Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. All right, So I
Speaker 1: have insomnia, but I've never slept better. And what's changed
Speaker 1: just a pillow. It's had such a positive impact on
Speaker 1: my life. And of course I'm talking about my pillow.
Speaker 1: I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now
Speaker 1: you can to just go to my pillow dot com
Speaker 1: or call eight hundred zero nine zero use the promo
Speaker 1: code Hannity, and Mike Lindell, the inventor of My Pillow,
Speaker 1: has the special four pack. Now you get off to
Speaker 1: my Pillow premiums and to go Anywhere pillows. My pillows
Speaker 1: made here in the USA has a sixty day unconditional
Speaker 1: money back guarrantee and a ten you warranty. Go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com right now or call eight zero
Speaker 1: nine zero promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special
Speaker 1: four pack offer. You get to my Pillow Premium pillows
Speaker 1: and to go anywhere pillows forty percent off. And that
Speaker 1: means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind
Speaker 1: of peace full and RESTful and comfortable and deep peeling
Speaker 1: and recuperative sleep that you've been leaving and you certainly
Speaker 1: deserve my pillow dot com promo code Hannity, you will
Speaker 1: love this pillow. All right, let's go to some weekend
Speaker 1: information and um, I've we're gonna break this whole thing down.
Speaker 1: We've got three big stories were following today. Number one,
Speaker 1: the President has has signed a new executive order banning
Speaker 1: travel from six terror tied countries. Jay Secular believes that
Speaker 1: it is an eighth Supreme Court decision and that is
Speaker 1: far more rock solid legally and better legal footing than
Speaker 1: was the first one. That is issue one. At some
Speaker 1: point today, probably after the show, we are going to
Speaker 1: get an outline of what the Republicans are planning, just
Speaker 1: an outline that is, as they move towards the reconciliation
Speaker 1: part of repeal and replacing Obamacare. There are critics out
Speaker 1: there that are skeptical and that are claiming that the
Speaker 1: mandate will exist, albeit another form. The mandate would be
Speaker 1: to insurance companies now to the government, that the Cadillac
Speaker 1: tacks would stay, uh, that there might be a new entitlement.
Speaker 1: But you know what, all of this also will be
Speaker 1: subject to a lot of amendments, and it's not going
Speaker 1: to be the same bill whatever outline they have today
Speaker 1: by the time it actually gets out and and voted on.
Speaker 1: So we'll follow that. But our top story today is
Speaker 1: very simple. Did people in the Obama administration were they
Speaker 1: seeking surveillance against Donald Trump? An opposition political opponent in
Speaker 1: the middle of an election year. Now fascinating side note
Speaker 1: to all of us. Later in the program, we will
Speaker 1: have William Binny on the program. Is one of the
Speaker 1: architects of the n s A surveillance program, and he's
Speaker 1: actually saying that every American, every minute of every day,
Speaker 1: is being surveiled. Everything from every tax message, every phone call,
Speaker 1: and every email you send is being data. Mind Now,
Speaker 1: it all starts with this weekend, and it starts with
Speaker 1: President Trump, and it starts with his very simple basic
Speaker 1: text that he couldn't believe that, in fact, that he
Speaker 1: believes that that the former president was in fact survailing
Speaker 1: Trump towers and why are tapping Trump towers? Now? What
Speaker 1: does this mean? Well, that would mean why what information
Speaker 1: do they have? Nobody seems except the New York Times,
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail, McClatchy and all these other quote mainstream
Speaker 1: news sources, all of them confirmed. Now, I've spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time on this program in the last number
Speaker 1: of weeks talking about the shadow government, the deep state.
Speaker 1: I've been talking about how we have within our government
Speaker 1: because we haven't had the time to actually get everybody
Speaker 1: that needs to be confirmed confirmed. So what don't we
Speaker 1: have a bunch of Obama holdovers, a bunch of career
Speaker 1: bureau kratz. We have all of these intelligent leaks, and
Speaker 1: nobody can seem to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: This is the swamp. How many times have I told
Speaker 1: you that there is five separate sources of people that
Speaker 1: are now literally trying to destroy the president. You've got
Speaker 1: the all left propaganda, destroy Trump media that that establishment
Speaker 1: obviously wants him out. The Democratic establishment from day one,
Speaker 1: they couldn't accept that Donald Trump won the presidency. Democrats
Speaker 1: have been talking about impeachment even before he got into office.
Speaker 1: That's too Then you've got weak Republicans. They make their
Speaker 1: living off of being called senator and congressmen, and some
Speaker 1: of them that's why they didn't do anything and keep
Speaker 1: their promises on healthcare or the president's unconstitutional executive order.
Speaker 1: Then you've got the snowflakes out there. I made a
Speaker 1: crazy bunch of people, some paid, some not paid. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. They're trying to create the impression that
Speaker 1: all hell is breaking loose in the country, and it's
Speaker 1: all designed to create a false image of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You have the media questioning his sanity, you have the
Speaker 1: media attacking him on if he breathes it, if it
Speaker 1: takes a breath in the morning when he wakes up.
Speaker 1: They they're never gonna be happy. Their total aim as
Speaker 1: his destruction. They're not his friends. They never thought this
Speaker 1: day would happen. I was watching the Circus last night
Speaker 1: on Showtime. No. It was that's that political show with
Speaker 1: whatever Heilaman and Helper and and whatever his name is.
Speaker 1: And I actually think it's a good show. It's just
Speaker 1: three liberals for the most part. McKinnon and But the
Speaker 1: bottom line is they covered election day and they were shocked.
Speaker 1: They couldn't believe it. And the country for days and
Speaker 1: weeks and months is gonna be stunned at this outcome
Speaker 1: that nobody saw coming, etcetera. Well, they don't want the outcome.
Speaker 1: They wanted a minimum to stop Trump from his agenda.
Speaker 1: They wanted a maximum they wanted as much collateral damage
Speaker 1: and him out of office as quickly as possible. And
Speaker 1: they'll stop at nothing and all weekend long, all you here.
Speaker 1: And then the other one is, now we've got an
Speaker 1: intelligence community that is leaking like a sieve. You know.
Speaker 1: Think back to General Flynn for a second here. General
Speaker 1: Flynn never ever should have lost his position. Why because
Speaker 1: the phone call that our intelligence community and I have
Speaker 1: no problem with the with them tapping the Russian ambassador.
Speaker 1: That's their job, intelligence, counter intelligence. We need to know
Speaker 1: with our friends and enemies so called friends are up
Speaker 1: to and so they spy on us and we spy
Speaker 1: on them. That's part of the way that the world works.
Speaker 1: It's an evil world, and you gotta protect the country.
Speaker 1: And one of the ways to protect the country is
Speaker 1: you gather intelligence. The way you gather intelligence people on
Speaker 1: the ground. You have people that are listening, eavesdropping on
Speaker 1: phone calls, stealing text messages, dealing uh emails, whatever they do. Alright,
Speaker 1: So on the phone call, as a matter of law,
Speaker 1: when they're tapping the Russian ambassador and they identify an
Speaker 1: American is on the call, they have to minimize what
Speaker 1: they hear. The Americans saying because they don't have a
Speaker 1: warrant to listen in an eavesdrop on any American, and
Speaker 1: that is obviously a violation. I think you can argue
Speaker 1: the fourth, first, fifth, and sixth amendments if you really
Speaker 1: want to get into the technicalities here. They do not
Speaker 1: They did not have a right to surveil and identify
Speaker 1: General Flynn. And as a matter of of basic course,
Speaker 1: the way those calls historically have been handled, this is
Speaker 1: why General Flynn was so unprecedented, is that once they
Speaker 1: identify an Americans on the call, they're supposed to do
Speaker 1: what's minimization. Minimization means they stop listening. That means they're
Speaker 1: only allowed to listen a little bit. And when they
Speaker 1: finally write up a report on the call, they don't
Speaker 1: identify who the American was. As a usual practice, standard practice,
Speaker 1: they would write, oh, we surveiled the Ussian ambassador and
Speaker 1: this is what he said, and then an American got
Speaker 1: on the call and we heard a little of this
Speaker 1: and a little of that, but you don't identify the American.
Speaker 1: They took down every word that Clint said, and then
Speaker 1: they use that information illegally. It's a felony and they
Speaker 1: leaked the whole damn thing. So you've got this deep state,
Speaker 1: Obama holdovers, bureaucratic, lifelong bureaucrats that are sabotaging. This is
Speaker 1: the shadow government I've been talking about. This is what
Speaker 1: deep state means. They are sabotaging the Trump presidency. Now,
Speaker 1: let's go to what we've been listening to and watching
Speaker 1: all weekend long. You've got this this hysteria that is
Speaker 1: built up and repeated and repeatd Where's the evidence? Where
Speaker 1: is the evidence? After Donald Trump? Why you demand the evidence?
Speaker 1: After sending out a single tweet Saturday morning accusing the
Speaker 1: Obama administration of wire tapping his office as at Trump Tower. Now,
Speaker 1: the President came out with a strong statement of denial
Speaker 1: or was it strong because the way they interpreted, Well,
Speaker 1: the President strongly denied it. Of course, I believe President
Speaker 1: Obama when he says that he had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with this. Well, if you read the statement and pay
Speaker 1: attention to it, it says a lot less than you think,
Speaker 1: because what it says is a cardinal rule of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Was no White House official ever interfered with
Speaker 1: an independent investigation led by the Department of Justice, that's
Speaker 1: not a denial that it happened, meaning the FISA court requests,
Speaker 1: and it says that as a matter of practice, neither
Speaker 1: the President nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance
Speaker 1: on any US citizen. Any suggestion others that they didn't
Speaker 1: order it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean Obama didn't know that it happened, because it's happening.
Speaker 1: If it's true, if the New York Times is right,
Speaker 1: and we'll go back there in a second, If the
Speaker 1: New York Times and all these other publications are right,
Speaker 1: then in fact, they did wire tap Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: Trump Tower because I read it in a newspaper. The
Speaker 1: New York Times has to be accurate. Right, they're demanding
Speaker 1: the President Trump after sending out that he's got to
Speaker 1: give incontrovertible proof of this. It wasn't that grand because
Speaker 1: for the last four months, the entire fake news media,
Speaker 1: along with the Democratic Party, has been completely obsessed with
Speaker 1: this idea. It's been going on for months now that
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, that General Flynn, Jeff Sessions, and anybody
Speaker 1: else they can think of, colluded with the Russians to
Speaker 1: steal the election from Hillary Clinton based on not a
Speaker 1: shred of evidence, and yet now they want proof, none whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It's a figment of their imagination up to this point,
Speaker 1: a wish list of allegations backed up by absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1: Even the claim that the Russians hacked the d n
Speaker 1: c's email and gave it a wiki leaks has no
Speaker 1: evidence whatsoever to support it, none, at least none that
Speaker 1: has ever been released to the public, and everyone seems
Speaker 1: to have forgotten the way Back in December, House investigators
Speaker 1: asked for a classified briefing on any evidence that would
Speaker 1: support the ocean the Russians were behind the d n
Speaker 1: C hack. The Obama administration refused to share that evidence,
Speaker 1: even in a behind closed door classified setting, which means
Speaker 1: that the only evidence we have to back up the
Speaker 1: Russian hacking allegation is the word of Obama's CIA director,
Speaker 1: Obama's National Intelligence director, and his FBI director, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, it will get to as well, because all
Speaker 1: three are hacks, in my opinion, and I'm sorry, the
Speaker 1: statements of political hacks. One totally confused f BEHID director
Speaker 1: who doesn't know what he's doing at this point doesn't
Speaker 1: constitute evidence of anything. You know, evidence is something that
Speaker 1: you can actually see, read tangible that leaves you with
Speaker 1: the inescapable conclusion that something happened, not because they say so.
Speaker 1: That's not evidence of anything. And add to that the
Speaker 1: fact that Obama's CIA guy, John Brennan is a political
Speaker 1: hacked and he's been carping against Trump and the administration
Speaker 1: from the Minity Left office, or James Clapper, he's already
Speaker 1: been caught lying to Congress about the n s A
Speaker 1: surveillance program. And James Comey is so bewildered by all
Speaker 1: of this. He doesn't know what he's doing. He's he
Speaker 1: can't figure out if he's coming or going. He has
Speaker 1: no business in this job at this point. He went
Speaker 1: into the tank for Hillary during the campaign when obvious
Speaker 1: felonies were committed, then he jumped back again days before
Speaker 1: the election. You know, none of these people have even
Speaker 1: the remotest shred of credibility here, But the question remains.
