Speaker 1: these are the field agents and they're great. And so
Speaker 1: it's right now I can't really get into what they're doing.
Speaker 1: They're they're investigating right now, so it's still in that stage.
Speaker 1: But first of all, we're very sorry to hear that.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't care what your viewpoint is. You
Speaker 1: can't make threats against people, you know. It's just like,
Speaker 1: you know, we have all these controversies over freedom of speech,
Speaker 1: especially if you work at Fox News. They just constantly
Speaker 1: want to silence conservative voices. And my attitude is, well,
Speaker 1: I can give you chapter and verse of every single solitary,
Speaker 1: outrageous thing these people on the left have said, and
Speaker 1: they always get a pass, and even get a pass
Speaker 1: for me, because my attitude is if you don't like
Speaker 1: what you're hearing or watching, turn the channel. There's I
Speaker 1: have five hundred thousand channels now available to me. When
Speaker 1: you add an Amazon Prime and Netflix and HBO and
Speaker 1: Cinemax and Showtime and Epics, and I got them all
Speaker 1: and so that frustrates me, all right, So this is
Speaker 1: obviously I would hope that when you get to the
Speaker 1: point you will press charges because I mean, I know
Speaker 1: you have a family as well. That's got to be
Speaker 1: scary for them. Oh. Absolutely. And this is the second
Speaker 1: time in a year that I've had my life threatened.
Speaker 1: Last year, I was threatened by an anonymous They actually
Speaker 1: got to my home address and my cell phone numbers,
Speaker 1: and that was over an abortion issue. And this is
Speaker 1: the second time. And I'm a real person, and political
Speaker 1: commentators were real life people with families and children. And yes,
Speaker 1: my children are very upset. And it makes us people
Speaker 1: like me questions should I even be doing this? You know,
Speaker 1: I'm putting my family at risk simply for having the
Speaker 1: freedom to speak my opinion. That's not racist, because I
Speaker 1: reject racism in all forms and bigotry in all forms.
Speaker 1: I want people to live in coexistence, happily together in
Speaker 1: supporting one another and not making false accusations. Look at
Speaker 1: look at what they did. I went into this last
Speaker 1: night of this. You know, Nicolas Sandman, the sixteen year
Speaker 1: old kid who I think, in retrospect handled it better
Speaker 1: than I could have ever handled it, almost perfectly. Nonreactive
Speaker 1: told one kid they don't get involved, and it was
Speaker 1: unmerciful slander. Now all of the big companies, they're all
Speaker 1: gonna lose millions and millions, tens and hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars they're gonna lose. They're not gonna win those cases,
Speaker 1: especially with lynnwood Is as Nicolas Sandman's attorney. Look, I
Speaker 1: don't talk about it a lot. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: I rarely talk about it. Um. I can't even count
Speaker 1: the number of times in my life I've had to
Speaker 1: deal with this crap and I honestly don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about it, don't want to publicize it, don't want
Speaker 1: people aware of it. But I have over the years
Speaker 1: when I see other people that I know disagree with me,
Speaker 1: that are going through real pain and reallyking out, I
Speaker 1: try to reach out to them and say, listen, you're
Speaker 1: gonna be all right. Is what you got to do.
Speaker 1: Though there's there's certain things when you're doing them all. Um,
Speaker 1: a lot of this. You know you're a conservative commentator,
Speaker 1: You are not a feminist, you say you're not a feminist.
Speaker 1: You you see a Democratic party now where they're trying
Speaker 1: to pass bills where first we'll deliver the baby and
Speaker 1: then we'll make the baby comfortable, and then the mom
Speaker 1: can decide there and then if we're gonna keep the
Speaker 1: baby alive and resuscitated if it needs some type of assistance,
Speaker 1: and then we'll have a chat with the doctors after that,
Speaker 1: or you know, during birth, abortion, even during dilation. And
Speaker 1: this has taken on such an urgency in what eight
Speaker 1: nine states now in Washington, I believe life begins at
Speaker 1: conception personally, but even people that I know that say
Speaker 1: their pro choice on abortion and put their pro choice
Speaker 1: for three months, make up your mind. If a viable
Speaker 1: child is if that child inside a mother's womb has
Speaker 1: grown to the point they will live outside the womb
Speaker 1: on their own. That is a human soul. What do
Speaker 1: you why do you think this has now become such
Speaker 1: an urgent issue for the Democrats. The thread and the
Speaker 1: impetus of the feminist movement today, the radical feminist movement
Speaker 1: today is a power struggle. It's mainly a power struggle
Speaker 1: between men and women. Authority issues and those kinds of things. Marriage, family,
Speaker 1: having children is a natural keeps women down, they think,
Speaker 1: or it puts women in a certain place by nature.
Speaker 1: Feminism itself is more against biology and nature than it
Speaker 1: is against any kind of male oppression. And that's what
Speaker 1: you see with the abortion, with the contraceptive and this
Speaker 1: kind of thing, is they're railing against nature and not
Speaker 1: against men per se or And then they're definitely not
Speaker 1: fighting for rights, because they have the rights in our society.
Speaker 1: So what are they still fighting for? That's what I
Speaker 1: mean is that they're they're fighting for in a power struggle.
