Speaker 1: My friends at my Pillow. My buddy Michaelendell told me
Speaker 1: he was coming out with a brand new product. It's
Speaker 1: called the New Mattress Topper. So I got the new
Speaker 1: Mattress Topper immediately and I've been sleeping on it now
Speaker 1: for a couple of months. It's the best thing you've
Speaker 1: ever felt in your life. Now you literally have my
Speaker 1: pillow foam for support. It's a transitional foam that helps
Speaker 1: relieve pressure points. And it's Ultrasoft patented temperature regulating cover.
Speaker 1: And I gotta tell you how's a ten year warranty,
Speaker 1: a cover that's washable and driable. It's made in the USA,
Speaker 1: back by the sixty day unconditional money back guarantee. Once
Speaker 1: you try this new mattress topper, you put it right
Speaker 1: over your mattress, you will never sleep better. And right now,
Speaker 1: you my radio listeners, you're gonna save thirty percent off
Speaker 1: when you go to my pillow dot com and use
Speaker 1: the promo code topper. And by the way, Mike will
Speaker 1: also give you two standard my pillows absolutely free. All right,
Speaker 1: So try my pillow dot Com promo code topper promo
Speaker 1: code topper for this great deal and the best night's
Speaker 1: sleep you ever had. All right, glad you're with us.
Speaker 1: Right down our toll free telephone number. It is eight hundred,
Speaker 1: it is nine four one, Sean, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. I'm telling everybody that
Speaker 1: ever wants to listen, you who all ought to be angered,
Speaker 1: You all ought to be outraged, You all ought to
Speaker 1: be concerned about the way things are working in America,
Speaker 1: the things that I have been telling you now and
Speaker 1: we have been breaking with our ensemble cast of you know,
Speaker 1: the Greg Jarretts, you know all the names. By the way,
Speaker 1: we have a big story. It's gonna break tonight, really
Speaker 1: really big as it. Let's put it this way. We
Speaker 1: have smoking gun evidence tonight that is really important as
Speaker 1: it relates to FISA and those that committed it a
Speaker 1: fraud on the FISA court. And we're gonna name names,
Speaker 1: and we've got the evidence, and so tune in nine eastern.
Speaker 1: We'll break it on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
Speaker 1: What happened yesterday as we get the sentencing recommendation from
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller. It's been a full year now that General
Speaker 1: Flynn has been literally sitting on a bubble, and you know,
Speaker 1: his life is held in suspension, and while it is
Speaker 1: not the most harsh in terms of sentencing, and by
Speaker 1: the way, what the media is focused on is just
Speaker 1: a total it's such a total bunch of nonsense and
Speaker 1: speculation as usual and conspiracy theories as usual. And we're
Speaker 1: gonna get more. We're gonna get the same thing as
Speaker 1: it relates to Michael Kohne. We'll get the same thing
Speaker 1: as it relates to Paul Manaphort. Manaphort, whatever cooperation deal
Speaker 1: he had with Muller is pretty much gone. He's seventy
Speaker 1: years old. I guess they want to throw him in jail,
Speaker 1: make sure he never sees the light of day again,
Speaker 1: you know, because of something to do with a loan
Speaker 1: application and ten taxes. Why don't you let the guy
Speaker 1: go out and work and pay back the tax money
Speaker 1: that he owes. That might be a different way. They
Speaker 1: did that for Willie Nelson. What are the nine million
Speaker 1: in taxes? And he didn't put him in jail. They
Speaker 1: didn't charge him. It's unbelievable. You just, well, I like
Speaker 1: his music, so we're not going to charge him, Hannity.
Speaker 1: We hate his politics. He's going away forever. He'll never
Speaker 1: see the night light a day. It's pretty disgraceful, it is.
Speaker 1: It shocks the conscience, especially in light of what we
Speaker 1: know about what other people have done. And this is
Speaker 1: why I've always said, this is the biggest abuse of
Speaker 1: power scandal, a corruption scandal in history. And we have
Speaker 1: a dual justice system, and we don't have equal justice
Speaker 1: under the law, and we don't have equal application of
Speaker 1: our laws. This is just but the latest example of it.
Speaker 1: As now, General Flynn's life was put on hold for
Speaker 1: a full year. And I'm going to read to you
Speaker 1: from the government's memoranda in Aiden's a sentencing recommendation note
Speaker 1: from Robert Mueller, the US and the Special Counsel Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller's respectfully submits this memorandum in the aid of the
Speaker 1: sentencing of defendant Michael T. Flynn on December first, twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: He pled it guilty to one count making materially false
Speaker 1: statements to the FBI. Stop right there. So if you're
Speaker 1: like me and you grew up to revere an FBI
Speaker 1: agent and the FBI comes to your house and maybe
Speaker 1: some crime took place in the neighborhood, and maybe have
Speaker 1: a little bit of information but you don't quite fully
Speaker 1: recall everything, but you're pretty sure you do. The advice
Speaker 1: I have to give you now is don't talk to
Speaker 1: the FBI. How awful is that? Because we want to
Speaker 1: help our FBI, because we want to help them solve crimes.
Speaker 1: We're good people. We play by the rules, we obey
Speaker 1: the laws in the country. We pay our taxes, you know,
Speaker 1: we shovel coffee down our throat. We go work our
Speaker 1: twelve fourteen hours a day. We make our kids their lunch,
Speaker 1: we make them our dinner, We do a little homework
Speaker 1: with them, and we put on Hannity and fall asleep
Speaker 1: at ten o'clock Eastern time. Seven o'clock. Specific is okay too.
Speaker 1: That's the point. That's what everybody does. We want to
Speaker 1: get the people that are doing bad things because it's
Speaker 1: enough of them anyway. So it goes through the nature
Speaker 1: of the crime. The nature of the offense, and the
Speaker 1: defendant's history and characteristics are set forth eighteen Usc. Three
Speaker 1: five five three A in addition to the addendum to
Speaker 1: this memorandum describes the defendant's assistance to the government. That's
Speaker 1: all that they want to fixate on, which is all
Speaker 1: redacted and it's all speculation. And I don't think anything
Speaker 1: of what we're hearing is true because it just none
Speaker 1: of it makes sense. But they get to jump the
Speaker 1: gun because they want this all to believe. They want
Speaker 1: everybody to believe Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians.
Speaker 1: Their biggest problem in all of this is the election
Speaker 1: and the time frame was over. Do you understand what
Speaker 1: I'm saying Anything that Michael Flynn did and that we're
Speaker 1: dealing with in this sentencing recommendation statement of Robert Muller's post,
Speaker 1: you know, it doesn't matter, didn't have anything to do
Speaker 1: with pre election interference, Russian interference. You know the fact
Speaker 1: that he indicted all of these intel agents from Russia
Speaker 1: were never gonna be held accountable for anything. Putin's not
Speaker 1: going to send him here to go on trial. And
Speaker 1: that's the same with the Russian bot companies that they indicted,
Speaker 1: except for the one that responded. They don't even want
Speaker 1: to give discovery too. They're going to have to kill
Speaker 1: that case. Nature of the offense false statement to the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, The defendant's offense is serious. As described
Speaker 1: in the Statement of offense, defendant made multiple false statements
Speaker 1: to multiple Department of Justice entities on multiple occasions. The
Speaker 1: first series of statements occurred during an interview with the
Speaker 1: FBI on January twenty four, twenty seventeen. At the time
Speaker 1: of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into
Speaker 1: the Russian government's effort to interfere in the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: presidential election, including the nature of any links coordination between
Speaker 1: the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of
Speaker 1: President Donald J. Trump. Days prior to the FBI's interview
Speaker 1: the defendant, The Washington Post had published a story that
Speaker 1: he had spoken with the Russian ambassador to the United
Speaker 1: States on December twenty ninth, twenty sixteen. Now, remember what
Speaker 1: it just said in the paragraph above. It's an ongoing
Speaker 1: investigation into any efforts other Russians to interfere in the
Speaker 1: presidential election. They're talking about a meeting that took place
Speaker 1: again with a Russian ambassador and the incoming national security
Speaker 1: advisor to the president on December twenty ninth. The election's over,
Speaker 1: so has nothing to do. He would be talking to
Speaker 1: a soon to be counter part in however, many days,
Speaker 1: you know, what is January twentieth, In twenty two days
Speaker 1: the three weeks, so he had a brief conversation with
Speaker 1: the Russian ambassador because it was obvious and it was
Speaker 1: all stated that there were going to be different policy
Speaker 1: viewpoints between what Barack Obama was doing with Russia versus
Speaker 1: what Donald Trump would be doing with Russia. Just makes
Speaker 1: sense anyway, and that the story alleged that he had
Speaker 1: spoken with the Russian ambassador on December the twenty nine,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, the day the United States announced sanctions and
Speaker 1: other measures against Russia in response to the Russian governments
Speaker 1: intended intending to interfere at the twenty sixteen election. Well,
Speaker 1: in October that year, Obama himself said it's impossible, No
Speaker 1: serious person would believe it, and Donald Trump needs to
Speaker 1: stop whining. Yet Devin Nunez was warning that it's possible
Speaker 1: because they'd done it in previous elections and they were
Speaker 1: trying to do it in the twenty sixteen election. He
Speaker 1: made that warning in twenty fourteen, anyway. So the Post
Speaker 1: story that they refer to January twelfth, twenty seventeen, queried
Speaker 1: whether the defendant's actions violated the Logan Act, which prohibits
Speaker 1: US citizen from corresponding with a foreign government with the
Speaker 1: intent to influence the conduct of that foreign government regarding
Speaker 1: disputes with the United States. That's eighteen USC. Nine fifty three,
Speaker 1: the Logan Act. It's what is This goes back how
Speaker 1: many centuries. It is a rarely, rarely rarely invoked federal
Speaker 1: statute prohibiting the unauthorized private diplomacy with foreign nations. He's
Speaker 1: about to be the National Security Advisor and he's meeting
Speaker 1: he's soon to be counterparts, and he's telling them, well,
Speaker 1: things are going to be different when we get into office.
Speaker 1: That is not a violation of the Logan Act. This
Speaker 1: is such a stretch from the beginning. Now, let me
Speaker 1: remind what General Flynn didn't know when he went in
Speaker 1: to discuss these issues with people, is that they had
Speaker 1: already illegally surveilled him. They had illegally unmasked him, they
Speaker 1: had illegally obtained raw intelligence. Now, when an American citizen
Speaker 1: is on the phone with a foreign entity, we have
Speaker 1: what is a practice that should be applied for Unless
Speaker 1: the American is saying, hey, I want to be involved
Speaker 1: in a terrorist attack with you or some type of crime,
Speaker 1: which General Flynn was not doing. What they did is
Speaker 1: they violated the rules of surveillance, so they had a
Speaker 1: transcript of everything that he said. Anything that he didn't
Speaker 1: remember exactly, they're going to identify as a lie because
Speaker 1: that's what they want to find. And they go through
Speaker 1: this whole process with him, etc. The defendant made a
Speaker 1: second series of false statements regarding the Republic of Turkey
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. And then again they cite the Foreign
Speaker 1: Ages Registration Act FARA that never gets if anyone gets caught,
Speaker 1: as it relates to a Farah Act. In other words,
Speaker 1: you didn't register properly with the federal government, you get
Speaker 1: you just get a chance to fix it. It's like
Speaker 1: the Logan Act for crying out loud. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: about to be one of our top national security officials
Speaker 1: and they may get the biggest deal over a FARA
Speaker 1: filing being omitted and as an as a material fact
Speaker 1: of officials from Turkey providing supervision, direction over Turkey, etcetera. Anyway,
Speaker 1: then it goes on to say on election Day twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: the defendant published an op ed for the Turkey Project,
Speaker 1: which called for the removal of a cleric exited residing
Speaker 1: in the US whom the President of Turkey assume he's
Speaker 1: talking about Urtwan blamed for the failed coup in that country.
