Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. All right, So I
Speaker 1: have insomnia, but I've never slept better. And what's changed
Speaker 1: just a pillow. It's had such a positive impact on
Speaker 1: my life. And of course I'm talking about my pillow.
Speaker 1: I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now
Speaker 1: you can to just go to my pillow dot com
Speaker 1: or call eight hundred zero nine zero use the promo
Speaker 1: code Hannity, and Mike Lindell, the inventor of My Pillow,
Speaker 1: has the special four pack. Now you get off to
Speaker 1: my Pillow premiums and to go Anywhere pillows. My pillows
Speaker 1: made here in the USA has a sixty day unconditional
Speaker 1: money back guarantee and a tenure warranty. Go to my
Speaker 1: pillow dot com right now or call eight zero nine
Speaker 1: zero promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special four
Speaker 1: pack offer. You get to my Pillow Premium pillows and
Speaker 1: to go Anywhere pillows forty percent off. And that means
Speaker 1: once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of
Speaker 1: peaceful and RESTful and comfortable and deep peeling and recuperative
Speaker 1: sleep that you've been crazy eaving and you certainly deserve
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com promo code Hannity. You will love
Speaker 1: this pillow clad you with a Shawn Hannity Show right
Speaker 1: down on toe free telephone number. You want to be
Speaker 1: a part of this extravaganza. I am going to pull
Speaker 1: all of this together for you because there is something
Speaker 1: much much bigger and deeper going on than anybody seems
Speaker 1: to be able to put together as it relates to
Speaker 1: General Flynn his resignation slash firing from earlier today. And
Speaker 1: you've got to understand that there's this is so deep,
Speaker 1: and it's all related to everything that is predictable and
Speaker 1: frankly everything that I warned would happen, and that is
Speaker 1: there is an unrelenting attempt by the entire establishment in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. What do they vote for percent for Trump
Speaker 1: and DC to destroy his presidency. And you can see
Speaker 1: it right out of Olynsky, one on one, isolating people
Speaker 1: one after the other, and I keep I was pointing
Speaker 1: out they've even gone after the president's son for crying
Speaker 1: out loud as ten year old son. Oh, isn't that
Speaker 1: Isn't that brave? Of them to do. They've at different
Speaker 1: times what they've gone after. Tried to get Steve Bannon out.
Speaker 1: They made Eric Trump stop his charity raising money for St. Jude's.
Speaker 1: That was a great success for them. What the things
Speaker 1: that have been said about Melania Trump, imagine if they
Speaker 1: were said about about Michelle Obama, for example, then you've
Speaker 1: got they've gone after Reiks. They've tried all weeks to
Speaker 1: demonize Steve Miller. While we have an update on Kelly
Speaker 1: Ann's story, according to the Office for Government Ethics, because
Speaker 1: an off literally an entire off the cuff comment. Now,
Speaker 1: the Office of Government Ethics has now informed the White
Speaker 1: House Council's Office there is strong reason to believe that
Speaker 1: Kelly Ann Conway has violated the standards of conduct and
Speaker 1: that disciplinary disciplinary action is warranted. Why because Avanka, the
Speaker 1: daughter of the president, was targeted for political reasons and
Speaker 1: her entire business put in jeopardy and she said, go
Speaker 1: buy Avanka's online big deal? I mean, is this the
Speaker 1: superfluous nonsense? There is such great hypocrisy on every level
Speaker 1: here where was this outrage over Hillary Clinton top secret
Speaker 1: information special access program information she sought to bypass congressional
Speaker 1: oversight and put an email server in the closet of
Speaker 1: a mom and pop shop bathroom. What about the ethics
Speaker 1: involving the Clinton Foundation While Secretary of State, she and
Speaker 1: her husband are raking in millions and millions to their
Speaker 1: foundation and for themselves, and she's making specific actions connected
Speaker 1: to donations. Nobody there wasn't the breathless reporting by the
Speaker 1: alt left radical media on any of those issues either.
Speaker 1: Now Flynn submitted as letter of resignation to the President
Speaker 1: saying that he inadvertently gave Vice President Mike Pence incomplete
Speaker 1: information on phone calls that he had with the Russian
Speaker 1: ambassador in which he allegedly discussed lifting lifting sanctions against Moscow.
Speaker 1: I have sincerely apologized to the President and Vice President,
Speaker 1: the letter stated, and they have accepted my apology. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, you go back. He's been a target, but
Speaker 1: think about this. Everybody's been a target, and everybody will
Speaker 1: be a target. But what they're what they're really aiming for,
Speaker 1: is much higher. And that's the president and that's the
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. You've got a media establishment, you've got a
Speaker 1: lobbyist establishment, you've got the entire democratic establishment and their
Speaker 1: party and their friends which owns d C. And then
Speaker 1: you've got, of course the Republican weak establishment. They are
Speaker 1: part of this as well, because the way of doing
Speaker 1: things is now dramatically changing and they don't like it.
Speaker 1: You know, this idea that that he may have violated
Speaker 1: the Logan Act, which bans unauthorized US citizens from communicating
Speaker 1: with foreign governments, is a joke. It's from and it
Speaker 1: has never ever, ever been used, not one time. So
Speaker 1: let's be real here, and I read the Washington Post
Speaker 1: right now. Trump knew that Flynn misled officials. Well, Sean
Speaker 1: Spicer earlier today dealt with this at the press conference
Speaker 1: when he said, yeah, but the White House Council said
Speaker 1: that no crimes were committed. And then in the course
Speaker 1: of understanding this, General Flynn talked to Mike Pence and
Speaker 1: didn't give him the full context of the call. Now
Speaker 1: the question is, and it remains, well, who's up to
Speaker 1: their eyeballs in this? And how is it that communications
Speaker 1: that only an intercepts, that only our intelligence community would
Speaker 1: have ends up in the newspaper time and time and
Speaker 1: time and time again. Eli Lake will a great column today,
Speaker 1: the political assassination of Mike Flynn, and what he points
Speaker 1: out here, if you're Flynn, he resigned because he lied
Speaker 1: about the conversations with the Russian ambassador to the Vice President, etcetera.
Speaker 1: He doesn't buy that one bit any point. The point
Speaker 1: here is the White House at such casual opportunity. You know,
Speaker 1: he has criticisms of the of the White House, but
Speaker 1: that's not the important part here. This is what Trump
Speaker 1: ran on. And it's very likely in conversations in the Intern,
Speaker 1: between being elected and putting a government together and getting
Speaker 1: inaugurated that I'm sure Donald Trump many times said to
Speaker 1: General Flynn exactly whatever it was that he discussed with
Speaker 1: his Russian counterpart. So there's a big part of all
Speaker 1: of this here that's not being told. Now, we have
Speaker 1: a series of incidents now where our intelligence community keeps
Speaker 1: leaking information. Now, the information in this particular case was
Speaker 1: glean from a phone conversation. How is he like A
Speaker 1: Lake points out in his column, Normally, intercepts of US
Speaker 1: officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held
Speaker 1: government secrets. And he writes for good reason, selectively disclosing
Speaker 1: details of private conversations that are monitored by our government,
Speaker 1: by the FBI, by the n s A gives the
Speaker 1: permanent state. What is the permanent state? Those are the
Speaker 1: Obama holdovers, Those are the people that hate Trump. That
Speaker 1: is the swamp, that is the bureaucracy that is threatened
Speaker 1: by the very presence of Donald Trump. But he says
Speaker 1: it gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations
Speaker 1: from the cloak of anonymity. And he rightly writes, this
Speaker 1: is what a police state does. Remember one of the
Speaker 1: early leagues over the summer was, you know, after Trump
Speaker 1: claimed that analysts have this first classified briefing as Republican,
Speaker 1: that the nominee told them through their body language that
Speaker 1: they disagreed with President Obama's pol sees the sort of
Speaker 1: thing that intelligence professionals pride themselves on not doing well.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden the next day, as Sam Frazel
Speaker 1: pointed out in a really good column, the very next day,
Speaker 1: NBC News sighted six current and former senior officials who
Speaker 1: described Flynn as repeatedly interrupting the analysts at the classified briefing.
Speaker 1: Flynn called the report bs and In January, just before
Speaker 1: the president was inaugurated, multiple senior intelligence officials told CNN
Speaker 1: about classified briefings from intelligence officials about the dossier, the
Speaker 1: claim that Russia operatives, Russian operatives had compromising information on
Speaker 1: the president. And remember, senior US officials provided the Washington
Speaker 1: Post with an account of Trump's you know, phone call
Speaker 1: with the Australian Prime minister, contradicting the White House version
Speaker 1: of events. Who's leaking this? And as Eli is saying
Speaker 1: Lake in his column, these intercepts of US officials and
Speaker 1: citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets
Speaker 1: because selectively disclosing private conversations, monitored by what he calls
Speaker 1: the permanent state in the FBI, in intelligence, in the
Speaker 1: n s A gives power to destroy reputations from the
Speaker 1: cloak of anonymity. And this is what a police state does. Well,
Speaker 1: how does it keep happening again and again? And last
Speaker 1: week and current officials Flynn discussed U S sanctions against
Speaker 1: Russia in a phone call and apparently didn't remember all
Speaker 1: the details, didn't tell at all to the Vice president.
Speaker 1: And this is where we end up today. And this
Speaker 1: is the first blood that the swamp has been able
Speaker 1: to draw from any of the Trump people that they
Speaker 1: have been attacking from day one. There's not one Democrat
Speaker 1: that wanted one person except Joe Manchion, that wanted one
Speaker 1: person in Trump's cabinet that Trump pick, not one. They
Speaker 1: wanted to do everything to smear, slanderby smirch, and destroy
Speaker 1: every single one of them. Now, Congressman Nunez is quoted
Speaker 1: in this column, aairman of the House Permanent Select Committee
Speaker 1: on Intelligence said that he saw the leaks about Flynn's
Speaker 1: conversations with his Russian counterpart as part of a problem
Speaker 1: that does not appear to be. There does appear to
Speaker 1: be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others
Speaker 1: in the administration, from leaking phone calls between the president
Speaker 1: and foreign leaders, to what appears to be high level
Speaker 1: FISA court information, to leaking of American citizens being denied
Speaker 1: security clearances. It is a pattern. And he was gonna
Speaker 1: bring this up with the FBI. Now they're going to
Speaker 1: investigate here, etcetera, etcetera. And but you've got to understand
Speaker 1: the bigger picture. Now, I want you to add this.
Speaker 1: Paul Sperry, both Paul Sperry and Eli Lake will be
Speaker 1: on the program later today that he writes a column,
Speaker 1: how Obama sche mean the sabotage Trump's presidency. He's living
Speaker 1: right down the block. The President encouraged people to keep
Speaker 1: going out there in protest, and you keep That's what
Speaker 1: he said publicly. So if he's encouraging the pro the
Speaker 1: public protests, what is he doing behind the scenes. Well,
Speaker 1: according to Sperry, he's working with a network of leftist
Speaker 1: nonprofit organizations led by Organizing for Action. Normally, it would
Speaker 1: expect an organization set up by a politician and his
Speaker 1: agenda to close up shop after that person leaves office.
Speaker 1: But not Obama, not O f A. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, they're gearing up for battle and growing a
Speaker 1: war chest and more than two fifty offices around the country. Wow,
Speaker 1: that seems a little unusual. And since Trump's election, this
Speaker 1: group of well funded protesting arm is beaped up. There's that.
Speaker 1: What do you think showing up at these at Tason Shafts,
Speaker 1: his town hall and all these and Mitch McConnell's office.
Speaker 1: These are all the Obama people. So you got Obama
Speaker 1: basically and his his Sperry rights, he's kind of setting
Speaker 1: up a shadow government. All not to protest is not
Speaker 1: only to protest is threatened legacy, but to sabotage Trump.