Speaker 1: They're not looking for their purpose as women. The only
Speaker 1: thing is I think there's variations of this. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have extreme feminism, which it would support you know,
Speaker 1: even during or after birth abortion or late term abortion
Speaker 1: like this um and other issues. I want to be
Speaker 1: I'd be so negligent. So you're you're writing a book
Speaker 1: what men want to say to women but can't, And
Speaker 1: I'm like thinking, oh boy, why do I why just
Speaker 1: throwm the title? Am I thinking You're gonna piss a
Speaker 1: lot of people off? What do you mean by that? Well?
Speaker 1: And in reference to what you said before, Oh, I
Speaker 1: am talking about radical feminism. When I'm a prising feminism,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about intersectional femism. Let me just have one
Speaker 1: thing here. I mean, I grew up with three sisters
Speaker 1: and a mom that was a prison card, you know,
Speaker 1: pretty tough lady, although she couldn't handle me. Um and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, and and I have so many people over
Speaker 1: the years they're just is. I can't explain it. It's
Speaker 1: just I think men and women, while biologically different, obviously,
Speaker 1: and men and women are the same. I just you know,
Speaker 1: you can make arguments that I don't know the people
Speaker 1: that I work with or work for me men women,
Speaker 1: that's just based on the individual. They're either great or
Speaker 1: they're not great. They either do their job or don't
Speaker 1: do their job. They're either committed or they're not committed.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense. Well, I think competency is equal
Speaker 1: between the sexes, I mean obviously, and I think we're
Speaker 1: equal obviously in value. But we are different, and we
Speaker 1: are it's of course we are. That's obvious. Yeah. By
Speaker 1: the way, and men, if you say men are generally
Speaker 1: physically stronger than women, that's a true statement. But don't
Speaker 1: tell that to Ronda ROUSI many people we don't play
Speaker 1: sports together for a reason. There's a very different generally speaking,
Speaker 1: and we have to talk in generalities when you talked
Speaker 1: about the sexes. But from the beginning of time, women
Speaker 1: and men are different and we have a different way
Speaker 1: of thinking. Even I don't mean intellectuals. We're both equal
Speaker 1: that way. I'm talking about in how we approach life
Speaker 1: and approach situations and especially relationships based on our biology.
Speaker 1: All right, quick break, We'll come back more with DC
Speaker 1: McAlister and what her new book is about what men
Speaker 1: want to say to women but can't also best selling
Speaker 1: author with Dan Bongino and Spygate. What are the things
Speaker 1: men want to say to women but can't say? Unless
Speaker 1: you know, there is one person that gets a pass
Speaker 1: on all of this, that's Howard Stern. He can say
Speaker 1: anything to anybody. Yeah, I listen to a show and
Speaker 1: I'm like, wow, man, I'd never want anyone to ever
Speaker 1: suppress the thing he's saying. I mean, he's probably the
Speaker 1: most honest broadcaster in the history of broadcasting. But if
Speaker 1: I said, you know, if I said one percent of
Speaker 1: what he says on a daily basis, I'd be off
Speaker 1: the air. Well, he's under the realm of US entertainment
Speaker 1: as an he say, he's not taken as seriously as
Speaker 1: political commentators, so I guess he can get away with
Speaker 1: a lot more than we can. But as far as
Speaker 1: what men want and the title is, it's not that
Speaker 1: men can't say it. Men can, but feminism, radical feminism,
Speaker 1: the modern feminism that we're facing today has very much
Speaker 1: silenced men. They really can't say. Culturally in the workplace
Speaker 1: and even in the home they can say it, but
Speaker 1: there's a real backlash to things that they want to say.
Speaker 1: And I got the idea of writing it. When I
Speaker 1: would comment on feminism and try to explain to women
Speaker 1: what men are really thinking and try to get women
Speaker 1: to understand men, I would always hear from men, thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you for saying something that I can't get away
Speaker 1: with saying. DVC McCalister, always great to talk to you,
Speaker 1: Very sorry about all you went through. Great congratulations on
Speaker 1: the New York Times bestseller Spygate with our buddy Dan Bongino.
Speaker 1: When is this book coming out? What men want to
Speaker 1: say to women but can't And when will I see
Speaker 1: you being excoriated all over the littal media? And I
Speaker 1: haven't read the book yet. End of the year January
Speaker 1: at the latest. So that's when the publishing data is. Well,
Speaker 1: you got everybody, got everybody's attention on my show. When
Speaker 1: you're just put out the title and we'll look forward
Speaker 1: to reading it, and then we'll look forward more importantly
Speaker 1: to the controversy than ensues afterwards. Our thoughts and prayers
Speaker 1: for your family. Nobody should have to go through that,
Speaker 1: and we appreciate you being with us. Oh well, thank
Speaker 1: you very much. Sean, appreciate it. I appreciate it. Eight
Speaker 1: hundred nine for one Sean Tolfree telephone number. Coming up next,
Speaker 1: our final news round up and information overload. Our impeachment, impeachable, peach, impeach, impeachment, impeachment, peach, impeachment, impeachable, peachable, impeachment,
Speaker 1: The Rush investigation, Coluded, putin collusion, Delt film actress Stormy Daniels,
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels, No, Stormy Sagar to Stormy Daniels affair Delt
Speaker 1: film star Stormy Daniels, she's a schooler. Is there a
Speaker 1: difference if the President said, hold of House, do you
Speaker 1: think these countries are goals? So Donald Trump has turned
Speaker 1: the Oval Office to hope the fake Milannia online conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory is back. Some people think that the first lady
Speaker 1: is using an imposter to stand in for her. You
Speaker 1: mean there are two women that are to pretend they're
Speaker 1: listening to him. Can look at the photos that are
Speaker 1: being posted? What do you think? You know that one
Speaker 1: does not look like her. Sorry, I wasn't going to
Speaker 1: go along with this, but that one in that picture
Speaker 1: doesn't like No, you weren't going to go now you will, No,
Speaker 1: it's a different shaped face. When there's a rumor like
Speaker 1: this and memes all over the place, I think it
Speaker 1: catches on because there's an element of truth to the
Speaker 1: idea that she doesn't want to spend time with them.