Speaker 1: Cleric's responsibility for the coupup temp was a great debate, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: Defendant's op ed of the cleric's role was valuable to
Speaker 1: the Republic of Turkey's efforts to shape public opinion. The
Speaker 1: defendant falsely represented his Faraugh filings and op ed was
Speaker 1: written in his own initiative as opposed for Turkey and
Speaker 1: the Turkey Project and the Republic of Turkey. So did
Speaker 1: you write it for them or did you write it
Speaker 1: for yourself? Did you do it as a favor? I mean,
Speaker 1: this is where we are. So here's Lieutenant Flynn, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you a list of all the
Speaker 1: people we know have lied and crimes that have been
Speaker 1: committed in a minute. This man's life now, who has
Speaker 1: been put on hold for a year, the position that
Speaker 1: he would have earned is gone. He had to literally
Speaker 1: sell his home, selling his home because he couldn't afford
Speaker 1: to pay his lawyers anymore. He walked into a perjury
Speaker 1: trap because of legally obtained information, illegal surveillance, illegal unmasking,
Speaker 1: not using the procedures and protocols of minimization, and then
Speaker 1: raw intelligence is used as a means to set a
Speaker 1: perjury trap. General Flynt, that's what happened here. Now. In
Speaker 1: the end, they say his history is characteristics present, mitigating
Speaker 1: and aggravating circumstances, and as detailed in the PSR report,
Speaker 1: the defendants military and public service or exemplary thirty three
Speaker 1: years in the military. He served five years in combat duty,
Speaker 1: led the Defense Intelligence Agency, retired as a three star
Speaker 1: lieutenant general, and the defendants record of military public service
Speaker 1: distinguish him from every other person who has been charged
Speaker 1: in the Special Council's investigation. However, senior government leaders should
Speaker 1: be held to the highest standards anyway, defends extensive government
Speaker 1: background should have made him aware of all this, Etcetc.
Speaker 1: And then they go on to conclude for the foregoing
Speaker 1: reasons as well as those contained in the government's addendam
Speaker 1: motion for downward departure, the government's admits that a sentence
Speaker 1: at the low end of the advisory guideline range is
Speaker 1: appropriate and wanted. Basically, he doesn't may well likely not
Speaker 1: spend any time in jail. You'll still be a felon though.
Speaker 1: Now when we get back I'm going to tell you
Speaker 1: why this is so dangerous, why this is so corrupt,
Speaker 1: why this is an abuse of power, and why if
Speaker 1: this is the standard, We're going to name the names
Speaker 1: of people that need to also well, relatively speaking, they
Speaker 1: ought to be in jail tomorrow, and then you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to ask yourself whether or not we have a
Speaker 1: equal justice under the law system in America today. Because
Speaker 1: the answers know one thing that is not political. It's smoking.
Speaker 1: That's about people, and there are thirty four million Americans
Speaker 1: now that's smoke, but for many there's not been a
Speaker 1: clear alternative. Jewel for me, has been a game changer.
Speaker 1: I watch people all the time they go outside in
Speaker 1: the middle of the freezing winner just to have their smoke.
Speaker 1: You don't have to do that anymore because of Jewel.
Speaker 1: Now people don't have to worry about the smell on
Speaker 1: your hands. Jewel was specifically designed by smoke z force
Speaker 1: smokers to be a satisfying alternative. It's a clean technology.
Speaker 1: Jewel has no ash, no odor, no mess. If you're
Speaker 1: one of those thirty four million adults so do smoke,
Speaker 1: you now know there's an alternative to cigarettes and cigars.
Speaker 1: Just go to Jewel Juul dot com slash switch America.
Speaker 1: That's Juul dot com slash switch America. Now, this product
Speaker 1: does contain nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical. But
Speaker 1: just go to Jewel Juul dot com slash switch America.
Speaker 1: All right, As we roll along Sean Hannity's show, Senator
Speaker 1: Grassley says, where's the perjury investigation for Fusion GPS chief
Speaker 1: Glenn Simpson. Senator Grassley also pressing the FBI director to
Speaker 1: explain why there was a raid on the Clinton Foundation whistleblower.
Speaker 1: By the way, there's a lot coming. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: just buckle up and we're starting it tonight. We're going
Speaker 1: to break a very big story tonight that you don't
Speaker 1: want to miss. By the way, are still refuses to
Speaker 1: release the FBI three h two witnesses in the reports
Speaker 1: on General Flynn's interview, which I think they should release
Speaker 1: and the public ought to be able to see. Here's
Speaker 1: what I think happened with General Flynn, because remember, the
Speaker 1: FBI didn't think he lied. McCabe did not think he lied.
Speaker 1: Comey did not excuse me, Comy did not think he lied.
Speaker 1: Peter Struck, who interviewed him, did not think he lied.
Speaker 1: Now call mey lied, McCabe lied. I'll explain all the
Speaker 1: people that lied in the next segment. So they didn't
Speaker 1: think he'd lied, but they still charged him with perjury,
Speaker 1: you know, a process crime. Why. I can tell you
Speaker 1: it's very obvious reading this sentencing recommendation because they did
Speaker 1: it because they didn't have anything on him, and they
Speaker 1: had already illegally surveiled, amassed, and leaked the intelligence on
Speaker 1: General Flynn. So if he's whatever he said that was
Speaker 1: contradictory or he misremembered, they you know, beat him over
Speaker 1: the head with a hammers, that's a lie. But General
Speaker 1: Flynn didn't lie. So it was probably the fact that
Speaker 1: AU was going bankrupt, and b they were probably going
Speaker 1: to bring his family into it because his son worked
Speaker 1: in his businesses that had dealings with foreign countries. So
Speaker 1: he finally said, all right, I'll dive on the sword
Speaker 1: like a good dad. That's how I interpret all of it.
Speaker 1: And I think all of that's going to be proven
Speaker 1: out to be true over time. And so then you
Speaker 1: ask yourself, well, why would they make you sign something
Speaker 1: if you didn't do it? What do you think Jerome
Speaker 1: Corsi has been saying this last week and a half
Speaker 1: that he won't lie to God under oath because it's
Speaker 1: gonna get him keep him out of jail. That's the
Speaker 1: whole Sammy, the Bullgravano argument that I make, or Roger
Speaker 1: Stone saying he's not gonna lie, or the cooperation agreement
Speaker 1: with Paul Manafort blowing up because he obviously didn't have
Speaker 1: what they wanted and he wasn't gonna lie or compose,
Speaker 1: as Judge Elli said at twenty five till the top
Speaker 1: of the hour, eight hundred nine one, Sean, they want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. You know, this
Speaker 1: is interesting byron Yorke, Writes's piece in the Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: and he points out today that the sentencing memo that
Speaker 1: I just referred to in the last half hour on
Speaker 1: General Flynn, released last night by Robert Mueller omitted the
Speaker 1: single most critical document in the entire false statement case. Again,
Speaker 1: this is a thirty three year service, three star Lieutenant
Speaker 1: General Flynn, five years in combat, serving his country thirty
Speaker 1: three years. This is how we treat this man. And
Speaker 1: omitting the most critical document in the entire false statement
Speaker 1: case against Lieutenant General Flynn, and that is the three
Speaker 1: h two witness reports, which, if Mueller's case was sound,
Speaker 1: that would reflect the assessment by the interviewing FBI agents
Speaker 1: that Flynn had indeed quote lied to them when they
Speaker 1: grilled him in January of twenty seventeen. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: of those FBI three h two witness interview assessments failed
Speaker 1: to indicate that Flynn lied, then, as I suspect, the
Speaker 1: Mueller case as well as his career, could be in
Speaker 1: deep trouble because the fact is, we already know because
Speaker 1: Comey told us so that he didn't think that General
Speaker 1: Flynn lied, and neither did Andrew McCabe think that he'd lied,
Speaker 1: and neither did Peter Struck think that he lied, and
Speaker 1: we had reported that back in May of last year.
Speaker 1: Then you asked the question, well, why would he sign
Speaker 1: a plea agreement that said he lied when we know
Speaker 1: he didn't lie. Everybody knows he didn't lie. Well, the
Speaker 1: purpose when you can't get the underlying crime on somebody, Well,
Speaker 1: the next thing you have available to you is, you know,
Speaker 1: a process crime lying to the FBI. Okay, So that's
Speaker 1: what they go after this guy for. And that's a
Speaker 1: year of his life, putting his home up for sale,
Speaker 1: now having, you know, be a convicted felon after a
Speaker 1: thirty three year career with a stellar record protecting his country.
Speaker 1: Because if those three O two's are released, I think
Speaker 1: I'm pretty confident that nobody's going to say in there
Speaker 1: that they thought that General Flynn was lying. You know,
Speaker 1: Congress a long time ago pressed the Justice Department to
Speaker 1: hand over the three O two's, three O twos of
Speaker 1: the conversations of the meetings that they have. In other words,
Speaker 1: the FBI would interview somebody like General Flynn, and they
Speaker 1: would file it what was said, what happened under a
Speaker 1: three O two because the FBI did not originally think
Speaker 1: that Flynn lied. Then FBI Director March of twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: James Comey told the House Intel Committee that the two
Speaker 1: FBI agents who questioned Flynn did not detect any deception
Speaker 1: during the interview, saw nothing that indicated to them that
Speaker 1: Flynn knew he was lying to them. You know, there
Speaker 1: is something, as I'll ask any one of you right now,
Speaker 1: think of your last birthday, just in your mind's eye,
Speaker 1: do this singing of your last birthday, and then think
Speaker 1: about who was there. Now, pick out one person that
Speaker 1: you know you spoke to for say, more than five
Speaker 1: minutes at your last birthday event, more than five minutes.
Speaker 1: How much of that conversation do you think and this
Speaker 1: is now less than a year ago. I'm assuming unless
Speaker 1: you're birthday's today, what could you tell me in complete
Speaker 1: accuracy about that conversation? Probably nothing, and this is the problem.
Speaker 1: Or you know, maybe you texted somebody after. Are you
Speaker 1: supposed to remember what you texted? I don't think you would,
Speaker 1: so call me now, said essentially the same thing to
Speaker 1: the Senate Judiciary Committee about about General Flynn. And you
Speaker 1: know that Chuck Grassley quote led us to believe the
Speaker 1: Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute Flynn for false statements
Speaker 1: made in the interview, Andrew McCabe told the House quote
Speaker 1: the two people who interviewed Flynn did not think he
Speaker 1: was lying, which was not a great beginning of a
Speaker 1: false statement case, he told the House Intel Committee. House
Speaker 1: investigators have a chance to learn more on all of
Speaker 1: this when you know, apparently Comey appears before closed doors
Speaker 1: in this interview with members of the Judiciary in the
Speaker 1: House Oversight Committee chairs and lawmakers have promised to release
Speaker 1: the transcript of the Comy interview within a day, so
Speaker 1: maybe we'll know next week or some other time. Now,
Speaker 1: if this is the case of lying in crimes of lies,
Speaker 1: then I think we've got to have If we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a justice system that is fair and we apply
Speaker 1: the laws equally, equal application of our laws, equal justice
Speaker 1: for every American under the law, then we have some
Speaker 1: really serious questions that we've got to ask as a country.
Speaker 1: Because you know, there is a federal penal code that
Speaker 1: says it's unlawful to send stored classified information on personal emails.
Speaker 1: That's eighteen USC. Seven ninety three, part of the Espionage Act.
Speaker 1: Now we know that in fact, Hillary Clinton federal code
Speaker 1: unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.
Speaker 1: We know Hillary Clinton did that repeatedly. That's what that
Speaker 1: whole server was for. James Comey said she did that
Speaker 1: mark classified at the time. Then we have the violation
Speaker 1: of the Federal Records Act of two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: Section one two three six point two two. The National
Speaker 1: Archives Records Administration Act requires that agencies that allow employees
Speaker 1: to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a
Speaker 1: system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal
Speaker 1: records sent or received on such a system are preserved
Speaker 1: in the appropriate agency for record keeping in the record
Speaker 1: keeping system. Well, that didn't happen with Hillary Clinton either,
Speaker 1: and we have the violation of the Freedom of Information
Speaker 1: Act where Veterans for a Strong America filed a lawsuit
Speaker 1: against the State Department over the potential violations of the
Speaker 1: Foyer requests, and the chairman of that group explaining to
Speaker 1: the Washington An Examiner that the Foyer request over the
Speaker 1: Benghazi affair specifically asked with any personal email accounts Secretary
Speaker 1: Clinton may have used. This is stuff that Jeff Session
Speaker 1: should have been delving into deeply, but because for whatever
Speaker 1: reason he didn't, the next Attorney general should. And then
Speaker 1: we have a case where although Attorney General, what about
Speaker 1: Lauretta Lynch discussing golf grandchildren travels forty five minutes on
Speaker 1: a tarmac see Bill Clinton just days before she is
Speaker 1: scheduled to make her decision on whether or not Hillary
Speaker 1: violated the law by having that secret server in the
Speaker 1: mom and Pop shop bathroom closet. She's overseeing that entire
Speaker 1: investigation that could involve civil, criminal violations dealing with the
Speaker 1: mishandling of classified emails. So employees shall act impartially and
Speaker 1: not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. Well,
Speaker 1: that's also the law. Do you think anybody, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe if your spouse was about to get a ruling
Speaker 1: handed down on whether or not they're going to be prosecuted,
Speaker 1: do you think any of you would have gotten forty
Speaker 1: five minutes in a private chet with Loretta Lynch to
Speaker 1: talk about your grandchildren in golf? Are intend to doubt it.