Speaker 1: Listen to what the liberal New York Times reported eight
Speaker 1: days before the election Exhibit A The New York Times McClatchy. Uh,
Speaker 1: then we can go. But by the way, Mark Levin
Speaker 1: did a great job on Fox and Friends this weekend
Speaker 1: and he's gonna be on Hannity tonight. He did a
Speaker 1: great job time all of this together. But the New
Speaker 1: York Times, in classified sessions in August and September, intelligence
Speaker 1: officials also brief congressional leaders on the possibility of financial
Speaker 1: ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They
Speaker 1: focused particular attention on what fiber experts said appeared to
Speaker 1: be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump organization
Speaker 1: and the Alpha Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest
Speaker 1: banks and whose owners have a long standing ties to
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin. FBI officials spent weeks examining computer data showing
Speaker 1: an odd stream of activity to a Trump organization server
Speaker 1: and Alpha Bank. Computer logs obtained by the New York
Speaker 1: Times show that the two servers at the Alpha Bank
Speaker 1: spent more than twenty d look up messages, the first
Speaker 1: step for one systems computers to talk to another to
Speaker 1: a Trump connected server, beginning in the spring. But the
Speaker 1: FBI ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation
Speaker 1: like a marketing email or spam for the computer context.
Speaker 1: So the FBI admitted and The New York Times reported
Speaker 1: that they had tapped into the computers at Trump Tower.
Speaker 1: They're admitting it, and that the FBI decided it was
Speaker 1: a good idea to leak whatever they found of the
Speaker 1: New York Times. Now who that is illegal. What they did,
Speaker 1: just like what Hillary did with a secret server was illegal,
Speaker 1: just like all these other leaks are illegal. And it
Speaker 1: appears that in fact there has been surveillance. All evidence
Speaker 1: indicates that in fact Obama administration and officials surrounding the president.
Speaker 1: What did the president know? When did he know it?
Speaker 1: What did Valerie Jarrett know? What did Ben Rhodes No?
Speaker 1: What did David Axrod No? What did Dan Peffer know?
Speaker 1: And when did they know it? Because if they're denying
Speaker 1: that the president ordered it, that's different from them knowing
Speaker 1: it happened, extremely different. This is beyond troubling here because
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, if they can tap into the president
Speaker 1: or the opposition candidate in the middle of a presidential election,
Speaker 1: nobody's information is safe. Nobody, nobody, nobody, quick break right back,
Speaker 1: will continue all find it here. Now, I think some
Speaker 1: people are missing something here. The president has put in
Speaker 1: place an organization that contains the kind of database that
Speaker 1: no one has ever seen before. In life. That's going
Speaker 1: to be very very powerful. And whoever under the Organizing
Speaker 1: for America that he's now shifting to become a FIB,
Speaker 1: that's right, that's right. And that database will have information
Speaker 1: about everything on every individual in ways that it's never
Speaker 1: been done before. And whoever runs for president on the
Speaker 1: Democratic ticket have to deal with that. They're going to
Speaker 1: have to go down with that database and the concerns
Speaker 1: of those people because they can't get around it. And
Speaker 1: he's been very smart. I mean, it's very powerful what
Speaker 1: he's leaving in place, very powerful, what he's leaving in
Speaker 1: in place. The database that Obama's put together will have
Speaker 1: information about everything on every individual on ways that it's
Speaker 1: never been done before. And whoever runs for president on
Speaker 1: the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. Oh, that
Speaker 1: sounds like a shadow government. Sounds like Kennedy's not the
Speaker 1: great conspiracy theorist that some people may think I am. Well,
Speaker 1: let's go to the New York Times And when was
Speaker 1: this March s Turk or of this year? No, yeah,
Speaker 1: March fifth this year. The FBI Director James Comey asked
Speaker 1: the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject the president's
Speaker 1: assertion that Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr Trump's phones. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're back to the same argument that Obama made. Nobody's
Speaker 1: saying that Obama really ordered it, but it happened on
Speaker 1: his watch, and that there's no way that such a
Speaker 1: fiser request could have taken place without him knowing. Do
Speaker 1: you understand the word parsing that's going on here when
Speaker 1: Obama says no White House fish will ever interfered with
Speaker 1: an independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As
Speaker 1: part of that practice, neither President Obama nor or any
Speaker 1: White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen
Speaker 1: and comes demanding but again he doesn't get involved in
Speaker 1: investigations or comment on ongoing investigations. That the president, the
Speaker 1: President Trump, you know, take back his assertion that Obama
Speaker 1: ordered it? Well, it was it ordered and if so,
Speaker 1: by who and why? Mr Comey has argued that highly
Speaker 1: charged claim is false and must be corrected, and the
Speaker 1: Department has not released any such statement. But Coma, you
Speaker 1: made the request on Saturday after Trump put the allegation
Speaker 1: on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department
Speaker 1: and knocked down that claim because it falsely insinuates the
Speaker 1: FBI broke the law. Did they break the law? Did
Speaker 1: they go to the FISA court? And what would that
Speaker 1: have meant? You know, I mean with the president. What
Speaker 1: he's saying here is something how long is President Obama?
Speaker 1: How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones
Speaker 1: during the very sacred election process. Well that's kind of sick,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Isn't that dangerous for a democratic republic if
Speaker 1: we're gonna have the FISA laws applied. I'll get to
Speaker 1: the distinction of the difference. But it's a very dangerous thing.
Speaker 1: And the New York Times on multiple occasions had referred
Speaker 1: to wire tapping that had taken place. Now the New
Speaker 1: York Times, ever get it wrong. You know, two people
Speaker 1: close to the president say they believe the President was
Speaker 1: referring to you know, this this whole issue that had
Speaker 1: been reported extensively by all of these different outlets that
Speaker 1: in fact show, including the New York Times, that the
Speaker 1: president had been wire tapped. These are public comments by
Speaker 1: so called credible news sources, the mainstream media, and um,
Speaker 1: you know, if in fact they saw the FISA two
Speaker 1: fier court requests, one in in June and one in October.
Speaker 1: That would be pretty unprecedented and they would have to
Speaker 1: be real good laws. And by the way, with all
Speaker 1: due respect to the FISA courts, they rarely disapprove of
Speaker 1: the request, and they did do it back in June.
Speaker 1: Then they had to narrow the scope of what they
Speaker 1: were requesting in October. Anyways, but I'd like to know.
Speaker 1: Chris Coons of of Delaware said he believed that there
Speaker 1: were transcripts that would help document the contacts. When we're
Speaker 1: talking about the House and Senate Intelligence committees moving their
Speaker 1: own investigation into Russians efforts, Well, where did the transcripts
Speaker 1: come from? Senator Kuhn's Okay, why would the transcripts available?
Speaker 1: How do you get transcripts if you're not surveiling somebody
Speaker 1: spying on somebody. Those transcripts that provide very helpful critical
Speaker 1: insights into whether or not Russian intelligence or senior ages.
Speaker 1: There hasn't been a bit of evidence ever presented on
Speaker 1: the Russia case. I believe they exist, he said, Okay.
Speaker 1: Spokesman for Mr. Khons the Senator said that he did
Speaker 1: not imply he's aware of transcripts indicating collusion between the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign into the Russians, so he had to backtrack it.
Speaker 1: So he said on Friday that he believed there were
Speaker 1: transcripts that would help documents that would help document the contacts. Okay,
Speaker 1: where the transcripts come from? Transcripts between who and who?
Speaker 1: You know? Why is it that the New York Times
Speaker 1: said that, in fact, it was wire tapping their words,
Speaker 1: not mine. You know, there's no confirmed evidence that the
Speaker 1: FBI obtained a court warrant. Then we've got the word
Speaker 1: of you know, let's play James Clapper over the weekend.
Speaker 1: But keep this in mind. A lot of people, you know,
Speaker 1: wanted Clapper out and brought up on perjury charges because
Speaker 1: he admitted for gave a false statement of Congress in
Speaker 1: March when he responded, no, sir, not wittingly to a
Speaker 1: question about whether National Security Agency was collecting any type
Speaker 1: of data at all on millions of Americans. He replied,
Speaker 1: and I quote here, the story that we have millions
Speaker 1: or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.
Speaker 1: Reason I'm asking the question is having served on the
Speaker 1: committee now for a dozen years, I don't really know
Speaker 1: what a dossier is in this context. So what I
Speaker 1: wanted to see is if you could give me a
Speaker 1: yes or no answer to the question, does the n
Speaker 1: s A collect any type of data at all a
Speaker 1: millions or hundreds of millions of Americans? No, sir, it
Speaker 1: does not, not wittingly. There are cases where they could
Speaker 1: inadvertently collect, but not not wittingly. Well. According to Bill Benny,
Speaker 1: who's going to join us later in a program today,
Speaker 1: he was one of the architects of the n s
Speaker 1: A surveillance program. Remember he was a whistleblower. He left
Speaker 1: the agency after a thirty two years because why because
Speaker 1: he feels Executive Order twelve three three three allows the
Speaker 1: government to surveil any American at all times, and in
Speaker 1: fact they do it, and that would mean all your texts,
Speaker 1: all your emails, all your phone calls are being data
Speaker 1: mind all of it, and then they can go back
Speaker 1: and use it at any time. Now. In fact, if
Speaker 1: that's happening, that means basically we live in a police
Speaker 1: state and under the wrong leadership. That means that that
Speaker 1: information can be used to compromise an awful lot of
Speaker 1: people and shut down criticism, wouldn't it They come out
Speaker 1: on compromising information on a critic of any administration. They
Speaker 1: just say, well, we have this phone conversation that we recorded,
Speaker 1: and maybe your your wife or a daughter or whatever
Speaker 1: doesn't want to hear it. That would be called blackmail.
Speaker 1: That would be the stuff you'd expect in the former
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. He'll join us later. By that same executive
Speaker 1: order was was reopen opened in the two weeks remaining
Speaker 1: in Obama's presidency, to allow that data to be shared
Speaker 1: with other agencies. Sixteen other agencies. You see what's going
Speaker 1: on here. Why didn't Obama apply that standard to himself?
Speaker 1: That allows then if, for example, in the case of
Speaker 1: General Flynn, Okay, there was post to minimize the conversation,
Speaker 1: they didn't minimize it. And not only that, they transcribed
Speaker 1: it and then they leaked it. They weren't supposed to be.
Speaker 1: There's there was no subpoena, there was no FISA court
Speaker 1: UH surveillance subpoena, give warrant given out to anybody, any place,
Speaker 1: any time. Then they destroyed this man's career with information
Speaker 1: they never should have heard. That's the danger when you
Speaker 1: have unlimited warranting like this. You know this, this is
Speaker 1: getting way out of control. I don't think you realize
Speaker 1: how bad. This is Andy McCarthy has a great column
Speaker 1: out today and one that he's also updated that I
Speaker 1: want to get into here in a second. But Andy
Speaker 1: McCarthy say, remember the great debate over the wall, the
Speaker 1: separation wall after the nine eleven attacks internal guidelines issued
Speaker 1: by the Clinton Justice Department in the mid nineties. The
Speaker 1: wall made it legally difficult, practically impossible for agents and
Speaker 1: the FBI's Foreign counter Intelligence Division essentially our domestic security
Speaker 1: service now known as the National Security Division, to share
Speaker 1: intelligence or remember that the wall of separation anyway, the
Speaker 1: criminal investigative side of the FBI versus those who were
Speaker 1: critics of the wall, and he pointed out, I was
Speaker 1: a strenuous one beginning in my days as a terrorism prosecutor.
Speaker 1: You might remember he successfully prosecuted the blind Shake in
Speaker 1: the First World Trade Center case. He said, my favorite
Speaker 1: argument that I repeated countless time, centered on how preposterous
Speaker 1: there were the underlying assumptions of this wall of separation.
Speaker 1: This was far easier for prosecutors than journalists, academics, and
Speaker 1: the public took grasp because we dealt with the Justice
Speaker 1: Department's different chains of command for criminal and national security investigations.
Speaker 1: It was insane, and he says, after twenty years, I
Speaker 1: have to revise my thinking. The theory that the Clinton
Speaker 1: Department of Justice brass and imposing the wall was the
Speaker 1: potential that a rogue criminal investigator, lacking sufficient evidence could
Speaker 1: obtain a traditional wire tap, would manufacture a national security
Speaker 1: angle in order to get a wire tap under the
Speaker 1: ninety eight FISA or Foreign int Eligence Surveillance Act. Understand
Speaker 1: what he's saying here. He's saying the standard for a
Speaker 1: traditional wire tap is far higher than getting one for
Speaker 1: a FISA wire tap. Traditional wire tap requires, he goes
Speaker 1: into detail, evidence amounting to probable cause of the commission
Speaker 1: of a crime. You want to wire tap somebody, that's
Speaker 1: the standard you need. A FISA wire tap requires no
Speaker 1: showing of any crime, just evidence amounting to quote probable cause,
Speaker 1: a much lower standard. That the target of the wire
Speaker 1: tap is an agent of a foreign power. Foreign power
Speaker 1: can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization. And
Speaker 1: he points out the reason for the wall theory was absurd,
Speaker 1: that was that a rogue agent. The reason the wall
Speaker 1: theory was absurd was that a rogue agent would surely
Speaker 1: manufacture evidence of a crime before he'd manufacture a national
Speaker 1: security angle, which he's right, what comes first the chicken
Speaker 1: of the egg and the process of getting a traditional
Speaker 1: wire tap is straightforward. At BI Criminal Division agents and
Speaker 1: a district attorney of the United States right, a supporting Affidavid.