Speaker 1: I think this is crazy and it's absurd, and it's
Speaker 1: also funny and we need to laugh. For me, the
Speaker 1: laughing part of the coping mechanism. If you have not
Speaker 1: gone to hashtag fake Milannia, you must go see those
Speaker 1: you know, those those memes. I'll tell you what. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'd rather be talking about whether it's a fake Milania
Speaker 1: or whether he the President of the United States, is
Speaker 1: a Russian asset or not. That's and if there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a body double, can we get one for him. Yeah,
Speaker 1: now that would a good idea. And I don't even
Speaker 1: know how that show's still on the air. By the way,
Speaker 1: we wish Whoopie Goldberg while her Chi's on Fieling Well
Speaker 1: eight hundred and nine for one, Sean Tolfrey telephone number,
Speaker 1: News Round Up, Information Overload Hour. The first thing that
Speaker 1: you heard was a typical day on fake news CNN.
Speaker 1: Who's now that their their president comes out of hiding
Speaker 1: a guy by the name of Jeff Zucker And you know,
Speaker 1: remember it's it's always whatever the driving democratic talking point
Speaker 1: is on any given day. You know it literally, so
Speaker 1: called news networks every second, every minute, every hour of
Speaker 1: every twenty four hour day of every seven day week
Speaker 1: of every well sometimes thirty thirty, one hundred twenty eight
Speaker 1: month and all year long, bash Trump, pay Trump, Hay Trump.
Speaker 1: And now there is a massive loss suit. They're about
Speaker 1: to face two hundred and fifty million dollars for their
Speaker 1: willful slander and smearing and besmirchment and character assassination of
Speaker 1: Covington High School student Nicholas Sandman. And they're going up
Speaker 1: against our friend and attorney Lynn Wood, who's going to
Speaker 1: crush them all these companies are going to end up
Speaker 1: paying millions. It's a two hundred and fifty million dollar lawsuit.
Speaker 1: I predict there's a good shot of getting all of
Speaker 1: it more. Remember c and then rushed to judgment why
Speaker 1: Sandman was wearing a red Maga hat. They saw ten
Speaker 1: seconds of a Native American activist, Nathan Phillips getting in
Speaker 1: his face, and they said the boy walked up to him.
Speaker 1: But they never did even make a phone call. And
Speaker 1: it went on for days on fake news CNN, you know,
Speaker 1: and for the head of fake news CNN, when all
Speaker 1: they do is bash Trump, then to criticize Fox News.
Speaker 1: This is state run liberal television. And the worst part
Speaker 1: of all of this is it's seen internationally. If they're
Speaker 1: giving the world a distorted, abusively biased, perverted look at
Speaker 1: what the United States is about and their new love
Speaker 1: for Acasio Cortesse, maybe Jeff Zucker ought to apologize for
Speaker 1: the disgusting treatment and smears of a sixteen year old kid.
Speaker 1: And the only reason they used Nicolas Salman is because,
Speaker 1: oh he supports Trump is a make America Great Again
Speaker 1: hat on, and he allowed him and his network to
Speaker 1: be consumed by this. With every possible slander. You can imagine.
Speaker 1: You know how many times, how many more stories is
Speaker 1: CNN gonna get wrong? You know the people that worked there,
Speaker 1: Fox is dangerous or committed damage to the country. Well,
Speaker 1: when Zucker and his network is twenty four to seven
Speaker 1: hate Trump, they're not serving the people in this country.
Speaker 1: What about their fake story and the Japanese Prime minister
Speaker 1: when they were feeding the fishing upond or the fake
Speaker 1: news story about Trump and wiki leaks that they got wrong,
Speaker 1: or the fake news story about Trump in Russia it
Speaker 1: forced three CNN journalists have to resign. Or the fake
Speaker 1: news story about Sessions in Russia that they were forced
Speaker 1: to walk back, or the fake news story predicting that
Speaker 1: Komey would refuse Trump, or the fake news It just
Speaker 1: goes on and on, conspiracy after conspiracy. This is all
Speaker 1: we've gotten from them in three years. And it is
Speaker 1: literally an obsession and a compulsion on their part. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Joe Concha is the media advisor of the Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: radio show. Of course he works at the Hills, that's
Speaker 1: where they actually pay him. And we've had them on
Speaker 1: many times before. Look, it's they're not a news network.