Speaker 1: Employees shall endeavor to avoid actions creating the appearance that
Speaker 1: they violated the law or the ethical standards set forth above.
Speaker 1: And finally, there's a regulation governing the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: Attorney must be disqualified from a criminal investigation because of
Speaker 1: a personal and political relationship. That means that Attorney General
Speaker 1: Lynch was prohibited from participating in any of this from
Speaker 1: the get go. It's a matter, remember she told Jim Comey,
Speaker 1: it's a matter. You know. If you just start now
Speaker 1: applying everything here, you begin to see everything we've told
Speaker 1: you about the handling of the Clinton email investigation. Why
Speaker 1: was there no grand jury impaneled in that case? Why
Speaker 1: was she not charged with violating the Espionage Act? How
Speaker 1: is it you can delete subpoened emails, thirty three thousand
Speaker 1: of them, and clean out your hard drive with bleach
Speaker 1: bit and bust up your devices with hammers. Why isn't
Speaker 1: she getting the flint treatment? How is that possible? What
Speaker 1: is that not obstruction of justice? You know James Comey
Speaker 1: closed the investigation. Why did he take it in house
Speaker 1: in the first place. Why I didn't need to let
Speaker 1: the field offices in the FBI handle this particular case.
Speaker 1: Why is it always the same people that were involved
Speaker 1: in every issue, from Flynn to the Clintons to the
Speaker 1: Russian investigation. It's always the same people, you know. Comy
Speaker 1: had publicly admitted he gave memos recording his interactions with
Speaker 1: President Trump to a friend of Columbia Law School with
Speaker 1: the intention that the contents would be leaked to the
Speaker 1: media of the New York Times so that that would
Speaker 1: result in the appointment of a special counsel. Those documents
Speaker 1: were created on an FBI computer, which dealt with an ongoing,
Speaker 1: highly sensitive investigation. Any reasonable observer would conclude that those
Speaker 1: memos were FBI property, So it is leaking them in
Speaker 1: this unauthorized way mean that Comey is guilty of theft
Speaker 1: of government property or records, or that he violated the
Speaker 1: Espionage Act himself. What about the dacier. You can hear
Speaker 1: a lot about the dossier on Hannity tonight, which was
Speaker 1: used to obtain fieser warrants against Carter Page, an associate
Speaker 1: of the Trump campaign, and two congressional committees already established
Speaker 1: the FBI knew the dossier was largely fabricated, and James
Speaker 1: Comy himself described it to then incoming President Trump is
Speaker 1: salacious and unverified. Well, what about the fact that Hillary
Speaker 1: paid for it? They never told that to the FISA
Speaker 1: court judges that approved the application. And if it is
Speaker 1: salacious and unverified, had it end up being the bulk
Speaker 1: of information? As the Grassly, Graham and Newness memos pointed out,
Speaker 1: And the dossier was compiled by someone that we know
Speaker 1: had a bias and animus towards Donald Trump, a foreign
Speaker 1: national by the name of Christopher Steele. By the way,
Speaker 1: we know Glenn Simpson or either him or somebody else
Speaker 1: lied to Congress. Here's a list of people that we
Speaker 1: know lied to Congress. We know that Andrew we know
Speaker 1: that James Lappera lied to Congress. I refer you to
Speaker 1: a January nineteen, twenty eighteen USA Today article headline James
Speaker 1: Clapper lies to Congress. We have The Guardian pointing out
Speaker 1: CIA director Brennan lied to Congress. We have a New
Speaker 1: York Post article from twenty seventeen Loretta Lynch lied to Congress.
Speaker 1: We have a Washington Examiner piece James Comey lied to Congress.
Speaker 1: We have you the James Comey or Loretta Lynch is
Speaker 1: a town Hall piece again lying to Congress. If investors,
Speaker 1: I think it's IBD. Eric Holder lied to Congress. Lois
Speaker 1: Lerner Washington Times lied to Congress. US Treasury Secretary Jack
Speaker 1: lew Under the Obama administration lied to Congress about a
Speaker 1: key part of the Iranian deal. We all know the
Speaker 1: FBI Deputy director Andrew McCabe Washington Times lied to Congress
Speaker 1: and investigators. We also know that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills
Speaker 1: lied to dj officials. That too, is covered by the
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner. I don't see any of these people going
Speaker 1: through the treatment that General Flynn has gone through in
Speaker 1: the last year. Uma Abadeen Daily Caller lied to Congress
Speaker 1: and DOJ officials. You get where we're going here. They
Speaker 1: don't want to release any of the information. You know,
Speaker 1: I loved what Julianni said last night. You know, it's like,
Speaker 1: this is comparable to spinning on the sidewalk, especially in
Speaker 1: light of the man's life and career of service and
Speaker 1: the fact that the information that they had. It's like, imagine,
Speaker 1: let's go back to the birthday analogy. Your last birthday,
Speaker 1: you had a conversation, pick one person you might have
Speaker 1: had a conversation with five minutes, and let's say that
Speaker 1: the people that are interviewing you about that conversation a
Speaker 1: year later have the exact transcript. Well, they had the
Speaker 1: exact transcript of Michael Flynn because they violated his Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendment rights by illegal surveillance, not using the process of minimization,
Speaker 1: and literally unmasking illegal an American citizen, General Flynn and
Speaker 1: an American war hero, and then leaking raw intelligence to
Speaker 1: say he lied because he didn't remember the contents of
Speaker 1: a conversation that he had with his soon to be counterpart.
Speaker 1: I don't really consider that lying in any manner, but
Speaker 1: I think it became much deeper than that, because I
Speaker 1: think they threatened his family and he probably had no choice.
Speaker 1: You know, they're sick puppies, Juliani said, He's right. You know,
Speaker 1: they provided firsthand information about the content and context here. Now,
Speaker 1: next up, we're gonna have Cone and Manafort. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think who knows what those sentencing guidelines are
Speaker 1: gonna say. I guess Cone maybe will get the biggest
Speaker 1: break of all, and probably Manafort was looking at the
Speaker 1: rest of his life in jail over two thousand and
Speaker 1: have a tax case and Faull statements made on a
Speaker 1: loan application. In neither case does anything have to do
Speaker 1: with Russia. You know, the idea that Russia trump Moscow Russia,
Speaker 1: that they had discussions about possibly building something that never
Speaker 1: got built, big deal, nothing ever happened. So now I
Speaker 1: guess the last bit of this is, are they going
Speaker 1: to go after Jerome Corsi, who's seventy two years old,
Speaker 1: who was offered to get out of jail free card
Speaker 1: if he would lie, or as Judge Ellis said, you know,
Speaker 1: for the purpose of singing or composing. They're putting the
Speaker 1: screws to Manaphort. They put the screws to anybody that's
Speaker 1: in any type of legal jeopardy and the hopes that
Speaker 1: you'll compose what they want you to say, because the
Speaker 1: bigger target in this case was and always will be
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and destroying him. And you know that's what
Speaker 1: it comes down to. I didn't notice that Roger Stone
Speaker 1: pled the fifth that is not going to give Senate
Speaker 1: commits or testify. Frankly at this point, well, why bother
Speaker 1: would anyone want to cooperate knowing what is in play
Speaker 1: here that they're just out. They're not out to get
Speaker 1: to the truth, they're out to destroy. But that shouldn't
Speaker 1: surprise us when you hire let's see Struck and Page,
Speaker 1: we're part of Muller's team. Then you have Jeannie Ray,
Speaker 1: who was a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation. Then you
Speaker 1: got my favorite, Andrew Weissman. Here's a guy that lost
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of jobs at Enron Accounting in that
Speaker 1: case and lost nine zero in a US Supreme Court
Speaker 1: case over it, has been charged with withholding exculpatory evidence
Speaker 1: in the past. Then we have the case of four
Speaker 1: Merrill executives he put in jail for a year that
Speaker 1: was overturned by the Fifth Circuit. Where do those four
Speaker 1: guys go to get their lives back. Whatever happened to
Speaker 1: prosecutorial discretion? Where is any sense of proportionality in all
Speaker 1: of this? It's not there, because it's all about in
Speaker 1: a gen of destroying and the deal legitimization of a
Speaker 1: duly elected presidents. In Orgal address, the forty first President
Speaker 1: of the United States said this, we cannot hope only
Speaker 1: to leave our children a bigger car, a bigger bank account.
Speaker 1: We must hope to give them a sense of what
Speaker 1: it means to be a loyal friend, a loving parent,
Speaker 1: a citizen who leaves his home, his neighborhood, and town
Speaker 1: better than he founded. What do we want the men
Speaker 1: and women who work with us to save when we
Speaker 1: are no longer there, that we were more driven to
Speaker 1: succeed than anyone around us, or that we stop to
Speaker 1: ask if a sick child had gotten better and state
Speaker 1: a moment there to trade a word of friendship. Well, Dad,
Speaker 1: we're going to remember you for exactly that and much more,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna miss you. Your decency, sincerity, and kind
Speaker 1: soul will stay with us forever. So through our tears,
Speaker 1: let us know the blessing of knowing and loving you.
Speaker 1: A great and noble man, the best father, a son
Speaker 1: or daughter hit a half and in her grief by
Speaker 1: just smile knowing that Dad is hugging Robin and holding
Speaker 1: Mom's hand again. All right. That was George W. Bush
Speaker 1: at the at the service of his father, George H. W. Bush.
Speaker 1: Very touching moment. Watched the whole thing and I thought
Speaker 1: it went off perfectly, and it was just you, just
Speaker 1: you look into somebody's soul. How do you want to
Speaker 1: be viewed after you're gone? What do you want to
Speaker 1: be remembered for? We talked to rondas Santis, governor of
Speaker 1: the great State of Florida. How are you, sir? Welcome aboard.
Speaker 1: What were your interactions with the Bushes like? Well, it's interesting, Sean.
Speaker 1: I was the captain of the Yale baseball team in
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, and that was the three hundredth
Speaker 1: anniversary of the university, and so they had a big
Speaker 1: jubilee and the main speaker was Bush forty one, who
Speaker 1: was writing the only Yale undergrad to ever be elected
Speaker 1: president or one of a few, and so he asked
Speaker 1: to come out to baseball practice to meet the team,
Speaker 1: and he just wanted to wish us well, wanted to
Speaker 1: see how we were doing. So I got to introduce
Speaker 1: him to the rest of the team. My coach pulled
Speaker 1: me aside before and said, listen, the President's going to come.
Speaker 1: Tell all these knuckleheads. Don't drop any f bombs in
Speaker 1: front of him. Be respectful, and I'm like, of course.
Speaker 1: But he was a very humble guy and was just
Speaker 1: interested in how we were doing and really loved his
Speaker 1: time playing baseball, really loved the sport. And so I
Speaker 1: had never really even met anyone that was famous at
Speaker 1: that point in my life, and it was you know,
Speaker 1: I was like, man, yeah, this is a good guy.
Speaker 1: And I've always just thought he was a really good guy.