Speaker 1: It gets approved by the district attorney UH attorney supervisors,
Speaker 1: then submitted to the Justice Department Electronic Surveillance Unit, and
Speaker 1: that unit's approval, the Attorney General's designate signs off, and
Speaker 1: then at that point the district attorney U S Attorney
Speaker 1: and the FBI present the application to a district judge.
Speaker 1: Fis a wire taps. By contrast, they go through a
Speaker 1: completely different, more difficult remote chain of command. In it,
Speaker 1: you have, for example, you have the FBI Criminal Division
Speaker 1: Division agents, a district assistant U S Attorney Okay, FBI
Speaker 1: Criminal Division agents start the investigation, get cut out of
Speaker 1: the process, taken over by the main Justice Department's National
Speaker 1: Security Division and the FBI's National security agents. In other words,
Speaker 1: if we assume an agent is inclined to be rogue,
Speaker 1: it would be far easier and less likely of detection
Speaker 1: to trump up an evidence of a crime in order
Speaker 1: to satisfy probable cause standard for a traditional wire tap.
Speaker 1: Then to manufacture a national security threat in order to
Speaker 1: get the FISA wire tap, No, no rational rogue would
Speaker 1: do it. And he says, all right, look at look
Speaker 1: at this case to claim that the Obama Justice Department
Speaker 1: and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders and
Speaker 1: potentially against Donald Trump himself during the last months and
Speaker 1: weeks of a presidential campaign. And he says, this is
Speaker 1: a particular interest, this revelation in light of the last
Speaker 1: media's fall media consternation over Banana republic tactics used by
Speaker 1: political adversaries, triggered by Trump's vow to a point of
Speaker 1: special prosecutor to investigate the felonies of criminal Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: I'm using the word felony here. Do you understand what
Speaker 1: this means. Agents do not ordinarily draw fiser requests around
Speaker 1: possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal y
Speaker 1: are taps, because the objective is to prosecute any such
Speaker 1: crime in court. And so you know the fiser request.
Speaker 1: He quotes the heat Street report sources say name Trump
Speaker 1: that was denied back in June, and he reports that
Speaker 1: The second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in
Speaker 1: October in the lead up to this election, after evidence
Speaker 1: was presented of a server possibly related to the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and it's alleged links to two banks, SVB Bank
Speaker 1: and Russia's Alpha Bank, which has ties to Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: The time story speaks of metadata. Sources suggest the Fiser
Speaker 1: warrant was granted to look at the full content of
Speaker 1: emails and other related documents that may concern US persons. Well,
Speaker 1: that's a citizen, lawful, permanent resident alien and would not
Speaker 1: normally be subjected to searches or electronic eavesdropping apps and
Speaker 1: probable cause. The exception is the FISA Court. That's why
Speaker 1: they went the Fizer route. We haven't seen the affidat
Speaker 1: it yet. We don't know exactly what they're putting in here,
Speaker 1: but that then gives us the timeline. They were denied
Speaker 1: in June because it was directed at Trump then, and
Speaker 1: they went back with a more limited request in in
Speaker 1: October in the lead up to the election. And around
Speaker 1: October when the Fiser request went in, James Clackard had
Speaker 1: to tell the President. The dump n s A director
Speaker 1: Mike Rogers a week after the election, Rodgers when it
Speaker 1: made a trip over the Trump Tower without telling is
Speaker 1: without telling Clapper, which now means what did he tell Trump?
Speaker 1: And according to the Executive Order Rule the changes that
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper signed off on
Speaker 1: December fift he signed off on this, that would mean
Speaker 1: he lied yesterday or he parsed his words. Notice, he
Speaker 1: put a lot of caveats in that statement, and it
Speaker 1: was well planned out, So did they. I want to
Speaker 1: know was there a FISER court request in June? And
Speaker 1: if so, why, if there was one in October? If so, why?
Speaker 1: And I want to know what every Obama official new
Speaker 1: and when they knew it. And if they can tap
Speaker 1: eavesdrop on Donald Trump, they can and people around him,
Speaker 1: and they can circumvent the normal process of getting eavesdropping
Speaker 1: permission a wire tap, and use FISA as an excuse
Speaker 1: to get it. That I am telling you, we're all done,
Speaker 1: because that means that there's no privacy that exists for
Speaker 1: anybody in this country at all. And if this happened
Speaker 1: a sitting president surveilling an opposition party candidate in the
Speaker 1: weeks leading up to an election, if that doesn't if
Speaker 1: that's not the story. Then, I don't know whatever will
Speaker 1: be the story. Now, we're gonna get into all the
Speaker 1: legal aspects. We've only begun to touch the surface here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get into all of the legal aspects of this.
Speaker 1: We've got Jay Sekulo and we've got our friend Joe
Speaker 1: de Jennifer. But they're gonna be with us for the
Speaker 1: full hour. This is too important not to examine every
Speaker 1: single solitary aspect of this. John, It's not that stings.
Speaker 1: You're missing something here. The President has put in place
Speaker 1: an organization that contains the kind of database that no
Speaker 1: one has ever seen before in life. That's going to
Speaker 1: be very very powerful. And whoever in terms of the
Speaker 1: organizing for America that he's now shifting to become a
Speaker 1: FIB that's right, that's right, and that database will have
Speaker 1: information about everything on every individual in ways that it's
Speaker 1: never been done before. And whoever runs for president on
Speaker 1: the Democratic ticket have to deal with that. They're going
Speaker 1: to have to go down with that database and the
Speaker 1: concerns of those people because they can't get around it.
Speaker 1: And he's been very smart. I mean, it's very powerful
Speaker 1: what he's leaving in place. This is the difference between
Speaker 1: being correct and being right. I think the President was
Speaker 1: not correct certainly in saying that President Obama ordered the
Speaker 1: wire ordered a tap on a server in in Trump Tower. However,
Speaker 1: I think he's right in that there was surveillance and
Speaker 1: that it was conducted at the behest of um the
Speaker 1: attorney of the Justice Department through the file And and
Speaker 1: what do you base that on? Based that on news
Speaker 1: reports that you mentioned in in in the last in
Speaker 1: the last spot, I also based it on a kind
Speaker 1: of inadvertent blurting out by Adam Schiff that his committee
Speaker 1: wants to talk to the counter intelligence agents at the
Speaker 1: FBI who were involved in this. And what that means
Speaker 1: is that this is part not of a criminal investigation,
Speaker 1: but of an intelligence gathering investigation. The FBI has got
Speaker 1: two functions. They investigate crimes and they gather intelligence. They
Speaker 1: started gathering intelligence and no aid based on guidelines that
Speaker 1: we put in place. They tried to get apparently tried
Speaker 1: to get a wire tap based on their criminal investigation
Speaker 1: function in June. That was turned down. They then tried
Speaker 1: to get and got a ah uh in order permitting
Speaker 1: them to conduct electronic surveillance in October. This is October
Speaker 1: of two sixteen, so that's when apparently that's when that's
Speaker 1: when they Again, you're basing this on news reports as well,
Speaker 1: and on and on and on, Adam. If if a
Speaker 1: wire tap did exist, it would have to have been
Speaker 1: approved by a FISA court based on real evidence. So
Speaker 1: if there was a wire tap, doesn't mean there were
Speaker 1: suspicious things going on between the Trump administration and the Russians.
Speaker 1: It means there was some basis to believe that somebody
Speaker 1: in Trump Tower may have been acting as an agent
Speaker 1: of the Russians for whatever purpose, not necessarily the election,
Speaker 1: but for some some purpose. And the FBI keeps track
Speaker 1: of people who act as agents of foreign governments. They
Speaker 1: keep track of people who act as agents to the Chinese,
Speaker 1: the Russians, the Israelis, everybody, all right. Our three top
Speaker 1: stories our two of the Sean Hannity Show. That was
Speaker 1: Mike Mukasey, who of course worked under President George W. Bush,
Speaker 1: and he's saying Trump was right, there was surveillance in
Speaker 1: Trump Trump Tower at the behest of Loretta Lynch, and
Speaker 1: he was right saying that Obama ordered the tap. That's
Speaker 1: our one top story that we have the new executive order,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump signing an executive order banning travel from six
Speaker 1: terror tied countries, and we're expecting the outline of the
Speaker 1: reconciliation part of the repeal of Obamacare coming at any moment.
Speaker 1: When that happens, we'll bring that to you live on
Speaker 1: what is a busy newsday, joining us now Joe de Jennifer,
Speaker 1: founding partner of the Jenneva and Tunsing Jay Seculo, chief
Speaker 1: council for the American Center of Law and Justice. Uh guys,
Speaker 1: I guess this comes down to one very very simple, basic,
Speaker 1: fundamental question. The New York Times reported at, The Daily Mail,
Speaker 1: reported at McClatchy reported it. All these news sources, liberal
Speaker 1: as they are, had talked about the fact that the
Speaker 1: Obama administration went to the FISA court was the night
Speaker 1: in June or July, and then went back with a
Speaker 1: revised limited request in October, and that it was received.
Speaker 1: Can we confirm that, Joe de Jenova, do you know? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any doubt based on the sourcing
Speaker 1: for those stories, which is either senior government officials, law
Speaker 1: enforcement officials, or intelligence community officials, that the stories are true.
Speaker 1: And I consider it to be so, and it means
Speaker 1: one thing. It means that probably in June there were
Speaker 1: conducting a criminal investigation, and in all likelihood of Paul
Speaker 1: Manafort and people associated with him, they were denied a warrant,
Speaker 1: either a criminal wire tap warrant under Title three or
Speaker 1: a fis a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Speaker 1: What's fascinating about this is they continue to do whatever
Speaker 1: they're doing. They come back a few couple of weeks
Speaker 1: before the election of a president and they get a
Speaker 1: warrant to electronically surveil something, maybe a computer, maybe phones,
Speaker 1: maybe emails. We don't know, something in the Trump campaign headquarters.
Speaker 1: Now Comey is in charge of this. This is his baby.
Speaker 1: Nobody in his right mind, given that we're not talking
Speaker 1: about terrorism or a threat to national security, none of
Speaker 1: this involved that. Nobody in his right mind allows a
Speaker 1: wire tap or electronic surveillance that close to a national
Speaker 1: election on the headquarters of the opponent of the in
Speaker 1: power administration. I gotta tell you what I think. I
Speaker 1: think James Comy needs to see a psychiatrist. I think
Speaker 1: the man is out of control. I think it is
Speaker 1: clear that in collusion with people in the Justice Department
Speaker 1: like Sally Yates and others. He decided that he was
Speaker 1: going to spread his wings and investigate something, which we
Speaker 1: will find out later what it was. But this smells
Speaker 1: and stinks, particularly because of all the leaks of classified information,
Speaker 1: all of which our felonies. I assume, I hope that
Speaker 1: I pray that Jeff Sessions, people who are now running
Speaker 1: the place, Rod Rosenstein shortly are in paneling grand Juries
Speaker 1: to look at this. This may be the takedown of
Speaker 1: the FBI. This brings us back to Watergate. This is
Speaker 1: l Patrick Gray territory. What a powerful statement. J Secular.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with all that? Now? I do, And
Speaker 1: let me take it in the logical sequence you talked
Speaker 1: about the timing of this, which is, you know, bizarre
Speaker 1: to say the least. But let's assume that they did
Speaker 1: again eventually get this warrant from the fires of Cords
Speaker 1: to do some type of even if it was limited surveillance.
Speaker 1: What Joe said, and I think what needs to be
Speaker 1: underscored here for everybody that's listening. That means that the FBI,
Speaker 1: under James Comby's direction, once again was intervening in a
Speaker 1: presidential election now I don't care if you're a republic a, kin, Democrat,
Speaker 1: or independent. Three times during this election he publicly made statements.