Speaker 1: Let's forget the pretense. Here. They are in arm of
Speaker 1: all things hate Trump, of the resistance of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Socialist Extremist Party, and that's all they advocate every second
Speaker 1: of the day. I can't recall a single time I've
Speaker 1: ever seen that they've ever said, Hey, Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: given us a record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans,
Speaker 1: Asian Americans, women in the workplaces, youth unemployment. Never I've
Speaker 1: never heard a positive story ever on Trump, and they
Speaker 1: jump in head first, and when they're proven wrong, they
Speaker 1: don't barely say anything, and that move on to the
Speaker 1: next line conspiracy theory. Well, Sean, the numbers you just
Speaker 1: cited are numbers, right, They're not opinions as far as
Speaker 1: unemployment as in regards to overall unemployment or regards to
Speaker 1: the specific race. Those are things that are hard and
Speaker 1: fast numbers, and they should be presented as such. And instead,
Speaker 1: I think the problem that a lot of folks have
Speaker 1: that I've spoken to that are supporters of the President
Speaker 1: and watch CNN is that the news side of CNN
Speaker 1: is presented as news when it's really opinion. In other words,
Speaker 1: I think I've talked to you about this before. Don
Speaker 1: Lemon or Chris Cromo or Anderson Cooper are all called
Speaker 1: anchors on that network, and to compare them, for instance,
Speaker 1: with say Chris Wallace, get Bear chips Man. I could
Speaker 1: go down the line as far as the news organization
Speaker 1: of Fox News, Catherine Harrihage, John Roberts, Julian Turner. By
Speaker 1: the way, no, no, no, there are plenty liberal opinions
Speaker 1: on Fox News. Trust me, you know, I'm look. I
Speaker 1: know I get written about the most right. Yeah, I know,
Speaker 1: I'm saying that the news side of Fox. I can
Speaker 1: tell that Chris Wallace is an anchor if you go.
Speaker 1: But if you look back at the moderators in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: of all those debates, and there were dozens, he was
Speaker 1: easily the best because he's been in news for fifty
Speaker 1: years and he doesn't sure lead for the president. He
Speaker 1: presents fax in the ass. By the way, I agree
Speaker 1: with that. I thought he did by far the single
Speaker 1: best debate of anybody in that cycle, No doubt about
Speaker 1: Easily and Brett Bair same thing. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I doubt they agree with Sean Hannity's opinions on a
Speaker 1: lot of things. Oh probably not. I mean maybe they
Speaker 1: probably honestly, they probably hate when Nafay woll you work
Speaker 1: with that Hannity guy. I actually asked Prepare that when
Speaker 1: he was on about as Late as Book. I said,
Speaker 1: how much crap do you get for working on a
Speaker 1: network with me? And he goes a lot, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: too bad. Well, the good news is that you have
Speaker 1: to guess, right, Well, maybe they can disagree with you
Speaker 1: a greueth. They they they don't share their opinions. They just
Speaker 1: ask tough questions, present the news and cover important stories.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you get that with CNN, because
Speaker 1: I try to find a comparable person on there with
Speaker 1: those books, and it's very hard to find. So I
Speaker 1: think that's the biggest problem that people have. Look, I
Speaker 1: don't have themselves as objective. YEA, go ahead. I make
Speaker 1: my living being a talk show host. I'm a member
Speaker 1: of the press. And say, even Hannity admits he said
Speaker 1: he's not a journalist. I said, no, I'm a talk
Speaker 1: show host and being a talk show host, and you
Speaker 1: and I have gone over this before. I can produce
Speaker 1: hundreds and hundreds of hours radio TV of me doing
Speaker 1: straight news. I don't care maybe about war or some
Speaker 1: type of disaster, or maybe it's just a straight up interview.
Speaker 1: Tell me about your book. Then we've done a lot
Speaker 1: of investigative reporting. Nobody was really vetting Obamas as strongly
Speaker 1: as me and my team were in eighty and seven
Speaker 1: to oh eight, or when we got to twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: and sixteen, you know, telling the story of what eight
Speaker 1: years of Obama was. The media never touched it. And
Speaker 1: I would say for two years we have done more
Speaker 1: with real evidence, real proof about abuse of power. So
Speaker 1: we do investigative report. That's part of being a talk
Speaker 1: show host. Straight opinion is part of it. We sometimes
Speaker 1: do cultural issues, sports and everything, and I describe what
Speaker 1: I do as I do everything in the newspaper everything. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: they say they're journalists, but they really you know, I
Speaker 1: don't even think they're talk show hosts because I don't
Speaker 1: see any investigative work they have run with whatever BuzzFeed
Speaker 1: feeds them, no pun intended. Look, you got to have
Speaker 1: some teeth behind the opinions. Whenever I try to do radio,
Speaker 1: and I do radio alogy now after you in New York,
Speaker 1: and whatever I do television, I just don't come on
Speaker 1: and say here's what I think and it's just an opinion,
Speaker 1: you get it, you have to have some foundation behind it.
Speaker 1: And that's why it's good to have the John Solomon's
Speaker 1: from the hill on in the world, who you know,
Speaker 1: can bring you what his latest investigative report is on
Speaker 1: X Y Z. And yeah, I hate to tell you, Joe,
Speaker 1: I have a lot on my own sort you know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know. And that's another thing, you know, go back
Speaker 1: to certain cases. I went down to Florida and I
Speaker 1: talked to George Zimmerman and interviewed him. I went during
Speaker 1: the Duke Lacrosse case. I met with some of the families.