Speaker 1: And then when you think about his life when he
Speaker 1: the most famous picture in Yale athletics history is W
Speaker 1: Bush as the captain in nineteen forty eight receiving Babe
Speaker 1: Bruce autobiography from the Bambino. Babe was going to die
Speaker 1: six months later, but you have this epic picture of
Speaker 1: them at Yale Field with thousands of people there and
Speaker 1: there's this handoff. And so at that point in Bush
Speaker 1: forty one's life, he's playing college baseball, but he had
Speaker 1: already fought in World War Two, he joined when he
Speaker 1: was eighteen, so he was already a bona fide American
Speaker 1: hero and had already lived a lot of life by
Speaker 1: the time he was playing college baseball. So just a
Speaker 1: really first class individual. You know, I've known the family.
Speaker 1: I've interviewed all of them many many times, including Barbara
Speaker 1: and H. W and forty three many times, and jab
Speaker 1: and other extended family members over the years. So I
Speaker 1: know the very very well. They are what they seem
Speaker 1: that they are. They're really good, honorable, hard working, decent
Speaker 1: people that you know have this sense is calling for service.
Speaker 1: And obviously you have it as well because you're part
Speaker 1: of the Freedom Caucus. Now you're the governor elect of Florida.
Speaker 1: When do you get sworn in January eighth? And so
Speaker 1: from that day forward, Shot, I'm gonna be pestering you
Speaker 1: to move the studio down to Naple so that I
Speaker 1: can take a lot of money on new taxes. So
Speaker 1: just be ready for that. I will have warned you
Speaker 1: that during the whole campaign it's going to happen, because
Speaker 1: I think it is the greatest story because all these companies.
Speaker 1: If you read the Star Ledger a good piece a
Speaker 1: while back about this and there's been other articles written
Speaker 1: about how there are massive amounts of money wealth leaving
Speaker 1: states like New York and states like Illinois and California
Speaker 1: and New Jersey, and they're leaving because of the horrific
Speaker 1: economic environment, the high taxes, burdensome regulation. I mean, we
Speaker 1: sought out in California recently, you know, these horrific fires,
Speaker 1: and then we find out, well, there's one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty million dead trees that people aren't allowed to cut down,
Speaker 1: that the state is not allowed allowing people even remove
Speaker 1: the kindling brush when it gets dry. I mean that
Speaker 1: stuff's flying all over the place, especially if you have
Speaker 1: a high wind or Santa Ana wind. People are there's
Speaker 1: no more you know, timber industry. They destroyed that to
Speaker 1: protect whatever species of whatever. And what they have done
Speaker 1: now is have created an environment where you can't put
Speaker 1: these fires out anymore, and now people are dying. I
Speaker 1: mean bad government policies. So you see the migration of
Speaker 1: states like Florida. I really think had Florida gone in
Speaker 1: the other direction and you would have elected the mayor
Speaker 1: of Tallahassee, where the worst economic record, the worst crime
Speaker 1: record in his city, I think it would have been
Speaker 1: a disaster for Florida because he was talking about a
Speaker 1: forty percent corporate tax, and I think you would have
Speaker 1: seen businesses leaving on a fairly regular basis. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I had people who said they were going
Speaker 1: to leave out of Florida and then go elsewhere and
Speaker 1: that and that does happen from time to time. Sometimes
Speaker 1: people will come to Florida and sometimes will move to
Speaker 1: North Carolina after they're retired or something like that. And
Speaker 1: now it doesn't happen is that much, But there's reasons
Speaker 1: for that. But that would have accelerated. I mean, you
Speaker 1: would have seen a lot of people flee. All the
Speaker 1: people who are looking at potentially coming down here. These
Speaker 1: businesses would have fought twice and probably would have decided
Speaker 1: not to do it. So we're in a really good
Speaker 1: spot because we have a good record of success. I'm
Speaker 1: going to continue good policies and can even build off those.
Speaker 1: I'm going to get to a point on my first
Speaker 1: day in office, three Supreme Court justices here in Florida.
Speaker 1: One of the problems we've had with Florida government for
Speaker 1: a generation has been an activist liberal majority on our
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. While I get sworn in. I signed these
Speaker 1: judicial appointments, and judicial activism is done in Florida. That's
Speaker 1: going to be good for our freedoms, but it's also
Speaker 1: good for having a good economic environment because they would
Speaker 1: strike down things that the legislature would pass, like tort reform,
Speaker 1: because they were siding with basically the liberal interests. And
Speaker 1: so it was a very political cord that's coming to
Speaker 1: an end very soon. I've got to ask you in
Speaker 1: light of it's now eighteen years since two thousand and
Speaker 1: the course the recount that took place with swinging and
Speaker 1: pimpled and dimpled and hanging and perforated chads, and whether
Speaker 1: that's a vote or meant to be a vote and
Speaker 1: over vote and undervote, and you know, here we are
Speaker 1: almost eleven almost every election year we have problems in
Speaker 1: Broward and Palm Beach Counties, and it seems to me
Speaker 1: that for whatever reason, nobody's just stepped in to fix it.
Speaker 1: Will you have as governor the authority to get a
Speaker 1: system of voting in Florida that will work where people
Speaker 1: couldn't you be up to Shenanigans are no good? Oh? Yeah? So?
Speaker 1: Would there be things I can do unilaterally, but then
Speaker 1: they'll probably be an election reform package that we pass
Speaker 1: in the legislative session. Making sure. I'm really concerned about
Speaker 1: what's going on in California with this ballad heart harvest thing.
Speaker 1: I think that that's prone to fraud. So we want
Speaker 1: to make sure that the absent tee votes through the
Speaker 1: mail in Florida have integrity. We want to make sure
Speaker 1: those are documented when they come in, because what Broward
Speaker 1: was doing supposedly they would get these ballots in during
Speaker 1: early voting and some abs and tee ballots, and they
Speaker 1: just never even logged that these things are coming in,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, forty eight hours after
Speaker 1: the election, they start counting the seventy five eight thousand votes.
Speaker 1: That is unacceptable. That causes people to lose confidence in
Speaker 1: the results. I don't think. I don't think I'm a
Speaker 1: big fan of month long voting either, because I think
Speaker 1: that lends itself to some type of corruption at some point,
Speaker 1: unless you're going to have a representative from every party
Speaker 1: stand watch over the ballots twenty four hours a day.
Speaker 1: And the thing is too sean with some of this.
Speaker 1: The way we do the early and absent tee and
Speaker 1: I'm not sure we're going to necessarily move away from
Speaker 1: vote by mail in Florida because it's a lot of
Speaker 1: people like to do it. I imagine we're going to
Speaker 1: continue to have some level of early voting. But the
Speaker 1: thing is, some of these states you start voting in
Speaker 1: like the beginning of October. My first debate with my
Speaker 1: opponent in the governor's race wasn't until October twenty first,
Speaker 1: people were already voting before we even had a debate.
Speaker 1: And so I think that the more you spread out
Speaker 1: the voting, obviously you have different issues with administration, potential
Speaker 1: for fraud in different areas. But then it's like, are
Speaker 1: we making like one crisp decision as an electorate And
Speaker 1: you don't really do that anymore. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: a rolling process, and not all voters have the same
Speaker 1: access to the same information when they choose to cast
Speaker 1: their ballots. So it's just a little different. All right,
Speaker 1: last question and then we'll let you go. So the
Speaker 1: three governors that I got to know best in New
Speaker 1: York were Rick Scott, who's now going to be a senator,
Speaker 1: Rick Perry of Texas, and Bobby Jinda when he was
Speaker 1: the governor of Louisiana. These three governors came up to
Speaker 1: New York and I couldn't believe they were up all
Speaker 1: the time, and I was always asking why are you here?
Speaker 1: And I thought, what are you taking free New York vacations?
Speaker 1: It was never the case. They were all competing successfully
Speaker 1: to get and entice and talk to big businesses in
Speaker 1: New York with their high taxes, burdensome regulation, horrible winners,
Speaker 1: and enticing them to states like Florida where they're going
Speaker 1: to get a better lifestyle and be able to produce
Speaker 1: more of their product at a cheaper rate and get
Speaker 1: you know, much better deals for homes and everything else
Speaker 1: in between. And so many people have moved down there.
Speaker 1: Probably one of the reasons, two of you, those three
Speaker 1: states don't have a state income tax. Yeah, exactly, And
Speaker 1: so what's going to happen. I'll continue that, but I
Speaker 1: think we can even do it at a greater level,
Speaker 1: because this spring is the first year where people are
Speaker 1: going to have to still out their tax returns and
Speaker 1: not be able to deduct the state tax state income taxes,
Speaker 1: and so that's going to hit a lot of people
Speaker 1: in New York. It's going to hit a U shaan
Speaker 1: big time. It's going to hit people in New Jersey Canal.
Speaker 1: So if I if I lived down the there are
Speaker 1: six months on a day, I can officially be a
Speaker 1: Florida resident. That's right. And the amount of money you
Speaker 1: will save, I mean, you could buy a new house
Speaker 1: down there. I know you give a lot of money
Speaker 1: to charity. I mean you're talking probably give millions more
Speaker 1: dollars to charity. I mean, it would be better off
Speaker 1: for Florida's economy, but I think the money would be
Speaker 1: better rather than wasted. You know, in the New York
Speaker 1: I'm looking at my whole staff. My whole staff is
Speaker 1: looking at me. Hey, stupid, why don't you make the move? Stupid?
Speaker 1: That's what I was telling me what they're eyes right now.
Speaker 1: You could make the move. You could pay to relocate
Speaker 1: your staff, you could probably pay for them to have
Speaker 1: new homes, and you'd still save me. I mean, and
Speaker 1: that's why the only thing that worries me is you
Speaker 1: got people from these high tacks Northeast states, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: New York, Massachusetts. It's happening. People have been leaving states
Speaker 1: like Michigan and drove, but Illinois California. They can move
Speaker 1: to Florida, they can into Texas, but they can't. They
Speaker 1: can't bring their liberal views with them. They've already helped
Speaker 1: destroy one state. You can't. Don't go down and ruin
Speaker 1: the next state that you're living in. I can tell
Speaker 1: you this from the people that particularly in the Midwest,
Speaker 1: the people that move down from the Midwest to Florida,
Speaker 1: they are really really a strong um for US, usually
Speaker 1: at its Republicans. I mean, we register a lot of
Speaker 1: transplanted Midwest shirts because I think, yeah, they tend to
Speaker 1: go to the southwest part of Florida, Naples, Fort Myers, Sarasota,
Speaker 1: UM and you know a lot of people from the
Speaker 1: New York teams seemed to gravitate towards US. Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: But these people get it. And I think that we've
Speaker 1: had a lot of success with folks coming down from
Speaker 1: from particularly the Midwest. Listen, you take away the Panhandle
Speaker 1: and boy, they came out in huge numbers for you,
Speaker 1: and you take away Southwest Florida and you got a
Speaker 1: blue state in Florida, you know, especially Southeast Florida. I
Speaker 1: four corridors always up for grabs. That's always a tough spot. Right, yeah,
Speaker 1: so you know, and I actually, I mean I did
Speaker 1: better than most Republicans do in Southeast Florida in terms
Speaker 1: of lowering the margins. And we did do good in
Speaker 1: the Panhandle, now, the place that got hit by the hurricane.
Speaker 1: They did come out and vote, you know, pretty good numbers,
Speaker 1: but their increase wasn't quite what some of these other
Speaker 1: counties were. And I think the hurricane had a lot
Speaker 1: to do with it. But and then we held our
Speaker 1: own in central Florida. But yeah, Southwest Florida, where you
Speaker 1: came for us, Shawn, was huge, and then you were
Speaker 1: up in Northwest Florida for us too. Those are two
Speaker 1: huge areas for Republicans and they came in big for us.
Speaker 1: All Right, Ronda Santa's congrats on being governor. And we're
Speaker 1: looking forward to every time you're in New York, comes
Speaker 1: stop by. And I have no problem with you offering
Speaker 1: better deals for people. That's the free market system and
Speaker 1: companies that want to save money and have less government
Speaker 1: government burden, some regulation on their backs. Florida is obviously
Speaker 1: the top state. It's my second home now, So all right,
Speaker 1: Ron de Santas, Thankish Studio for your naples, Sean, so
Speaker 1: that the movement all right. Thank you, sir, get to
Speaker 1: our busy bones as we continue eight hundred ninety four one, Sean,
Speaker 1: you want to be a proud member of the program.