Speaker 1: First it was there's no evidence against Hillary Clinton, then
Speaker 1: there may be evidence against Hillary Clinton, and then she's
Speaker 1: cleared of charges regating relating to this evidence against Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: He should have never done any of those. He should have,
Speaker 1: as Joe just said in panel to grand Jury, to
Speaker 1: investigate this. But that's not what they're doing. So I
Speaker 1: think this is I think this is a head to
Speaker 1: head conflict between James Comey and the president. And the
Speaker 1: fact that James Comey, the FBI Director, challenged publicly the
Speaker 1: administration by saying that the f BEHIND Department of Justice
Speaker 1: should not do what the President asked, which is to
Speaker 1: investigate this. I think that tells you the entire story. So,
Speaker 1: whether there was an investigation of Paul Manaford, whether it
Speaker 1: was somebody else, whether it was the Bank of Russia
Speaker 1: that's located in in Trump Tower, you know what, that's
Speaker 1: kind of irrelevant. What we do know is so far,
Speaker 1: and and Senator Coon's was forced to say this by
Speaker 1: our friend Chris Wallace on on Fox News Sunday, they
Speaker 1: have no evidence of a link between inclusion between the
Speaker 1: Trump administration and the Russian government, despite the fact that
Speaker 1: the Senator Coon said the exact opposite on the Friday before.
Speaker 1: But I think this underscores the real problem here, Sean,
Speaker 1: and that is an FBI's with Joe Singh out of control.
Speaker 1: Now the President could declassify this information or as he's
Speaker 1: decided to send it back to Congress, and you're gonna
Speaker 1: look at Russia look at this too. And I think
Speaker 1: you know at this point the country is you gonna
Speaker 1: move forward on other issues. But I don't think we
Speaker 1: should lose sight of the fact that I think you've
Speaker 1: got a meddling FBI here, and that's very dangerous. We
Speaker 1: have a lot of ground to cover. We're going to
Speaker 1: continue for the hour with Jay Sekulo and Joe the Geneva.
Speaker 1: We're not going to race through this one of our
Speaker 1: top stories today. We have a new executive order, by
Speaker 1: the way, by the President he signed banning travel from
Speaker 1: six terror tied countries. This is round two. We are
Speaker 1: expecting later today the outline of what the Obamacare repeal
Speaker 1: and replace is going to look like, So we'll get
Speaker 1: to that as well. Still not again, sets on the
Speaker 1: air right now, all right, as we continue our three
Speaker 1: top stories today, we expect the healthcare outline to come
Speaker 1: down any moment. When it does, will bring that to
Speaker 1: you or at least on Hannity tonight. The new executive
Speaker 1: order by the President banning travel from six terror tied countries,
Speaker 1: and of course this whole issue of wire tapping and FISA.
Speaker 1: And we continue with Jay Sekulo and Joe degennomen Well,
Speaker 1: I want to play for you both, and by the way,
Speaker 1: we're not going to rush through this in this hour
Speaker 1: because number one, you guys are too smart. Number two,
Speaker 1: there's too much at stake here. And number three, I
Speaker 1: agree with both of you. This is of monumental proportions
Speaker 1: here of what's going on. Now. We all know and
Speaker 1: agree the crimes were committed by Hillary Clinton, and yet
Speaker 1: he came amount with that statement. I believe it was
Speaker 1: back in July he gives his thirteen four team in
Speaker 1: a press conference, meaning James, comey, and I'm saying, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, he's laying out the case. He's gonna he's
Speaker 1: gonna pull the lever, he's gonna do it. And then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden at the end he just but
Speaker 1: never mind. I Meanwhile, we all know that what she
Speaker 1: did was illegal. We know that she was circumventing congressional oversight.
Speaker 1: We know that special access program intelligence and top secret
Speaker 1: intelligence was on that computer. We've since discovered that at
Speaker 1: least five foreign intelligence agencies had had been able to
Speaker 1: tap into that server in a mom and pop shop
Speaker 1: bathroom closet. So you're right, Jay, and saying that that
Speaker 1: was politicized. Now, let me go back to the issue
Speaker 1: of of what the president tweeted out this weekend and
Speaker 1: James Clapper, the National Director of Intelligence, what he said.
Speaker 1: Let me start with the president's tweets yesterday. Uh, this
Speaker 1: idea that maybe President Obama ordered an illegal wire tap
Speaker 1: of his offices. If something like that happened, would this
Speaker 1: be something you would be aware of? I would certainly hope.
Speaker 1: So I can say obviously I'm not. I can't speak
Speaker 1: officially anymore, but I will say that for the part
Speaker 1: of the National Security Apparatus that I oversaw as d
Speaker 1: N I, there was no such wire tap activity mounted
Speaker 1: against the president, the president elect at the time, or
Speaker 1: as a candidate or against this campaign. I can't speak
Speaker 1: for other Title three authorized entities in the government or
Speaker 1: a state or local And I was just gonna say,
Speaker 1: if the FBI, for instance, had as a court order
Speaker 1: some sort for surveillance, would that be information you would
Speaker 1: know or not? Now, yes, you would be told that
Speaker 1: I would know that if there was a fight a
Speaker 1: court order something like this, um, something like this. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And at this point you can't confirm or deny whether
Speaker 1: that exists. I can deny it. There is no FSI
Speaker 1: court order, not not to my knowledge of anything of
Speaker 1: Trump Tower. Now, now the first thing you said, would
Speaker 1: I would hope so that I would know, And then
Speaker 1: it became he would have known if there was a
Speaker 1: FISA court order. And if you pay very close attention
Speaker 1: to Barack Obama's statement, you know they're very specific in
Speaker 1: saying the cardinal rule of the Obama administration was no
Speaker 1: White House official ever interfered with an independent investigation led
Speaker 1: by the Department of Justice that was as part of
Speaker 1: the practice. Neither the president nor any White House official
Speaker 1: ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. They didn't order it.
Speaker 1: Any suggestions that they ordered it is not true. Now,
Speaker 1: it was very interesting. If you've gotten a bunch of
Speaker 1: Twitter wars this weekend, and the former speechwriter for the
Speaker 1: president was out there and on Twitter, and even he
Speaker 1: was was couching that statement and trying to point out
Speaker 1: the obvious, at least from my vantage point, which is
Speaker 1: that you know John Farrue, and he said, I'd be
Speaker 1: careful about reporting that Obama said there's no wire tapping.
Speaker 1: The statement just said that neither he nor the White
Speaker 1: House ordered it. That seems to be an acknowledgement that
Speaker 1: it probably did happened. What's your take, job, Well, I
Speaker 1: think what's interesting is what Clapper didn't say. He didn't
Speaker 1: say there was no electronic surveillance. He said there was
Speaker 1: no wire tapping. You can have a FISA for emails
Speaker 1: and all sorts of other things, telephone numbers, the connections
Speaker 1: and things like that. But he also said something that's
Speaker 1: actually more important than all of this. He said, which
Speaker 1: the presidents ignored, that they found no evidence of collusion
Speaker 1: between Trump's people and the Russian government as a result
Speaker 1: of their investigations. Now, how did he come to that
Speaker 1: conclusion if there were no wire taps or no electronic surveillance.
Speaker 1: The answer is, there was electronic surveillance, and Clapper knew it.
Speaker 1: Remember he's lied before. Well, there was talk about data. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was, he was. There was questions about perjury charges
Speaker 1: at the time about he lied about the megadata. Here's
Speaker 1: here's one thing. Also, we have to remember the timing
Speaker 1: of this request for wire taps or electronic surveillance, both
Speaker 1: in June and October was at a time when the
Speaker 1: Democrats thought they were going win the presidency and they
Speaker 1: were going to take back the Senate. They were preparing
Speaker 1: to hold hearing on Trump and everybody else after the election.
Speaker 1: That's why this was all being done. And any any
Speaker 1: statements by the former president President Obama about what he
Speaker 1: did or didn't do, are incited to absolutely no belief whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Is there any way that there was a FISA court
Speaker 1: approval without the president knowing? And doesn't that mean that
Speaker 1: we have a if in fact that happened, Doesn't that
Speaker 1: mean the president new as a sitting president that he
Speaker 1: was getting information about an opposition party and spying on
Speaker 1: an opposition party in the in the lead up to
Speaker 1: an election. Well, this is exactly the problem. So the
Speaker 1: president not ordering it not ordering meaning is not is
Speaker 1: not is not the standard. The standard is could have
Speaker 1: stopped it and would he be known about it? Well,
Speaker 1: stop stop right, what do you mean he could have
Speaker 1: stopped it if he found out about it. And let's
Speaker 1: say he didn't order it. He finds out about it,
Speaker 1: he says, what the hell are you doing this for?
Speaker 1: Stop this right now, We're in the middle of a
Speaker 1: presidential election. He didn't do it, right, So the fact
Speaker 1: that he did or did not order it is irrelevant.
Speaker 1: The question is didn't know about it? And General Mike
Speaker 1: Hayden today said former of course, uh you know, National
Speaker 1: Security director said there were times when they targeted high
Speaker 1: intelligence targets that were politically sensitive, and they would of
Speaker 1: course let the administration know that that was going to
Speaker 1: happen because there'd be a political cost to doing that. Again,
Speaker 1: whether he ordered it or not, Joe was right, he
Speaker 1: could have stopped all right. I want you guys, been
Speaker 1: impossible for the president not to know. When we get
Speaker 1: back on the other side of this break, I want
Speaker 1: to get into the legality, the laws that are broken,
Speaker 1: and who potentially could be in jeopardy. Here. We'll continue
Speaker 1: with Joe to Jennifer J. Seculo, and then we'll also
Speaker 1: be asking them about Donald Trump's new executive order banning
Speaker 1: travel from six terror tied countries were also awaiting the
Speaker 1: Republican outline on the reconciliation repeal replace attempt. Will get
Speaker 1: an outline of that tonight. That's all coming up straight ahead.
Speaker 1: Holding them accountable. Sean gets the answers no one else does.
Speaker 1: America deserves and know the truth about Congress. If a
Speaker 1: wire tap did exist, it would have to have been
Speaker 1: approved by a FISA court based on real evidence. So
Speaker 1: if there was a wire tap doesn't mean there were
Speaker 1: suspicious things going on between the Trump administration and the Russians.
Speaker 1: It means there was some basis to believe that somebody
Speaker 1: in Trump Tower may have been acting as an age
Speaker 1: of the Russians for whatever purpose, not necessarily the election,
Speaker 1: but for some some purpose. And the FBI keeps track
Speaker 1: of people who act as agents of foreign governments. They
Speaker 1: keep track of people who act as Asians to the Chinese,
Speaker 1: the Russians, the Israelis, everybody. Let me start with the
Speaker 1: president's tweets yesterday. Uh, this idea that may be President
Speaker 1: Obama ordered an illegal wire tap of his offices. If
Speaker 1: something like that happened, would this be something you would
Speaker 1: be aware of? I would certainly hope. So I can say,
Speaker 1: obviously I'm not I can't speak officially anymore, but I
Speaker 1: will say that for the part of the National Security
Speaker 1: Apparatus that I oversaw as d N, I there was
Speaker 1: no such wire tap activity mounted against the president, the
Speaker 1: president elect at the time, or as a candidate or
Speaker 1: against his campaign. I can't speak for other Title three
Speaker 1: authorized entities in the government or a state or local.
Speaker 1: And I was just gonna say, if the FBI, for instance,
Speaker 1: had if I's a court order some sort for surveillance,
Speaker 1: would that be information you would know or not? Now
Speaker 1: you would be told that if there was a fis
Speaker 1: a court order something like this, um, something like this. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and at this point you can't confirm or deny whether
Speaker 1: that exists. There is no FISI court order, not not
Speaker 1: to my knowledge of anything. A Trump Tower, not to
Speaker 1: my knowledge. I would hope I would know. And that
Speaker 1: question was specifically only about the FBI, And we have
Speaker 1: the full answers here now We're gonna get to that
Speaker 1: and the President signing a new executive order banning travel
Speaker 1: from six terror tied countries today. But our top story
Speaker 1: is clearly what did Obama administration officials know about an
Speaker 1: attempt to get a Fiser warrant against Donald Trump or
Speaker 1: people close to Trump in October of this campaign, and
Speaker 1: why did they attempt to do it in July? And
Speaker 1: the Fiser Court does not have a strong track record
Speaker 1: in rejecting these requests, but they rejected that one in
Speaker 1: June and July. Joe de Jeneva, he is the founding
Speaker 1: partner of the Geneva and un saying Jay said Lowd,
Speaker 1: Chief Council for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Speaker 1: You know, I I see, I hear a lot of
Speaker 1: word parsing there, and I go back to what Obama
Speaker 1: said in his statement, and you know, the Cardinal, no
Speaker 1: White House official ever interfered with an independent investigation led
Speaker 1: by the Department of Justice, and as part of that practice,
Speaker 1: either the President or any White House official ever ordered
Speaker 1: surveillance on any U S citizen. Any suggestion would be
Speaker 1: otherwise false. What what laws are we talking about potentially
Speaker 1: being broken here? Ja, And we'll start with you and
Speaker 1: any of the public disclosures of confidential communication A ten USC.