Speaker 1: I met with some of the kids to get information
Speaker 1: so I wouldn't rush the judgment. Look how many times
Speaker 1: they're wrong Ferguson Missouri or Cambridge Police or UVA or
Speaker 1: Duke Lacrosse or Baltimore, Freddie Gray. You know, they're wrong
Speaker 1: a lot and I'm right a lot. And I think
Speaker 1: the perception from the public is the important thing here
Speaker 1: in the bottom line is that Axels and survey Monkey
Speaker 1: did this poll last year that I can never get
Speaker 1: out of my head as far as how the public
Speaker 1: views the press these days, you always see her like
Speaker 1: trust forgets for US seventy people who deemed themselves as independent.
Speaker 1: Thinks that the press knowingly makes up stories, in other words,
Speaker 1: presents story whereas they know to be fake or false.
Speaker 1: Republicans feel the same way. Even a majority of Democrats
Speaker 1: feel the same way. So I think what they do
Speaker 1: more than that is mistakes. It's found effect. It's like
Speaker 1: with the Smolett case or the Nicolas Sandman Covington Kids case.
Speaker 1: You know, they hear something and if it advances their narrative,
Speaker 1: they want to roll with it. And look, look at
Speaker 1: the case of Nicolas Sandman, all they had to do
Speaker 1: was okay, before we run with this, maybe we ought
Speaker 1: to talk to him, Maybe we ought to talk to
Speaker 1: the school, Maybe we ought to talk to another eyewitness.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can see if there's more tape that what
Speaker 1: led up to this. Well, the last part is the
Speaker 1: accurate part, with which you obviously you do talk to
Speaker 1: the other side, but most importantly there were other tapes
Speaker 1: out there. But it's being first instead of accurate. And
Speaker 1: then when you're not accurate in these situations, almost always
Speaker 1: there's no accountability. And although well now there is actually
Speaker 1: thanks land Wood, because he's bringing these lawsuits about and look,
Speaker 1: it's not about the money like the two hundred fifty
Speaker 1: million dollars you know, Jeff Bezos and Washington Posters see,
Speaker 1: it's not about winning that exact amount or anything close
Speaker 1: to it. The symbolism around accountability and if they could
Speaker 1: win this suit here against those outlets, I think that'll
Speaker 1: go a long way. And people in this organization, I
Speaker 1: don't know, because you know, he's not living this. I
Speaker 1: first met Lynn would and this changed my life, and
Speaker 1: I've told the story many times on the air. He
Speaker 1: was representing Richard Jewell. I didn't know that the day
Speaker 1: that the Atlanta Journal Constitution came out with the theory
Speaker 1: that he fit the profile of the lone bomber because
Speaker 1: he lived with his mother, I didn't know I was
Speaker 1: live on the air. I had no idea Richard Jewell
Speaker 1: was actually listening to me say that is the dumbest
Speaker 1: thing I've ever heard, and everybody else rushed to judgment
Speaker 1: that the hero is likely the top suspect. He lives
Speaker 1: with his mom, and I remember, I just it taught
Speaker 1: me a valuable lesson. That's you want to know why
Speaker 1: I'm usually end up being right and these others end
Speaker 1: up being wrong is because I learned that lesson. And
Speaker 1: if you don't rush to judgment, what's that you didn't you?
Speaker 1: Then organized and at an interview with Jewel, Yeah, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: I had just started in Fox. You know, what do
Speaker 1: you think happen in twenty and sixteen? Why did they
Speaker 1: get that election so wrong? It's because so many people
Speaker 1: were pining about the election they got two. I talked
Speaker 1: to people in the Trump campaign. I talked to the president.
Speaker 1: Now the day of the election, when the eggs of
Speaker 1: poles came out, I read them, called them, said somebody
Speaker 1: is about to bring you horrible news. Don't believe it.
Speaker 1: And then I told them a story about two thousand
Speaker 1: and four when those eggs of poles came out. John
Speaker 1: Kerry was the president, and Dick Cheney that day called
Speaker 1: this radio program at five thirty five when he got
Speaker 1: off an airplane and started pleading with Ohio Republicans and
Speaker 1: conservatives to get out and Florida Republicans and conservatives to
Speaker 1: get out because he read them too. And I told
Speaker 1: that story to the presidents. At these polls, you don't
Speaker 1: poll accurately. Don't believe it. I don't believe it because
Speaker 1: it had him losing everything. North Carolina was gone, Ohio
Speaker 1: was gone, Florida was gone, Pennsylvania gone, Michigan, Wisconsin gone.