Speaker 1: So the political assassination of Mike Flynn is what Eli
Speaker 1: Lake writes, and how Obama I'm a scheming to sabotage
Speaker 1: Trump's presidency. It all begins to fit, doesn't it. And
Speaker 1: then all the leaks from the intelligence community, and then
Speaker 1: it looks like they want to give Kelly Anne Conway
Speaker 1: the death penalty over the fact that she innocently mentioned
Speaker 1: Ivanka Trump. And then they've gone after Jared Trump, Ivanka Trump,
Speaker 1: Baron Trump, Eric Trump, Don Trump, and the Junior and
Speaker 1: his kids. They're gone after Milania with the fierceness. Then
Speaker 1: they've gone after Bannon, and then they're gone after Kelly Ann.
Speaker 1: And then they've gone after Renes is on the chopping block.
Speaker 1: I'm reading all over the place today, and then there's
Speaker 1: talk of Chris Christie coming in, and then they've gone
Speaker 1: after everybody else. Wiki leaks. Not to be dismissed, They've
Speaker 1: never been wrong. I sent I think they sent out
Speaker 1: a pretty cryptic message today, probably based on information they have,
Speaker 1: and it's a statement that blame the destabilization campaign by
Speaker 1: the media and Democrats for National security advisor My Flynn.
Speaker 1: Quote Trump's national security advisor Mike Flynn resigns after destabilization
Speaker 1: campaign by US spies, Democrats, and the press. The organization tweeted,
Speaker 1: including a screenshot of the press release from the White
Speaker 1: House announcing President Trump accepting Flynn's resignation. By the way,
Speaker 1: here's a point nobody else in the media will tell you.
Speaker 1: Did you know before Obama was even elected that the
Speaker 1: guy that ended up serving as his ambassador to Russia?
Speaker 1: This is weeks before the election and his lead up
Speaker 1: to the election, before he got elected. Mike McFall. He actually,
Speaker 1: he ended up serving as the US ambassador in Russia
Speaker 1: during the Obama administration, was in Moscow before Obama was
Speaker 1: even elected, in the weeks leading up to the two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight election, meeting with officials in Russia. As
Speaker 1: a former diplomat, US government official said, one needs to
Speaker 1: be able to have contact with foreigners to do one's job.
Speaker 1: McFall said, if you're ready to get out of the
Speaker 1: media spin room, you've come to the right place. Is
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Show. This is everything that I have
Speaker 1: tried to predict for all of you here, and they've
Speaker 1: they've there's been no honeymoon period. There will be no
Speaker 1: honeymoon period, and as long as Donald Trump as president,
Speaker 1: this is going to be how the country operates. But
Speaker 1: there's something very dark, very much bigger, going on behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. And you've got this coalition of people that
Speaker 1: do not want Donald Trump to succeed. It's everybody in
Speaker 1: the media, the alt radical left that have They've never
Speaker 1: said one nice thing, and Donald Trump has fulfilled many promises,
Speaker 1: not a thing. They're too busy chasing rabbits, as I've
Speaker 1: been pointing out here, and to stop the President from
Speaker 1: draining the swamp, which impacts all of them in the
Speaker 1: media and impacts every Democrat and impacts every establishment Republican
Speaker 1: and every lobbyist there. Now the DC swamp is rising.
Speaker 1: They're now colluding, they're now viciously fighting, and they have
Speaker 1: now allies within what what Kenneth Timmerman writes about in
Speaker 1: his book in two thousand and seven, Shadow Warriors, and
Speaker 1: how these covert operatives working in darkness and a universal lies,
Speaker 1: and how it involves a very sophisticated political sabotage operation
Speaker 1: aimed at leaders to doubt their own judgment, question their
Speaker 1: own subordinates. It's it's being used against Flynn and the
Speaker 1: shadow warriors are within our own intelligence community. As I've mentioned,
Speaker 1: there's been way too many leak now now as a
Speaker 1: result of this, I asked the President this question, are
Speaker 1: you going to investigate the leaks by probable Obama officials
Speaker 1: against your administration? Because if you don't drain this part
Speaker 1: of the swamp, this is never ever gonna end. And
Speaker 1: this is just going to continue, and this is only
Speaker 1: gonna get worse, and they're not going to stop until
Speaker 1: ultimately they get the president himself, because that's what their
Speaker 1: goal is. You know, now we have House investigators have
Speaker 1: said they're gonna pass on investigating the Flynn gate, but
Speaker 1: they said they may look into leaks to the private
Speaker 1: What do you mean may leak into you know? Go
Speaker 1: to Eli Lakes column today. Again, I urge you because
Speaker 1: it's too important to miss. This is not something that
Speaker 1: would happen on a regular basis. This is not normal
Speaker 1: operating procedure. What you have here are rogue intelligence officials
Speaker 1: purposely sabotaging and this case General Flynn. But ultimately it's
Speaker 1: the President who they disagree with the most and don't
Speaker 1: want an office. Hence the leaks against Trump again and
Speaker 1: again of top secret information. Then you got a president
Speaker 1: now organizing from down the block, a former president as
Speaker 1: part of this effort. And don't think these protests are
Speaker 1: not all by designing congressmen and senator's offices. We've been
Speaker 1: a reviewing and evaluating this issue with respect to General
Speaker 1: Flynn on a daily basis for a few weeks, trying
Speaker 1: to ascertain the truth. We got to a point not
Speaker 1: based on a legal issue, but based on a trust issue,
Speaker 1: with a level of trust between the President and General
Speaker 1: Flynn had eroded to the point where he felt he
Speaker 1: had to make a change. The President was very concerned
Speaker 1: that General Flynn had misled the Vice President and others.
Speaker 1: He was also very concerned in light of sensitive subjects
Speaker 1: dealt with by that position of national secure are the
Speaker 1: advisors like China, North Korea, and the Middle East that
Speaker 1: the President must have complete and unwavering trust for the
Speaker 1: person in that position. The evolving an eroding level of
Speaker 1: trust as a result of this situation in a series
Speaker 1: of other questionable instances, is what led the President to
Speaker 1: ask for General Flynn's resignation. Immediately after the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice notified the White House Council of the situation. The
Speaker 1: White House Council brief the President and a small group
Speaker 1: of the senior advisors. The White House Council reviewed and
Speaker 1: determined that there is not an illegal issue, but rather
Speaker 1: a trust issue. Understand that all of this information was leaked.
Speaker 1: The idea that not just in this administration, but the
Speaker 1: obamb administration, going back to the Bush administration back that
Speaker 1: we have an issue were classified information of which this
Speaker 1: would be is handled in such a way that it
Speaker 1: is being given out. And I know in some cases
Speaker 1: it's it's a good story, and I understand that, and
Speaker 1: that's to some degree your responsibility to write that. But
Speaker 1: I think there's also to a story here with an
Speaker 1: amount of leaks that are coming out of people that
Speaker 1: are entrusted with national security secrets and classified information are
Speaker 1: leaking it out. That's a real concern for this president
Speaker 1: that when he's talking on the phone with a world leader,
Speaker 1: that when he's making key decisions that are in an
Speaker 1: interest in protecting this country, that we have to wonder
Speaker 1: whether or not people who work for our government, who
Speaker 1: are entrusted with classified information and decisional based materials are
Speaker 1: leaking that information out. That I do believe is a
Speaker 1: big story that should be reported. I also believe that
Speaker 1: the President is rightly, so very very concerned about this
Speaker 1: because it's not just something that is plaguing, you know,
Speaker 1: the current situation, but it goes back through the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: the Bush administration, the Clinton administration. When we have government
Speaker 1: employees that are entrusted with this and can't and then
Speaker 1: leak it out, that undermines our national security. Frankly, so,
Speaker 1: now when I want to press to press these questions,
Speaker 1: who are the White House decided to do nothing for
Speaker 1: three weeks as flair set in on meeting at the meeting,
Speaker 1: at the meeting, did the president decide the way the
Speaker 1: counsel decided to wait? Something is wrong here, Madam Leader.
Speaker 1: Just this morning, friend tweeted, and this is a quote scapegoat,
Speaker 1: and the quote escapegoat he basically the Scott subscribe himself
Speaker 1: as a scapegoat. And so I believe we need to
Speaker 1: hold a public hearing with Flynn to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this. Our committee held three or four hearings,
Speaker 1: emergency hearings on Hillary Clinton in a matter of a
Speaker 1: week or two. And if there was any emergency at
Speaker 1: this moment in the history of this country. This is
Speaker 1: the moment, and so we need to get his security
Speaker 1: and clearance of documents. I want to see him. I
Speaker 1: want to see what he put in those documents to
Speaker 1: find out if he was honest on those forms. And
Speaker 1: we need to know how much he got paid to
Speaker 1: have dinner with Pewton. But that is only levigating the presses.
Speaker 1: I asked us over and over again. I know they
Speaker 1: asked the chief and asked the leader. Doesn't end here?
Speaker 1: Shouldn't things in here? No, they cannot end here, ladies
Speaker 1: and gentlemen. We are a fight in a fight for
Speaker 1: the soul of our democracy. The question is is whether
Speaker 1: whether we will clearly understand that this is our watch.
Speaker 1: And let's be clear. Chips said it quite eloquently. The
Speaker 1: Republicans need to join us. This is not a democratic issue.
Speaker 1: This is not a Republican he said. It's not an
Speaker 1: independent issue. This is an American issue for the soul
Speaker 1: of our democracy. Twenty four now till the top of
Speaker 1: the hour, Elijah Cummings making a fight for the soul
Speaker 1: of our democ Where was he? Where were they when
Speaker 1: it came to an email server with top secret Special
Speaker 1: Access program classification in on an email server in a
Speaker 1: bathroom closet of a mom and pop shop. Where were
Speaker 1: they when all of the collusion went on and millions
Speaker 1: of dollars were transferred to the Clinton Foundation directly connected
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton's job. None of that matter to any
Speaker 1: of the people that are screaming the loudest here. I
Speaker 1: want to backtrack now, Wiki leaks Annity, you like Julian Osandi.
Speaker 1: I think Julian Osandra has done us a favor. They
Speaker 1: sent out what I believe is a somewhat cryptic email.
Speaker 1: Today they're telling a story, probably based on information they
Speaker 1: have that has been my understanding following them on a
Speaker 1: regular basis. Trump's national security adviser, Mike Flynn resigns and
Speaker 1: listen to this part after destabilization campaign by US spies,
Speaker 1: That's what Sean Spicer was just talking about, how the
Speaker 1: intelligence community relentlessly as leaking since Donald Trump has been president,
Speaker 1: by U spies, by Democrats, and by the press. In
Speaker 1: other words, the entire swamp that Donald Trump would like
Speaker 1: to drain. The organization tweets out today. Now let's go
Speaker 1: to Devin Juniaz and let's go to Eli Lakes column
Speaker 1: again today because He's sang, as the Chairman of the
Speaker 1: House Intelligence Committee that the decision to League talks top
Speaker 1: secret information about General Flynn and his private conversations as
Speaker 1: appears to be well orchestrated by Obama administration intelligence officials.
Speaker 1: Now this is key because Devin Nunez goes on to say,
Speaker 1: there does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to
Speaker 1: attack flann and others in the administration from the leaking
Speaker 1: of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders. Remember
Speaker 1: the Australian League. Oh, he threatened to invade Mexico League.
Speaker 1: Remember all this stuff. Um, well, that's all intelligence because
Speaker 1: these conversations are jacked and recorded by the n s
Speaker 1: A and and and by top intelligence agencies. That's the
Speaker 1: shadow government that Timmerman is is referring to in his
Speaker 1: book and in his column today as is he went
Speaker 1: out on a lim in a pretty big way, defending
Speaker 1: General Flynn and saying that he's a victor him of
Speaker 1: this intelligence swamp. He said, with Flynn leaks, the shadow
Speaker 1: warriors draw first blood. He's talking about the Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: the same intelligence committee that Wicky Leaks is saying is involved,
Speaker 1: the same intelligence that Devin Nunez, who's the head of
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee, is saying to handed to your
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist. No, I'm not, I'm looking at the facts.
Speaker 1: He said, quote there does appear to be a well
Speaker 1: orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration.
Speaker 1: Stop what have I been saying systematically? Right out of
Speaker 1: a Lynsky one oh one? They go after uh tarth Vader,
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon, They they go after Jared, they go after Avanca,
Speaker 1: they go after Don Junr, they go after uh Eric.