Speaker 1: Section six forty one, and others. Right, Yeah, so that's yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this is these are felonies. So it is
Speaker 1: the violation of the Espionage Act, and then you you
Speaker 1: take it a step further, could be multiple counts of that.
Speaker 1: So this is not just a one count incident. And
Speaker 1: that's where I'm hopeful, as we said earlier, earlier, and
Speaker 1: I hope that Joe is that the Department is doing
Speaker 1: this because when I was with Treasury and when I
Speaker 1: was working with Justice, and I know that's true for
Speaker 1: Joe too, these were the kind of things that would
Speaker 1: be investigated aggressively if this kind of disclosures were going on.
Speaker 1: I I just know that it's been late to the
Speaker 1: game for the Trump administration to get their people in place,
Speaker 1: So I don't know the scope of where those investigations are.
Speaker 1: But you're talking about violations of the Espionage Act. And
Speaker 1: by the way, this wouldn't be the first time. And
Speaker 1: Jason Chafitz, you know, was going to join us later
Speaker 1: in the program today, I mean, he actually made a
Speaker 1: good point, is that this would not be new for
Speaker 1: the Obama administration because well, we know they used the
Speaker 1: I R s to target Americans based on their political beliefs.
Speaker 1: We know the Department of Justice's had surveillance on my
Speaker 1: colleague Fox News reporter James Rosen, and last year dozens
Speaker 1: of Secret Service agents were disciplined for leaking information about
Speaker 1: Chafits to a parent as apparent retribution for his investigation
Speaker 1: of the agency. And we've had a series of leaks.
Speaker 1: Now I want to specifically, Joe, ask you about this.
Speaker 1: Let's take the case of General Flynn. Now we have
Speaker 1: all discussed all these intelligent leaks that have taken place,
Speaker 1: and in the case of General Flynn, well, here's a
Speaker 1: guy that was was picked up on a monitor of
Speaker 1: a Russian ambassador. And as part of the law, as
Speaker 1: I understand it, once they once they recognize that an
Speaker 1: American citizen that they don't have any right to surveil
Speaker 1: is heard on that call, that they're supposed to minimize
Speaker 1: the conversation in terms of what it is that they
Speaker 1: actually listened to. And I spoke to a very high
Speaker 1: ranking intelligence official last Friday who told me not only that,
Speaker 1: but then at the heart of it, if they write
Speaker 1: up a report, it's supposed to say an American, not
Speaker 1: the name of the specific individual, and in this case,
Speaker 1: they mentioned General Flynn, and they saved the whole conversation.
Speaker 1: And then they leaked the whole conversation, and I was
Speaker 1: told by this intelligence official that in his lifetime he'd
Speaker 1: never seen this before and that this was also a
Speaker 1: felony and a violation. Nobody seemed to care about poor
Speaker 1: General Flynn, you know, being surveiled without a legal warrant
Speaker 1: or a fis a warrant. Well, I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any doubt that everything surrounding this entire affair from the
Speaker 1: New York Times story in January before the inauguration saying
Speaker 1: that there had been wire tap of the Trump organization.
Speaker 1: Remember the New York Times story said there were wire taps,
Speaker 1: They used that word, and they're following up on that.
Speaker 1: We now know as a result of criminal leaks to
Speaker 1: the New York Times, the Washington Posts, and elsewhere in
Speaker 1: the McClatchy papers, that there were other activities by the
Speaker 1: FBI in conjunction with the Justice Department and senior Justice
Speaker 1: Department officials to intrude themselves into the election by doing
Speaker 1: national security surveillance. These issues are now so big I'm
Speaker 1: not even sure that the Republicans who have oversight responsibility
Speaker 1: on this on the Hill understand what they are grappling with.
Speaker 1: This is, on its face, a major series of criminal
Speaker 1: acts committed by government officials. This is a real simple process.
Speaker 1: By the way you and panel a grand jury, you
Speaker 1: slap subpoenas on everybody in that process, on that distribution,
Speaker 1: lift of transcripts, phone call knowledge and vises, and you
Speaker 1: put him in a grand jury and they can do
Speaker 1: whatever they want. They can take the fifth. But we
Speaker 1: are way beyond speculation about about whether or not something
Speaker 1: needs to be done about this. Crimes have been committed
Speaker 1: by senior government officials, and it needs to be investigated now,
Speaker 1: not tomorrow, not by Capitol Hill, but by a federal
Speaker 1: grand jury. I think of grand jury does need to
Speaker 1: be impaneled. Would they be able to bring in somebody
Speaker 1: from the outside to do this? Sure, Listen, there are
Speaker 1: dozens of good people that they could make special counsel.
Speaker 1: You waited for Rod Rosenstein. He's going to be confirmed.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna be able to hold him up. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, the guy's superstar. He's a wonderful human being.
Speaker 1: Of course that doesn't mean anything to Democrats anymore. But
Speaker 1: we will have a deputy and he they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to appoint somebody. In fact, that's probably why they're waiting.
Speaker 1: They need to have somebody because, you know, unblemished. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems to me, but Hillary got off
Speaker 1: the hook, didn't she? Joel Hillary committed to Hillary committed
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch and because of Litretta Lynch and that goofy
Speaker 1: meeting on the plane with Bill Bill Clinton, which by
Speaker 1: the way, was not not accidental. That was planned three
Speaker 1: days in advance, according to people at the Phoenix airport.
Speaker 1: So in other words, it wasn't just, oh, I see
Speaker 1: my good friend Lauretta's over there. Casual not a casual.
Speaker 1: Not a casual meeting. All right, why can't we get
Speaker 1: to the why can't we get a definitive answer? Even
Speaker 1: though the New York Times set up, McClatchy said it,
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail set it, everyone else said it that
Speaker 1: there were wire taps going on, Why can't we get
Speaker 1: an uh an affirmation? Wouldn't wouldn't the Trump administration be
Speaker 1: able to pull up request the president and he could
Speaker 1: declassify it. Yeah, the president can de class I mean,
Speaker 1: by the way, you don't just wave your hand in
Speaker 1: a declassify. There's a declassification process. The president can do it.
Speaker 1: The only one that could do it, but it could
Speaker 1: raise a host of other issues. So it may or
Speaker 1: may not be a situation where they wanted declassified for
Speaker 1: you know, intelligence gathering purposes. But Sean, you raised the
Speaker 1: issue and Joe really hammered this. We've got to have
Speaker 1: a lawyer in there in investigating this because at the
Speaker 1: bottom of all of this is that these are leaks. So, yes,
Speaker 1: are there violations of eighteen USC. Section seven ninety three,
Speaker 1: the SPNA Jact. Yes, but why are there leaks? Who's
Speaker 1: doing this? What shadow government's operating here, and why are
Speaker 1: they being a Yeah, it is a shadow government once
Speaker 1: Jeff Chessington, and I'll tell you I think this was
Speaker 1: a c change today and how General Sessions will be perceived.
Speaker 1: I think this nonsense from last week was exactly that.
Speaker 1: It was nonsense. You got Senator Coon's against saying, well,
Speaker 1: there is no evidence of coclusion that we've seen after
Speaker 1: he said there was. So now that the situation is
Speaker 1: who is engaging in those leaks? And that's where a
Speaker 1: prosecutor comes in, investigates this with a grand jury, and
Speaker 1: you know what, you get indictments, You get some convictions,
Speaker 1: and this stops well, you got them because because I agree,
Speaker 1: because if you don't stop the leaks, it's gonna go
Speaker 1: on forever. I mean, there's been seven months and not
Speaker 1: a single shred of evidence about Russia. What about Obama's
Speaker 1: Fourteen days before Obama left the White House, he signs
Speaker 1: the Executive Order twelve three three free, which allows you
Speaker 1: know these sad communications and that for example, the n
Speaker 1: s A would be involved and to be shared with
Speaker 1: sixteen other agencies. Now, for whatever the reason, if he
Speaker 1: didn't want this apply to himself, why would he then
Speaker 1: leave it for his successor? And why would they want
Speaker 1: to share it if not to maybe muddy the waters
Speaker 1: and maybe make it more difficult to find who the
Speaker 1: leakers are. Sure it was an absolute setup. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got the president went eight years with the same
Speaker 1: rule that Ronald Reagan operated under, which is the when
Speaker 1: the singing tell comes in, it's the n s A
Speaker 1: will review the raw data and then determine what agency
Speaker 1: should get it. Seventeen days to go in his presidency,
Speaker 1: he has Lauretta Lynch sign off on in order that
Speaker 1: changes it going forward to include was it eighteen agencies
Speaker 1: that had our sixteen agencies? That had raw data access,
Speaker 1: which now the leak number increases exponentially, So sure this
Speaker 1: was You know, look the president, President Obamba is operating
Speaker 1: and he's look, he's operating. His own team still in
Speaker 1: play in large part. Now, I think that's going to
Speaker 1: change over. You think there's any chance that the former
Speaker 1: president could be indicted in this, Now, I'll let that
Speaker 1: to Joe. Joe decide that one. No, no, no, and
Speaker 1: that's not the object here. History will take care of him.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is they were senior Justice Department officials
Speaker 1: and people apparently inside the FBI who were willing to
Speaker 1: disclose classified information of the highest nature. We're talking about
Speaker 1: signals intelligence, and that to me is the worst type
Speaker 1: of criminal activity. For these government officials were entrusted with
Speaker 1: incredible power and intrusiveness into the private lives of people,
Speaker 1: and to disclose the contents of these intercepted phone calls,
Speaker 1: not to mention the phone calls that the president of
Speaker 1: the United States which were leaked involving foreign leaders. I
Speaker 1: don't know how in the world the Justice Department can
Speaker 1: avoid this. This is staggering stuff. I'm sitting here repeating
Speaker 1: this to you guys, and I'm saying to myself, who
Speaker 1: in the world cannot investigate this? This is this is unbelievable.
Speaker 1: What we gotta take a quick break here. When we
Speaker 1: come back, I want to while I've got you both
Speaker 1: on the phone, We've got to get into the president's
Speaker 1: new executive order. Today. We'll continue more with Jay Secular.
Speaker 1: Final Hour roundup is next. You do not want to
Speaker 1: miss it, and stay tuned for the final Hour Free
Speaker 1: Forall on the Sean Hannity Show. Right as we continue,
Speaker 1: Jay Seculo and Joe did Jennifer are with us? Uh?
Speaker 1: We haven't had a lot of time to get into
Speaker 1: this because of all the news on FISA and the
Speaker 1: the back and forth that's been going on a weekend.
Speaker 1: But um, the President today signed a new executive order
Speaker 1: blocking a rival of travelers from six conflict prone countries
Speaker 1: for ninety days and freezing the inflow of refugees from
Speaker 1: any country for the next hundred and twenty days. Will
Speaker 1: this meet constitutional muster? Will if the Left goes judge
Speaker 1: shopping again? J Seculo? Will they be able to pull
Speaker 1: off what they did the last time? Well, they may
Speaker 1: be able to pull it off in California in the
Speaker 1: ninth Circuit. But let me and the a c. L U,
Speaker 1: by the way, is already threatening to do that. They've
Speaker 1: said that they're going to file a lawsuit and stop this.
Speaker 1: But let me let me tell you something. As a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court litigator, I want this case. I want this
Speaker 1: case badly. I think I could win this case unanimously
Speaker 1: because the order is bulletproof, and any areas that were questionable,
Speaker 1: and I said, the other order I was clearly willing
Speaker 1: to defend and would defend. But anything that challenges this one,
Speaker 1: this idea that this is a Muslim band, really fifty
Speaker 1: countries that are majority Muslim. This effects six and only
Speaker 1: for a period of time. So I think, Sean, what
Speaker 1: we've got here is the best situation. We had suggested
Speaker 1: some changes, those changes have been incorporated. It's bulletproof. I
Speaker 1: think the President's order and the way they rolled it
Speaker 1: out today was perfect. With the head of DHF, with
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State, with the Attorney General making the
Speaker 1: discussions talking about this, I think is exactly the way
Speaker 1: that should be handled. This is handled right, and the
Speaker 1: law here is on our side. We will win this.
Speaker 1: I don't know what happens in the ninth Circuit because
Speaker 1: they make up the law as it goes on their own.
Speaker 1: But I think at the end of the day, we
Speaker 1: win this. I think, first of all, the original order
Speaker 1: by the President was in fact constitutional. The District Judge
Speaker 1: and the Ninth Circuit were absolutely wrong. Their opinions were
Speaker 1: a disgrace to the Article three of the Constitution. Uh.
Speaker 1: The new order, from what I've seen, will clearly pass muster.
