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 too. Just go to my pillow dot Com
Speaker 1: or call eight hundred nine one nine six zero nine zero,
Speaker 1: use the promo code Hannity, and Mike Lindell, the inventor
Speaker 1: of My Pillow, has the special four pack. Now you
Speaker 1: get forty percent off two My Pillow premiums and two
Speaker 1: Go Anywhere pillows. My pillows made here in the USA,
Speaker 1: has a sixty day unconditional money back guarrantee and a
Speaker 1: ten year warranty. Go to my pillow dot com right
Speaker 1: now or call eight hundred nine one nine six zero
Speaker 1: nine zero promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special
Speaker 1: four pack offer. You get two My Pillow Premium pillows
Speaker 1: and two Go Anywhere pillows for forty percent off. And
Speaker 1: that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the
Speaker 1: kind of peace, full and RESTful and comfortable and deep,
Speaker 1: pealing and recuperative sleep that you've been and you certainly
Speaker 1: deserve my pillow dot com promo called Hannity you will
Speaker 1: love this pillow. Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bishare all of a
Speaker 1: sudden launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians.
Speaker 1: Using a deadly nerve agent, ASSAD choked out the lives
Speaker 1: of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow
Speaker 1: and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were
Speaker 1: cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of
Speaker 1: God should ever suffer such horror. Tonight, I ordered a
Speaker 1: targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where
Speaker 1: the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital
Speaker 1: national security interest of the United States to prevent and
Speaker 1: deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There
Speaker 1: can be no dispute that s will used burned chemical weapons,
Speaker 1: violated obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the
Speaker 1: urging of the UN Security counts. Years of previous attempts
Speaker 1: at changing the slad's behavior have all failed, and failed
Speaker 1: very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to
Speaker 1: deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United
Speaker 1: States and its allies. Tonight, I call on all civilized
Speaker 1: nations to join us and seeking to end the slurter
Speaker 1: and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end carold of
Speaker 1: all kinds and all types. We ask for God's wisdom
Speaker 1: as we face the challenge of our very troubled world.
Speaker 1: We pray for the lives of the wounded and for
Speaker 1: the souls of those who have passed, and we hope
Speaker 1: that as long as America stands for justice, then peace
Speaker 1: and harmony will in the end prevail. Good Night, and
Speaker 1: God bless America and the entire world. Thank you all right,
Speaker 1: glad you're with us. Happy Friday. That was the President
Speaker 1: making a statement last night after, in fact, fifty nine,
Speaker 1: some fifty nine Tomahawk missiles were fired at the very
Speaker 1: launch pad of where these chemical weapons were used by
Speaker 1: Syria against men, women, and children earlier this week. You
Speaker 1: can hear a very affected, very different President Trump there,
Speaker 1: just like we heard when he was meeting with the
Speaker 1: King of Jordan Abdullah earlier this week, and that issue
Speaker 1: came up, and the issue of a red line came
Speaker 1: up over and over again. You know, I've got to
Speaker 1: say it's pretty powerful statement here. No child of God
Speaker 1: should suffer such horror. And the President said that, and
Speaker 1: I'm following the comments and the commentary, and everybody said, well,
Speaker 1: the President tweeted out that Obama shouldn't do what is
Speaker 1: he doing. Okay, that's a fair thing, but that's a
Speaker 1: fair criticism. He changed his mind after seeing dead children
Speaker 1: that had been gassed. But if we're going to be
Speaker 1: fair and talk about changing minds and listening to things
Speaker 1: that are said to us by politician, why don't we
Speaker 1: start the program. And I want you to think about
Speaker 1: this in the context especially of the Iranian nuclear deal,
Speaker 1: which allows the Iranians to continue to spin their centerfuges
Speaker 1: twenty five days before we give them inspections and they
Speaker 1: get heads up on it. We don't even get to
Speaker 1: have American inspectors, nor do we get to inspect everything
Speaker 1: we want to inspect. And the billions of taxpayer of
Speaker 1: dollars that he forked over to this radical Islamic regime
Speaker 1: that has declared over and over again that they want
Speaker 1: to destroy America, destroy Israel, and they want a worldwide
Speaker 1: caliphate that has been their goal from the beginning. How
Speaker 1: right is Obama and his assurances that, well, the Iranians
Speaker 1: now they're limited in getting nuclear weapons. Well, if we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about Donald Trump changed his mind on
Speaker 1: the issue of whether or not there should be retaliation
Speaker 1: in the case of the use of chemical weapons against men, women,
Speaker 1: and children. You know, I'm having a hard time understanding
Speaker 1: the opposition to this. He did everything that Trump said
Speaker 1: he would do in terms of he didn't telegraph the move.
Speaker 1: There's no desire clearly to occupy, but it's a message
Speaker 1: stop using chemical weapons against innocent men, women, and children.
Speaker 1: That there is a line that the world cannot tolgrate,
Speaker 1: which is it's bad enough. This ridiculous civil war has
Speaker 1: gone on for seven years with no resolution at all,
Speaker 1: being fomented by the way by Putin. Oh for all
Speaker 1: the talk of the conspiracy Trump and the Russians, he
Speaker 1: went dead set against Vladimir Putin last night and what
Speaker 1: the Russians wanted because they have been propping up the
Speaker 1: Assad regime, that this entire time for their own political benefit.
Speaker 1: But if we're going to take the words of politicians,
Speaker 1: which this is all that CNN and NBC has fixated
Speaker 1: on I flipped. I can't believe this is it. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's listen to both. Well, let's listen to President Obama,
Speaker 1: and then we'll listen to John Kerry, and then we'll
Speaker 1: listen to Susan Rice, and we'll listen to their words
Speaker 1: assuring you the American people that Obama's line in the
Speaker 1: sand got Syria and Assad to give up their chemical weapons,
Speaker 1: which clearly isn't true because he used them again this week. Listen.