Speaker 1: I love that they pick on a girl of Anka.
Speaker 1: Isn't that nice? The liberals are so loving, compassion and
Speaker 1: inclusive and all the things they always claim to be.
Speaker 1: Then they even go after Baron Trump, the ten year
Speaker 1: old Kelley and Conway. Now the report Today, the Government
Speaker 1: Ethics Offices informed the White House Council that Ms. Conway
Speaker 1: has violated the standards of conduct and that disciplinary disciplinary
Speaker 1: action is warranted because she stood up for her friend
Speaker 1: and made an innocuous off the cuff comment. Really the
Speaker 1: same people after the lies about Benghazi, the lies before,
Speaker 1: the lies during the lies after Now we're gonna get
Speaker 1: lectured at Oh, I like Ivanka Bayavanka's blind. I like it. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's such a that's such a code of ethics violation,
Speaker 1: the likes of which I've never seen in my life anyway.
Speaker 1: So it goes on to say, Devin Nunez, from the
Speaker 1: leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders
Speaker 1: to what appears to be high level FISA Court information,
Speaker 1: this is the intelligence community that is leaking this information.
Speaker 1: This is very dangerous. Normally, intercepts of US officials and
Speaker 1: citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets.
Speaker 1: This doesn't happen. And there's a reason, And Eli like, now,
Speaker 1: is it for good reason? Selectively disclosing the details of
Speaker 1: private conversations monitored by the FBI or the n s
Speaker 1: A or both gives the permanent state. What does he
Speaker 1: mean by the permanent state? He means the swamp, the holdovers,
Speaker 1: the Obama lovers, the four percent of DC that voted
Speaker 1: for Trump. It gives the permanent state the power to
Speaker 1: destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. And then he adds,
Speaker 1: this is what what police states do in the past.
Speaker 1: That has been considered scandalous for senior US officials to
Speaker 1: even request the identities of US officials that were incidentally
Speaker 1: monitored by the government, which was the case of Flynn.
Speaker 1: Here and Flynden remembered all the fact that the intercepts
Speaker 1: of Flynn's conversations with his Russian counterpart appeared to have
Speaker 1: been widely distributed inside the government as a red flag.
Speaker 1: This is the head of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunia said,
Speaker 1: he was by the way, don't these guys have better
Speaker 1: things to do, like monitor ISIS and monitor Russia and
Speaker 1: Iran and China and all of our enemies abroad. This
Speaker 1: is what the intelligence community is doing. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I have great respect for the intelligence community. But there
Speaker 1: are certainly people that are acting improperly here and certain people,
Speaker 1: as I believe, I think that Kenneth Timmerman is right
Speaker 1: that you know this this shadow warriors that have all
Speaker 1: this information, all this intelligence, all this power, that don't
Speaker 1: like the president and are leaking it repeatedly, as even
Speaker 1: Time magazine Sam Frazel and his column gives a list
Speaker 1: of everything that they've done up to this point, and
Speaker 1: I mentioned it in the last half hour. Look, you
Speaker 1: gotta understand here, the all radical left is hell bent
Speaker 1: on preventing Trump to be successful. I want to know
Speaker 1: what liberals fear the most. Trump is going to succeed.
Speaker 1: You want to know what the bureaucracy fears the most
Speaker 1: Trump's success. It's raining the swamp. And that's the reason.
Speaker 1: Gorka is under fire, Kelly Ann is under fire, Bannon
Speaker 1: is under fire, Miller, Miller is under fire, rans is
Speaker 1: under fire. You know, the president's children, including his ten
Speaker 1: year old son, or under fire for crying out loud
Speaker 1: one by one right out of a lynskey one oh one.
Speaker 1: What they're doing is their systematically going down a line
Speaker 1: of people close to the president and trying to take
Speaker 1: them out and discredit the president. That's what's happening. Pick
Speaker 1: the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. That's a lynskey.
Speaker 1: That's what they're doing. They smell blood in the water.
Speaker 1: That's why Democrats and the alt radical left media of
Speaker 1: bringing up impeachment. What did he know and when did
Speaker 1: he know it? What did he know? The White House
Speaker 1: counsel told them there was no law breaking here, and
Speaker 1: then they were fully investigating, and then it became an
Speaker 1: issue of what he told the Vice president. It really
Speaker 1: is that simple. The larger more important question is who
Speaker 1: in the intelligence community, which I'm sure has political affinity
Speaker 1: for Obama and and Serve the former president, is involved
Speaker 1: in all of this. That to me is the exact
Speaker 1: same say, the bigger question that needs to be investigated
Speaker 1: in Congress, better get off their ass and get their
Speaker 1: heads out of their ass, and they better start investigating
Speaker 1: because these guys right now are winning and that blood
Speaker 1: in the water is gonna even bring more of this,
Speaker 1: not less of this. Top House Democrats ripped outgoing National
Speaker 1: Security Advisor Flynn from a tweet sent from a fake
Speaker 1: account purported to be Flynn's and it becomes fake news.
Speaker 1: The account of General Mike Flynn tweeted earlier Tuesday that
Speaker 1: is being made into a scapegopers contact with the Russian government.
Speaker 1: It wasn't Flynn's account. This is how bad and how
Speaker 1: ill prepared the media is. They've had a political earthquake
Speaker 1: and political movement unlike anything they've seen in their lifetime,
Speaker 1: and they can't handle it. All they want to do
Speaker 1: is fixate on on following the rabbit like a greyhound
Speaker 1: in a track, and they mel blood in the water,
Speaker 1: teaching the president. That's their goal. They've even said it,
Speaker 1: Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi. They're trying to make anything into
Speaker 1: the next water Gate. They've ignored Hillary Clinton. They defended
Speaker 1: a private email server, they defended the corruption pay to
Speaker 1: play at the Clinton Foundation, they defended her endless lies.
Speaker 1: They were silent when Obama was caught on a Hawk
Speaker 1: Mike talking to Dmitri Medvedev saying, oh uh, Dmitri, Dmitri, listen,
Speaker 1: tell Vladimir that, you know, I'll have a lot more flexibility.
Speaker 1: I'll have flexibility of tell tell them as soon as
Speaker 1: I'm elected, but I'll tell me about the people have
Speaker 1: more flexible dispersed the listener, unbelievable. There's no secret that
Speaker 1: Flynn had a rocky relationship with the national security establishment
Speaker 1: when in the Obama administration. He said that was previously
Speaker 1: forced out of that government for speaking up about the
Speaker 1: rise of radical Islam. They already had a a a prejudice,
Speaker 1: if you will, a prejudgment towards him, and a hate
Speaker 1: towards him. And then the endless leaks about the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: You know, Devin Noon is saying, what this is? Ever
Speaker 1: since Trump ran for president, there has been a witch hunt,
Speaker 1: and they don't want Ivanka. They just loved collateral damage.
Speaker 1: They're not looking for Jared, they're not looking for Ryans,
Speaker 1: they're not looking for Flynn, they're not looking for Bannon,
Speaker 1: they're not looking for Miller. Their goal is to get
Speaker 1: the president and prevent him from training the swamp and
Speaker 1: their lives and their very existence as establishment media, establishment lobbyists,
Speaker 1: establishment Democrats, and weak need, weak spine, pathetically uh, pathetic
Speaker 1: Republicans that can't keep promises. They don't want the pressure
Speaker 1: of having to actually do some work, and they want
Speaker 1: him to go to And the hell would the people
Speaker 1: on food stamps and poverty and that are out of
Speaker 1: the labor force. The hell with our national security going
Speaker 1: down the tops. It doesn't matter, John Hannity, there's nothing
Speaker 1: that you don't think about it this way. Is there
Speaker 1: any one cabinet official that the Democrats would support. No?
Speaker 1: Is there anyone family member of Donald Trump that's not
Speaker 1: been attacked. No? Is there any one court appointment he's
Speaker 1: gonna make that's not going to be attacked. No? Is
Speaker 1: there any policy that's not going to be attacked. I
Speaker 1: said this all to you is going to happen. If
Speaker 1: it's extreme vetting, they'll oppose it. If it's Neil Gorsuch
Speaker 1: or an originalists of any kind on the court, they'll
Speaker 1: they'll oppose it. Repealing replacing, they will oppose it. Energy independence,
Speaker 1: they will oppose it. Building the wall, they will oppose it.
Speaker 1: Tax cuts will be characterized even though they're for the
Speaker 1: middle class, for the rich, and for businesses. Wealthy businesses. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the people that hire people in Detroit and Cleveland and Milwaukee. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all gonna happen. There's nothing Trump won't do that
Speaker 1: won't cause this insane reaction will continue. This. We're going
Speaker 1: to do whatever is necessary to keep our country safe.
Speaker 1: We will not allow people into our country who are
Speaker 1: looking to do harm to a people. This is keeping
Speaker 1: American people safe, and they has a market. This is
Speaker 1: about a band on Muslims that is unconstitutional and amoral.
Speaker 1: This executive order is so bad and so poisoned, and
Speaker 1: its genesis is so bad and terrible that he ought
Speaker 1: to just throw it in the trash can. Freedom is
Speaker 1: back in style. Welcome to the Revolution. The new seawan
Speaker 1: Nnity Show more be I'm the Scenes, information on breaking news,
Speaker 1: and more bold inspired solutions for America. We've been reviewing
Speaker 1: and evaluating this issue with respect to General Flynn on
Speaker 1: a daily basis for a few weeks, trying to ascertain
Speaker 1: the truth. We got to a point not based on
Speaker 1: a legal issue, were based on a tru stissue, with
Speaker 1: a level of trust between the President and General Flynn
Speaker 1: had eroded to the point where he felt he had
Speaker 1: to make a change. The President was very concerned that
Speaker 1: General Flynn had misled the Vice President and others. He
Speaker 1: was also very concerned, in light of sensitive subjects dealt
Speaker 1: with by that position of national security advisors, like China,
Speaker 1: North Korea, and the Middle East, that the President must
Speaker 1: have complete and unwavering trust for the person in that position.
Speaker 1: The evolving an eroding level of trust as a result
Speaker 1: of this situation in a series of other questionable instances,
Speaker 1: is what led the President to ask for General Flynn's resignation.
Speaker 1: Immediately after the Department of Justice notified the White House
Speaker 1: Council of the situation, The White House Counsel briefed the
Speaker 1: President and a small group of the senior advisors. The
Speaker 1: White House Council reviewed and determined that there is not
Speaker 1: an illegal issue, but rather a trust issue. All right.
Speaker 1: That was Shawn Spicer at the press conference that I well,
Speaker 1: he's the White House or Press secretary. Eight nine for one,
Speaker 1: Shawn told free telephone number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. We continue our top story today
Speaker 1: and that is General Flynn is now stepping down from
Speaker 1: his position. And of course this has a lot to
Speaker 1: do with I think a political assassination, as Eli Lake
Speaker 1: writes in his piece earlier today, and he'll be joining
Speaker 1: us later in the program. But I think what we're
Speaker 1: watching is a lot bigger, and I think you're watching systematically,
Speaker 1: one by one in you know, right out of the
Speaker 1: o Lynskey handbook, isolating targeting, you know, one person around
Speaker 1: the president at a time. The media has ignored the
Speaker 1: success of Trump, the political earthquake that has taken place
Speaker 1: under their feet. And you've got the giant swamp now,
Speaker 1: which is the establishment in d C. You've got the
Speaker 1: media establishment, the Democratic establishment, you've got the lobbyist establishment,
Speaker 1: and the Republican establishment not liking all the changes that
Speaker 1: are coming their way and and changing the way they
Speaker 1: do things there. But think about it that he've even
Speaker 1: gone after Baron Trump, who's ten years old. In the media,
Speaker 1: they've stopped Eric Trump for raising money for St. Jude's Hospital.
Speaker 1: They've gone after and said everything about Melania Trump. Uh,
Speaker 1: They've gone after Steve Bannon, They've gone after Rents, They've
Speaker 1: gone after you know, this week, it's been Stephen the Miller.