Speaker 1: And let me just say this, I'm gonna make a prediction.
Speaker 1: If the same judge District Judge rules that this one
Speaker 1: has to be enjoined and the Ninth Circuit degrees, there
Speaker 1: will be articles of impeachment against those judges in the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives. Wow. What a powerful commentary, What a
Speaker 1: what a day as it relates to the law. Are
Speaker 1: you both convinced people be tried and convicted on the
Speaker 1: felonies that we believe have committed here. I do think
Speaker 1: that Jeb Sessions will in panel a grand jury as
Speaker 1: he's entitled to as the Attorney General, that we will
Speaker 1: determine who made these leaks in violation of the es Manajact,
Speaker 1: and people will go to jail. Joe your final thought,
Speaker 1: I concur with that, and I hope it happens sooner
Speaker 1: rather than later. This is one of the most disgraceful
Speaker 1: moments for the Department of Justice and the FBI in history,
Speaker 1: and Comy is responsible for this from start to finish.
Speaker 1: He is an embarrassment to law enforcement. Wow, very powerful statements.
Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna have more on the other side.
Speaker 1: Thank you both for being with us, Joe the Jennifer
Speaker 1: and Jay Sekulo. We'll have more. We'll get into this
Speaker 1: with Jay, with Jason Schaffitz, he's in studio today. And
Speaker 1: also we'll check in with Bill Benny, who is the
Speaker 1: former technical director of the n s A World Geopolitical
Speaker 1: and Military Analysis and Reporting Group. Dan Bongina will also
Speaker 1: join us as well, and much more one Seawn. On
Speaker 1: this busy newsday, were also awaiting a possible outline on
Speaker 1: the healthcare bill. If that happens, will bring that to
Speaker 1: you as well. Let me start with the president's tweets yesterday. Uh,
Speaker 1: this idea that may be President Obama ordered in a
Speaker 1: legal wire tap of his offices. If something like that happened,
Speaker 1: would this be something you would be aware of? I
Speaker 1: would certainly hope so I can say obviously I'm not.
Speaker 1: I can't speak officially anymore, but I will say that
Speaker 1: for the part of the National Security Apparatus that I
Speaker 1: oversaw as d N I there was no such wire
Speaker 1: tap activity mounted against the President, the president elect at
Speaker 1: the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.
Speaker 1: I can't speak for other Title three authorized entities in
Speaker 1: the government or a state or local. And I was
Speaker 1: just gonna say, if the FBI, for instance, had a
Speaker 1: fight a court order some sort first surveillance, would that
Speaker 1: be information you would know or not? Now you would
Speaker 1: be told there would know that if there was a
Speaker 1: fight a court order on something like this UM something.
Speaker 1: And at this point you can't confirm or deny whether
Speaker 1: that exists. I can deny it. There is no fight
Speaker 1: a court order, not not to my knowledge of anything
Speaker 1: a Trump Tower. No. This is the difference between being
Speaker 1: correct and being right. I think the President was not
Speaker 1: correct certainly in saying that President Obama ordered the wire
Speaker 1: ordered a tap on a server in in Trump Tower. However,
Speaker 1: I think he's right in that there was surveillance, and
Speaker 1: that it was conducted at the behest of UM the
Speaker 1: Attorney of the Justice Department through the FA and what
Speaker 1: do you base that on. I based that on news
Speaker 1: reports that you mentioned in in in the last in
Speaker 1: the last spot, I also based it on a kind
Speaker 1: of inadvertent blurting out by Adam Schiff that his committee
Speaker 1: wants to talk to the counter intelligence agents at the
Speaker 1: FBI who were involved in this. And what that means
Speaker 1: is that this is part not of a criminal investigation,
Speaker 1: but of an intelligence gathering investigation. The f guys got
Speaker 1: two functions. They investigate crimes and they gather intelligence. They
Speaker 1: started gathering intelligence in no aid based on guidelines that
Speaker 1: we put in place. They tried to get apparently tried
Speaker 1: to get a wire tap based on their criminal investigation
Speaker 1: function in June. That was turned down. They then tried
Speaker 1: to get and got a a UH in order permitting
Speaker 1: them to conduct electronic surveillance in October. This is October
Speaker 1: of two thousand sixteen, so that's when apparently that's when
Speaker 1: that's when they Again you're basing this on news reports
Speaker 1: as well, and on and on and on. Adom All right,
Speaker 1: So the question remains, did people in the Obama administration
Speaker 1: go to a FISA court not once, but twice to
Speaker 1: get surveillance permission from that court to monitor an opposition
Speaker 1: party candidate in the middle of an election. That's the question. Now,
Speaker 1: Obama's statement is very clear that White House, neither the President,
Speaker 1: nor the White House or any White House official ordered surveillance. Well,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean a thing, nor does it mean a thing.
Speaker 1: What you just heard as well from James Clapper, the
Speaker 1: former Director of National Intelligence, Well, I would hope that
Speaker 1: I would know. I hope. So I can't speak for
Speaker 1: the other agencies that have the ability to do it.
Speaker 1: The part that I saw there was no wire tap.
Speaker 1: That doesn't answer the question. And everybody in the me
Speaker 1: see James Clapper said, see Obama said, Obama said he
Speaker 1: didn't do it. Okay, did he acknowledge of it? What
Speaker 1: did he know? When did he know it? And why
Speaker 1: doesn't he tell us? And why will't they confirm it?
Speaker 1: And why did the New York Times reported what they
Speaker 1: mentioned it five times? Why you're tapping the exact words seriously? Anyway,
Speaker 1: joining us now to discuss all the ins and announce
Speaker 1: of all of this, we welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: Bill Benny is with us, and also we have he's
Speaker 1: a former technical director of the n S, a geo
Speaker 1: political Military Analysism Reporting Group, Dan Bongino, risk management consultant,
Speaker 1: former Secret Service agent, nyp D and contributing editor or
Speaker 1: Conservative Review Bill Benny. You were the architect, if I'm
Speaker 1: not mistaken, of the n s A surveillance program. And
Speaker 1: you became a whistleblower when you resigned in two thousand
Speaker 1: and one after spending what thirty years with the agency
Speaker 1: a little a little over thirty two Yeah, as a civilian. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And uh, what can you tell us about whether or
Speaker 1: not these FISA requests were true, whether the first was denied,
Speaker 1: and whether or not in the middle of a campaign
Speaker 1: that somebody in the Obama administration in fact got permission
Speaker 1: for surveillance of Donald Trump's Trump Tower and members of
Speaker 1: his campaign BA. See. I think that they're missing the
Speaker 1: point here. Under Executive Order one to Triple three, they
Speaker 1: do surveillance of everybody in the United States without warrants,
Speaker 1: and that's done through various upstream programs UH, Fairview, Storm, Brew, BLARNEE,
Speaker 1: and UH and also cooperation with other countries in terms
Speaker 1: of collection worldwide. So it's all done without warrants. UH.
Speaker 1: And that was testified to Adrian Kinney by Dreen Kinny
Speaker 1: and David Murphy Falk who were transcribing at Fort Gordon, George,
Speaker 1: and they were transcribing conversations between U. S. Citizens with
Speaker 1: no warrant at all. So for example, General Flynn, there
Speaker 1: was no warrant in his case. And General Flynn when
Speaker 1: when they recognize if they're doing monitoring of an ambassador
Speaker 1: from another country, let's say Russia, and General Flynn is
Speaker 1: on the phone when he once they recognize he's an
Speaker 1: American citizen and they don't have permission to surveil him.
Speaker 1: Aren't they supposed to minimize what they listened to and
Speaker 1: what they record. Yes, they are, Yeah, unless they find
Speaker 1: probable cause, at which time they require to get a warrant.
Speaker 1: That's right, okay, And they didn't do that, and then
Speaker 1: they also leaked all the information. Is that not true? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. And I look at it this way. The
Speaker 1: i C is becoming more like the Praetorian Guard, you know,
Speaker 1: where they're trying to determine who the emperor is and
Speaker 1: and also influenced what the emperor does. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I just think that this is getting out of hand,
Speaker 1: and I think, you know, President Trump is absolutely right.
Speaker 1: The intelligence community needs to be revamped. Are you saying
Speaker 1: that every American can be wire tapped against their will
Speaker 1: without any warrant at any point? No, I'm saying they are.
Speaker 1: You're saying every you mean, Ambie, I have been wire tapped,
Speaker 1: that's right, repeatedly. Yes. And by wire tapping, that means
Speaker 1: what recording my phone conversations, taking my emails, my text
Speaker 1: that's that's correct, and also storing it for mining. It's
Speaker 1: all done under Executive Order one to Triple three Section
Speaker 1: to three C. One to Triple three is the one
Speaker 1: that Obama put in place just two weeks before he left. Well,
Speaker 1: he opened it up to all the other agencies in
Speaker 1: the intelligence community. Originally was just restricted to the only
Speaker 1: one who had access where N s A, c, I, A,
Speaker 1: and FBI. You're saying that every American listening to this program,
Speaker 1: and every American in this country is being surveilled by
Speaker 1: our government without any type of warrant. Isn't that against
Speaker 1: unreasonable search and seizure? Sir? Yeah, it's a violation. This
Speaker 1: is why I left N s A in two thousand
Speaker 1: and one. They're violating the first fourth Sift. In six
Speaker 1: amendments to the Constitution as well as any number of laws.
Speaker 1: That's why, that's why I left. I couldn't stick around
Speaker 1: and be a party to that. And you were one
Speaker 1: of the are you were were one of the big
Speaker 1: architects of the surveillance program? Yeah, that's right. Unfortunately, Yeah,
Speaker 1: well what do you mean Unfortunately, don't we need surveillance, Yes,
Speaker 1: but you don't need it to be abused And that's
Speaker 1: what they're doing now. So so so was Donald Trump
Speaker 1: being surveilled even without the FISA court, that's correct. And
Speaker 1: actually what it is is he's being targeted. Now. They're
Speaker 1: going into the database looking for data on him. So
Speaker 1: in other words, to all the all the mining that
Speaker 1: they've done, now they're just searching it all out. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, my private conversations with Donald Trump could
Speaker 1: be made public one day, that's right. And who would
Speaker 1: release that? It hap to be somebody in the intelligence community. Well, now,
Speaker 1: now any one of the sixteen agencies now have access,
Speaker 1: I guess. And by the way, isn't that a felony
Speaker 1: to release that information? Yes it is, yes it is.
Speaker 1: And how come nobody has been charged up to this point.
Speaker 1: And do you think people will be actually, well, I
Speaker 1: mean we we when Nixon was doing this with the
Speaker 1: same three agencies basically at the core N S, A,
Speaker 1: c I, n FBI. I mean he got impeached for them.
Speaker 1: Damn Bongino, what's your take on all? This is rather shocking?
Speaker 1: What do you say? Holy Moses? I mean, how do
Speaker 1: you follow that up? Show? Rarely are by a guest
Speaker 1: on a show where I'm listening like, no, no, let
Speaker 1: him go? I have I mean, that is if that
Speaker 1: is in fact true, and I have no reason the
Speaker 1: question that at all. The legitimacy of that, that is
Speaker 1: just a stunning revelation, and it separates out the warrant
Speaker 1: issue from the wire tap. In other words, if that
Speaker 1: is in fact true, then Trump's statement is correct. It
Speaker 1: is tweet about being wire tapped is absolutely true, whether
Speaker 1: there's a Fizer Warren or not, as reported by the
Speaker 1: New York Times and other places like that. Um, that
Speaker 1: then becomes kind of a mood point, because then it
Speaker 1: becomes a point of who released the information, not in
Speaker 1: fact was he tapped? And then then you have I mean,
Speaker 1: we have a conspiracy right now. That's devastating to the
Speaker 1: former Obama administration. But once we find out who releases
Speaker 1: that information. I'm sure Mr Binney could tell you a
Speaker 1: les data minding all of this. Mr Benny, then, is
Speaker 1: that in and of itself you're saying, and I'm agreeing
Speaker 1: with you, that that would be a violation of the
Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment. And you're probably right the first fifth and six.