Speaker 1: I think it was important for me, as President of
Speaker 1: the United States to send a message that, in fact,
Speaker 1: there is something different about chemical weapons. And regardless of
Speaker 1: how it ended up playing, I think in the Beltway,
Speaker 1: what is true is Assad got rid of his chemical weapons,
Speaker 1: and the reason he got rid of them was, well, look,
Speaker 1: if ninety percent or ninety five percent of those chemical
Speaker 1: stockpiles were eliminated, that's a lot of chemical weapons that
Speaker 1: are not right now in the hands of Isle or Nusra,
Speaker 1: or for that matter, of the regime. The President made
Speaker 1: his decision to strike, he announced his decision to strike publicly,
Speaker 1: and the purpose of the strike was to get the
Speaker 1: chemical weapons out of Syria. That's the purpose. We achieved
Speaker 1: a deal with the Russians that didn't wind up in
Speaker 1: two days of strikes that would have sent a quote
Speaker 1: message but would not have removed the weapons. We struck
Speaker 1: a deal to get all of the declared weapons out
Speaker 1: of Syria. Never before in a conflict has that ever happened,
Speaker 1: that during a conflict, weapons and mass destruction are taken
Speaker 1: out of the zone of conflict. And thank god we
Speaker 1: did that because if we hadn't done that, today ISIL
Speaker 1: would have those chemical weapons in large parts of the country.
Speaker 1: Because in the meantime we were able to find a
Speaker 1: solution that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known
Speaker 1: from Syria in a way that the use of force
Speaker 1: would never have accomplished. Oh, the use They just they're wrong. Now,
Speaker 1: let's assume there is wrong about Iran and the Iranian deal,
Speaker 1: as they are about what happened in Syria. Now, I
Speaker 1: understand the argument that Rampaul I, like Rampaul Rampaul is
Speaker 1: a constitutionalist, and if there's going to be further escalation,
Speaker 1: you know, I understand the War Parisact, but you know,
Speaker 1: using military forces not a declaration of war. I think
Speaker 1: the hope of the president is this message gets sent,
Speaker 1: gets sent loud and clear. I think the first thing
Speaker 1: that you've got to recognize what happened last night is
Speaker 1: the President sent a message to the entire world and
Speaker 1: Pyongyang in North Korea, and certainly the Iranians and certainly
Speaker 1: the Russians you know outside of them, and the Syrians
Speaker 1: meaning asad you know who is really upset about what
Speaker 1: happened last night? Is the world going to sit back
Speaker 1: and watch a modern day holocaust where children are gassed
Speaker 1: before our eyes, with the images being shown to the world,
Speaker 1: And I guess it's we're just going to sit back
Speaker 1: and not let and just let that continue to happen
Speaker 1: and not try to stop it. I don't want America
Speaker 1: to be the world's policemen either. I don't think we
Speaker 1: have nobility as a country anymore to fight wars because
Speaker 1: they always become politicized. But we certainly have the military
Speaker 1: technology and the ability and the strength and hopefully the
Speaker 1: moral commitment that if we see dead kids from chemical weapons,
Speaker 1: maybe we have to do a little something to stop it,
Speaker 1: especially considering we were promised, oh, there's no such thing
Speaker 1: as chemical weapons inside Assyria, that of course by Obama
Speaker 1: and rice and carry. They lied. Now let's assume they're
Speaker 1: just as wrong on Iran. Oh great, Now we've got
Speaker 1: a squared B squared equals C squared because you got
Speaker 1: radical Islamic terrorists that believe in a worldwide caliphate now
Speaker 1: having nuclear weapons in their arsenal and a promise of
Speaker 1: pledge in a commitment to destroy Israel in the United States.
Speaker 1: That's not going to work. And by the way, you know,
Speaker 1: with all the talk about Russia, you know, the biggest
Speaker 1: question coming out of last night's missile attack was, well,
Speaker 1: why did Russian forces on the ground failed to deploy
Speaker 1: this state of the art missile defense system that they
Speaker 1: had at that base, at that very airbase. They could
Speaker 1: have at least tried to blunt the attack. And I
Speaker 1: suspect when Trump, you know, we had an agreement where
Speaker 1: a military to military agreement that if we're about to
Speaker 1: hit something, we give them a heads up so their
Speaker 1: soldiers don't die. That we were committed by treaty and
Speaker 1: agreement to do that. Last night, people say, wow, they
Speaker 1: gave him a heads up. No, that's not what happened.
Speaker 1: But I think when Trump, when our military talked to
Speaker 1: their military and Putin got that heads up that a
Speaker 1: launch was imminent, that the attack was taking place, wasn't
Speaker 1: aimed at Russian personnel, wasn't aimed at Russian assets on
Speaker 1: the ground. Well, Putin didn't want a confrontation in spite
Speaker 1: of all the rhetoric coming out of Russia today, and
Speaker 1: I think for obvious reasons. Now, you know, Kim Jong
Speaker 1: un congratulates as sad just hours before Trump's missile strike.
Speaker 1: I wonder if he's congratulating him now. He sent a
Speaker 1: letter of congratulations to Syrian president Bashar al Assad on
Speaker 1: the seventie anniversary of the country's ruling Bath Party, according
Speaker 1: to Pyongyang's news agency. Well that was sent just hours
Speaker 1: before President Trump order the air strikes. You know, the
Speaker 1: world sees a different America here. This is not America
Speaker 1: leading from behind. This is not America seeking the UN approval.