Speaker 1: Prior to that, it was Kelly in And what they're
Speaker 1: really after is the president himself. And this is a
Speaker 1: seek and destroy mission. And when you look at the
Speaker 1: utter hypocrisy of if national security issues such as this
Speaker 1: matter as much as the media is claiming, then they
Speaker 1: certainly would have paid a lot more attention. There would
Speaker 1: have been a lot more hyper ventilating in their reporting
Speaker 1: as it relates to Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, the
Speaker 1: money that foreign countries paid them, the quid pro quo,
Speaker 1: the email server scandal. We have an email she's purposely
Speaker 1: trying to by pass oversight by Congress, putting in an
Speaker 1: email server inside of a mom and pop shop closet
Speaker 1: bathroom and lying about it repeatedly. Here with some perspective,
Speaker 1: a guy who's been around the block just a time
Speaker 1: or two is Patrick J. Buchanan. How are you, sir?
Speaker 1: John Fine shown. I think it's too bad that the
Speaker 1: officer who has served his country as well as General
Speaker 1: Flynn did, and and when you, whatever your views about
Speaker 1: General Flynn's particular views on foreign policy, it's sad to
Speaker 1: see someone, after three weeks, when he's reached the pinnacle
Speaker 1: of his career, go out like this. But there's I
Speaker 1: tell you you were right in your introduction. Uh, they're
Speaker 1: going to go directly for the President on this one.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you where they're going to go at
Speaker 1: him on. The question is going to be that, did
Speaker 1: Mr President, did you authorize General Flynn to talk to
Speaker 1: the Russian ambassador about the sanctions? Did he tell you
Speaker 1: about his conversation and what he told the ambassador about
Speaker 1: sanctions and the possibility you would take a different approach?
Speaker 1: And were you aware that when General Flynn spoke publicly
Speaker 1: that and told the Vice President that he had not
Speaker 1: mentioned anything like that, were you aware that the general
Speaker 1: was not telling the truth at the time of the
Speaker 1: full truth? Well, all those questions were answered by Sean
Speaker 1: Spicer today at the White House briefing. Every one of
Speaker 1: those questions. No, he said he did not know. He
Speaker 1: didn't know, And again it came down to an issue
Speaker 1: of trust. The issue that they're raising here is that
Speaker 1: he didn't tell the Vice president everything, and he apologized
Speaker 1: publicly to the president, and vice President said they accepted
Speaker 1: his apology on that, And according to the transcripts that
Speaker 1: were released as as it relates to the conversations, the
Speaker 1: conversation show that, in fact, it was the Russians that
Speaker 1: brought it up to him. So now the question is, Okay,
Speaker 1: why didn't he say that. I don't know the answer
Speaker 1: to it, But I think the broader question here is,
Speaker 1: you know they're out for blood. But my question is
Speaker 1: still on General Friend. It's the suggestion I didn't hear
Speaker 1: a spicer on for the way you've described it. I
Speaker 1: heard the later part of it. The question is where
Speaker 1: General Flynn freelancing on his own and giving some kind
Speaker 1: of assurance to the Russians about sanctions or how the
Speaker 1: president would react or what the President elect excuse me,
Speaker 1: would like the Russians to do. And because that's a
Speaker 1: real assertion of authority, that would be that frankly, a
Speaker 1: you know, a national security advisor should never take without
Speaker 1: this precise authorization or direction of the president. Well, they
Speaker 1: could have talked about it more broadly in meetings, Pat,
Speaker 1: I mean think about it. I would have I would
Speaker 1: assume that the President didn't like or had probably had
Speaker 1: a disagreement that he verbalized many times in many meetings
Speaker 1: about his position about what's going to happen. I think, Sean,
Speaker 1: you take a McCain and those other folks, some of
Speaker 1: the folks that are really out have no enthusiasm for
Speaker 1: the president and who smells something here? And I think
Speaker 1: this is where they're going to go at him and
Speaker 1: I But don't you don't you think it's more goal
Speaker 1: is really there to get the president? Certainly the media
Speaker 1: and uh And there was a good piece in the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal today in the editor what are these
Speaker 1: guys doing u uh, you know, over hearing listening and
Speaker 1: recording conversations of the National Security Advisor, etcetera. They claim
Speaker 1: they picked it up on the on the Russian ambassador alone. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's a great question. But they
Speaker 1: would listen. Knowing the president as well as I do,
Speaker 1: and having talked to him in the interim between that
Speaker 1: time when he was elected and he was putting his
Speaker 1: government together, I know he talked at length about all
Speaker 1: of the things that he would want to do. Now,
Speaker 1: he didn't talk to me specifically about this, but I mean,
Speaker 1: generally just reiterating that he wants to fulfill his promises.
Speaker 1: So let me say so, so hang on made my point.
Speaker 1: I would assume pat that General Flynn hurt his opinions
Speaker 1: about the issue of Russia and Obama and whether or
Speaker 1: not he agreed or disagreed with them. I mean, let
Speaker 1: me say this. I think that if the President elect
Speaker 1: older view and even told General Flynn looked, you know,
Speaker 1: when you talk to the ambassador, um, you know, tell
Speaker 1: the ambassador not to overreact to this stuff, I have
Speaker 1: no problem with him doing that. Quite frankly neither. Why
Speaker 1: you know, what they're saying is that this is a
Speaker 1: violation of the Logan Act, which bans unauthorized US citizens
Speaker 1: from communicating with foreign government independitentiary for life. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: because the countries all over the world negotiating deals and
Speaker 1: and and twenty minutes, you know, and twenty days later,
Speaker 1: he's about to be the National Security Advisor. But no,
Speaker 1: he can only do it the minute he's he's he's um,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess sworn in. I mean, to me,
Speaker 1: the whole thing is silly in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: But let me tell you a story. And when I
Speaker 1: when Nixon was elected, I had contacts with the Russians
Speaker 1: and I'm sure the guy with kg D and it
Speaker 1: was in December, I believe, and he called me up
Speaker 1: and said he would like to see me, and I
Speaker 1: gave you know, went to see the guy and wrote
Speaker 1: up a report on exactly what he asked so you
Speaker 1: could find out his questions were. But you informed your guys.
Speaker 1: I've gotn't informed the government, but I did inform. I
Speaker 1: believe it was Dr Kissinger or his shop at the time.
Speaker 1: So I don't see any problem here with that or
Speaker 1: even with what Trump did. And and my problem here
Speaker 1: is that did it frankly, do you think that that
Speaker 1: the general fell on his sword here? But what's the
Speaker 1: reason for falling on his sword that? In other words,
Speaker 1: that the print that the president told him to directed
Speaker 1: to talk to them baby, and he's trying to protect
Speaker 1: that knowledge. Maybe that you say, suggesting that the president
Speaker 1: did it, or you suggesting that the president told him
Speaker 1: to do it, I mean the president elect looking and
Speaker 1: it would I would have no problem with it if
Speaker 1: he had done this, which is to say, you know,
Speaker 1: when you're talking to the ambassador, I don't tell him
Speaker 1: for heaven sakes you guys, you're not overreacted. These sanctions.
Speaker 1: Have no problem with him making that state myself. And
Speaker 1: they talked about the Logan Act or whatever. And if
Speaker 1: I had less didn't throw out all our diplomats is
Speaker 1: a good thing. I totally completely agree with you, because
Speaker 1: it would have precipitated a crisis. And if he was
Speaker 1: trying to calm the waters and say there's a new
Speaker 1: chief coming into town, then chief executive coming into town,
Speaker 1: that I don't see a problem. Uh, you know, But
Speaker 1: I do think there's a broader issue here is if
Speaker 1: you look at you know, Steve Miller went on the
Speaker 1: Sunday Shows and and how NBC has put him in
Speaker 1: dark black and white demonization and what they did to
Speaker 1: Bannon and the cover of Time magazine. I thought he
Speaker 1: was great this week and agree with you at it
Speaker 1: reminds me of you, Patton, with a little bit more,
Speaker 1: I know. But the point is, I think what's happening
Speaker 1: here is broader. They've gone They've avoided the political earthquake
Speaker 1: and the success that Donald Trump has had, and all
Speaker 1: they're doing is one by one trying to demonize and
Speaker 1: pick off all the guys around him, getting as much
Speaker 1: collateral damage to discredit him as possible. But with their
Speaker 1: ultimate goal is you know, to use Eli Lake's column today,
Speaker 1: he called it the plitical assassination of Michael Flynn. But
Speaker 1: really it's about Trump. Really, I think you're exactly right. First,
Speaker 1: I think they want to break Trump's agenda, and the
Speaker 1: things he campaigned on and what he promised he would
Speaker 1: do are going to be very difficult in this city,
Speaker 1: more difficult than even I thought they were going to be.
Speaker 1: And they're after him on those. And secondarily, they want
Speaker 1: to get rid of him personally. And there's folks any
Speaker 1: way to embarrass or damage or drive him down in
Speaker 1: the polls so they can't realize the agenda he ran on.
Speaker 1: I could not agree with you more on that. Even
Speaker 1: there are bigger problems that got hopes hopes invested here
Speaker 1: and uh and and we are concerned about what we're saying.
Speaker 1: Aren't you as concerned as I am at who in
Speaker 1: the in the intelligence community leaked these phone calls? You know?
Speaker 1: That should be investigated by the guy. I mean, that
Speaker 1: should be investigated internally by Pompio at the at the
Speaker 1: CIA and and anybody at the FBI to find out
Speaker 1: who did this exactly and run that down. That is
Speaker 1: a horrendous standal, unbelievable because doesn't that suggest to you
Speaker 1: that that maybe Paul Sperry was right. There are their
Speaker 1: Obama Hillary supporters within the intelligence community angry at Trump.
Speaker 1: I want to undermine the astonished if there weren't, I
Speaker 1: mean many of these agents. Donald Trump got four of
Speaker 1: the Voteshton d c hang on one second, friendly a
Speaker 1: city he's entered. Yeah, that's true. All right, stay right there.
Speaker 1: A couple more minutes with Pat you Cannon one Shawn
Speaker 1: told free telephone number. Also, we are going to get
Speaker 1: back to the story with author Eli Lake who wrote
Speaker 1: that this is the political assassination of of Mike Flynn.
Speaker 1: We'll get to all of that and more faith I'll
Speaker 1: find it here there now right as we continue with
Speaker 1: Patrick J. Buchant in our top story today, and that
Speaker 1: is the resignation of General Flynn as National Security Advisor
Speaker 1: or he has been let go, depending on how you
Speaker 1: want to characterize it. I want to put together two
Speaker 1: different pieces that have come out. One has to do
Speaker 1: with Eli Lake's column, which is this is a political
Speaker 1: assassination and all the leaky from all the intelligence communities.
Speaker 1: And the second one is from Paul Sperry, where he
Speaker 1: wrote how Obama's scheming to sabotage Trump's presidency as you
Speaker 1: look at the big picture in the attack on every
Speaker 1: single person around the president and the president himself at
Speaker 1: the while Washington ignores all of these major changes in
Speaker 1: success that he's had in US a few weeks. Do
Speaker 1: you see what I see? And that is an orchestrated
Speaker 1: attempt by all the different you know, straining the swamp components,
Speaker 1: which is the media component, establishment, the Republican establishment, democratic establishment,
Speaker 1: lobbying establishment. Do you see them converging together and partnering
Speaker 1: in this effort to smear, slander, besmirch, and literally a
Speaker 1: race a Trump presidency if they can. I certainly do
Speaker 1: you know what I want to within the into the
Speaker 1: White House with Nixon earlier and I said, we're like
Speaker 1: the dust on a tabletop. I mean, you've got a
Speaker 1: few hundred, even when you get fully staffed, a couple
Speaker 1: of thousand people in there, and you've got a mamithed
Speaker 1: bureaucracy which is by and large totally hostile built up
Speaker 1: in the Great Society, a new deal, and this, this
Speaker 1: bureaucracy built up under Obama is totally hostile to the
Speaker 1: agenda of Donald J. Trump because he threatens everything they
Speaker 1: believe in. Now, a real question here, Sean, is the
Speaker 1: we've expelled all the Russian diplomats. President Obama did throw
Speaker 1: him out of the country, and A apparently they were
Speaker 1: upset or surprised that the Russians didn't retaliate, which is
Speaker 1: I think one of the motives were going after all
Speaker 1: this material question interesting question was this design to sabotage
Speaker 1: a Trump foreign policy with regard to Russia before Trump
Speaker 1: got even into office. What is the motivation for these
Speaker 1: folks here, as you mentioned, who would being all these
Speaker 1: people control who are looking over and recording and taping
Speaker 1: what the general said and leaking it all out. I mean,
Speaker 1: what beneficent purpose do they have in mind in doing this,
Speaker 1: Even it's not to damage and destroy the Trump administration
Speaker 1: before it even gets into into power. It's so it's
Speaker 1: really really chilling. You know, Wiki Leaks actually came out
Speaker 1: with a theory today, and I don't disagree with them
Speaker 1: on this either, because I think it's you know, they
Speaker 1: may have sources that Sean Hannity and Pat Buchannon don't
Speaker 1: have and they might be reading things that none of
Speaker 1: us know about, but they're suggesting on a pretty high
Speaker 1: level that in fact this was the intelligence community. Well
Speaker 1: you know, they would not would not surprise me in
Speaker 1: the least. But again we get back to I don't
Speaker 1: know the problem here. I don't know exactly, to be honest,
Speaker 1: what exactly General Flynn did wrong if, as you suggest,
Speaker 1: the ambassadors talking about this on the phone and the
Speaker 1: call from from the general, and the General says something
Speaker 1: like we hope you don't overreact to this, and for
Speaker 1: heaven's sakes, I don't find any of that that any
Speaker 1: if it's what if it's what if it's deeper than that.