Speaker 1: So all of this is happening. Why don't the American
Speaker 1: people know that every conversation they have is likely being
Speaker 1: data mind. Yeah, Unfortunately they don't seem to care. You know,
Speaker 1: they seek you know, they throw out the statement, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't have anything
Speaker 1: to hide. Well, you know, I have three things to
Speaker 1: say about that. The first thing is that's a great
Speaker 1: quote from Joseph Gebel's former Hitler propaganda minister. Secondly, what
Speaker 1: they think, what the people think in this country is
Speaker 1: totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they think. The only
Speaker 1: thing that matters is whether or not the administration thinks
Speaker 1: you're doing the wrong thing. And thirdly, I take a
Speaker 1: quote from Gerta that said, and this I think is
Speaker 1: our current state. Uh no one is more hopelessly enslaved
Speaker 1: than those who believe they are free. But if there's
Speaker 1: no let me ask you this. If there's no warrant,
Speaker 1: let's say that they are data mind, and let's say
Speaker 1: everything you're saying here is true, and I have no
Speaker 1: is an a doubt you. Let's say every American is
Speaker 1: being monitored and they're recording every phone conversation, and I
Speaker 1: want to ask this about Donald Trump. Would that mean
Speaker 1: now that they can go back without a warrant and
Speaker 1: pull this out and leak it against Donald Trump every
Speaker 1: private conversation he may or may not have had. Yes,
Speaker 1: and probably they can go back at least five to
Speaker 1: ten years every conversation. Does that include every email, every tweet?
Speaker 1: I mean every text? Rather, that's right, good grief. So
Speaker 1: nobody's safe and secure. If you want to see the
Speaker 1: way they're collecting it, look at just Google ns A
Speaker 1: Space fair View and n s A space storm Brew
Speaker 1: and you can see all the tapping points inside the
Speaker 1: United States. I gotta be honest, there's very few times
Speaker 1: in my life that I get stunned. And you've just
Speaker 1: stunned me. We'll take a quick break, we'll come back,
Speaker 1: and Jason Chavitz is waiting outside. He'll join us live
Speaker 1: at the bottom of this half hour. A lot more
Speaker 1: to talk about, including the healthcare bill, the executive order
Speaker 1: now the new executive order, the president's signed banning travel
Speaker 1: from six terror tied countries, and more. Obviously on this
Speaker 1: you know, surveillance issue of the Trump campaign and who knew, what,
Speaker 1: when and where? Bite sized show that you can take
Speaker 1: with you. To sign up today for Hannity headlines, go
Speaker 1: to Hannity dot com. And as we continue Sean Hannity's show,
Speaker 1: we continue with Bill Binny and also Dan Bongino. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you, Mr Benny, as with the one
Speaker 1: of the architects of the n s A surveillance program.
Speaker 1: Were you the chief architect? I was the designer of
Speaker 1: how to manage large volumes of data? Yeah yeah, now
Speaker 1: you referred in an interview, I guess with Aaron Klein
Speaker 1: referencing to n s A. Whistleblowers have said that they
Speaker 1: worked at the agency in uh Fort Gordon, Georgia, and
Speaker 1: they were asked not only to monitor phone calls of
Speaker 1: US citizens, but transcribe them. This is all being done
Speaker 1: without a warrant. And what about James Clapper's claim in
Speaker 1: March during an open Senate session of the Senate Intelligence
Speaker 1: Committee that the n s A was not with only
Speaker 1: collecting data on Americans? Did he lie? Do you think
Speaker 1: he lied yesterday in an interview that he gave about
Speaker 1: not knowing about this, Well, I mean he would know
Speaker 1: about the the FISO warrant, but he wouldn't. I mean
Speaker 1: he said he did. FBI and c I have direct
Speaker 1: access into the n s A data with no oversight
Speaker 1: or attempted oversight at all. So they could have people
Speaker 1: going in targeting President Trump or President elect Trump or
Speaker 1: candidate Trump at any time even before that. They could
Speaker 1: go back years. Uh and and he would never know that.
Speaker 1: So he's not necessarily lying. He just doesn't know. Isn't
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino? What what Mr Benny is describing here? Isn't
Speaker 1: that the foundation of a police state? And if you
Speaker 1: have a corrupt government, that they can use this information
Speaker 1: to silence opposition, blackmail people, compromise people. I and no offense,
Speaker 1: but I I don't think i'd want every email I've
Speaker 1: ever sent looked at by by government. I just wouldn't.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sending anything. Is there any other way
Speaker 1: to look at this, Sean? I mean, think about what
Speaker 1: happens in North say, a lot of crush words on
Speaker 1: some private calls sometimes, you know, you know you meet
Speaker 1: sound like private anymore? So, you know, Linda, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm almost as bad as her, almost not quite, but
Speaker 1: think about it. I mean, a real police state like
Speaker 1: North Korea or Cuba. You know, there's no private in
Speaker 1: public self, right. You know, when you're behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: nothing's really private. They're listening to your phone, they're looking
Speaker 1: at your Internet traffic. Um. There are literally neighbors paid
Speaker 1: this by on people in places like North Korea and
Speaker 1: things like that. So there's no distinction between the public
Speaker 1: and privateself. Why are we replicating that model here in
Speaker 1: the United States? Where the privateself, your email behavior, your
Speaker 1: private telephone conversations are now no longer private, but they're
Speaker 1: in the public domain for what government bureaucrats and officials
Speaker 1: to access anytime they have a gripe against you. I mean, Sean,
Speaker 1: you and I both have a lot of enemies out there,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, this isn't the kind of thing
Speaker 1: you want out there. You want that's the that's the
Speaker 1: actual distinctions is going after me? Now? Is that why
Speaker 1: you nevern though I pay a fortunate taxes, I mean
Speaker 1: the sad thing is you don't know, like is that
Speaker 1: you have to ask the question? Is bad enough the
Speaker 1: the the answer, frankly is irrelevant that you're asking the
Speaker 1: question says we're all in trouble. And if if what
Speaker 1: Mr Binny says is even half accurate, again, I have
Speaker 1: no reason to think otherwise. Should we worry about stuff?
Speaker 1: Should we worry that the judge and the Fiser Court
Speaker 1: Mr Benny was picked by Bill Clinton, appointed by Bill Clinton? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean that that certainly would be some concern, But
Speaker 1: I think the five courts basically totally irrelevant. They're not
Speaker 1: even concerned or they involved in any way with the
Speaker 1: Executive Order one to tip of three collection. That's all
Speaker 1: done outside of the courts and outside of the Congress.
Speaker 1: So all that when I talk about the President opening
Speaker 1: up the sharing of of one two three three, uh,
Speaker 1: Executive Order one two three three three that I'm you're
Speaker 1: saying that they now allowed the sharing, but it always
Speaker 1: allowed the monitoring of every American citizen and they do
Speaker 1: it with regularity and everything is being recorded. Yeah, that's right, jee,
Speaker 1: good grief. What the hell is going on in this country? Um?
Speaker 1: I mean I I looked at it this way. When
Speaker 1: some of this first started coming out with the from
Speaker 1: Edward Snowden back in UH, there was a quote by
Speaker 1: a Wolfgang Schmidt, who was a former lieutenant colonel in
Speaker 1: the East German Stazi. And if you remember, the East
Speaker 1: Germans had folders on everybody in the country and they
Speaker 1: kept records up them all uh. And he's this colonel said,
Speaker 1: for for when he looked at the n S A
Speaker 1: collection system and its the acquisition of data, he said
Speaker 1: for us, for us meaning the Stasi, this would have
Speaker 1: been a dream come true, very frightening, very chilling, and
Speaker 1: we really appreciate it. We'll have a lot more on
Speaker 1: this tonight on Hannity ten Eastern on the Fox News
Speaker 1: Channel and all the other news of the day. The
Speaker 1: executive order, the new order put out by the President today,
Speaker 1: and the outline of the health care information that we've
Speaker 1: been talking about a much more. Here is not a
Speaker 1: liberal Democrat, a Republican senator who says he's trying to
Speaker 1: get the details. So let me guess, Ran Paul, for
Speaker 1: what we think is being hidden from conservatives is that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of Obamacare light in their bill. There's
Speaker 1: a new entitlement program there will increase it about five
Speaker 1: percent a year or forever. There is also a Cadillac
Speaker 1: tax or something similar to the Cadillac tax. It was
Speaker 1: an Obamacare. And there's also an individual mandate believe it
Speaker 1: or not. Instead of paying the mandate to the government,
Speaker 1: they're gonna tell you have to pay the mandate by
Speaker 1: law to an insurance company. So a lot of Conservats
Speaker 1: will be upset to know that we're keeping those things
Speaker 1: from Obamacare, and there needs to be an open debate
Speaker 1: about it. Is that all true? No, it's not. And um,
Speaker 1: I think he's just kind of you know, I like Ran,
Speaker 1: but I think he's looking for a publicity stunt here.
Speaker 1: What's happening is the committees of jurisdiction are drafting legislation
Speaker 1: and getting feedback from their members. That's exactly how legislation
Speaker 1: is supposed to be written. Um, the things he described
Speaker 1: are are just not accurate. And uh, like I said,
Speaker 1: when the committees write their bills and put their bills
Speaker 1: out there to mark up, everybody will see what they've done.
Speaker 1: President Trump is requesting that is part of their investigation
Speaker 1: into Russian activity. The Congressional Intelligence Committees exercised their oversight
Speaker 1: authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused
Speaker 1: in is that a fair ask of this administration? Well, look,
Speaker 1: President Obama has flatly denied that he has done this,
Speaker 1: and either way, Chuck, the President's in trouble if he
Speaker 1: falsely spread this kind of misinformation that is so wrong.
Speaker 1: It's it's beneath the dignity of the presidency. It is
Speaker 1: something that really hurts people's view of government. Its civilization warping,
Speaker 1: as Ben Sass, a conservative Republican called it. And I
Speaker 1: don't know if any president, uh, Democrat a republic in
Speaker 1: the past has done this. It shows this president doesn't
Speaker 1: know how to conduct himself. On the other hand, if
Speaker 1: it's true, it's even worse for the president because that
Speaker 1: means that a federal judge, independently elected, has found probable
Speaker 1: cause that the president or people on his to have
Speaker 1: have had probable cause who have broken the law, or
Speaker 1: to have interacted with a foreign agent. Now that serious stuff.
Speaker 1: So either way, the president makes it worse with these tweets. Now,
Speaker 1: is he trying to divert things here? Yeah, the President
Speaker 1: denied this. I don't have any doubt to do to uh,
Speaker 1: I don't have any doubt that President Obama has been
Speaker 1: telling the treat regardless of whether or not President Obama
Speaker 1: ordered such a wire tap. Do you know if there
Speaker 1: was any such wire tap by the FBI or the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. But we wouldn't know that. But in fact,
Speaker 1: the very idea that um President Trump is saying he
Speaker 1: wants his Justice Department to look into that, you don't
Speaker 1: look into something like that. In other words, a President
Speaker 1: Obama flat out has said, we have nothing to do
Speaker 1: with this. What the Justice Department is doing is another subject.
Speaker 1: I had no knowledge of anything of that kind. Well,
Speaker 1: notice the parsing of words we've got going on here.
Speaker 1: That was with Chucky Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. The statement
Speaker 1: of President Obama this weekend was very, very very specific.
Speaker 1: In other words, neither the President nor any White House
Speaker 1: official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. They didn't
Speaker 1: deny that there were fiser court requests from either the
Speaker 1: FBI or the Justice Department or any other department, nor
Speaker 1: did they acknowledge that it happened. Now the question is,
Speaker 1: we now have great suspicion that, in fact, there were
Speaker 1: two attempts to get fiser warrants against Donald Trump or associates,
Speaker 1: and one was denied in Juno July, and the second
Speaker 1: one in October, more narrow in scope was approved. And
Speaker 1: if that happened, then it's very likely that in fact
Speaker 1: Trump Tower was wire tapped, at least in some capacity. Anyway,
Speaker 1: twenty four now to the top of the hour, joining
Speaker 1: us a rare in studio appearance as Jason Chavitz, the
Speaker 1: congressman from the great state where you're from, Utah and
Speaker 1: is the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Well,
Speaker 1: you've been making the rounds today. You were on Fox
Speaker 1: and Friends earlier this morning. It was gonna be a
Speaker 1: town glad to be with you. How are you doing?
Speaker 1: Doing great? Doing great? You actually made a statement about
Speaker 1: it this morning. You said it wouldn't be the first
Speaker 1: time that Obama illegally wire tapped as opponents. What did
Speaker 1: you mean by that? Well, I I what I was saying.
Speaker 1: I didn't say a wire tapped. What I said is
Speaker 1: he doesn't you know they've been notorious of here. Remember
Speaker 1: what happened with James Rosen, Remember what happened with the
Speaker 1: targeting of innocent Americans, just based on their political beliefs
Speaker 1: and what they did with the I R S. Aren't
Speaker 1: all those things crimes? Aren't all those things illegal? Yes?
Speaker 1: I mean, look what the Secret Service did to me.
Speaker 1: I was investigating. The Secret Service, more than forty agents
Speaker 1: illegally against the law, according to the Inspector General, tapped
Speaker 1: into my private files, all in an effort to damage
Speaker 1: is done. You know, it's like this isn't this the
Speaker 1: same case with General Flynn? What they did to General
Speaker 1: Flynn for extent? Tell me what part of this is wrong?