Speaker 1: This is America acting. This is America taking a moral stand.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants a long term conflict. Why because it'll be
Speaker 1: politicized anyway, and we don't have the stature or the stamina.
Speaker 1: Were not stature. We don't have the stamina, you know,
Speaker 1: the stomach in Washington to see through in any military
Speaker 1: conflict of victory. Prime Minister net and Yahoo praised Trump
Speaker 1: back Trump on the strike as he always is a
Speaker 1: loyal and fierce ally of the United States. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's by accident that the President recently met and
Speaker 1: very very little attention was paid to his meetings with
Speaker 1: the King of Jordan Abdullah, and the and the President
Speaker 1: and General Alcisi of Egypt and the Crown Prince of
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, and of course Prime Minister net Yahoo and
Speaker 1: I've been saying that maybe the one good thing that
Speaker 1: ever came out of the Obama years and this ridiculous
Speaker 1: Iranian deal was the fact that a new alliance was created,
Speaker 1: Sunni Arab nations now aligning with the Israelis and partnering
Speaker 1: to stand up against possible Iranian hegemony in the region,
Speaker 1: which of course is their goal. And you know, Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin wants his stew just Sad to stay alive. He
Speaker 1: probably needs to get him out of Damascus and get him.
Speaker 1: As my buddy Ali North wrote me last night, make
Speaker 1: him Eddie Snowdon's roommate in Moscow. Andy, We'll have the
Speaker 1: latest on this look on this Friday. We've got a
Speaker 1: lot of news. We have Judge Gorsich praised to Republicans,
Speaker 1: not something I do often on this program, but they
Speaker 1: actually did the right thing. And indeed he will be
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. He'll be sworn in on Monday.
Speaker 1: We'll have an update on that today. Also, we are
Speaker 1: following the latest discussion, debate and negotiations going on. They
Speaker 1: continue as it relates to healthcare in Washington. We had
Speaker 1: an attack in Sweden, five dead now and a terror attack.
Speaker 1: I thought that wasn't supposed to happen in Sweden. We'll
Speaker 1: get to that today and all the other news of
Speaker 1: the day, and of course the latest on Susan Rice.
Speaker 1: So we've got a busy news Friday here today, bite
Speaker 1: sized version of the show that you can take with you.
Speaker 1: To sign up today for Hannity headlines, go to Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com. We'll take a lot of calls today. In
Speaker 1: the next half hour, we'll get to some phone calls
Speaker 1: to some of the other news. There are ongoing negotiations
Speaker 1: as it relates to healthcare. If we get any developments
Speaker 1: on that, we'll let you know. I gotta give praise
Speaker 1: where praises due. I have been very critical of Republicans
Speaker 1: in Washington. I'm still pissed off that they're going away
Speaker 1: on a two week vacation, although that might change. And
Speaker 1: they still haven't got a healthcare build done after eight years,
Speaker 1: which annoys the living daylights out of me. But they
Speaker 1: did in Senate, and I've been critical of Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: at times, but he did hold strong as it relates
Speaker 1: to not giving a vote on Merrick Garland the number
Speaker 1: two you know, today's Senate confirmation vote, Neil Gorst's. The
Speaker 1: final vote was fifty four forty five. It wouldn't have
Speaker 1: happened had Mitch McConnell not invoked the constitutional option. Now
Speaker 1: he had no other choice from there was no choice,
Speaker 1: but you know, he could have caved, I guess, but
Speaker 1: the rules don't apply equally and there's no reciprocity from Democrats,
Speaker 1: so he really didn't have a choice anyway. The Republican
Speaker 1: Senate votes gave every Obama Supreme Court nominee the upper
Speaker 1: down vote everyone every time Sonia saw to my R
Speaker 1: sixty eight thirty one, Elena Kagan sixty three thirty seven,
Speaker 1: Gorsts fifty four forty five. But for the first time
Speaker 1: in a couple of hundred years for partisan reasons, they
Speaker 1: filibustered Neil Gorstz. Neil Gorstz will be on the Court
Speaker 1: as of Monday, so I got to give credit where
Speaker 1: it is due. I did take a little shot on
Speaker 1: Twitter today against the never Trumper people, because you know,
Speaker 1: there was so adamant that Donald Trump is a liberal. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think the wall is liberal. I don't think
Speaker 1: his economic plan is liberal. I don't think vetting refugees
Speaker 1: is a liberal. I don't think Neil Gorsich is a
Speaker 1: liberal based on his background in his history, and Washington
Speaker 1: Post even said in an article they put out that
Speaker 1: they think his track record shows he's more conservative than Scalia.
Speaker 1: I can only hope and pray. Sometimes you don't know.
Speaker 1: David Suit was probably the biggest disappointment in our lifetime,
Speaker 1: and probably you know, my favorite justice on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court now is Clarence Thomas by far, and I hope
Speaker 1: that Neil Gorsich gets into that category. And Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: and Justice Kalia. I mean, what they did for this
Speaker 1: country is just an enormous service that is immeasurable in
Speaker 1: terms of the damage that other wise would have been
Speaker 1: done by people that don't have the originalist philosophy, that
Speaker 1: actually believe in separation of powers and coequal branches of
Speaker 1: government and not citing foreign constitutions and legislating from the bench,
Speaker 1: or you know, coming up with crazy ideas to justify
Speaker 1: insane decisions. All right, we'll continue your calls on the
Speaker 1: other side when we come back more of the best
Speaker 1: of the Sean Hannity Show. Stay tuned. We know you
Speaker 1: never want to miss the Sean Show, and now you
Speaker 1: never have to. Just sign up for Hannity Headlines, a
Speaker 1: bite sized version of the show that you can take
Speaker 1: with you on your laptop, your mobile phone everywhere you go,
Speaker 1: even to your liberal in law's place in Vermont. So yeah,
Speaker 1: and after a few hours of that, you'll be glad
Speaker 1: you've brought Sean along. To sign up today for Hannity Headlines.