Speaker 1: What if he said specifically, well, when we get in,
Speaker 1: we're gonna fix this. Look, it's gonna be a new
Speaker 1: day here in a month or so. We please don't overreact,
Speaker 1: that's a natural response. I don't understand, frankly, why the
Speaker 1: general if he said that didn't help, you know, pens this.
Speaker 1: I did say that. I did say that because I
Speaker 1: don't see anything wrong with it, And frankly, the average
Speaker 1: individual with it is what Trump has been saying the
Speaker 1: whole campaign. When I get in, the policy toward Russia
Speaker 1: is going to change. We're gonna try to work with
Speaker 1: him if we can. We're gonna bring him into the
Speaker 1: bottom against PAP. You can and always appreciate your insight.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being with us. Eight for one, Shawn
Speaker 1: told free telephone number. We'll get back to this in
Speaker 1: our news round up Information Overload hour at the top
Speaker 1: of the hour end. We'll get your calls in. When
Speaker 1: we come back, you'll meet two people. The battle over
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is heating up. Let's
Speaker 1: talk to people who really know them too, people who
Speaker 1: clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Anthony and Scalia
Speaker 1: and much more. Straight ahead, let me you're from the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, if I understand correctly, UM, so you're
Speaker 1: aware of law enforcement? How many arrests have there been
Speaker 1: to foreign nationals for those seven countries since your honor?
Speaker 1: I don't have that information. I'm from the Civil Division
Speaker 1: if that, If that helps give me off the hook
Speaker 1: any well, let me tell you the answer to that
Speaker 1: is none as best I can tell. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know you're you're here arguing on behalf of someone
Speaker 1: that says we have to protect the United States from
Speaker 1: these individuals coming from these countries, and there's no support
Speaker 1: for that. Yeah. And I think the point is that
Speaker 1: because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this
Speaker 1: is in an area where Congress has delegated authority to
Speaker 1: the President to make these determinations, it's the President that
Speaker 1: gets to make the determinations, and the Court doesn't have
Speaker 1: authority to look behind those determinations. They're essentially like determinations
Speaker 1: that are committed to agency discretion. And we do think
Speaker 1: that despite planets claim that Clindings, the Manzell is directly
Speaker 1: on point um and that if the if the if
Speaker 1: the four corners of the executive Executive Order off of
Speaker 1: facially legitimate and bona fide reason for it, which they
Speaker 1: do here, that that the Court can't look behind that. Well,
Speaker 1: I cancil, I understand that from your from your papers,
Speaker 1: and you any very force presented that argument. But I'm
Speaker 1: also asked to look and determine if the executive Order
Speaker 1: is irrationally based. And rationally based to me implies that
Speaker 1: to some extent I have to find it grounded in
Speaker 1: facts as opposed to fiction. The Court finds that for
Speaker 1: purposes of the entry of the temporary restraining order, that
Speaker 1: the state has met its burden of demonstrating that it
Speaker 1: faces immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the
Speaker 1: signing and implementation of the executive order. I find that
Speaker 1: the state has satisfied the test that it is likely
Speaker 1: to succeed on the merits of the claim, which would
Speaker 1: entitle them to relief. I find that the balance of
Speaker 1: equities favor the States, And lastly, I find that a
Speaker 1: temporary restraining order is in the public interest. If I
Speaker 1: were to apply the Nine Circuits alternative test, I would
Speaker 1: find that the states have established a question, a serious question,
Speaker 1: going to the merits, and that the balance of equities
Speaker 1: tips sharply in their favor. Pass such, I find that
Speaker 1: the court should and will grant the temporary restraining order.
Speaker 1: All right. That, of course, was the Seattle Judge Robard
Speaker 1: who made that initial ruling out in Yattle, which then
Speaker 1: led to the Ninth Circuit. And of course I make
Speaker 1: the case that I believe this was an instance of
Speaker 1: judge shopping because they went to a liberal court knowing
Speaker 1: it go to the Ninth Circuit on appeal, and the
Speaker 1: decision about what's going to happen with the administration on
Speaker 1: the executive order is still forthcoming. Um. It has been
Speaker 1: one year since the tragic death of I think one
Speaker 1: of the most brilliant jurist justices in the history of
Speaker 1: the country, Anthony and Scalia and Neil Gorsiche. Now, if
Speaker 1: you think this battle over the National Security Advisor General
Speaker 1: Flynn is bad, we'll just wait till Neil Gorsach and
Speaker 1: his hearings begin. We don't use the term borking as
Speaker 1: a verb very often, but we know what they did,
Speaker 1: and I played it before. What they've done. A Judge
Speaker 1: Robert Bork another genius when it comes to the law,
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and of course legality and the role of
Speaker 1: government and each particular branch of government. And Neil Gorcich,
Speaker 1: by the way, none of his opinions have been overturned
Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court. In more than a decade on
Speaker 1: the Federal Appeals Court. Not one of his writ and
Speaker 1: opinions was overturned by the Supreme Court. Not one. He
Speaker 1: has shown the same judicial originalist constitutionalist philosophy of Judge
Speaker 1: Anton Injustice Anton and Scalia and somebody like, for example,
Speaker 1: Justice Clarence Thomas. Now the question is how far will
Speaker 1: the left going trying to demonize him. Anyway, we might
Speaker 1: get a little bit of insight from Matthew Owens and
Speaker 1: Michael uh kenneely is with us, both clerking for Supreme
Speaker 1: Court Justice Anthony Scalia. And Uh, first of all, it's
Speaker 1: I know it's a year since you lost this great man,
Speaker 1: and Uh, I thought some prayers go out to him
Speaker 1: and his wife and his family, and uh and both
Speaker 1: of you as well. I'm sure you had a great
Speaker 1: fondness for him. Matthew, Yeah, definitely we did. And thank
Speaker 1: you very much for saying that. I know all of
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia's law Clarks took his death very hard. He
Speaker 1: was not just a mentor to us, but a lion
Speaker 1: of the law and a kind of patriarch of our
Speaker 1: of our movement, a little bit um for for conservatism
Speaker 1: in the law, and it was very a hard year
Speaker 1: without him. Michael, I remember a speech in particularly the
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia gave when he explained what it is to
Speaker 1: be an originalist. You remember that speech, sure, explain it well.
Speaker 1: Originalism is the philosophy that the Constitution means today what
Speaker 1: it meant when it was enacted, and if you want
Speaker 1: to change what it means, you have to pass the
Speaker 1: Constitutional Amendment, which is the mechanism at the Constitution itself
Speaker 1: provides for changing it. Um. You can't go to court
Speaker 1: and ask a judge to change it because they because
Speaker 1: you think that the original meaning of the Constitution is
Speaker 1: no longer a good one. In other words, it's no
Speaker 1: longer valid. And this is where the great divide in
Speaker 1: the country is because there are those of us that
Speaker 1: I believe in originalism myself, and I believe in separation
Speaker 1: of powers and coequal branches of government. But I argue
Speaker 1: that the left in this country, what they can never
Speaker 1: get done at the ballot box by arguing before the
Speaker 1: American people are making a case for elective office, what
Speaker 1: they could not get done legislatively, they try to rely
Speaker 1: on the courts through judicial activism to impose on the
Speaker 1: American people. Is that true? Yeah? I mean, in some ways,
Speaker 1: originalism puts a lot of faith in UM the people
Speaker 1: to uh put forward the laws that they think are
Speaker 1: best for governing them. And that was one of the
Speaker 1: arguments that Justice scale would always give to it. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're in a democracy and the people
Speaker 1: are sovereign um. Going to the courts and asking unelected
Speaker 1: judges to create new laws is completely intention with that
Speaker 1: commitment to democracy. And don't, Matthew, don't we see that
Speaker 1: on a fairly regular basis from the courts. Look at
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit. I think it's about eighty percent over
Speaker 1: the years there that they're overturned by the Supreme Court. Well,
Speaker 1: you see a lot of courts that think it's their
Speaker 1: job too to read into the Constitution the policy ideas
Speaker 1: that they like. Uh. And you know, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: when Justice Sallee was there, didn't didn't always didn't always
Speaker 1: like that. He used to say that, you know, if
Speaker 1: you're opposed to death penalty, you should convince your neighbors
Speaker 1: that you're right and pass a law. You don't need
Speaker 1: to come to court and try to convince a judge
Speaker 1: to pretend that the Constitution has anything to say about that.
Speaker 1: Tell me that that philosophy protects democracy. Explain what what
Speaker 1: judicial activism is to you. Well, for me, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the term can be can be a little
Speaker 1: hard to define, but it should mean when a judge
Speaker 1: looks to something other than the law to decide a case,
Speaker 1: when he looks to his his own feelings or political
Speaker 1: views or something other than what the people's elected representatives
Speaker 1: have passed into a statute or what the founders ratified
Speaker 1: in the constitution, when you look beyond that to try
Speaker 1: to to try to put social policy into the constitution,
Speaker 1: because it's it's your own political views. That to me
Speaker 1: as activist, I just played Justice Road part out in Seattle,
Speaker 1: and here he made a statement that was factually at accurate.
Speaker 1: He made the statement, well since nine eleven he was
Speaker 1: he was asking the Justice Department, lawyer, has there been
Speaker 1: any instances of any of the seven people? As far
Speaker 1: as I can tell, none? He said, you have committed
Speaker 1: acts of terrorism. In fact, we have now been able
Speaker 1: to identify seventy two separate cases of people from those
Speaker 1: seven countries. What does it mean when a when a
Speaker 1: judge get something wrong on the facts like that, Michael,
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm testing you guys in law school,
Speaker 1: by the way, I want to see how it's always
Speaker 1: troubling when when you know judges make mistakes of any kind,
Speaker 1: whether it's legal or factual. I mean, one of the
Speaker 1: good things about our system is that, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: that's the kind of UH issue that can get litigated fully.
Speaker 1: You know, we're at a very early stage in that case.
Speaker 1: And UM, eventually the challenges are going to have to
Speaker 1: put on a factual evidence to support their challenge, UM,
Speaker 1: because the challenges they bear the burden of proof, as
Speaker 1: I understand it. UM. So you know, I think at
Speaker 1: the end of this we're at a very early stage
Speaker 1: of the litigation. I think by the end of it
Speaker 1: will have all those issues fully aired in court. If
Speaker 1: you are going to advise, both of you, what are
Speaker 1: your current actions? Are you in a position away in
Speaker 1: on your own own judicial philosophy here, both of you,
Speaker 1: because I want to ask you if you were to
Speaker 1: advise the Trump administration on the best way to go forward.