Speaker 1: We love having you. As we say hi to Frank
Speaker 1: Is in Los Angeles, KiB what's up, Frank? How are
Speaker 1: you sir? Hey Sean, I'm doing well, thank you, and
Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking my call. Just real quick, just
Speaker 1: following up on what you were speaking about yesterday with
Speaker 1: Christmas and that type of stuff. And first of all,
Speaker 1: I'm not a highly religious person, but I noticed where
Speaker 1: I live out in the west end of the San
Speaker 1: Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, and there's an area called
Speaker 1: the Commons in Calabasas, and I was looking for the
Speaker 1: Christmas tree that they normally put up there for the
Speaker 1: holiday season, and I noticed it was gone. So I
Speaker 1: called up the company that owned that, this guy Rick
Speaker 1: Caruso from Crusoe Development, and they were telling me that
Speaker 1: they're not going to have a tree today for this
Speaker 1: year because the tree died, So no artificial tree, nothing
Speaker 1: along those lines. So I I not to be conspiratorial
Speaker 1: on it, but I also don't want to be a
Speaker 1: sap and I wonder that if that's just one more
Speaker 1: thing where you know, Christmas is not what it was. Look,
Speaker 1: I go out of my way because I have friends
Speaker 1: of all backgrounds, faiths and religions. And when you say
Speaker 1: Mary Christmas somebody, you're not saying it to offend them
Speaker 1: if you know that, Like, for example, Hanneka is going
Speaker 1: on now, and I say to many of my friends
Speaker 1: that I know that they're celebrating Hanaka, Happy Honeka. And
Speaker 1: I just think at the end of the day that
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of a basic simple thing to do.
Speaker 1: All right, quick break right back. We'll continue on the
Speaker 1: other side. Also, we'll be checking in with Cheryl Atkinson.
Speaker 1: Her case is moving forward as she was spied on
Speaker 1: by her own government. She'll explain next volunteering to serve
Speaker 1: in World War Two, as I was going on a
Speaker 1: service as ambassador, CIA director, congressman, vice president, president, whole
Speaker 1: life of public service. Dondrup has been a life of
Speaker 1: service to himself, and they both believe that the residency
Speaker 1: is bigger than themselves, which is not something that that
Speaker 1: this president always adheres too bad. I think this is
Speaker 1: also a twenty four hours of nostalgia about what leadership
Speaker 1: used to look like in this country. There's a great
Speaker 1: clip from nineteen eighty when George H. W. Bush is
Speaker 1: challenged on his how tough he is, and he talks
Speaker 1: about toughness is about having values and standing for them,
Speaker 1: being principles. Toughness is not attacking. But as a candidate,
Speaker 1: he said, those who think we're powerless to do anything
Speaker 1: about the Greenhouse effect of forgetting about the white House effect.
Speaker 1: And then he signed into law the Clean Air Act
Speaker 1: Amendment of nineteen ninety one of the most sweeping environmental
Speaker 1: statutes ever. Yeah, this president that we have now is
Speaker 1: trying to unravel everything that he did and Obama did,
Speaker 1: and we focus on the president police. I don't want
Speaker 1: to talk about trouble. We're honoring a great president. Is
Speaker 1: that I wanted to talk about honoring. But I'm not
Speaker 1: interested in your one issue. I'm talking right twenty four
Speaker 1: now till the top of the hour, eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: for one sean are toll free telephone number. You want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. Cheryl Atkinson is
Speaker 1: with us. She hosts her own show on Sinclair Media
Speaker 1: called Full Measure. On Sundays. He's the author of the
Speaker 1: New York Times bestseller The Smears and Stonewald and I
Speaker 1: read a column by you about it was thick. All
Speaker 1: the examples you had listened listed of all the times, Cheryl,
Speaker 1: the media has misreported lied to the American people as
Speaker 1: it relates to Donald Trump. Um, it sounds like it's
Speaker 1: It would be the definitive book called fake news, if
Speaker 1: you will. What was remarkable to me when I started
Speaker 1: compiling the examples was I was looking for other examples too,
Speaker 1: like mistakes that came out that were happening to be
Speaker 1: in favor of Trump. But there there weren't any. I mean,
Speaker 1: there may still be some, maybe I haven't seen them all,
Speaker 1: but all of them, coincidentally, were mistakes that hurt Trump
Speaker 1: or were intended to hurt Trump. And also mistakes by
Speaker 1: some of the formerly most well respected news organizations in
Speaker 1: the world, making bush League junior mistakes that wouldn't be
Speaker 1: tolerated in journalism school, but usually with pretty much total impunity.
Speaker 1: Give me some of the best or worst examples that
Speaker 1: kind of shocked you. I think one of the most
Speaker 1: definitive because it set the stage in the tone was
Speaker 1: the Time magazine reporter that on the day of President
Speaker 1: Trump's inauguration falsely reported that he had removed the bus
Speaker 1: statue of Martin Luther King from the oval author But
Speaker 1: the origin of that mistake was the reporter not even
Speaker 1: doing the basic due diligence that we learned were required
Speaker 1: to do in journalism school. And I don't even think
Speaker 1: you have to be taught this to check your facts.
Speaker 1: If you think you see something missing or you hear it,
Speaker 1: you call an ask and someone would have immediately told
Speaker 1: him that it was still there. He just didn't see it,
Speaker 1: and they had to issue a correction because that went worldwide.
Speaker 1: Of course, the correction never travels quite so far as
Speaker 1: the original misreporting. The reporting. The reporting is on A one.
Speaker 1: The correction is on page eight thirty seven in the
Speaker 1: left hand bottom corner with the tiniest print they could
Speaker 1: ever make up and in the terms. Yeah, the mistake
Speaker 1: is circulated, it goes viral on Twitter, and the correction
Speaker 1: is not seen. You know, I've been doing now for
Speaker 1: over a year and a half and I have an
Speaker 1: ensemble cast that has been helping us, and tonight we
Speaker 1: have a very explosive report as it relates to a
Speaker 1: series of email chains have now been discovered and in them,
Speaker 1: without giving away all the details of this, top officials
Speaker 1: knowingly knew that they never verified what turned out to
Speaker 1: be the lying dossier of Christopher Steele. But it didn't
Speaker 1: stop them from using the bulk of the information from
Speaker 1: that unverified, uncorroborated, bought and paid for Russian propaganda of Hillary.
Speaker 1: It didn't stop them from committing a fraud on a
Speaker 1: FISA court, but not only once four separate times applications.
Speaker 1: They also purposely withheld the origination of such a report,
Speaker 1: and they held it out as if they had gone
Speaker 1: through proper protocol and procedures in vetting, and that they
Speaker 1: were they had verified it and corroborated it, and they
Speaker 1: never did. And these are many of the top names,
Speaker 1: top name people you would know. And I'm just sitting
Speaker 1: back and I'm watching that. If you or I committed
Speaker 1: a fraud like that on the court, I think we'd
Speaker 1: probably be looking at serious jail time. Why doesn't the
Speaker 1: court care? I think you put your finger on something
Speaker 1: that people don't understand. I think widely how important it is.
Speaker 1: Because there's something I've written about and I was tipped
Speaker 1: off to this by someone in the Inteli agencies called
Speaker 1: Woods procedures. These were instituted in two thousand and one
Speaker 1: because of abuses and material presented to the FISI Court.
Speaker 1: That said, from that point on, this information, every fact
Speaker 1: presented to the FISU Court must be personally verified by
Speaker 1: the FBI, not just in a secondhand way or some
Speaker 1: media reports, personally investigated and verified, and if a single
Speaker 1: fact is not verifiable, they have to go back to
Speaker 1: the drawing board. They're not allowed to go to the court.
Speaker 1: This seems to me on its face to violate what
Speaker 1: is a very very serious rule and perhaps a criminal
Speaker 1: violation inside the Justice Department that nobody seems to care about.
Speaker 1: That that was instituted in two thousand and one under
Speaker 1: by the way, Muller when he was head of the FBI.
Speaker 1: How is it possible? I mean, you are closer, more
Speaker 1: of a more in the mainstream media than I've ever been.
Speaker 1: You know. It's funny people ask me all the time,
Speaker 1: although they'll make a statement, well, you're not a journalist,
Speaker 1: and I say, we view my job description as being
Speaker 1: a journalist. I think I'm a talk show host. But
Speaker 1: under the banner of being a talk show host, Cheryl,
Speaker 1: I can give you hours and hours of radio and
Speaker 1: television coverage where I was a straight news reporter. In
Speaker 1: other words, I just report the facts about a story
Speaker 1: that's unfolding. That's part of my job, a big part
Speaker 1: of my job. We've done investigated reporting on, for example,
Speaker 1: Obama's radical ties prior to the election in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, and many most of those stories, the media
Speaker 1: wouldn't go near, they wouldn't even touch them. You know.
Speaker 1: Imagine that he starts his career in the homes of
Speaker 1: Bill Aires and Bernadine Dorne and he only got asked
Speaker 1: one time. And it only happened because George Stephanopolos was
Speaker 1: on my radio show the day before and I said,
Speaker 1: what are you going to ask him about Aris and Dorne?
Speaker 1: He said, who were they? He had never heard of him,
Speaker 1: you know. Or the same with the Deep State investigation,
Speaker 1: which I know you have also done some work on.
Speaker 1: But we've been able to discover a lot of information
Speaker 1: about the that Hillary Clinton did have classified and top
Speaker 1: secret information on it, and we do now have pretty
Speaker 1: well confirmed that it was hacked by at least six
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence services that in spite of what James Comey
Speaker 1: said that they were writing an exoneration in early May.
Speaker 1: He was doing it with Peter Struck before they interviewed
Speaker 1: her in early July, and before they exonerated her, and
Speaker 1: in the meantime they had changed the legal standard from
Speaker 1: gross negligence to extreme carelessness. And then we know that
Speaker 1: they immediately began the witch hunt into Donald Trump with
Speaker 1: no reason whatsoever to go forward. But they ignored that
Speaker 1: Hillary bought and paid for a Russian dossier by funneling
Speaker 1: money through a law firm, to an op research group,
Speaker 1: to a foreign national. I didn't think foreign nationals was
Speaker 1: post to impact our elections, and that he got all
Speaker 1: this Russian dirt supposedly on Donald Trump. It's known as
Speaker 1: the dossier. That information was disseminated to the American people.
Speaker 1: It was used as the bulk, according to the Grassley
Speaker 1: Graham Newnes memos, the bulk of information to obtain FISA
Speaker 1: warrants against the Trump campaign associate and then later used
Speaker 1: as a media leak strategy to bludgeon and delegitimize Trump
Speaker 1: because they had this plan, this insurance policy in place.
Speaker 1: Now that sounds a lot worse than General Flynn, who
Speaker 1: served as country thirty three years and five years in combat,
Speaker 1: doesn't it? Well, it does, And I've become convinced, based
Speaker 1: on the evidence that's come out in the past year
Speaker 1: and a half, that there's something you can either call
Speaker 1: procedure narrative or I think an operation that was conducted
Speaker 1: and has been conducted that involves the news media using
Speaker 1: the news media, that involves leaks, that involves foreign intelligence,
Speaker 1: that involves our own intelligence, surveillance, and all kinds of
Speaker 1: things designed to controversialize this president and those around him
Speaker 1: and to keep him, in particular General Flynn, who was
Speaker 1: going to look at allow surveillance abuses inside the intel
Speaker 1: community that occurred in recent years, to keep them from
Speaker 1: getting close to that. And it's been very successful in
Speaker 1: those terms, because any time President Trump suggests getting close
Speaker 1: to digging around or looking at some of these alleged abuses,
Speaker 1: they can cry obstruction and do whether it is or not.
Speaker 1: And with that part of the insurance policy they discussed
Speaker 1: in advance. So I think all of these things are
Speaker 1: coming together in a pretty clear way that you would
Speaker 1: be hearing more about if the tables were turned party wise.
Speaker 1: It immediately on. We need is one attorney general that
Speaker 1: believes an equal application of our laws and equal justice
Speaker 1: under the law, because if we do, then all of
Speaker 1: these things will be investigated and all of these things
Speaker 1: will be prosecuted. And General Flynn, who is speaking to
Speaker 1: is soon to be Russian counterpart after the election, does
Speaker 1: not represent any collusion of any kind. But meanwhile, this
Speaker 1: guy lost his house, couldn't afford the lawyers involved, and
Speaker 1: he now you may face a little jail to it
Speaker 1: doesn't look like it, but I hope to God not,
Speaker 1: but a year of his life is gone. You were
Speaker 1: involved in your memoir. You recalled that a source connected
Speaker 1: to a government agency implicated a a sophisticated entity that
Speaker 1: used commercial, non attributable spyware that is proprietary as a
Speaker 1: to a government agency, either the CIA, the FBI, Defense
Speaker 1: Intelligence Agency, or a national security agency in a breach.