Speaker 1: Go to Hannity dot com. Yeah, they're lazy and they're
Speaker 1: going on vacation soon. Everyone in there thinks they're funny
Speaker 1: because they all put their feet up on their desk
Speaker 1: and they're acting like their drinking beer and relaxing and
Speaker 1: not doing their job. I don't listen play any game
Speaker 1: you want, but you don't do your job around here.
Speaker 1: You don't last. I'm just thirsty. I don't know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about. You know, what have I always said
Speaker 1: about firing people? I don't fire people. No, I always say,
Speaker 1: people fire themselves. I don't fire people. People really end
Speaker 1: up always in my universe firing themselves. Those people that
Speaker 1: get fired, and there's very few, because I'm not stupid
Speaker 1: in the people that I hire. And I just want
Speaker 1: people that want that care about their job as much
Speaker 1: as I do. And I wish the Congress cared about
Speaker 1: their job as much as all of you and this
Speaker 1: audience care about yours. And the differences is they're not
Speaker 1: likely to get fired. And you know, ninety percent because
Speaker 1: the jerrymandering, these people get reelected. And it's it's sad
Speaker 1: that there's no sense of urgency, real life urgency that
Speaker 1: let's say you're an emergency room doctor. What do you
Speaker 1: get to go away for Easter? No, you gotta work Easterday.
Speaker 1: You know, if you work in the restaurant business, you're
Speaker 1: working Easter Sunday or Palm Sunday or Christmas Day or
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving Day. And all those waiters and waitresses and everybody
Speaker 1: in between by the way that didn't come through the
Speaker 1: way you wanted came through gibber Josh, you know, gibberish.
Speaker 1: And I'm just like, I'm so frustrated that they can't
Speaker 1: get this healthcare buil done beyond words, and you know,
Speaker 1: and then they're gonna go away. You know, stay and
Speaker 1: do the Stay and do your work till you get
Speaker 1: it done. Stay, Stay and do your job. And if
Speaker 1: that means working this Saturday and this palm Sunday, like
Speaker 1: average people, like real people, like all of us in
Speaker 1: the real world that care about our jobs. I can't
Speaker 1: imagine not caring about work. I mean, I think back
Speaker 1: to every job I've had in my life. I mean,
Speaker 1: when I was washing dishes, they piled up unless I moved,
Speaker 1: and they weren't going away until I cleaned them. That
Speaker 1: was my job. You know. When I was a cook,
Speaker 1: those you know sheets that line up in front of
Speaker 1: the boiler, they need to get fulfilled, and they get
Speaker 1: they line up fast. You gotta move. I used to
Speaker 1: run inside these kitchens I worked in. I'd be running
Speaker 1: back and forth like and I loved it, sweating and
Speaker 1: loving it. When I was a kid, I was making money,
Speaker 1: I loved it. Nice samet poly girl at the end
Speaker 1: of the night was perfect for a thirteen year old kid.
Speaker 1: That was heaven. Sometimes they give us two and that
Speaker 1: was really heaven. Two same poly girls. I know when
Speaker 1: I was a bus boy, I remember I worked at
Speaker 1: this place in Flora Park. To Mary Peddler, I would
Speaker 1: run being a bus boy run. I remember when the
Speaker 1: bar got busy, I was running across the bar. Had
Speaker 1: to make every pina colada, banana, strawberry dacirie by hand
Speaker 1: at the time, every margaritta by hand and blend it.
Speaker 1: What a pain in the unit. What thank god they've
Speaker 1: streamlined the making of pina coladas and daciries and can't down.
Speaker 1: How about a shot in a beer? It's good grief.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh great, yeah, that's on the house.
Speaker 1: Take the shot in the Budweiser. Just for not making
Speaker 1: me work that hard. You used to have to make
Speaker 1: every single one by hand, and now you got a
Speaker 1: full restaurant, a full bar five deep. Did nobody wants
Speaker 1: to wait for their drink? Move? Can I have a
Speaker 1: pina colada, a banana dachrie and I'll take a regular
Speaker 1: dachiri and I'll take a strawberry Dachirie. I made the
Speaker 1: best strawberry dacries. Take real strawberries. You fill it up
Speaker 1: halfway in the blender. Then you put in a little
Speaker 1: bit of heavy cream just so it goes from a
Speaker 1: dark red color to a little lightish pink color. It
Speaker 1: really makes a big difference. And then you put in
Speaker 1: a ton of sugar to sweeten it out. And then
Speaker 1: you put in your rum and your strawberry liqueur, pile
Speaker 1: it on with ice and mix it and it comes out.
Speaker 1: You put an umbrella and then you're done. That's simple.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's missing from the healthcare meetings. Maybe they need
Speaker 1: some booths. Maybe I'll send over a case of Jamieson.
Speaker 1: See if they can't get these guys moving. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: lock them in the room with pizza, Jamieson's, bud, Cora's light,
Speaker 1: whatever they want, and they can't leave the room until
Speaker 1: I'll keep sending in food until they can't take being
Speaker 1: around each other anymore and they get the healthcare bill done.