Speaker 1: They have a number of options. One they can go
Speaker 1: back to the Seattle judge and and argue the case there,
Speaker 1: or they could try once again at at the Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals as I understand it, Or they
Speaker 1: could bring it to the Supreme Court, where then Justice
Speaker 1: Kennedy would have an opportunity to either make a decision
Speaker 1: one way or the other or bring it to the
Speaker 1: entire Supreme Court. If you were to advise or they
Speaker 1: could rewrite the entire Executive Order and start over. If
Speaker 1: you were to advise the administration, Matthew, I'll start with you,
Speaker 1: what would you do? What would you advise them? To
Speaker 1: be honest with you, Sean, I am not in a
Speaker 1: in a position where I can where I can comment
Speaker 1: on that. I think that all of those options are
Speaker 1: the ones that they will consider. Um. I know that
Speaker 1: there's been some whispering that they might rewrite the Executive
Speaker 1: Order and try to clean it up a little bit
Speaker 1: and start over. Well, we've had Jay Seculo, I'm sure
Speaker 1: both of you know, from the American Center for Law
Speaker 1: and Justice on and he actually rewrote his own version
Speaker 1: and said if he did those things, it would make it,
Speaker 1: you know, fairly bulletproof if it ever got to the
Speaker 1: entire Supreme Court. He predicted eight oh, and that's of
Speaker 1: course without Neil Gors. Michael, Yeah, Well, it's one of those, uh,
Speaker 1: one of those things where, um, it's a tough decision
Speaker 1: for the president because you know, he has to sort
Speaker 1: of wigh getting what he thinks is in the national
Speaker 1: security interests of the country in place immediately versus um
Speaker 1: avoiding you know, protracted litigation it's a it's a tough decision.
Speaker 1: I'm sure his advisors are weighing your options carefully. Last question,
Speaker 1: because you both clerked for antonin Scalia, Michael, I'll start
Speaker 1: with you, tell us some anecdote about this great judicial
Speaker 1: philosophy mind that I think people would enjoy hearing well.
Speaker 1: I think you know, it's it's evident to a lot
Speaker 1: of people on the outside just what a uh, you know,
Speaker 1: brilliant guy he was, and how deeply principled. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that sometimes gets lost in the popular
Speaker 1: portray al says him is just how happy he was
Speaker 1: in life. You know, he's sort of portrayed as a
Speaker 1: curmudgeon a lot of the time, and he could have,
Speaker 1: you know, his bad days as much as anyone. But
Speaker 1: he was just jade viev kind of guy. We had
Speaker 1: just a week before he died. A tradition in chambers
Speaker 1: is to have a birthday party whenever one of the
Speaker 1: chamber staff or clerks is celebrating a birthday, And just
Speaker 1: the week before he died, we had one of my
Speaker 1: co clerks was celebrating a birthday and he would like
Speaker 1: nothing more than leading the whole group in a spirited
Speaker 1: singing of Happy Birthday, so I'll always remember that as
Speaker 1: a happy By the way, on the Court, I think
Speaker 1: it was the funniest justice I ever heard. When you
Speaker 1: listen to you can't see them, but at times when
Speaker 1: they release oral arguments, he cracked me up um and
Speaker 1: with an incredible wit and sense of humor in a
Speaker 1: biting commentary. If he felt like at Matthew last word,
Speaker 1: we got about twenty seconds. Sure, I'll echo what Michael says.
Speaker 1: He was. He was full of life. He was a
Speaker 1: great tradition at the Court to have a Christmas party
Speaker 1: for everyone who works there, and everyone who went always
Speaker 1: knew Justice Glee was gonna sing a duet of usually
Speaker 1: good King Winces List or something like that. He was
Speaker 1: the life of the life of the party building. And
Speaker 1: one last, last last question, do you guys know Neil Gorsuch? Yes?
Speaker 1: One simple yes and yes or no question. Do both
Speaker 1: of you believe that he shares the judicial philosophy of
Speaker 1: antonin Scalia? Matthew, Yeah, yes he does. Michael I agree. Alright, alright,
Speaker 1: thank you guys, all right when we come back. Uh.
Speaker 1: Eli Lake wrote an article the political assassination of National
Speaker 1: Security Adviser General Michael Flynn, and then we have Paul
Speaker 1: Sperry he wrote about a shadow government of Obama, and
Speaker 1: Patrick Poole. All coming up. Our top story, the resignation
Speaker 1: well firing of General Michael Flynn, will get to that next.
Speaker 1: The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up. Next,
Speaker 1: hang on for John's conservative solutions. All right, as we
Speaker 1: continue Sean Hannity Show News Round Up Information overload. At
Speaker 1: the top of the next hour, Eli Lake writing a
Speaker 1: pretty provocative column the political assassination of Michael Flynn, Paul
Speaker 1: Sperry talking about an Obama shadow government, and also Patrick
Speaker 1: pool All check in as we get to the resignation
Speaker 1: or slash firing of General Michael Flynn. Let's go back
Speaker 1: to our busy telephones here as we say Hi to
Speaker 1: Carry is in Texas. Carry, how are you? Glad you called? Hey?
Speaker 1: Mr Hannity, How are you today? I'm good? What's going on? Well?
Speaker 1: Happy VALENTI stay to you, your family, yours, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. Happy Valentine's Day to you, and I hope,
Speaker 1: I hope the guys in your life took care of
Speaker 1: you absolutely well. Um. I wanted to use your platform
Speaker 1: today to inform your listeners, UM about a few things
Speaker 1: that I know that happened in the state of Texas.
Speaker 1: UM living here my whole life and having seen it firsthand. UM.
Speaker 1: The things that aren't brought up. And this is regarding
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, and these are the things that don't really
Speaker 1: get a lot of attention. And I'm not sure a
Speaker 1: lot of the nation knows about these things. So I
Speaker 1: just wanted to bring a few up. I am a
Speaker 1: I'm a ranch owner. I have a I own a
Speaker 1: hunting ranch. And how big is your ranch? How many
Speaker 1: are my my hunting ranch? Mind? You you know the
Speaker 1: way they survey it is, you know, from point this
Speaker 1: to point that. But I've got several hills, so I
Speaker 1: would say it's closer to eighty acres. But it's just
Speaker 1: a hunting ranch. And that's what I want. I want
Speaker 1: a little baby ranch like that. Well I'll tell you,
Speaker 1: when you're taking care of it, it doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: a baby ranch. I bet I was gonna. I was
Speaker 1: married to a Texas ranger for fourteen years. I mean,
Speaker 1: I remember one time he got seven hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: out of an eighteen wheel or coming from Alabama out
Speaker 1: of chi Laredo, or the time he got fifteen hundred
Speaker 1: pounds of marijuana when we lived in Pearsall or the
Speaker 1: time that when I was in pre term labor they
Speaker 1: couldn't get carried hospital. Let me tell you how bad
Speaker 1: it is. And I don't want to cut you short,
Speaker 1: but when I was down in Texas on the boarder
Speaker 1: with Governor Perry, I got a briefing, a security briefing
Speaker 1: six hundred and forty two thousand crimes committed against Texans
Speaker 1: in a seven year period, six hundred and forty two times. Alright,
Speaker 1: finish your last comment. I got a role um our
Speaker 1: vehicles would be in stolen because when I get over here,
Speaker 1: nobody's got a picnic basket for him and handing him
Speaker 1: a set of keys to a car basket. Free free,
Speaker 1: Free Washington State, New York, the Hampton's, Pennsylvania. People wake up.
Speaker 1: It's not happening to you there. The reality is what
Speaker 1: we are scary experiencing in the southern and the southern
Speaker 1: border states. So thank you for your attention to it.
Speaker 1: And I just wanted to um uh use your platform.
Speaker 1: I was trying to explain this to her, Hey Ramos
Speaker 1: last night, and I gotta tell you something. It's unbelievable
Speaker 1: to me. Now there's a lot of people, are a
Speaker 1: lot of victims of crime. What about Americans? Why don't
Speaker 1: we have the right to safety and security? All right?
Speaker 1: Back to our top story, the resignation slash firing of
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor Flynn. What do you hear from Eli
Speaker 1: Lake who says that the political assassination Paul Sperry, he
Speaker 1: looks at the fact that Obama may be running a
Speaker 1: shadow government and much more showing up next our final
Speaker 1: news round up and information overload hours and when I
Speaker 1: want to press to press these questions. Where the White
Speaker 1: House decided to do nothing for three weeks, as Flynn
Speaker 1: said in on meeting, at the meeting, at the meeting,
Speaker 1: did the president decide the way the counsel decided to wait?
Speaker 1: Something is wrong here, Madam Leader. Just this morning Flynn tweeted,
Speaker 1: and this is a quote scapegoat, And the quote escapegoat
Speaker 1: he basically the Scott subscribed himself as a scapegoat. And
Speaker 1: so I believe we need to hold a public hearing
Speaker 1: with Flynn to get to the bottom of this. Our
Speaker 1: committee held three or four hearings Emergency hearings on Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton in a matter of a week or two. And
Speaker 1: if there was any emergency at this moment in the
Speaker 1: history of this country, this is the moment, and so
Speaker 1: we need to get his security and clearance of documents.
Speaker 1: I want to see him. I want to see what
Speaker 1: he put in those documents to find out if he
Speaker 1: was honest on those forms. And we need to know
Speaker 1: how much he got paid to have dinner with Puton.
Speaker 1: But that is only lebrigating the presses. I asked us
Speaker 1: over and over again. I know they asked for the
Speaker 1: chief and asked the leader. Doesn't in here? Shouldn't things
Speaker 1: in here? No, they cannot in here. Ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 1: We are a fight in a right for the soul
Speaker 1: of our democracy. The question is is whether where whether
Speaker 1: we will clearly understand that this is our watch. And
Speaker 1: let's be clear. Chiefs said it quite eloquently, the Republicans
Speaker 1: need to join us. This is not a democratic issue.
Speaker 1: This is not a Republican he said, is not an
Speaker 1: independent issue. This is an American issue for the soul
Speaker 1: of our democracy. We've been a reviewing and evaluating this
Speaker 1: issue with respect to General Flynn on a daily basis
Speaker 1: for a few weeks trying to ascertain the truth. We
Speaker 1: got to a point not based on a legal issue,
Speaker 1: but based on a trust issue, with a level of
Speaker 1: trust between the President and General Flynn had eroded to
Speaker 1: the point where he felt he had to make a change.
Speaker 1: The President was very concerned that General Flynn had misled
Speaker 1: the Vice President and others. He was also very concerned,
Speaker 1: in light of sensitive subjects dealt with by that position
Speaker 1: of national security advisors like China, North Korea, and the
Speaker 1: Middle East, that the President must have complete and unwavering
Speaker 1: trust for the person in that position. The evolving and
Speaker 1: eroding level of trust as a result of this situation
Speaker 1: and a series of other questionable instances, is what led
Speaker 1: the President to ask for General Flynn's resignation. Immediately after
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice notified the White House Council of
Speaker 1: the situation, The White House Counsel brief the President and
Speaker 1: a small group of the senior advisors. The White House
Speaker 1: Council reviewed and determined that there is not an illegal issue,
Speaker 1: but rather a trust issue. Understand that all of this
Speaker 1: information was leaked. The idea that not just in this administration,
Speaker 1: but the obomb administration, going back to the Bush administration
Speaker 1: and back that we have an issue were classified information
Speaker 1: of which this would be is handled in such a
Speaker 1: way that it is being given out. And I know
Speaker 1: in some cases it's it's a good story, and I
Speaker 1: understand that, and that's to some degree your responsibility to
Speaker 1: write that. But I think there's also a story here
Speaker 1: with an amount of leaks that are coming out of
Speaker 1: people that are entrusted with national security secrets and classified
Speaker 1: information are leaking it out. That's a real concern for
Speaker 1: this president that when he's talking on the phone with
Speaker 1: a world leader, that when he's making key decisions that
Speaker 1: are in an interest in protecting this country, that we
Speaker 1: have to wonder whether or not people who work for
Speaker 1: our government, who are entrusted with classified information and decisional
Speaker 1: based materials are leaking that information out. That I do
Speaker 1: believe is a big story that should be reported. I
Speaker 1: also believe that the President is rightly so very very
Speaker 1: concerned about this because it's not just something that is plaguing,
Speaker 1: you know, the current situation, but it goes back through
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration. When
Speaker 1: we have government employees that are entrusted with this and
Speaker 1: can't and then leak it out that undermines our national security. Frankly,
Speaker 1: all right, that was Sean Spicer, and prior to that,
Speaker 1: it was Elijah Cummings. Uh so we're fighting for the
Speaker 1: soul of our democracy. Really, where was his outrage over
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and the money is
Speaker 1: paid by countries while she was Secretary of State garnering
Speaker 1: influence through the Clinton Foundation, through donations, through speeches, Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton is making what about that quid pro quoil. I
Speaker 1: didn't hear the same outrage from the left from Democrats
Speaker 1: when it came to Hillary Clinton violating the laws it
Speaker 1: relates to having an email server to bypass congressional oversight
Speaker 1: in the closet of a mom and pop shop in
Speaker 1: a bathroom. I didn't hear the same type of outrage.