Speaker 1: Because I speak to members that are high in the
Speaker 1: intelligence community, and for example, if the N s A
Speaker 1: or or any other agency is in fact intercepting the
Speaker 1: signals of either friend ally opponent, which is their job,
Speaker 1: I'm glad they're doing it. In the case of the
Speaker 1: Russian ambassador, once they identify that an American is on
Speaker 1: the line. Is it or is it not true that
Speaker 1: they're supposed to minimize the amount of listening number one
Speaker 1: that they do to the American unless he's saying something
Speaker 1: outrageous because they haven't gotten a warrant to listen, and
Speaker 1: they don't have a PISO court opportunity. They haven't gone
Speaker 1: to the FIS Court to get permission to listen, and
Speaker 1: aren't there isn't a general practice that when they finally
Speaker 1: write up a report on whoever it was that they
Speaker 1: were surveilling, that they wouldn't identify the Americans. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: exactly what we had a hearing about this in judiciary
Speaker 1: literally just last week. As we're looking at what's called
Speaker 1: this so called seven O two S, and that's how
Speaker 1: the FISA court works, that's what's supposed to happen. Um,
Speaker 1: there was a felony committed in the case of General
Speaker 1: Flynn by by number one releasing this classified information. There
Speaker 1: was no reasonable search or seizure here. There was no
Speaker 1: there was no government granting of of of of a
Speaker 1: tapping of his phone right now, ins handling of classified
Speaker 1: information putting that out of the public. I mean as
Speaker 1: as I talked to Devin Newness, who's the chairman of
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee, you know, I said, the one
Speaker 1: crime we know about is the actual leaking of classified
Speaker 1: information that is against the law. And so so General
Speaker 1: Flynn lost his job because he was illegally tapped by
Speaker 1: our own government and then the information was leaked, both
Speaker 1: of which are felonies. So we've asked the Inspector General
Speaker 1: to go in and look at that that information. I've
Speaker 1: talked to Devon Unez a few times about the information
Speaker 1: that they're going to look at. We're gonna go into
Speaker 1: this eyes wide open. I don't know where the facts
Speaker 1: will take us, but we're gonna take this very seriously,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna look and see what what the reality is.
Speaker 1: Do we or do we not have confirmation that, in fact,
Speaker 1: there were two attempts to get the FISA Court to
Speaker 1: sign off on surveillance against Donald Trump and members of
Speaker 1: his campaign. I have read and seen that in the media,
Speaker 1: but in the New York Times, Yeah, the New York Times, McClatchy,
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail, any other places you read it. Well,
Speaker 1: it's out there, but I have not, you know, independently
Speaker 1: firm that. I can't say that it happened or didn't
Speaker 1: happen yet. So do you know personally, But if you could,
Speaker 1: you tell us if you knew. I I'm just flat
Speaker 1: out telling you I don't know. I mean, this happened
Speaker 1: over the weekend. It's starting the process to try to
Speaker 1: untangle this this very you know, deep web, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna take some time. Do you agree with me that
Speaker 1: the White House statement that neither the President nor any
Speaker 1: White House official ordered surveillance on any US citizen is meaningless?
Speaker 1: And isn't it likely that in fact that president, if
Speaker 1: it did happen, would have known. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: you go into these eyes wide open. You don't presuppose
Speaker 1: the conclusion of this. But we're going to find out.
Speaker 1: What would it mean if in fact, the sitting administration
Speaker 1: and the heat of a presidential campaign is tapping or
Speaker 1: surveilling the opposition party candidate. I mean, if it is
Speaker 1: sounds like a police stage. Look if it is true.
Speaker 1: I think some have said, hey, this is you know,
Speaker 1: one of the biggest political scandals of all time, And
Speaker 1: you're probably right. Why it matters is because if our
Speaker 1: government can do surveillance on Donald Trump, if they could
Speaker 1: do it on General Flynn and they can leak that information,
Speaker 1: then wants to stop them for doing it against me
Speaker 1: or you in the case you've already had it done
Speaker 1: against you, No, I know. I mean it's already well
Speaker 1: documented through the Inspector General. It was done in more
Speaker 1: than forty people, and it was like a day and
Speaker 1: a half maybe in the news, nobody paid any attention
Speaker 1: to the administration just kind of brushed it off and
Speaker 1: gave people literally paid time off. Sounds like a vacation turn.
Speaker 1: To me, that was not exactly a reprimand I was
Speaker 1: a little mad at you last week because the comments
Speaker 1: that I read you had said about Jeff Sessions. I
Speaker 1: don't think Jeff Sessions should have recused himself. I think
Speaker 1: that it was a rush to judgment. I I understand
Speaker 1: he wants to avoid any appearance of impropriety. But if
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch could meet on a tarmac days before she's
Speaker 1: making a decision on Hillary Clinton, where I know she
Speaker 1: committed felonies, is there any doubt in your mind she
Speaker 1: committed felonies like she should have. She should have stepped
Speaker 1: way back. She did, stepped way out of bounds. The
Speaker 1: Democrats were absolutely nowhere in Isn't it illegal to mishandle classified?
Speaker 1: So is the definition of mishandling if you have it
Speaker 1: in a m in pop shop, server, bathroom closet, is
Speaker 1: that the mishandling the classified information? That's look. I we
Speaker 1: helped spearhead the whole Hillary Clinton email investigation. In that
Speaker 1: whole are you convinced she committed felonies. That Coloretta Lynch.
Speaker 1: Oh that Hillary Clinton? Oh yeah, I mean you can't
Speaker 1: come to Congress in a lot. Then why don't we
Speaker 1: Why don't we ever prosecute or follow up on people
Speaker 1: that commit crimes. Why hasn't that happened? Well, we have
Speaker 1: a new administration in a new new attorney sheriff in town.
Speaker 1: But why do I know that? Boy, if if I
Speaker 1: burped the wrong way and broke a law, I mean
Speaker 1: that they would have me in handcuffs, perp walked and
Speaker 1: and mug shot it. Like I just sent a letter
Speaker 1: in the last I think two weeks. Mr Pagliano, who
Speaker 1: we issued, Yeah, we issued a subpoena for him to
Speaker 1: appear at Congress. She just said no, he didn't show up. Well,
Speaker 1: they should prosecute it for that. You know, it's not
Speaker 1: optional to show up and test. The thing is that
Speaker 1: we never follow through. Now I'll give you another example.
Speaker 1: We have all those video of people that were rioting
Speaker 1: and looting in Ferguson, Missouri, or rioting and looting in Baltimore, Maryland.
Speaker 1: We got there, we got their faces on video, and
Speaker 1: we never follow up. But look the legislative band branch.
Speaker 1: You know myself, Trey Gaudy, others. We can't prosecute anybody.
Speaker 1: We can highlight it, we can point at it Congress well,
Speaker 1: and when we do that again, the administration has to
Speaker 1: be the one to actually prosecute somebody. They don't give
Speaker 1: me handcuffs, Sean. If they give me handcuffs, there's lots
Speaker 1: of people that come before our committee, it should be
Speaker 1: in handcuffs. That's a good point. How do you feel
Speaker 1: about the President's new executive order banning travel from six
Speaker 1: terror tied countries. I'm excited. I mean good, you saw
Speaker 1: three Cabinet secretars. By the way, the more the media
Speaker 1: is gonna lie and say it's a Muslim ban, even
Speaker 1: though it doesn't impact of the world's Muslims, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna say that it's a religious litmus test, none of
Speaker 1: which is true. This is about countries that have specific
Speaker 1: ties to terror, and it's a temporary band, but it'll
Speaker 1: be mischaracterized. Look, the one goal of the president is
Speaker 1: to protect the United States of America. It's totally within
Speaker 1: his rights and he absolutely should do this, and I
Speaker 1: think he's rolling it out the right way. It starts
Speaker 1: ten days from now, and uh, I wholeheartedly support it.
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit worried about I mean, we played
Speaker 1: Rampaul in his criticism. Um. I've had numerous conversations with
Speaker 1: the Speaker, and I've talked to Congressman McCarthy, and I've
Speaker 1: talked to Freedom Caucus members, and I've talked to Rand Paul.
Speaker 1: And there seems to be the schism in this divide
Speaker 1: about what you know. We're getting the points now out
Speaker 1: as we speak, in other words, the main points of
Speaker 1: how the reconciliation bill is gonna work. Do you interpret
Speaker 1: this in any way that it has a new mandate
Speaker 1: except to the insurance companies, that the Cadillac tacks still exists,
Speaker 1: and that there's a new entitlement, or any of those
Speaker 1: things true in your mind. Well, we got to see
Speaker 1: it all fully rolled out, and Paul Ryan is right,
Speaker 1: and that is when it goes to the committee of
Speaker 1: members can offer amendments, and they can. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: some votes on these things, and they may or may
Speaker 1: not go the direction I like I want to go.
Speaker 1: I really like Rand Paul's approach to this. I like
Speaker 1: his bill. He's got a lot of greed of Caucus.
Speaker 1: You know, I have this guy, Dr Josh Umber actually
Speaker 1: gave his name to Ryan's previous the other day, and
Speaker 1: and Dr Umber is a guy in which it tak Kansas.
Speaker 1: And one's really cool about him is he's created this
Speaker 1: co op ten dollars a month for kids, fifty dollars
Speaker 1: a month for adults, all the care you can want. Right.
Speaker 1: He buys in bulk all of the main pharmaceuticals that
Speaker 1: you'd ever need. If you need stitches, you break a bone,
Speaker 1: you know, all your basic medical care, stress test, all
Speaker 1: of this stuff is covered. Only it's not covered as cancer,
Speaker 1: heart attacks, or if you have a bad accident. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean if you have some catastrophic then you need
Speaker 1: a catastrophic everybody should. I would hope that people would
Speaker 1: go by, but I don't want to force them to
Speaker 1: go buy it. It's it's in America. They gotta be
Speaker 1: able to make their choices. So they make their choices.
Speaker 1: But I mean, could you imagine if all of let's say,
Speaker 1: the bricklayers of America or the nurses of America could
Speaker 1: actually create such a cooperative like that, And that's absolutely
Speaker 1: I really do believe it. I think you'll see a
Speaker 1: lot on health savings accounts, which you know aligns the
Speaker 1: financial incentives. And people should be able to congregate the
Speaker 1: way they want to, whether it's an organization or or
Speaker 1: however they want to try to pull together and get
Speaker 1: the best deal they can. Well, people don't know about you.
Speaker 1: And I saw your wife the other night at the
Speaker 1: joint Session of Congress speeches. She looks like Kate Beckinsdale.
Speaker 1: You know. They take that as a huge compliment. And
Speaker 1: I keep thinking every time I see her, what the
Speaker 1: hell was she thinking when she married you? I don't
Speaker 1: understand why, Hey, I'm keeping that deal twenty six years
Speaker 1: we've been married, though I'm not. I'm not your face.
Speaker 1: Why is your face? Fred? When I say that? Because
Speaker 1: I just got visions of her, I still get my
Speaker 1: still get the tingle down the back of my isn't
Speaker 1: a great being a talk show host. I can be
Speaker 1: so free and I don't give a fly and rip
Speaker 1: what anybody thinks. And you guys in Congress have to
Speaker 1: be so careful and nice about everything. I got my
Speaker 1: tie all tied up. You're golf shirt. You're gonna be
Speaker 1: golfing before we're you know, I don't. Yeah, I'm like,
Speaker 1: I have a lot of time to golf in my life.
Speaker 1: You know, let me fit that in in my morning
Speaker 1: workout routine. I barely have an hour from my ninja workout,
Speaker 1: which wore me out this morning. Uh, congressmen, we appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I really think if we don't get rid of the swamp,
Speaker 1: and we don't get rid of the Obama holdovers, and
Speaker 1: we don't get rid of the lifelong bureaucrats, and we
Speaker 1: don't get rid of Republicans, don't get a spine. This
Speaker 1: is like the only chance we've got. You guys got
Speaker 1: to do your job. You guys got to get this done.
Speaker 1: And everybody that listens to this program wants you Republicans
Speaker 1: to step up in the House and Senate. Hey, we're
Speaker 1: really done the clock and we do we gotta get
Speaker 1: it done. That means repealing Obamacare and replace it with
Speaker 1: something that we can all live with him. And then
Speaker 1: we got to do tax reform. That those are the
Speaker 1: two big ones right up. And we're gonna hold people accountable.
Speaker 1: From my point, we're gonna hold people accountable. That's my job.
Speaker 1: And if you don't, I will be screaming and yelling
Speaker 1: and giving out your phone number. I could be an
Speaker 1: awful human being. I believe you all right there to
Speaker 1: say a congressman, all right, we appreciate you being one
Speaker 1: of us. Thank you, Conress