Speaker 1: That's what I've been saying. Bring in all the different
Speaker 1: think tanks, because these guys are smart. The health the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation is full of smart people. Club for Growth,
Speaker 1: smart people Bring in the Tea Party, patriot people, bring
Speaker 1: in the Cato Institute. Let them advise them on the
Speaker 1: best bill that's going to lower premiums and give but
Speaker 1: better care, more choices, and more options. Let's see what's
Speaker 1: so hard about this. They had eight years to prepare
Speaker 1: for this moment. Eight years, all right, I want to
Speaker 1: move on. The President said to The New York Times
Speaker 1: today that former National Security advisor Susan Rice may have
Speaker 1: committed a crime by asking for the names of people
Speaker 1: who were mentioned in these intercepted communications. In other words,
Speaker 1: the unmasking. He says, I think it's going to be
Speaker 1: the biggest story. I agree with the President is this
Speaker 1: is watergate on steroids and human growth hormone at massively
Speaker 1: high doses and levels huge anyway, that's what he said.
Speaker 1: He declined requests for evidence. It's not the president's job.
Speaker 1: Media Research points out. Brent Bozell points out, the liberal
Speaker 1: media there's nothing to see here. That's their approach to
Speaker 1: Susan Rice's politically motivated unmasking of Trump and his associates
Speaker 1: as both the canad Date and as a president elect.
Speaker 1: Oh that's nothing. Do you not understand where weaponizing and
Speaker 1: politicizing intelligence gathering in the country. We're absolutely wiping and
Speaker 1: stomping on the Constitution and our Fourth Amendment rights against
Speaker 1: unreasonable search and seizure, our First Amendment rights for freedom
Speaker 1: of expression. This is the beginning of a police state
Speaker 1: if this takes hold. That's how dangerous this is. But
Speaker 1: you notice we never get to the bottom of anything,
Speaker 1: And that's Congress's fault again. Why has Hillary Clinton gotten
Speaker 1: away with her email server and a mom and pop
Speaker 1: shop bathroom in a bathroom closet and all the lies
Speaker 1: that she told? How did she get away with giving
Speaker 1: twenty percent of America's uranium by signing off as Secretary
Speaker 1: State at the exact same time and leading up to
Speaker 1: the time where she signed off on it, when all
Speaker 1: this money is being funneled through surrogates of these companies
Speaker 1: into the Clinton Foundation, and her husband's getting double as
Speaker 1: speaking rate and mosque out. And that we've had eight
Speaker 1: months of no evidence conspiracy theory advancement by the mainstream media.
Speaker 1: You know, remember when Donald Trump put out that he
Speaker 1: had been wire tapped, He was right, Donald Trump told
Speaker 1: the truth. I'm going to do this in my opening
Speaker 1: monologue on Hannity tonight. So what did they do? They ridiculed,
Speaker 1: they mocked, they bashed Donald Trump. Now that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has been proven right, where's their apology and corrections? You know,
Speaker 1: Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. It
Speaker 1: is a totally debunked, baseless claim that the mainstream media
Speaker 1: has now been focused on without a shred of evidence
Speaker 1: for eight months. Remember when Devin Nuness announced that he'd
Speaker 1: seen in credible evidence that Trump and members of his
Speaker 1: transition team had been caught up in this incidental surveillance
Speaker 1: where the names were amassed. Well, they didn't practice minimization,
Speaker 1: they didn't practice protecting the names of Americans, which is
Speaker 1: standard operating procedure. Newness also revealed that intel was shared
Speaker 1: among high level Obama administration officials. So instead of the
Speaker 1: media is seeing the weaponization for political purposes of intelligence
Speaker 1: and politicizing intelligence. No, the way that they want to
Speaker 1: go after Devin Newness, What did he do wrong except
Speaker 1: report the truth and these shocking revelations. So they react
Speaker 1: by besmirching him, and then the destroyed Trump propaganda media
Speaker 1: is out there smearing anybody and everybody who doesn't echo
Speaker 1: their biased agenda. But we do have some real reporters
Speaker 1: and investigative reporters like Sarah Carter and some people at
Speaker 1: Fox and others, but not a lot of them. And
Speaker 1: then you got new so called news networks and they
Speaker 1: won't even cover the story. Susan Rice contradicts herself from
Speaker 1: what she said two weeks ago. You know, you've got
Speaker 1: the mister Obama gasm thrill up his leg, Chris Matthews
Speaker 1: and others taking the low road accusing Republicans of being
Speaker 1: racist and sexist for pointing out Susan Rice as a liar.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, this is pathetic. These are insane times.
Speaker 1: We're living in. Up is down, Down is up. White
Speaker 1: as black, black as white. And if a liberal tells
Speaker 1: you there's a donut in the sky, you'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: there's a donut in the sky, and you'll get these
Speaker 1: stupid cable hosts that will repeat it and we'regurgitated. They're
Speaker 1: beyond dumb, and they're feeding conspiracy after conspiracy. So I
Speaker 1: guess an audience of knitwitz because if you had any
Speaker 1: common sense, you'd be able to see through all of this.
Speaker 1: Earlier today, when I asked about the New York Times
Speaker 1: asked by the New York Times, Trump said, what's true.
Speaker 1: It's such an important story for our country and for
Speaker 1: the world. It's one of the big stories of our time.
Speaker 1: Trump is right. So you got a partisan press ignoring
Speaker 1: something that's much bigger than Watergate. They won't give it
Speaker 1: any attention, ignoring the weaponization of intelligence, the politicizing of intelligence.
Speaker 1: Are they ever going to get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: who leaked the intel and committed a felony as it
Speaker 1: relates to General Flynn? Well, the media ever apologize for
Speaker 1: ridiculing the President over his surveillance claims now that they've
Speaker 1: been proven he was right, They ever gonna make a correction.