Speaker 1: But Sean Spicer raises the big question here, Why are
Speaker 1: these leaks continually coming from the intelligence community. This is
Speaker 1: not stuff that is normally ever leaked by anybody. Well,
Speaker 1: there are two great columns out and I'm putting them
Speaker 1: both together in my own mind, thinking there might be
Speaker 1: something to all of this. Eli Lake writes for Bloomberg
Speaker 1: and He wrote a great column today called the political
Speaker 1: assassination of Michael Flynn, and just days before, a good friend,
Speaker 1: Paul Sperry wrote how Obama's scheming to sabotage Trump's presidency
Speaker 1: and could these two in some ways be related anyway?
Speaker 1: Welcome both of you to the program. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for having us Eli. Let me let me start with you, Eli,
Speaker 1: because this is important. What do you mean by a
Speaker 1: political assassination? And you went into a lot of depth
Speaker 1: and detail in your piece to describe the intelligence leaking
Speaker 1: that's going on here and why that might be happening,
Speaker 1: especially as it relates to these calls that are never
Speaker 1: leaked historically. Well, it really comes down to the question
Speaker 1: of what exactly doesn't mean to have discussed sanctions with
Speaker 1: the Russian ambassador. Um My sources have told me that
Speaker 1: this is something that the ambassador brought up in a
Speaker 1: conversation with Mike Flynn, and Flynn simply said, Hey, we're
Speaker 1: coming in a couple of weeks. We're going to be
Speaker 1: reviewing a lot of things in Russia policy. Why don't
Speaker 1: you give us some time. But it wasn't the center,
Speaker 1: it wasn't the main topic of the discussion. And I
Speaker 1: mean my understanding, and we know this because it's public record,
Speaker 1: is that Flynn is having several phone calls to date,
Speaker 1: He's got two phones. He's talking to ambassadors, foreign leaders,
Speaker 1: other national security advised But isn't this an upcoming job.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know what the Logan Act says, but
Speaker 1: he was about to be the National Security Director, Agency director.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, so I would imagine that prior
Speaker 1: to getting into that position, he wants to establish a
Speaker 1: report with the people that are going to be that
Speaker 1: he's going to be talking with on a daily basis. No, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And what's more, I mean, and I can say as
Speaker 1: a foreign policy columnist, I disagree with the idea of
Speaker 1: trying to have a reset with Russia. But Donald Trump
Speaker 1: campaigned on that. Mike Flynn is his incoming national security advisor,
Speaker 1: so of course he's going to reach out to the
Speaker 1: Russian ambassador trying to set up that call. And let's
Speaker 1: assume for a second that that he also eli in
Speaker 1: the course of his discussions with the President that the
Speaker 1: President said, you know, well, just make sure that whoever
Speaker 1: your counterpart is on the Russian side knows that Obama's
Speaker 1: actions will not be my actions and that things are
Speaker 1: likely to turn around. Would it be a violation of
Speaker 1: the Logan Act to to mention that to your counterpart? Well,
Speaker 1: the Logan Acts is, in my view is red herring
Speaker 1: has never been prosecuted. More importantly, I don't think it
Speaker 1: would be improper. But to the key point, which is
Speaker 1: that did Flynn lie to Vice President Penn? He says
Speaker 1: he doesn't remember it. And if if we're having a
Speaker 1: ten minute conversation and for thirty seconds we talked about something,
Speaker 1: but the main topic with something. I can forgive a
Speaker 1: guy that's working, you know, fourteen hours a day on
Speaker 1: his vacation talking to lots of foreign leaders, and when
Speaker 1: he's giving a briefing several days after that phone call,
Speaker 1: doesn't mention it. If it wasn't an important thing and
Speaker 1: the ambassador brought it up, I would imagine that Slynn
Speaker 1: would maybe get the benefit of the doubt. But it
Speaker 1: looks to me like this was sort of taken out
Speaker 1: by the acting Attorney General. There was an Obama holdover
Speaker 1: and you know, taken to the White House and said
Speaker 1: this is a very serious matter and this information, I
Speaker 1: mean the fact that his name appears in an intercept
Speaker 1: that there's nine sources talking to Washington Post about it
Speaker 1: that says it's it seems it's pretty wide. So you're
Speaker 1: basically suggesting that the hold over Sally Yate, so, who
Speaker 1: involved herself in the executive order as it relates to
Speaker 1: extreme vetting and and the temporary ban on immigrants, that
Speaker 1: she was up to her eyeballs in this too. But
Speaker 1: I listened very closely to the briefing today by Sean Spicer,
Speaker 1: and he said the White House Council did not believe
Speaker 1: there was a legal basis to worry about this when
Speaker 1: he advised the president, so acting on that, then it
Speaker 1: became an issue of what why wasn't he fully trained
Speaker 1: its parent with the Vice president. But I'm not so
Speaker 1: sure that. I mean, yes, he should have remembered that
Speaker 1: detail of the conversation, but I think that there's a
Speaker 1: difference between having it come up from the ambassador sort
Speaker 1: of saying all right, you know, give me some time,
Speaker 1: we're coming in now, let's talk about the phone call
Speaker 1: between Putin and Trump and having it the conversation and
Speaker 1: having an in depth talk with the ambassador, and then
Speaker 1: shielding that from the Vice president. I think it was
Speaker 1: the former, not the ladder, and he should I thought
Speaker 1: should should have been given a pass on that. But
Speaker 1: because of the way that it was sort of leaked
Speaker 1: out and everything else, it became a political crisis over
Speaker 1: the weekend and he had to regot. Yeah. By the way,
Speaker 1: our friend Paul Sperry as was us one of my
Speaker 1: favorite writers and authors, and he's amazing how Obama is
Speaker 1: scheming to sabotage is a New York Post column, this
Speaker 1: author of the Great American Bank Robbery. All right, so
Speaker 1: you just heard what Eli said. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you're ready elize column today, but it really fascinated me.
Speaker 1: And when I put it together with your column from
Speaker 1: a couple of days ago that Obama is using a
Speaker 1: network of just nonprofits led by Organizing for Action and
Speaker 1: basically creating a shadow presidency, I'm thinking, do you think
Speaker 1: he could be up to his eyeballs and this? After all,
Speaker 1: he did encourage all the protesters to go out there
Speaker 1: and keep doing what they're doing against the president. Well,
Speaker 1: he did have control over the intelligence community um at
Speaker 1: that time, so I wouldn't doubt it he was trying
Speaker 1: to delegitimize Trump in regards to um, the Russians, uh,
Speaker 1: leisurely hacking into all these data bases. Let me let
Speaker 1: me quote from your column. Obama is working behind the
Speaker 1: scenes to set up will what will effectively be a
Speaker 1: shadow government, to not only protect his threatened legacy, but
Speaker 1: to sabotage the incoming administration. And it's a and it's
Speaker 1: popular American first agenda. Yeah. I mean, all these anti
Speaker 1: Trump protests, well not all of them, but most of
Speaker 1: these anti Trump protests are not spontaneous. They're being gennd
Speaker 1: up by Organizing for Action or o f A, and
Speaker 1: o f A is Obama. O f A is a
Speaker 1: nonprofit group that's sufficially tied to to Obama in these protests.
Speaker 1: In fact, as I reported in the post column, Obama
Speaker 1: is tweeting through o f as Twitter County. He's holding
Speaker 1: conference calls to rally the f A troops, and he's
Speaker 1: listed o f A on his new website. Anybody can
Speaker 1: go to the homepage and his new website and there
Speaker 1: at the bottom only one of only two organizations listed
Speaker 1: on that on that website. One of them is o FA,
Speaker 1: the others the Obama Foundation. And by the way, o
Speaker 1: f A is going to be rolled into the Obama
Speaker 1: Foundation and the Presidential Library, So it's going to become
Speaker 1: of an even bigger jug or not going forward. Well,
Speaker 1: he's he's angry because Trump's gonna wipe out in a
Speaker 1: hundred days of his agenda, assuming that these idiot Republicans
Speaker 1: get off their ass and repeal and replace Obamacare like
Speaker 1: they've been promising for eight years. That's right, He's trying
Speaker 1: to salvage his legacy and his legacy programs like Obamacare
Speaker 1: and the Dreamers and all that. Yeah. Well, and that's
Speaker 1: the problem when you rule by executive order. Um, and
Speaker 1: all right, I want to get back to this with
Speaker 1: both of you hanging there, Eli Lake and Paul Sperry.
Speaker 1: We appreciate your time. Eight hundred nine one, Shawn are
Speaker 1: told free telephone number you want to be part of
Speaker 1: the program, Hannity site sized version of the show that
Speaker 1: you can take with you. To sign up today for
Speaker 1: Hannity headlines, go to Hannity dot com. He never stops
Speaker 1: working for the good of the country. Sean Hannity with
Speaker 1: behind the scenes information on today's breaking news. Hannity is
Speaker 1: on right now alight till the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: Toll free or telephone numbers eight D nine one Sean,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program
Speaker 1: full coverage of what is going on in Washington tonight,
Speaker 1: I have I think one of the hardest hitting opening
Speaker 1: monologues I've ever done tonight, where you're getting information and
Speaker 1: you're not gonna get anywhere else. There is an all
Speaker 1: out effort. And I warned all of you ahead of
Speaker 1: time that this was all coming, that this is not
Speaker 1: really about General Flynn. This is not about Steve Miller,
Speaker 1: This is not about Kelly Ann Conway. This is not
Speaker 1: about the Darth Vader Steve Bannon as they call him.
Speaker 1: This is not about Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: Donald Jr. Even when I after Baron Trump and Don
Speaker 1: Jr's kid. This is about an entire establishment, what Trump
Speaker 1: called the swamp, incapable of accepting election results. And even
Speaker 1: the intelligence community now has been highly politicized because as
Speaker 1: we have been pointing out for the better part of
Speaker 1: the day, and Eli Lake, who I thought wrote a
Speaker 1: great column as I mentioned earlier, and he joined us
Speaker 1: in the last half hour. Normally these inner sets that
Speaker 1: they're referring to, which is the conversation with General Flynn
Speaker 1: and his Russian counterpart. There's some of the most tightly
Speaker 1: held government secrets, and for good reason that you know selectively,
Speaker 1: as Eli writes, disclosing details of private conversations monitored by
Speaker 1: the FBI or the n s A gives the permanent state.
Speaker 1: What does the permanent state mean? Permanent state means all
Speaker 1: of those people that live there forever, the bureaucrats, the swamp,
Speaker 1: the people that are making their careers there. The power
Speaker 1: to destroy reputations from the cloak of an anonymity means
Speaker 1: they do it all privately. Well, let's leak this. We
Speaker 1: don't like this guy. And then he writes, this is
Speaker 1: what police states do. Kind of scary. This is unbridled power.
Speaker 1: And when you look at the contempt and hatred that
Speaker 1: exists towards the president, it makes a lot of sense,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. And the media me how does the media
Speaker 1: not focus in on all of the success in three weeks.