Speaker 1: And you're suing the Justice Department of the Obama years
Speaker 1: of illegally surveiling your computers and seeking thirty five million
Speaker 1: in damage. By the way, the information that they got
Speaker 1: on General Flynn was obtained illegally, How is your case going? Well,
Speaker 1: we're still in there four years later, which has itself
Speaker 1: an accomplishment because, as you may know, the government enjoys
Speaker 1: all kinds of automatic immunity, and they've been fighting this
Speaker 1: case still under Trump, saying people as did under Obama,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department fighting using your tax dollars and kind
Speaker 1: of trying to bleed me draw and avoid discovery. You know,
Speaker 1: we need discovery to get the names of the people
Speaker 1: who are involved in this operation, which has been confirmed
Speaker 1: with parts of five different forensics exams. But we can't
Speaker 1: get the names if they won't agree to discovery. And
Speaker 1: instead of launching their own criminal investigation, which is what
Speaker 1: the Justice Department ought to have done long ago, into
Speaker 1: those intrusions, which are confirmed, they're defending the intruders in court.
Speaker 1: So there is you may know, no press groups step forward,
Speaker 1: no civil liberties groups step forward to assist in the case.
Speaker 1: And when some attorneys found out that recently, when I
Speaker 1: spoke of a Fourth Surveillance Abuse conference to some lawyers,
Speaker 1: they started a Fourth Amendment litigation fund for me. And
Speaker 1: you know, because this has become extremely expensive, so there
Speaker 1: is a go fund me related to it, and we're
Speaker 1: going to keep going as long as we can't. We
Speaker 1: have oral arguments now scheduled, which is positive for late
Speaker 1: January in this case to try to get discovery. If
Speaker 1: we allow the abuse of the powerful tools of intelligence
Speaker 1: that we entrust to our intelligence community to turn them
Speaker 1: on the American people like this, and this is when
Speaker 1: you were investigating issues like Benghazi and some other things,
Speaker 1: then we're no better than the former Soviet Union in
Speaker 1: any way. All right, war with Cheryl Atkinson on the
Speaker 1: other side of this, we'll put that go fund me
Speaker 1: link up on our website Hannity dot com. Straight ahead, right,
Speaker 1: if we continue with Cheryl Atkinson, eight hundred nine one
Speaker 1: Sean is our number. So you were able to get
Speaker 1: some attorneys that took on your case, and you now
Speaker 1: know for a fact that within the government they illegally surveiled, unmasked,
Speaker 1: and then leaked raw intelligence on him. And in your case,
Speaker 1: it's pretty much the same thing. Now you have all
Speaker 1: the evidence, forensic evidence that one of these agencies systems
Speaker 1: will put on your computer and you're hacked for the
Speaker 1: purpose of your government getting the information that you were
Speaker 1: producing on topics they didn't like covered. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: It is? And I think you know my case came
Speaker 1: out out CBS announced the remote intrusion a few months
Speaker 1: after we had discovered them internally and started investigating them.
Speaker 1: But my case happened. We discovered it with the help
Speaker 1: of some intell in writers, before Edward Snowden, before Clapper
Speaker 1: gave misinformation to Congress, before we knew the government had
Speaker 1: spied on AP and Fox News. So it seems so
Speaker 1: incredible at the time, But now it's important, not because
Speaker 1: of me, because I know it's important to me, but
Speaker 1: why should it be important to other people? It was
Speaker 1: a symptom of this entire system of surveillance abuses going
Speaker 1: on that they are now trying not to let us
Speaker 1: dig into, which is why I think, at least partly
Speaker 1: why they did what they did to Trump and his associates.
Speaker 1: So my case figures in very prominently in that whole
Speaker 1: alleged cover up of what these agencies have been doing
Speaker 1: for years, including by the way, under Mueller, who's now
Speaker 1: investigating it. And I'm not saying he's not an honest broker.
Speaker 1: I don't know him. I know people who like him,
Speaker 1: I know people who like him less, but he was
Speaker 1: in charge of the FBI with some of these things
Speaker 1: were happening, so you know, it's all very twisted and
Speaker 1: tied up together. I've had people on those programs say
Speaker 1: that every phone call, every text, email is metadata stored. Now,
Speaker 1: these are guys that were involved in the system. I've
Speaker 1: never been able to confirm it myself, but it sounds
Speaker 1: a little nineteen eighty four ish to me. But in
Speaker 1: your case, you actually have hard evidence that you are
Speaker 1: specifically targeted and they were using the powerful tools of
Speaker 1: intelligence that we entrust to them. We'll continue to follow
Speaker 1: at Cheryl Atkinson, thanks so much for being with us.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Sean second, McCann
Speaker 1: McCay good command. McCabe was fired for lying multiple times
Speaker 1: within the FBI. You defended his character on Twitter. That's okay.
Speaker 1: Lying is okay internally, No, it's definitely not. In fact,
Speaker 1: the McCabe case illustrates what an organization that's committed to
Speaker 1: the truth looks like. We investigated hold I ordered that investigation.
Speaker 1: We investigate and hold people accountable. Good people lie, I
Speaker 1: lay out the book. I think I'm a good person.
Speaker 1: Where I've lied, I still believe Andrew McCabe is a
Speaker 1: good person. But the Inspector General found that he lied
Speaker 1: and there's severe consequences in the Justice Department for lying,
Speaker 1: as there should be throughout the government. Well, I did
Speaker 1: see the President at the Phoenix airport the other night
Speaker 1: as I was landing he was headed out. He did
Speaker 1: come over and say hello and speak to my husband
Speaker 1: and myself and talk about his grandchildren and his travels
Speaker 1: and things like that. So that was the extent of that,
Speaker 1: And no discussions were held in any cases or anything
Speaker 1: of that. And he didn't raise anything about that either.
Speaker 1: Presidents tweeted innumerable times calling you a leaguer. That's your
Speaker 1: response to President Trump. Look, it's true. I mean I'm
Speaker 1: the one who testified about it. That's how people know
Speaker 1: about it. I gave that unclassified memo to my friend
Speaker 1: and asked him to give it to a reporter. That
Speaker 1: is entirely appropriated. It's not appropriate when it's classified information
Speaker 1: that would be under the Espionage Act eighteen USC. Seven
Speaker 1: ninety three. If you look at every single thing that
Speaker 1: now has happened A General Flynn, by the way, News
Speaker 1: went round up Information Overload hour eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: four one. Shann as our number. You want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program, all right, So we have
Speaker 1: these different codes and laws that make it unlawful to
Speaker 1: send or to store classified information on personal email that
Speaker 1: is not in dispute for Hillary Clinton, and I want
Speaker 1: you to think through this through the prism of a
Speaker 1: thirty three year serviceman three star by the name of
Speaker 1: Lieutenant General Flynt, because all the other people that supposedly
Speaker 1: lied that committed crimes, they haven't been in jeopardy in
Speaker 1: the last year as we have been peeling away every
Speaker 1: single layer of the onion. You know, miss you just
Speaker 1: start at the beginning. Executive Order one three, five, two six,
Speaker 1: eighteen USC. Seven ninety three, the Federal Code makes it
Speaker 1: unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: James Comey admitted to that too, doing his own personal
Speaker 1: business on his private email. So he and Hillary have
Speaker 1: a lot of similar issues that are in play. And
Speaker 1: you have a violation of the two thousand and nine
Speaker 1: Federal Records Act and National Archives and Records Administration. They
Speaker 1: require that agencies that allow employees to send and receive
Speaker 1: official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by
Speaker 1: the agency must ensure that federal records center received on
Speaker 1: such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency of record keeping. Well,
Speaker 1: if you used deletions and bleach bit and hammers, you're
Speaker 1: not preserving it, or you're preserving the law. That would
Speaker 1: also be a violation of the Freedom of Information Act,
Speaker 1: where it states very clearly, especially with the State Department,
Speaker 1: over many violations, where they are supposed to keep all
Speaker 1: of these records for the purpose of oversight in one case,
Speaker 1: in the case of government oversight, in the case of
Speaker 1: we the people have oversight when it's not related to
Speaker 1: national security issues. You remember Loretta Lynch under her watch,
Speaker 1: because that was an important point. Although the Loretta Lynch
Speaker 1: described the meeting as primarily social, talking about golf and grandchildren,
Speaker 1: she was just about to make the decision about whether
Speaker 1: or not Bill Clinton's wife when they met on the
Speaker 1: tarmac and Arizona had committed crimes while overseeing the investigation
Speaker 1: into his wife and that private email server. And there's
Speaker 1: one law after another. Employees shall act impartially and not
Speaker 1: give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. There
Speaker 1: was nobody in the world that would be facing the
Speaker 1: crimes that Hillary was facing. And the Attorney General meets
Speaker 1: with that person's spouse, that's never gonna happen, or employee
Speaker 1: shallow endeavored to avoid any actions creating the appearance that
Speaker 1: they're violating the law or ethical standards. These are specific mandates.
Speaker 1: You know, you've got James Comey and you look at
Speaker 1: him and all the different things that we've talked about.
Speaker 1: James Comey publicly admitted that he gave the memos of
Speaker 1: his interactions with President Trump to his Columbia law school
Speaker 1: professor friend. And then why for the purpose of The
Speaker 1: New York Times leaking it? For the purpose of getting
Speaker 1: a special counsel put in place? James Comy closed out
Speaker 1: the Clinton email investigation and telling Congress he made the
Speaker 1: decision to clear her after she was interviewed by the FBI.
Speaker 1: But the FBI documents, we know that that exoneration was
Speaker 1: written in early May, and the handling of the Clinton administration.
Speaker 1: Why was no grand jury impaneled in that case? Why
Speaker 1: was it taken out of the hands of the field agents?
Speaker 1: Comey publicly admitting that he gave memo recordings of his
Speaker 1: interactions with President Trump? Really, who does this? Then? A
Speaker 1: of course, the dossier and this is where we're going
Speaker 1: to have big news tonight on Hannity, But you want
Speaker 1: to know the people that lied. James Capp Clapper lied
Speaker 1: to Congress. C USA today, or the Guardians story on
Speaker 1: John Brennan lying to Congress, or Loretta Lynch in the
Speaker 1: New York Post a great article about her. We'll put
Speaker 1: him up on Hannity dot Com lying to Congress, James
Speaker 1: Comey lying to Congress, Loretta Lynch on another occasion, or
Speaker 1: James Comey lying to Congress because they contradict each other.
Speaker 1: You know, then you've got Eric Holter. We knew about
Speaker 1: that elied to Congress. Lowe's Learner lied to Congress. Great
Speaker 1: article to Washington Times about her. Jack lew the Treasury secretary.
Speaker 1: Washington Post had a story about the lies he told
Speaker 1: Congress about a key part of the Iranian deal. We
Speaker 1: know the deputy FBI director McCabe lied, and we have
Speaker 1: Clinton aide Cheryl Mills lying to DOJ officials and Uma
Speaker 1: Aberdeen same thing. When does the lying stop? Why is
Speaker 1: it only General Flynn that's in this position? Denise McAllister
Speaker 1: as US co author of Spygate, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: is required extensive research on the Muller team. Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: number one bestseller of the Russia hoax. I don't see
Speaker 1: any of these other important people being brought up on
Speaker 1: charges of having light and being treated the way that
Speaker 1: General Flint is being treated. Greg. Well, you're right, because
Speaker 1: there's sort of two standards. If you're connected or support
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, you will have the full force of the
Speaker 1: federal government coming after you with a vengeance. But if
Speaker 1: you're a member of the Obama administration or friends of
Speaker 1: Bill and Hill, you get a free pass on everything.