Speaker 1: They're gonna offer an apology. You know, all these networks,
Speaker 1: all of them, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MS, they're all
Speaker 1: and all their friends in the print media, The Washington Post,
Speaker 1: New York Times, they're all corrupt. They all lied, and
Speaker 1: they never own up to it. Then they claim to
Speaker 1: be fair, and then they don't like people like me.
Speaker 1: I'm bad for America. I did their job in vetting Obama.
Speaker 1: They didn't do it. I did their job, you know,
Speaker 1: pointing out that Obama was a rigid radical ideologue, that
Speaker 1: was indoctrinated, and he never broke his indoctrination. I predicted
Speaker 1: his presidency would fail. It failed spectacularly. But they never
Speaker 1: told you the truth about that either. All throughout the election,
Speaker 1: I mean, he got one revelation after another about from
Speaker 1: wiki leaks about collusion between the press and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
Speaker 1: and nobody seems to care or pay attention to it.
Speaker 1: What we did their job there too. Now you've got
Speaker 1: probably the biggest scandal in modern history unfolding before your eyes,
Speaker 1: and they're ignoring that. Also that now proven wrong that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was right about. Okay, maybe he could have
Speaker 1: used the word surveillance instead of wire tapping. If we're
Speaker 1: going to get into a word parsing, smantics and superfluous arguments, okay,
Speaker 1: we can argue he should have used a different word.
Speaker 1: Oh God forbid, he used the wrong word. He didn't
Speaker 1: say navy corpseman twenty times like Obama did. Nobody in
Speaker 1: the media cared to pick up on that, but us.
Speaker 1: It's so frustrating. You know, this country, and this is
Speaker 1: why I'm ad at Republicans. It's like we've got all
Speaker 1: this work to do, and it's like nobody wants to
Speaker 1: do their job. The swamp just wants to stay stay
Speaker 1: on vacation all the time. Think about when you say,
Speaker 1: roll your window down, dial the phone, what do you
Speaker 1: what is that just it's an expression, like you don't
Speaker 1: actually roll your window down, you hit a button. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't wire tap phones anymore. It's surveillance. It's there's
Speaker 1: no wire attachment to your phone. But the concept is
Speaker 1: what you're They were surveilling the conversations exactly, okay, and
Speaker 1: that's technically it's wire tapping. It's surveillance, but wire tapping, surveillance,
Speaker 1: it's all the same thing. It's just an expression. It's
Speaker 1: so ridiculous, it's just absurd. When is the media? Why
Speaker 1: can't they just listen? I gotta admit, in my life,
Speaker 1: I've made so many stupid mistakes. I really have. I've
Speaker 1: been a dope probably half my life. Is it just
Speaker 1: an idiot and I make mistakes? We know what the
Speaker 1: most under utilized world word in the English languages. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry those words. I'm sorry. I apologize. I was wrong.
Speaker 1: I was You know, why can't they do that? I mean,
Speaker 1: they're fixated on taking down the Fox News channel. Now,
Speaker 1: it's like twenty four seven, beat up on Fox all
Speaker 1: over the place, just outright deceptive, lying in headlines. I
Speaker 1: mean I personally, I don't care when it's about. I
Speaker 1: just don't care. I got better things to do with
Speaker 1: my time than give a flying rip about what these
Speaker 1: other people in the media is. Now, do you understand
Speaker 1: why I've never been to a correspondence dinner? You understand
Speaker 1: why I would never go? People said, well, you're gonna
Speaker 1: go this year. Trump's gonna be there. Well, Trump's not
Speaker 1: gonna be there, nor is anybody in its cabinet. But
Speaker 1: I wouldn't go anyway because I don't like these people,
Speaker 1: because I know they're honest to you, and I know
Speaker 1: they don't like me either. So why are we going
Speaker 1: to put on a pretense? All right? Eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: for one shown, We're gonna dig deeper. We're doing a
Speaker 1: deep dive into all of this surveillance, all of this unmasking,
Speaker 1: all of this leaking of intelligence, because it happens to
Speaker 1: be the biggest story of our time and the biggest
Speaker 1: scandal you'll probably ever see in your life, weaponizing intelligence,
Speaker 1: politicizing raw intelligence. All Right, our two Sean Hannity Show
Speaker 1: told free. Our telephone numbers eight hundred nine four one
Speaker 1: Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: A top story remains, although we're watching now the constitutional
Speaker 1: option being used where by Republicans. Finally we're getting some
Speaker 1: work out of these guys. It's good to see a
Speaker 1: little bit of backbone, a little bit of strength. We're
Speaker 1: watching monitoring all of that unfolding. But our good friend
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter over at Circa News and John Solomon over
Speaker 1: at Circa News are now advancing this surveillance unmasking, intelligence
Speaker 1: leaking story and their headline today as US spy agencies
Speaker 1: intercept unmasked congressional figures as often as once a month.
Speaker 1: Add to that comments by Congressman Peter King about the
Speaker 1: intelligence reports that center around Susan Rice and the umasking controversy,
Speaker 1: and he's describing it as almost resembling a private investigator's file. Quote.
Speaker 1: This is information about their everyday lives. He's a member
Speaker 1: of the House Intel Committe's sort of like in a
Speaker 1: divorce case where lawyers are hired and investigators are hired
Speaker 1: just to find out what the other person is doing
Speaker 1: from morning until night, and then you try and piece
Speaker 1: it together later on, and of course Devin Nunia stepped aside,
Speaker 1: recused himself only from the Russia side of the investigation,
Speaker 1: and Trey Goudie and others will be stepping in to
Speaker 1: take his place. Not a smart move by the Democrats,
Speaker 1: of my opinion, and it raises questions about whether Adam Chiff,
Speaker 1: who's already jumped to conclusions and is defending Susan Rice,
Speaker 1: whether he should also step aside. Sarah Carter a lot
Speaker 1: to get to today. How are you? I'm doing great, Sean?