Speaker 1: And you know, maybe it was gonna win five or
Speaker 1: six states. That's it was a landslide. And the media polls,
Speaker 1: I swear God, should be banned or you don't report them,
Speaker 1: because remember what happened in two thousand when Florida was
Speaker 1: called and the western part of the state and the
Speaker 1: panhandles still hadn't voted. At least the polls are still
Speaker 1: still open. So no, don't there shouldn't be the calling
Speaker 1: of these states before all the votes are in. I'm
Speaker 1: very uncomfortable with that. Well, but that's why you can
Speaker 1: watch when they when when the coverage began that night,
Speaker 1: they're all giddy, they're all making their predictions Hillary Clinton's,
Speaker 1: and they're happy because their candidate won. And as the
Speaker 1: night went on, all of a sudden, the depression started
Speaker 1: kicking in and they couldn't believe what was unfolding before
Speaker 1: there is all right, quick break more with Joe Concha
Speaker 1: of the Hill. As we continue, eight hundred nine four one,
Speaker 1: Shawn is our number. All right, As we continue, Joe
Speaker 1: Conscha is well us, we'll get to your calls next
Speaker 1: half hour. In this case of apparently rich parents well
Speaker 1: cheating to get their kids into prestigious schools. Tell you
Speaker 1: about that as we continue with Joe Concha of The Hill.
Speaker 1: Last a question, now that you're in a talk radio host,
Speaker 1: what do you do for a living? I write, I'm
Speaker 1: a media reporter during the day, and you go to
Speaker 1: my archive. I cover stories astray as I possibly can.
Speaker 1: I do one column a week so I can give
Speaker 1: my opinion, and then I get to talk in the
Speaker 1: air for three hours about stuff. It's tremendous. Well, congratulations.
Speaker 1: You're on our flagship station in New York w r ON.
Speaker 1: Immediately after this program AM seven ten to talk in
Speaker 1: New York, New Jersey, Long Island. All right, Joe Concha,
Speaker 1: thank you, appreciate it. Eight hundred nine four one Shaun
Speaker 1: is our number. We're here today to announce charges in
Speaker 1: the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. We've charged fifty people nationwide with participating in
Speaker 1: a conspiracy that involved first cheating on college entrance exams,
Speaker 1: meaning the SAT and the ACT, and second securing admission
Speaker 1: to elite colleges by bribing coaches at those schools to
Speaker 1: accept certain students under false pretenses. In return for bribes,
Speaker 1: these coaches agreed to pretend that certain applicants were recruited
Speaker 1: competitive athletes, when in fact the applicants were not, as
Speaker 1: the coaches knew the students athletic credentials had been fabricated. Overall,
Speaker 1: today we have charged three people who organized these scams,
Speaker 1: two sat or act EXLAM administrators, one EXAM procter, one
Speaker 1: college administrator, nine coaches at elite schools, and thirty three
Speaker 1: parents who paid enormous sums to guarantee their children's admission
Speaker 1: to certain schools through the use of bribes and fake
Speaker 1: academic and athletic credentials. A central defendant in the scheme, WILLIAMS. Singer,
Speaker 1: will plead guilty today to charges of racketeering, conspiracy, money
Speaker 1: lawn during conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. Singer allegedly ran a college counseling service
Speaker 1: and something called the Key Worldwide Foundation between roughly twenty
Speaker 1: eleven and twenty eighteen. Wealthy parents paid Singer about twenty
Speaker 1: five million dollars in total to guarantee their children's admission
Speaker 1: to elite schools including Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, the University of
Speaker 1: Southern California, the University of Texas UCLA, and Wake Forest. Unbelievable. Now,
Speaker 1: what's so fascinating about this is this is by far
Speaker 1: the largest ever college admissions scam prosecuted by the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, and of you know, fifty of the people charged,
Speaker 1: thirty three were parents, you know, and you're talking about
Speaker 1: massive amounts of money here. And the crimes include cheating
Speaker 1: on these entrance exams I guess what the SATs acts,
Speaker 1: as well as bribing college officials to say students were
Speaker 1: coming in to compete on athletic teams when those students
Speaker 1: were in fact not even athletic at all. I mean,
Speaker 1: how did you pull that one off, George? And you
Speaker 1: know these are all very big schools. Anyway, that was
Speaker 1: the Boston US Attorney Andrew Lelling, calling it the largest
Speaker 1: scam ever prosecuted by the Justice Department college admissions. And
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny about that. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: for example, I have two kids that are athletes that
Speaker 1: were recruited all all both my children's friends all recruited athletes.
Speaker 1: They all know each other. And if whatever sport you
Speaker 1: pick here, if the person never trained in the sport,
Speaker 1: you're gonna know it in three seconds. I saw. I
Speaker 1: don't know how they pulled that off on that side.
Speaker 1: On the other side, they apparently discovered this accidentally while
Speaker 1: working on an unrelated undercover operation. And apparently these parents
Speaker 1: would pay these massive amounts of money to get these
Speaker 1: people in. Now it caught up in this whole thing.
Speaker 1: Do you remember from Full House the actress Laurie what's
Speaker 1: her name Laughlin? And what's the name of Desperate Housewives,
Speaker 1: Felicity Huffman. They're among the forty people indicted in this thing.