Speaker 1: And this is why Americans have come to distrust and
Speaker 1: indeed fear their own government, especially the FBI and the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. As you and I were talking last night,
Speaker 1: I mean it's come to the point now. You know,
Speaker 1: if Muller or the FBI comes to your or wants
Speaker 1: to talk, shut the door, don't talk, call the nearest lawyer,
Speaker 1: Do not hand over documents. Um. And you know, because
Speaker 1: Muller plays a gotcha game. If you don't remember a
Speaker 1: memo or an email you sent two years ago, you
Speaker 1: can bet he's got his hands on it and he's
Speaker 1: waiting for you to say, I don't recall send that memo.
Speaker 1: Well what if you don't recall? I mean I was
Speaker 1: trying to be a little clever with you last night
Speaker 1: on TV when I said, you're well, no, think about this.
Speaker 1: This is an important day in your life. The day
Speaker 1: you would work, you know, well over a year pounding
Speaker 1: out every word alone in your book because I watched
Speaker 1: you do it. Your your office is two doors down
Speaker 1: from mind and every day so are you working and
Speaker 1: working and working anyway, So you get to this momentous
Speaker 1: day and the book finally comes out and we're talking
Speaker 1: about it on the show, and I said, do you
Speaker 1: remember the conversation that we had that day? And your
Speaker 1: answer is no, you don't remember specifics of that conversation.
Speaker 1: So of course not if you were saying that to
Speaker 1: Robert Muller, I guess that means that you lied under
Speaker 1: oath like General Flynn. General Flynn was supposed to remember
Speaker 1: the contents of a meeting that he had with as
Speaker 1: soon to be counterpart at a time that was frenetic
Speaker 1: with a newcoming incoming administration. I don't believe that that
Speaker 1: standard is ridiculous to me. Well, you're absolutely right, And
Speaker 1: in fact, Muller could never prove a case in a
Speaker 1: court of law that he's brought against people like Popadopolis
Speaker 1: and Flynn because under the law, look at the statute
Speaker 1: to eighteen USU. One thousand and one, it requires that
Speaker 1: the alleged false statement being made knowingly and willingly failing
Speaker 1: to properly recollect something is not a crime. And yet
Speaker 1: Muller criminalizes that which is not a crime to come
Speaker 1: after you for partisan and political reasons. Let me bring
Speaker 1: in our good friend D. C. McAllister here and get
Speaker 1: your take on the whole Flint situation and the massive
Speaker 1: double standard. By the way, tonight at nine, we're blowing
Speaker 1: open a story that is it should shock the conscience
Speaker 1: of every American. We now have discovered email chains. I'll
Speaker 1: give you a hint that has to do with figs abuse.
Speaker 1: Everything we've been saying, except now we've got smoking gun
Speaker 1: evidence tonight. But Denise as our DC, as you look
Speaker 1: at this, I'm just wondering. This is we're literally watching
Speaker 1: the destruction of our justice system because we're not applying
Speaker 1: the laws equally. All these people that I mentioned either
Speaker 1: lie to Congress, lie under oath. Hillary Clinton has exhibit A.
Speaker 1: They didn't spend the last year of their life having
Speaker 1: to sell their house because they're being haunted by a
Speaker 1: witch hunt and now potentially facing even some jail time,
Speaker 1: having massive amounts of time with the Special Counsel, trying
Speaker 1: to get an a little nugget he can get so
Speaker 1: he can get a Trump and hoping that somebody composes.
Speaker 1: So how do you fix a system that's gone that
Speaker 1: far awry? Well, the first thing you need to do
Speaker 1: is expose it. And Greg is right, there's a two
Speaker 1: tier system of justice in our justice system. And you
Speaker 1: see this throughout this investigation, from the very beginning all
Speaker 1: the way through the Special Counsel, and we're seeing it
Speaker 1: today and with General Flynn. Remember that was in the
Speaker 1: middle of a counterintelligence investigation. It was not a criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: When they interviewed him, they had the transcript before them
Speaker 1: of what he had said. So why were they even
Speaker 1: asking him what he had said if they already had
Speaker 1: what he had said, Because we remember, this is a
Speaker 1: counterintelligence investigation, So the whole interview that was going on
Speaker 1: was not even necessary. It reeks of a set up.
Speaker 1: And then they pounded on him that was in my
Speaker 1: nineteen times, trying to get information out of him because
Speaker 1: they need him to be the connection between Trump and
Speaker 1: the Russian government. To have any kind of real crime
Speaker 1: going on there again, as they've been doing from the
Speaker 1: very beginning, looking for a crime, using people to look
Speaker 1: for a crime, setting up, maneuvering, manipulating any little thing,
Speaker 1: like you said, that is overted, forgotten, maybe even a
Speaker 1: little lie, because you're trying to cover for somebody. As
Speaker 1: you know, he didn't want Pence to look bad when
Speaker 1: he came out and said there had been no Russian
Speaker 1: conflict contacts during the campaign. These are the kind of
Speaker 1: things whenever this happens, Mueller's there, you know, with the trap,
Speaker 1: and he needs it. He needs to have his probe
Speaker 1: justified and legitimized, because from the very beginning this has
Speaker 1: been to cover up and gets you deflected away from
Speaker 1: the crimes of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. And
Speaker 1: that's the point. The double standard, you know, is glaring,
Speaker 1: and especially how do you have an investigation into Russian
Speaker 1: collusion and influence the twenty sixteen election and not go
Speaker 1: after Hillary's bought and paid for dacier that was put
Speaker 1: together by an admitted liar who even after the fact,
Speaker 1: after being fired, after admitting that it was unverified and
Speaker 1: raw intelligence and he didn't know if any of it
Speaker 1: was true, Greg Jarrett. But then he's still contacting the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice visa Vie Bruce Orr and trying to
Speaker 1: send messages to Special Counsel Muller. So the special counsel
Speaker 1: that you know, is mad at the lying of General Flynn,
Speaker 1: was seeking the lies of Christopher Steele, the liar. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you knew. It is anathema to fairness and justice to
Speaker 1: be selective in how you enforce the law. If anybody
Speaker 1: engaged in a Russian collusion, it was Hillary Clinton who
Speaker 1: paid for Russian information, fed it secretly to the FBI
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice to damage Trump. As I
Speaker 1: recounted my book, The Russia Hoax. That's a violation of
Speaker 1: the law. And I explain why. And yet nobody has
Speaker 1: ever investigated, much less prosecuted, Hillary Clinton and the others
Speaker 1: involved in that elicit scheme. And yet you know, there
Speaker 1: is not a sentilla of evidence did anyone in the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, much less President Trump ever colluded or conspired
Speaker 1: or coordinated with Russians to win the election. Just look
Speaker 1: at I wrote a column published last nine o Fox
Speaker 1: news dot Com. It's entitled Muller strikes out trying to
Speaker 1: nail Trump. Flinn sentencing memo is a big nothing. If
Speaker 1: you examine the sentencing memo and the addendum, there is
Speaker 1: nothing in there that ties Trump and Russia to this
Speaker 1: amorphous and elusive crime called collut and that article that
Speaker 1: Greg is referring to us up on Hannity dot Com.
Speaker 1: Stay right there more with DC McCalister, Greg Jarrett eight
Speaker 1: hundred and nine for one Shaun on number all right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna wrap things up. We got about thirty seconds
Speaker 1: aage four. DC McCalister and Greg Jarrett. Greg will start
Speaker 1: with you with this blockbuster coming out tonight, and all
Speaker 1: these people we know light, is there now a standard set?
Speaker 1: Will they now be held accountable with a new confirm
Speaker 1: by the Senate Attorney General, somebody like Congressman John Radcliffe,
Speaker 1: who would be great in that position. The answer would
Speaker 1: be yes, he will hold these people accountable. So I'm
Speaker 1: optimistic it'll happen. DC. Well, we also have to remember
Speaker 1: that the Ighaws reports coming out in his own investigations,
Speaker 1: and there's a bit of a war probably going on
Speaker 1: there in the Justice Department between these two entities. You're
Speaker 1: trying to get to the truth, and I think Mueller
Speaker 1: is really afraid of what Horowitz is going to come
Speaker 1: out with, and if he does his job like he
Speaker 1: did in the first report, they will be held accountable
Speaker 1: and exposed. Well, can't come soon enough, all right, DC
Speaker 1: McAlister Greg Jarrett, thank you. Eight hundred nine fold one,
Speaker 1: Sean Tolfree telephone number. You want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. We have some Christmas issues we've got
Speaker 1: to sort through. We'll get to them and much more
Speaker 1: as we continue. All right, as we continue, Sean Hannity Show,
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine fold one, Sean, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of this extravaganza, eight hundred nine four
Speaker 1: one sewn if you want to be with us? Joining
Speaker 1: us now is Pastor Robert Jeffers. He's the pastor of
Speaker 1: the First Baptist Church. It's a huge, beautiful church in Dallas.
Speaker 1: And Pastor Daryl Scott, he's the executive director of the
Speaker 1: National Diversity Coalition for President Trump, senior pastor at the
Speaker 1: New Spirit Revival Center, also a beautiful church. The only
Speaker 1: church you know. I think these are the only two
Speaker 1: churches in America that ever let me speak in them,
Speaker 1: and I did a horrible job each time but I
Speaker 1: tried my best. Anyway, welcome both of you. So the
Speaker 1: scene was you have this scene set up over the weekend,
Speaker 1: and it was baby Jesus in side a black cage
Speaker 1: in Boston and three wisemen separated by offense with a
Speaker 1: sign that reads deportation. Obviously they're talking about the caravan
Speaker 1: and not having open borders, etc. I'm like, we can't
Speaker 1: leave even Christmas, and even Christmas every year has to
Speaker 1: become political, right Pastor Jeffers, Well, that's right, and son,
Speaker 1: this illustrates how the left has allowed their hatred for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump to blind them to the truth, including the
Speaker 1: truth about Christmas. I mean, Christmas is not about immigration,
Speaker 1: It's about salvation. Jesus wasn't some illegal immigrant. He was
Speaker 1: the Son of God. And you know, there's nothing in
Speaker 1: the Christmas story tell us that Mary, Joseph and Jesus
Speaker 1: entered Egypt illegally, and they certainly didn't come in a
Speaker 1: caravan filled with five thousand people, including criminals who wanted
Speaker 1: to do harm to the Egyptians. This is absolutely Luda, Chris,
Speaker 1: It really is absolutely insane. But the environment we live in,
Speaker 1: Pastor Scott I told the story the other day, and
Speaker 1: the reaction to it was unbelievable. Just that we have
Speaker 1: an update to the story, and we had a substitute
Speaker 1: teacher first grade five and six year old kids who
Speaker 1: is telling the kids that Santa isn't real. It's at
Speaker 1: this Montville Township Public school and anyway, so the teacher
Speaker 1: first graders, you know, took it upon herself and you know, says, well, no,
Speaker 1: Santa is not real, Easter Bunny's not real, and tooth
Speaker 1: fairies not real, elves are not real, reindeer can't fly.
Speaker 1: I mean, just seemingly taking license to contradict the values
Speaker 1: of the parents. Now, we all know that's fake news.
Speaker 1: We know Santa Claus is alive. We know Santa Claus
Speaker 1: is real, and reindeer fly, and Rudolph exists, and elves exists.
Speaker 1: Anyone who reports anything else's fake news, right pastor Scott, listen,
Speaker 1: you know that's movie running. Those are things that need
Speaker 1: to be taught in the home, and that's a that's
Speaker 1: a privilege the parents enjoy with their children to bring
Speaker 1: them along in those stories the way they want to.
Speaker 1: This major scene is simply political propaganda, cloaked and pseudo
Speaker 1: social spirituality. It was never mentioned during Obama's term, and
Speaker 1: you know that with all of the other injustices and
Speaker 1: human rights violations that occur all over the world, it
Speaker 1: seems as if, especially this particular parish, they choose which
Speaker 1: one is the political hot topic of the day, especially
Speaker 1: if it makes this administration, if it reflects negatively on
Speaker 1: this administration. They choose which ones out of the political
Speaker 1: hot topic of the day, and they try to make
Speaker 1: it some spiritual issue. Maybe I'm wrong for saying this,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to disrespect anybody, but they need
Speaker 1: to put up a displayed announcement of pedophilia in the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church and ask with Jesus accept that, whether than
Speaker 1: with Jesus accept illegal immigration, because well, I listen, I
Speaker 1: was raised a Catholic. Just I'll give you both some background.