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, let's get into this new column
Speaker 1: and layer of the onion you've been able to unpeel here.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, I think that this is very significant, to
Speaker 1: the point where not only were we concerned when it
Speaker 1: was revealed to us that the unmasking really of congressional
Speaker 1: representatives on the Hill, but the fact that many of
Speaker 1: them don't even know they're being unmasked. So we went
Speaker 1: back and talked to people who were in charge. Chairman
Speaker 1: Pete Hustra spoke with me last night and I wanted
Speaker 1: to know does this happen regularly? I mean, was this
Speaker 1: something that he was familiar with? And he said, this
Speaker 1: absolutely did not happen on a regular basis. At the
Speaker 1: only time they were aware of unmasking of a congressional
Speaker 1: representatives telephone conversation or intercept with persons overseas. If, for example,
Speaker 1: the congressional representative was approached by somebody, let's say, from
Speaker 1: Russia or the Ukraine or China, and that person was
Speaker 1: posing as somebody else and they were trying to talk
Speaker 1: to our congressman or about a particular issue. So if
Speaker 1: the intelligence community knew that the person that was in
Speaker 1: communication or reaching out to somebody in Congress was a spy,
Speaker 1: was working with the FSB in Russia or something else,
Speaker 1: then they may take that to the Gang of Eight
Speaker 1: or to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and say, look,
Speaker 1: you know, we know that Congressman so and so was
Speaker 1: approached by this person. Would you please, you know, inform
Speaker 1: them or should we inform them that they have been
Speaker 1: approached by a spy? And that was the only time,
Speaker 1: And he said that was extraordinarily rare, but that this
Speaker 1: is happening once a month, and that other congressional members
Speaker 1: have no idea that they have been unmasked is deeply concerning,
Speaker 1: not just to him, but also Senator Grassley, who we
Speaker 1: spoke with the House Judiciary Committee and others as well
Speaker 1: on background. Let's talk about what Peter King said, What
Speaker 1: do you know about that? Well, this is very interesting.
Speaker 1: Remember this was what our sources had originally told us
Speaker 1: that the concern wasn't just about that they were requesting
Speaker 1: the unmasking, but it appeared to be a type of
Speaker 1: weaponization of intelligence or political espionagests. They were gathering too
Speaker 1: much information that it exceeded far beyond Russia. And so
Speaker 1: I think there is a point there that if they're
Speaker 1: building up these types of dossiers on people, if they're
Speaker 1: looking at everything that they're doing, if this turns out
Speaker 1: to be true, then I think that certainly elevates this
Speaker 1: to a whole new level shine because what we're saying
Speaker 1: is the Fourth Amendments the foundation to our right for privacy,
Speaker 1: which is really what America is based on. It's based
Speaker 1: on this republic where we're guaranteed certain rights, where we're
Speaker 1: hearing to the right not to be listen to or
Speaker 1: followed to, I mean without warrant, without warrant. This raises
Speaker 1: it to a whole new level. When people in power
Speaker 1: have this capability and are able to access private information.
Speaker 1: We have to be very very concerned. It sounds to
Speaker 1: me like this has nothing to do with Russia at
Speaker 1: all in any way, shape, matter, or form. And can
Speaker 1: you go a little bit deeper into what you have
Speaker 1: discovered as it leads as it relates to, for example,
Speaker 1: the so called Gates notifications, and you know, named after
Speaker 1: Robert Gates, which goes to the Gang of Eight in Congress,
Speaker 1: and you have now top members and congressional figures now
Speaker 1: being intercepted and unmasked as often as once a month.
Speaker 1: I mean, this to me sounds so intrusive. Well, and
Speaker 1: to others. It's not just to you. I mean this
Speaker 1: is intrusive on many different levels. And this is going
Speaker 1: to be another part of this investigation, right. I mean
Speaker 1: we're looking at the Gang of Eight. So what that
Speaker 1: includes is the House Speaker, the Minority lead, the Democratic leaders,
Speaker 1: Senate Republicans, and bipartisan heads of the chambers of the
Speaker 1: intelligence committees. So now you're thinking that they're delivering this
Speaker 1: information and it's going and unredacted to the Executive Branch
Speaker 1: intelligence report. So this is going all the way up
Speaker 1: to the top dogs in the White House, right, So
Speaker 1: they're going to have access to these intercepts and they're
Speaker 1: going to be able to see them. And now the
Speaker 1: congressional representatives if they weren't told, right, if it wasn't involving,
Speaker 1: for example, maybe being approached by a spy from another country,
Speaker 1: which happened. I mean, intercepting these calls is not rare.