Speaker 1: None of the students would charge. Prosecutors said their parents
Speaker 1: were the scheme's principal actors, and court filings released paint
Speaker 1: a pretty ugly picture of privileged parents committing crimes to
Speaker 1: get their kids into selective schools. And two of the
Speaker 1: participants in the scheme are scheduled under guilty please And
Speaker 1: this guy's singer is charged with getting twenty five million dollars,
Speaker 1: paying some of it to college coach coaches or the
Speaker 1: standardized test officials for helping to rig the admissions process
Speaker 1: or pocketing the rest himself, and he would disguise the
Speaker 1: money using a nonprofit And one of the cooperating witnesses,
Speaker 1: according to the court documents, as a former head of
Speaker 1: Yells Woman's Soccer who pleaded guilty in the case nearly
Speaker 1: a year ago and has been helping the FBI gather evidence. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, part of it is is like, for example,
Speaker 1: if you're on a football team, basketball team, baseball, tay,
Speaker 1: whatever your sport is. If you're being recruited academically, let's
Speaker 1: say the school demand straight a's, or the school and
Speaker 1: every schools so competitive academically, or the school demands you know,
Speaker 1: a thirty four out of a what is it thirty
Speaker 1: six on the act or like a fifteen hundred out
Speaker 1: of sixteen hundred on the SATs, And and if you
Speaker 1: have people setting it's unbelievable, and I wonder what the
Speaker 1: fine is now. Huffman's accused of paying fifteen thousand, Lachland's
Speaker 1: accused of paying five hundred thousand dollars and directing the
Speaker 1: money to go to certain places. And apparently that you know,
Speaker 1: it was disguised as this profitable thing in anyway they
Speaker 1: ended up getting higher scores in the SATs than what
Speaker 1: they had taken a year earlier, whatever, whatever, whatever. They
Speaker 1: didn't say what the possible penalty is here? You know
Speaker 1: who knows? You just think. I'm like, we're all helicopter
Speaker 1: parents these days, I mean the days when we used to.
Speaker 1: And I'm curious, by the way, Ethan, did you grow
Speaker 1: up like I did? Where I get off the school bus,
Speaker 1: I take my I get on my bicycle, and maybe
Speaker 1: it's hockey day, maybe it's stickball day, maybe it's baseball day,
Speaker 1: basketball to whatever it happened to be. My parents had
Speaker 1: no idea where I was. I think I was pulled
Speaker 1: to be home for supper. And my father's whistle whistle
Speaker 1: was so loud it could be heard thirty miles, you know,
Speaker 1: around in a circumference. Did you live that? Yeah? No,
Speaker 1: I mean my parents knew I was playing sports. I
Speaker 1: mean that's all they knew. They didn't know what I
Speaker 1: was doing. I was either swimming. I didn't know where
Speaker 1: you were, who you were with, and they just told
Speaker 1: you to be home in time for dinner. Yeah, But
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know how these people got away
Speaker 1: with it. Supposedly they photoshopped some of these kids into
Speaker 1: and did photoshoots to make it look like they were athletes,
Speaker 1: and even took like stock photos of people that weren't
Speaker 1: these students and submitted it as though they were the athletes.
Speaker 1: It's kind of nuts. Well, the coaches, I mean, the
Speaker 1: funny thing is that the coaches or the athletic directors
Speaker 1: are involved on this. I don't you know they have
Speaker 1: all of these college you know rankings in terms of
Speaker 1: you know, they could go back like, for example, in
Speaker 1: the sports my kids play, we can go back to
Speaker 1: when they were ten years old playing the sport. Yeah,
Speaker 1: my time from swimming from back in high school. We're
Speaker 1: talking about over a decade ago. Are still online? They really?
Speaker 1: Are they any good? Don't look them up? No? No, no,
Speaker 1: no no. And then then there are rating services you
Speaker 1: know caught like for example, there's like in tennis tennis recruiting,
Speaker 1: or they have, um, what's the new one that they
Speaker 1: have some other points. You know, I'm so out of
Speaker 1: it the loop now because just you get disgusted going
Speaker 1: all these stupid matches all the time. It's you know,
Speaker 1: how hard it is to watch your kids every other
Speaker 1: weekend and competitive sports I began to hate it, and
Speaker 1: all my friends began to hate We all hated it.
Speaker 1: And then the funny thing is when they finally do
Speaker 1: play in college, it just becomes fun because it's a
Speaker 1: team sport. Then you know some of these individual sports. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's that's pretty amazing. All right. Eight hundred nine four one.
Speaker 1: Sean told free telephone number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. Uh, let's go to Chad Is
Speaker 1: in Midland, Texas. Chat. How are you glad you called?
Speaker 1: By the way, I bette, Midland's really really happy with
Speaker 1: a new green deal and the idea that the oil
Speaker 1: and gas industry is dead in ten years. How Midland,
Speaker 1: Texas going to react to that? So it's more comical
Speaker 1: and just entertainment now than just a total listen. It's entertaining,
Speaker 1: But you tell your friends in Midland take it seriously.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of these people that believe this absolutely.
Speaker 1: And I go I go to a handful of Riggs
Speaker 1: every single day and about between seven to ten and
Speaker 1: they have little offices, you know, and we're have to
Speaker 1: visit the company representative. And every single day, about seven
Speaker 1: to ten riggs that I visited, every one of them
Speaker 1: have on Fox News. You'll get that one per center
Speaker 1: who has on CNN for some god awful reason. And
Speaker 1: I don't know why. But uh, in Midland, when we
Speaker 1: hear that it's more, we just uh, we just laugh
Speaker 1: at it, like that's never gonna happen. This is a
Speaker 1: point you you it's on paper eliminating oil, gas, cars,
Speaker 1: cows and planes and everything's free eat and you literally
Speaker 1: confiscate percent of the profits. And you know the socialists
Speaker 1: their favorite word is free. And you know, so Alex said,
Speaker 1: you acrost your cortez. I can never say it as
Speaker 1: good as Restlin boss says it. But she wants to
Speaker 1: south By Southwest. I'm really interested to know how she
Speaker 1: got too and from New York, you know, t Austin,
Speaker 1: Texas from New York. And we know the answer. She
Speaker 1: took an airplane, just like she takes a Nay, she
Speaker 1: doesn't take Amtrak. Amtrak from say New York to DC.