Speaker 1: I was raised Catholic. I was an altar boy. I
Speaker 1: went to Catholic schools for twelve years years the last
Speaker 1: fort high school that was a prep seminary. And to
Speaker 1: get into the school, you said you would, You had
Speaker 1: to say that you would consider the priesthood. And my
Speaker 1: father made me do it, and I said, he really did.
Speaker 1: He was pushing hard. Three weeks in they pulled me
Speaker 1: aside everybody, but you didn't. We wouldn't want you. Um,
Speaker 1: so I was disqualified three weeks into my four year
Speaker 1: education at the high school. But in all seriousness that
Speaker 1: to me, this is a church made rule because and
Speaker 1: you guys know more than I do, Robert Jeffers, because
Speaker 1: weren't eleven of the twelve Apostles married, And wasn't it
Speaker 1: okay for the first eleven hundred years of the Catholic
Speaker 1: Church for priests to marry, And all of a sudden
Speaker 1: they changed the rules and then probably knocked out ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of potential eligible people that would maybe want
Speaker 1: to serve in that capacity. Well, that's right, of course. Peter,
Speaker 1: who Catholics considered to be the first pope. The Bible
Speaker 1: talks about his wife and so I mean, I mean
Speaker 1: the scriptures very clear, but you know, I and I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that Catholic bash. But you know, speaking of immigration,
Speaker 1: I mean, the pope is all wet when it comes
Speaker 1: to immigration policy. And Saunders narrated by both Protestants and
Speaker 1: Catholics that says that somehow President Trump is Unchristian for
Speaker 1: securing the borders. I mean, the fact is look at
Speaker 1: the Bible. God is not an open borders kind of guy.
Speaker 1: On the He's the one the Bibles who established nations
Speaker 1: and borders. And President Trump is fulfilling his God given
Speaker 1: responsibility and securing the borders and keeping citizens safe. That's
Speaker 1: what government is, what it's supposed to do according to
Speaker 1: the scriptures. See. I just know that there's still like,
Speaker 1: for example, I think the masses of a very beautiful
Speaker 1: reminder of the Last Supper. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: that prayers are great, but they have done such incredible
Speaker 1: damage because this scandal reached to the highest levels of
Speaker 1: power within the Catholic Church. And I don't know Pastor
Speaker 1: Scott if they ever get to recover from that. And listen,
Speaker 1: I could just say, I speak for myself as I now.
Speaker 1: I just consider myself a nondenominational Christian. I believe in
Speaker 1: God the Father and Jesus's Son and who came to
Speaker 1: save all of us from our sins. A lot more
Speaker 1: mind than yours, probably, but you know, and I believe
Speaker 1: the story. I believe it's true. And that's Christianity. That's Christianity,
Speaker 1: one on one denominations, you know, And there's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with the denominations. They are simply groups of people that
Speaker 1: endeavor to come together and do a work for God.
Speaker 1: But we can take these things, and we can distort them,
Speaker 1: and we can cause them to fall away from their
Speaker 1: original purpose. Catholicism has a lot more problems to deal
Speaker 1: with that are bad reflection on this nation and on
Speaker 1: the world and on the Catholic Church than illital immigration
Speaker 1: and the caravan that has been used for political purposes.
Speaker 1: And once again when they thought about Jesus not accepting it,
Speaker 1: no he wouldn't. And you know one thing Jesus didn't.
Speaker 1: Jesus never organized a rebellion, a picket siege, or he said,
Speaker 1: gift Caesar he is, give God he is. He didn't come.
Speaker 1: Let me give you my shot at an interpretation of
Speaker 1: that right, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and
Speaker 1: unto God that which is God's right. So if God
Speaker 1: is the creator of the heavens and the earth and
Speaker 1: all things visible, seen and unseen, that would tell me
Speaker 1: that God owns everything and Caesar owns nothing. So what
Speaker 1: you render unto Caesar, Caesar doesn't own it, but God
Speaker 1: allows him to have it. That's a pretty good interpretation
Speaker 1: it is gone. And look, I mean the Bible says
Speaker 1: God created government just like he created the church for
Speaker 1: a different reason. I mean that our church, we don't
Speaker 1: check people's green card to see if they can come
Speaker 1: into our services or not. But you know the country
Speaker 1: is not a church. God created God. How come when
Speaker 1: I went to a church, I was padded down for
Speaker 1: like twenty five minutes by your guys and can come
Speaker 1: back after your sermon. We were ready to ordain you
Speaker 1: about that. Such a lie. That is such a pastor
Speaker 1: not allowed to lie. Only we mere morals can lie
Speaker 1: that Listen, I actually think that what bothers me is like.
Speaker 1: For example, if I know somebody right now is celebrating Hanaka,
Speaker 1: I always say happy Honaka. You know, I ask people
Speaker 1: about what their family traditions are, how they celebrate the holiday,
Speaker 1: um and the and the same with people that I
Speaker 1: know of other faces, I will be out of respect.
Speaker 1: But if I say to somebody, am out shopping and
Speaker 1: you can't it says big Christmas sale, But you can't
Speaker 1: say if you work there in the story, you can't
Speaker 1: use the words merry Christmas. Well, Fortunately we have a
Speaker 1: president who's made that more in vogue to do again.
Speaker 1: And look, the fact is you cannot deny the fact
Speaker 1: that whether you accept Jesus as the Messiah, no human
Speaker 1: has ever done more to influence the world in Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: And that's something everybody can celebrate, Christian or non Christian.
Speaker 1: The line, what have either one of you? Go ahead
Speaker 1: all around the world and in America as well, and
Speaker 1: you know you're not allowed to say married Christmas, but
Speaker 1: they don't want to hamper any other religions from expressing
Speaker 1: their sentiments during their whatever their holy times are. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you this, do you think that why is
Speaker 1: there a resistance when you have all these public schools
Speaker 1: and you're in Cleveland, pastor Scott, all these schools where
Speaker 1: our kids can't read and write, and you got teachers
Speaker 1: saying Santa doesn't exist to five year olds, and elves
Speaker 1: don't exist, and reindeer don't fly. And I'm thinking, augh't
Speaker 1: they not be focused on reading, writing, and math, considering
Speaker 1: we spend more per capital per student than any other
Speaker 1: industrialized country and have the worst results and the worst
Speaker 1: bang for our buck. Absolutely right, do your job. Your
Speaker 1: job is to teach my child, not raise my child.
Speaker 1: It's my job to raise them. It's your job to
Speaker 1: teach them, and you teach them whatever the curriculum is,
Speaker 1: teach them reading, writing, rithmetic, or whatever else. But when
Speaker 1: it comes to raising them and instilling in them the values,
Speaker 1: the principles that our family subscribe, that's not your job
Speaker 1: as a teacher. It's not your job. Well, why do
Speaker 1: they think it's their job to instill values? Eric could
Speaker 1: great head on. You're not a political opinion. It shan
Speaker 1: is because they have an agenda, and it's more than
Speaker 1: an educational agenda. They want to separate this nation from
Speaker 1: its Christian foundation. There is an agenda at work to
Speaker 1: do that. And look the good news, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what you do. You cannot erase the impact Jesus Christ
Speaker 1: has had on this world. Every time we write the
Speaker 1: date twenty eighteen on an email or on a check,
Speaker 1: we're acknowledging that it's been two thousand and eighteen years
Speaker 1: since the most important event in human history, the coming
Speaker 1: of Jesus Christ, and no secular it's as hard as
Speaker 1: they try can erase that back. But you know that
Speaker 1: a lot of them want to. I mean a lot
Speaker 1: of them think that. You know, people forget too. There
Speaker 1: are court rulings in the early nineteen sixties back to
Speaker 1: back about prayer in school. There was even Bible reading
Speaker 1: in school. And I don't know what the fear was,
Speaker 1: but American public schools did not become a theocracy. But
Speaker 1: what's interesting is if you look at the worst problems
Speaker 1: for kids back in that error, when there was religion
Speaker 1: taught in school, Christianity, Judeo Christian principles taught. Well, the
Speaker 1: biggest problems in school were talking in class, chewing gum,
Speaker 1: and running in the halls. And now it's evolved into
Speaker 1: let's see violence, guns, gangs, murders, rape, pregnancy. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we've come a long way after we threw
Speaker 1: God out of the classroom, but we come a long
Speaker 1: way in the wrong direction. And this is something that
Speaker 1: this happened in the last seventy years, these court rulings.
Speaker 1: For the first one hundred and fifty years of our
Speaker 1: nation's history, Bible reading and prayer were not only allowed,
Speaker 1: they were incouraged. And I asked these pinheads from the
Speaker 1: ACLU when I debate them on Fox, what changed in
Speaker 1: the last seventy years? Did the constitution changed? And somebody
Speaker 1: didn't tell us no, we have allowed the secularist to
Speaker 1: hijack our constitution and to pervert it into something to
Speaker 1: found bothers never intended. Yeah, Pastor, you want to respond,
Speaker 1: Pastor Scott, Well, he's absolutely right, and respect for teachers
Speaker 1: and respect the society as he led it, along with
Speaker 1: the elimination of Bible wading in school. Now they go
Speaker 1: to school and there's actual fear for your life inside
Speaker 1: of the classroom. Knives and guns have replaced Bibles in
Speaker 1: the schools, and it's a sad state of affairs. And
Speaker 1: then when we have a movement, we have a president
Speaker 1: that at least acknowledges the fact of Christianity better this country,
Speaker 1: there's a backlass against that. And that's part of the
Speaker 1: reason why the president receives the opposition that he does
Speaker 1: is simply because he has endorsed Christianity unasshamedly. If he didn't,
Speaker 1: he would receive the backlass. But that's part of it
Speaker 1: right there. But I think what is most interesting, maybe
Speaker 1: a lot of people wouldn't pay Donald Trump as you know,
Speaker 1: the most religious man in the world, but he's done
Speaker 1: the most for religion in the country and freedom of
Speaker 1: religion in the country, and helped out people that are
Speaker 1: failies and families of faith. And then you add to
Speaker 1: that Jerusalem now the capital of Israel, which every other
Speaker 1: president promised and never delivered on. Well, there's no doubt
Speaker 1: he's the most pro life, pro religious liberty, pro conservative
Speaker 1: judiciary president we've ever had in history. And you know,
Speaker 1: I tell people all the time shown when they ask
Speaker 1: me about President Trump's faith and personally a nicey look.
Speaker 1: He may not be exactly like us, but at least
Speaker 1: he likes us and doesn't hate us like Obama did.
Speaker 1: He hated conservative Christian and President Trump had absolutely become
Speaker 1: the most face friendly president in history, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: As the head of the Diversity Coalition. Do you see now,
Speaker 1: especially with the low unemployment numbers when you break it
Speaker 1: down demographically, fourteen states have record low unemployment. African Americans,
Speaker 1: Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace, youth unemployment,
Speaker 1: are veterans now have the lowest unemployment in many decades.
Speaker 1: Is that going to result and more votes? Should that
Speaker 1: continue for the next two years for the president? Because
Speaker 1: under Obama we had thirteen million more Americans on food
Speaker 1: stamps and eight million more in poverty. I had a
Speaker 1: conversation with the White House just yesterday about the messaging.
Speaker 1: I think we need to be a little more aggressive
Speaker 1: in our messaging because if we're waiting on the liberal
Speaker 1: media to promote those facts, they're not going to do it,
Speaker 1: even with this First Step Act and prison reform. But
Speaker 1: the media we need to just need to get I
Speaker 1: think a little more aggressive, more aggressive than our messaging
Speaker 1: about this, and it's going to translate into a lot
Speaker 1: more votes. A Pastor Scott, thank you, Pastor Jeffers, thank you,
Speaker 1: Mary Christmas to both you. All right, that's going to
Speaker 1: wrap things up for today, all right. And Kennedy investigation, huge,
Speaker 1: huge development and how secret FBI email chain has been discovered,
Speaker 1: smoking on evidence that could provide the most damning evidence
Speaker 1: yet of the FISA abuses in the Russian probe. And
Speaker 1: by the way, you're not allowed to believe Eve in
Speaker 1: Santa nine Eastern tonight, Hannity, Fox News. We'll see you
Speaker 1: then back here tomorrow.