Speaker 1: They're just obsessed chasing the rabbit, like a greyhound running
Speaker 1: around a track. They just race after it, race after it,
Speaker 1: and pay no attention to a political earthquake and a
Speaker 1: broader narrative constantly calling the president a liar, constantly attacking
Speaker 1: those around him. Well, now they've been able to they've
Speaker 1: been able to get a little bit of blood here,
Speaker 1: and all that's gonna do is increase the scent and
Speaker 1: increase the breathlessness in their reporting, and increase the intensity
Speaker 1: by which they try to pick off one by one
Speaker 1: those people surrounding the president, isolating them one by one,
Speaker 1: all an attempt to delegitimize the president. Now, it used
Speaker 1: to be scandalous for US officials to request the identities
Speaker 1: of US officials that we're incidentally monitored by the government
Speaker 1: because they were not monitoring General Flynn, they were monitoring
Speaker 1: his Russian counterpart. But they do in any way to
Speaker 1: people they don't like. Congressman Nunez, who is out in California,
Speaker 1: chairman of the Household Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told
Speaker 1: Eli Eli Lake that he saw the leaks about Flynn's
Speaker 1: conversations as part of a pattern. Quote. There does appear
Speaker 1: to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and
Speaker 1: others in the administration, from the leaking of phone calls
Speaker 1: between the president and foreign leaders and to what appears
Speaker 1: to be high level pis a court information to the
Speaker 1: leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances. It looks
Speaker 1: like a pattern. Yeah, it looks like a pattern. What's
Speaker 1: the pattern? Pattern is to undermine the president. The pattern
Speaker 1: is the intelligence community in the cloak of secrecy with
Speaker 1: top secret information that normally never gets leaked, to hurt
Speaker 1: anybody they can in and sound and surrounding the president.
Speaker 1: There really now this is a stuff of spy novels,
Speaker 1: but it's all very important. Obama sent his ambassador to
Speaker 1: Russia before he was even elected. Remember the former US official,
Speaker 1: you know, US officials said that building a case against
Speaker 1: Flynn would be daunting because the law against US citizens
Speaker 1: interfering with the foreign uh diplomacy, known as the Logan Act,
Speaker 1: is from s and it's never been prosecuted. There's no
Speaker 1: case history here to help guide authorities. That's not really
Speaker 1: what's in play here. And so if it's not a
Speaker 1: legal issue, as the White House Council told, the President
Speaker 1: has shown Spicer and Kelly Ann related today and the
Speaker 1: only thing that I guess is left that for any
Speaker 1: of us to know is that, Okay, then I guess
Speaker 1: it had to do with General Flynn not being totally
Speaker 1: and completely honest and revealing to Vice President Mike Penn's
Speaker 1: all that had taken place. Um, you know, Mike McFall,
Speaker 1: who served as US ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: says he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the
Speaker 1: weeks leading up to Obama's election. Win. Wow, they even
Speaker 1: doing it before Wicky Leaks. Got to give them some
Speaker 1: standing here. They've never been wrong. Have they released a
Speaker 1: statement this morning? Sat General Flynn was brought down by
Speaker 1: spies in the Obama administration working hand in glove with
Speaker 1: the all left fake news media. Wow. Pretty scary. I
Speaker 1: wonder what they have. And also we learned today from
Speaker 1: the UK Guardian. Whether it's true or not, I can't confirm,
Speaker 1: but that the FISA courts turned down an FBI request
Speaker 1: wire tap Flynn. Unbelievable, unbelievable. All right, let's get to
Speaker 1: our busy telephones here as we move forward. Susan is
Speaker 1: in California. Susan, you're on the Sean Hannity Show. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm just so disgusted. I mean, I'm not only a
Speaker 1: California with our governor and our legislatures. It's treason as
Speaker 1: what they've done with the dam But the fact now
Speaker 1: that they've they've leaked these conversations with Flynn, I mean,
Speaker 1: the American people see this, and I swear it's going
Speaker 1: to backfire as the Californian and as somebody who used
Speaker 1: to be in the film business, and it's not going anywhere.
Speaker 1: These people have lost their minds. They have their panties
Speaker 1: in a wad, and it's treasonous. The fact that the
Speaker 1: media and whoever is working at the White House that
Speaker 1: is leaking this stuff, it's just it's embarrassing. And and
Speaker 1: watching this train wreck happen with the Democrats is just embarrassing.
Speaker 1: And and their neglect for for the American people is
Speaker 1: embarrassing and just horrendous. And if if I was the
Speaker 1: Justice Department, I would investigate where these leaks came from,
Speaker 1: and I would have a special eye on whether or
Speaker 1: not they're related to Obama officials and holdovers from the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, because I'm pretty sure that's probably what happened here.
Speaker 1: You know, they have to now of course it's it
Speaker 1: has to be. This is a political attack, and we're
Speaker 1: using now our intelligence has been politicized. This is a
Speaker 1: big problem. Now, this is not the first time. This
Speaker 1: has happened a lot of times. Anyway, good observation, good call.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Kate is in Houston, Texas, ktrh. Hey, Sean,
Speaker 1: I've got two things I want to talk to you about,
Speaker 1: and the second thing I hope we get you because
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a little agreement with my friend there, Linda.
Speaker 1: So I just want to tell you, Linda's ears just
Speaker 1: perked up. Linda, you better put your microphone on now
Speaker 1: so I don't have to order. Come on, Linda, We're gonna,
Speaker 1: like Kate finish. She's going to support me on my
Speaker 1: second point. Okay, So the first point, I just gotta
Speaker 1: tell you I am heartbroken over when it happened to
Speaker 1: General's Lynn. He's a three star general, a man of
Speaker 1: incredible integrity, his record impeccable, and he's having to lead
Speaker 1: in the shame and the media breathing him out in
Speaker 1: the way that he's being about. I can't tell you
Speaker 1: how disgusted I am. I saw that in the middle
Speaker 1: of the night last night, and I just couldn't even
Speaker 1: really sleep. How would wake up at three o'clock and
Speaker 1: look up that four and I'm thinking about this poor man.
Speaker 1: It's not it's him, it's Kelly and Conway, it's Sean Spicer,
Speaker 1: who I like to call Sean Spicy because he's rather
Speaker 1: spicy when he gets out there and he starts talking.
Speaker 1: And they're going after anybody and any anyone like you
Speaker 1: were saying from the beginning around Trump, as if they
Speaker 1: were going after the witches and the Sale trial. These
Speaker 1: are not the people that the media is making not
Speaker 1: to be, and yet everyone has collectively lost their brain
Speaker 1: and being able to process information. I'm really disgusted. You
Speaker 1: have every you have every right to be because but
Speaker 1: you gotta understand something here, and I get it. I
Speaker 1: I have done monologues on this radio program, on television.
Speaker 1: They are not your friends, no, the you know what
Speaker 1: we're paying me. The thing that is also interesting to
Speaker 1: me about the whole Congress, I mean, we've got people
Speaker 1: singing folk songs on the capital steps and they're given
Speaker 1: out all this information and they're feeding the media, the
Speaker 1: media backlash. Right. These are people that I think everyone
Speaker 1: needs to do is listen to your show right now.
Speaker 1: Recognize we pay them, We are the ones that hire them.
Speaker 1: They are working for us, and we don't seem to
Speaker 1: be able to get that message clear off. Enough we
Speaker 1: did with Chump, but we gotta do it again and
Speaker 1: get all these bunafix. I mean, secially, when Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: starts talking to anybody really thinks it's like your grandmother
Speaker 1: that you're worried, you know, at a party. When is
Speaker 1: she going to say, you know what I'm saying. But
Speaker 1: she's one shy of the full fifty two. I honestly
Speaker 1: don't know how she gets realisted every time you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, I understand completely. Look, okay, we're gonna
Speaker 1: tell you. You know, I said to uh people that
Speaker 1: were going into the White House that I know that
Speaker 1: I'm probably, I said, listen, trust me. Corporate politics and
Speaker 1: for example, there's politics and every business. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you if you're in business or you've been in
Speaker 1: an office environment, this politics everywhere. One of really important
Speaker 1: decisions I made very early in my TV careers. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm in the building maybe an hour and a half
Speaker 1: a day. That's it. I show up at my air
Speaker 1: time to do my show, and and I have an
Speaker 1: office here at radio when nobody bothers me, and I'm
Speaker 1: alone all day. I like to be alone and doing
Speaker 1: my preparation. You've got the best teams. Look at people.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at them and they're all nodding their head
Speaker 1: affirmatively as we speak, and I listen, I really do.
Speaker 1: I have the best team in radio and the best
Speaker 1: team in television and agree, and I'm going to talk
Speaker 1: about what Linda and I just totally okay, all right.
Speaker 1: The other day you were getting a little spicy and
Speaker 1: you're like, you know, Linda, she cusses very time she
Speaker 1: opens up her mouth. And she said, well, you know,
Speaker 1: Linda curses all the time. Linda, Well yeah, but she
Speaker 1: threw it again. She said, you know, you've been getting
Speaker 1: it all the time. And here's the thing. You've got
Speaker 1: little fans, four of them being my children, and they
Speaker 1: love you, Uncle Sean. You know, they love thank you.
Speaker 1: And you've been throwing out this word that is used
Speaker 1: in the Bible, but you're not using it in the
Speaker 1: disblical sect. Tell you, I'm gonna say it. What is it? Word? Okay?
Speaker 1: The S S? What you talking about? Donkeys? You know,
Speaker 1: but you're not in every time every time you say
Speaker 1: that word, my kids like, can you just say art
Speaker 1: for the mistakes to say a R S S. What
Speaker 1: if we had what if we had like a little
Speaker 1: agreement where he wasn't allowed to say it until after
Speaker 1: four o'clock. Okay, okay, that's my big thing is he
Speaker 1: can't curse in front of the kids. And three o'clock.
Speaker 1: The kids are in the car on the way home,
Speaker 1: and we have to educate them. So we'll just curse
Speaker 1: the different we're in different time zones when it's four
Speaker 1: o'clock here, it's three o'clock at Central time. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: in the first hour of the show, in the first
Speaker 1: hour of the show, if you're in a car with
Speaker 1: your kids. No, no, no, I can't make this problem. Listen,
Speaker 1: I gotta be real, Kate. Is the way real people talk.
Speaker 1: Even I you want to spell it, maybe we'll start
Speaker 1: spelling it like donkeys in the Bible. You can just
Speaker 1: like it. Can I love you? But if he starts
Speaker 1: saying donkeys in the Bible, I gotta go home. It's
Speaker 1: just not gonna work. I think that's it's just not
Speaker 1: gonna work. I love you, girl, But no, alright, listen,
Speaker 1: you're asking. You said she would agree, you have no.
Speaker 1: She has the worst potty mouth of anybody on this team.
Speaker 1: By four admittedly so, but I don't do it on
Speaker 1: the air like some people. Is not a bad word.
Speaker 1: Art is not a bad words. You can't even say
Speaker 1: it right now, even if he can't get it right.
Speaker 1: But all it is ever thank you, thank you for
Speaker 1: helping him. I don't know. I've never I never used
Speaker 1: really bad words in front of my kids, but my
Speaker 1: daughter kids. When I say that, when I say that
Speaker 1: word in front of my daughter, she still hits me.
Speaker 1: I think, I know. The big problem is when they
Speaker 1: are able to spell. Once they start spelling offense, listen,
Speaker 1: they know. Listen. I have in a will, certain provisions
Speaker 1: in my will, and I've told my kids about your eulogy. No, no,
Speaker 1: I want you to. I want to sell the otherwise
Speaker 1: I can't tell your life story. Okay, so here's the
Speaker 1: truth about So I would tell my daughter, well, I
Speaker 1: put in there a certain legal thing that for you
Speaker 1: and your brother, and uh, you know, when you have
Speaker 1: to explain it to somebody else in your life, just
Speaker 1: say my dad was a crazy talk show host. Is
Speaker 1: nothing I can do. He was just nuts. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: That was very nice. Thank you, Kate, Love you alright.
Speaker 1: Kiss always a matter of fact, stay on the line.
Speaker 1: We'll send Trump and Sherry's Burris to you, guys. Valentine's
Speaker 1: thank you, alright, stay on the line. Eight nine one
Speaker 1: Shawn is a number.