Speaker 1: They have what's called the Acella, and she could take
Speaker 1: a train. She takes she takes the airplane shuttle, the
Speaker 1: Delta shuttle. What what she doesn't want to say is
Speaker 1: it's banned for everybody else. It's still okay for government
Speaker 1: to do. But sort a question about Midland, tehn it is,
Speaker 1: it's there's no slowing down on here, even though the
Speaker 1: prices of bowl is you know, blessed in sixty. But
Speaker 1: my talkie point today was, and I feel like, you know,
Speaker 1: top rating on Super Bowl sending. When I call and
Speaker 1: get through and get to talk to you, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: glad you did. Yeah, listen, I'm just I just look.
Speaker 1: Laugh all you want, but take it a little seriously.
Speaker 1: Look at Bozo got closer than we thought. You know,
Speaker 1: we got one hundred million dollars to throw at Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: And you know, money, money influences elections. There's no doubt
Speaker 1: about it. All right, my friend, thank you, all my
Speaker 1: best to Midland. All right, all right, let's say high
Speaker 1: to Canada's in California. Yes, a highly. By the way,
Speaker 1: is it's serious the secession movement, that they're gonna they're
Speaker 1: gonna pull away from the United States and be their
Speaker 1: own socialist utopia. Oh I sure hope not. Oh my goodness,
Speaker 1: but you never know what's going on in liberal Fornia. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't know if i'd be against that. Well, as
Speaker 1: long as they keep the ocean part of it to themselves. Listen,
Speaker 1: when you start out with California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois,
Speaker 1: that's a lot of electoral votes. And that's why it's
Speaker 1: so much harder, you know, for a Republican to become president.
Speaker 1: They got to run the table. Well in California is
Speaker 1: never going to divide up that fifty something electoral votes.
Speaker 1: It's not going to happen. Well, I think if they
Speaker 1: think about it that way, although they were thinking about, Okay,
Speaker 1: well I make Orange County one, and then we will
Speaker 1: make eleven other states out of it, and we'll have
Speaker 1: two senators and however many congressional representatives and nobody's going
Speaker 1: to accept that either. No, but as long as they
Speaker 1: do it, and they keep sacramental part of that ocean
Speaker 1: front over there, happy to happy to see them go.
Speaker 1: Problem is everyone's leaving California, New York in these places
Speaker 1: because of the regulatory burdens and taxes, but they're taking
Speaker 1: their liberal values when they go to Nevada or Texas
Speaker 1: or Arizona. We'll see. I'm the odd one. I was
Speaker 1: born and raised in Texas and I ended up out here.
Speaker 1: Big mistake. You've made a big mistake. Well, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: trade the mountains in Yosemite for that flat land any day. Listen,
Speaker 1: you're not gonna look. California is beautiful. I lived there
Speaker 1: five years in Santa Barbara. I was the poorest person
Speaker 1: that lived there, but I lived there for five years. Oh.
Speaker 1: I'm up here in Mariposa and it's a pretty darn
Speaker 1: conservative town. All I have to say is four words.
Speaker 1: Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, Yuck Garnett. Well, Sean, the reason
Speaker 1: I was calling is to thank you for being such
Speaker 1: a great American and thank you for standing up for
Speaker 1: my president, who I absolutely adore and I'm so grateful
Speaker 1: that he's leading our country. And you know, my grandfather,
Speaker 1: Colonel Van Thomas Barfoot, received the Medal of Honor in
Speaker 1: World War Two for fighting the Nazis and then went
Speaker 1: on to fight the Homeowners Association in Virginia over as
Speaker 1: American player. And thank you so much. You guys are
Speaker 1: doing just like he did, maybe without the bazooka and
Speaker 1: the bullets, but you're still fighting fighting for us, the
Speaker 1: American Listen, we're all spokes in a wheel and this
Speaker 1: is a moment where the country needs all hands on Deck.
Speaker 1: I mean what they're pushing, what they're trying to do,
Speaker 1: the radicalization, how they're trying to destroy a duly elected president,
Speaker 1: abuse of power. We better get this right or we're
Speaker 1: going to be in big trouble in terms of what
Speaker 1: we leave our kids and grandkids. But thank you, my friend.
Speaker 1: All Right, Hannity Tonight, nine Eastern. Oh, we're gonna we
Speaker 1: are going to explain a Hannity History lesson on socialism.
Speaker 1: But the big news today finally releasing once again. We
Speaker 1: had Bruce Or last week earlier today, Lisa Pages testimony
Speaker 1: reveals so much. We'll break it down. Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, HARALDA. Ravera ninety Eastern Hannity Fox. Hope you'll
Speaker 1: join us. We'll see you then, have a great night
Speaker 1: back here tomorrow