Speaker 1: And that's something that Pete Hochster made very clear. He said,
Speaker 1: you know, the fact that they intercept calls like this
Speaker 1: is not unreasonable because there's five hundred and thirty five
Speaker 1: members and their assistant. Yeah, but you also say in
Speaker 1: your article it was rare during his tenure to be
Speaker 1: alerted that a lawmaker congressional stafford had been on masks
Speaker 1: unless there was a serious threat. That's where he says
Speaker 1: a concern comes in. The concern comes in when they
Speaker 1: are actually unmasked, and then they are not notified that
Speaker 1: they've been unmasked, and then this information then reaches you know,
Speaker 1: gets put in adothier up to the highest levels of
Speaker 1: the executive branch, and they're able to see it, but
Speaker 1: the congressional representative can't see it or their aids. They
Speaker 1: don't know that they've been unmasked, so they're they're left
Speaker 1: out in the dark, right, and then we have to
Speaker 1: ask ourselves what was the information, what was the request
Speaker 1: for unmasking this, Why were they unmasked? And I think
Speaker 1: those are the answers that well the Executive Branch and
Speaker 1: the Intelligence community need to answer, because those are sure
Speaker 1: sure enough being questioned right now as violation of their
Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights. Yeah, you talk about
Speaker 1: three years ago the Charles Grassley was alerted to that
Speaker 1: a government whistleblowers communication with his staff was obtained by
Speaker 1: the intelligence community. I mean that to me is so outrageous. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: and then the fact that he didn't even and really
Speaker 1: talk about that publicly, and then when he heard about this,
Speaker 1: he's like, look, we really need we really need to
Speaker 1: take a good look at what's going on here. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have whistleblowers going to Charles Grassley. I mean I
Speaker 1: have people you know now coming out of the woodwork
Speaker 1: because they realize that this has been happening all the
Speaker 1: time and they want to share this information. I mean,
Speaker 1: remember when the CIA was it was forced to admit
Speaker 1: that some of its employees spied into the computers of
Speaker 1: Democratic staffers, and we talk about that in our story too,
Speaker 1: and Senator Diane Einstein. So I mean grassly acknowledged that
Speaker 1: this is a very serious problem. And remember this comes
Speaker 1: up for review this year in the Judiciary Committee, this
Speaker 1: expansion of the FISA, these expansions that I actually allowed
Speaker 1: people to request these unmaskings with such little information. So
Speaker 1: we've said this before, and I've said this on your
Speaker 1: show before, where they can just basically write down Susan
Speaker 1: Rice could request the unmasking of a certain phone intercept,
Speaker 1: and all she would have to say is for national
Speaker 1: security purpose. Well that can mean anything, and just putting
Speaker 1: that down would allow her to unmask. So it wasn't
Speaker 1: like she had to give a lot of justification for
Speaker 1: unmasking people. And now we see it was happening. Well,
Speaker 1: that goes to the rules that Obama got approved by
Speaker 1: the Fiser Review Court in twenty eleven, which was your
Speaker 1: earlier breakthrough report. Now we're seeing the magnitude of that
Speaker 1: rule change. And I guess you know, to me, what
Speaker 1: where this seems to be headed? And I don't see
Speaker 1: any other justification. I can't think of any other possible
Speaker 1: reason in my own mind. It seems to be going
Speaker 1: to where I believe it is, and that is, we
Speaker 1: have weaponized and we have politicized our intelligence community more
Speaker 1: and more. My suspicion goes to the higher echelon of
Speaker 1: government and government spy agencies, meaning like ie CIA Director Brennan. Well,
Speaker 1: certainly a lot of there's going to be a lot
Speaker 1: of questions, especially when it when it comes to the CIA.
Speaker 1: By the way, whenever, whenever you start saying, like when
Speaker 1: you slow down, I know you're being very careful with
Speaker 1: your words. Let's go back to my original question. What
Speaker 1: I see happening here is the weaponization of intelligence, politicizing intelligence,
Speaker 1: and it all the only logical place this goes as
Speaker 1: to those in the upper echelon, people like CIA Director Brennan.
Speaker 1: Now you start talking slowly and carefully. Go ahead, You're
Speaker 1: gonna make me talk slow. We have to be very careful.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm talking slowly. That's why I'm asking. All
Speaker 1: of this has to be based on evidence, right, we
Speaker 1: have to agree, prove it public. That's why I'm asking
Speaker 1: a question. But it does, it does. I am an
Speaker 1: awful human being. I don't even know why you come
Speaker 1: on my show, but I'm but but I need we
Speaker 1: need a serious answer to that, because to me, that's you. Yes,
Speaker 1: we do, and I what I can say is this,
Speaker 1: you know, when we looked at these documents, and the
Speaker 1: scope didn't just focus on the Congress, it focused also
Speaker 1: as well. And if you look at some of the
Speaker 1: documents that we have posted we've attached to Circa dot
Speaker 1: com inside our stories, you'll see a very interesting, interesting
Speaker 1: point that you're trying to make. There were journalists, clergy, doctors,
Speaker 1: lawyers that are also included in these rules on FISA intercepts. Okay,
Speaker 1: so it's very interesting how the FBI intercepts people and
Speaker 1: unmasks them. In twenty fifteen, it became very specific. And
Speaker 1: this is very important, Shine, because this was something that
Speaker 1: you had asked me about, you know, just yesterday, and
Speaker 1: when we were talking about this, you know, we're journalists
Speaker 1: swept up in this, all right. No, I got to
Speaker 1: ask you when we get back, is if you found
Speaker 1: any information? I mean, do you know how many people
Speaker 1: are writing me telling me I have been surveiled and unmasked.
Speaker 1: I have not been able to confirm that, but unless
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter from Circuit News, when we get back in
Speaker 1: National Security Correspondent, Senior national security correspondent. Our new pieces
Speaker 1: up on Hannity dot com from today if you need
Speaker 1: to get a link to it. Eight hundred nine for
Speaker 1: one Sean is our number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. We'll take a quick break, we'll
Speaker 1: come back. We'll continue with Sarah and at the bottom
Speaker 1: of the hour and Culter joins us to weigh in
Speaker 1: on this and Neil Gorsuch and the constitutional options. So
Speaker 1: right when we come back, and Coulter joins us on
Speaker 1: Neil Gorsuch and the constitutional option, and of course the
Speaker 1: latest on what is now becoming I guess you can
Speaker 1: call it, I guess the politicization of the intel community
Speaker 1: and the weaponizing of the intelligence community. All right, that's
Speaker 1: up next with Culter and then your calls in the
Speaker 1: final hour, bite sized version of the show that you
Speaker 1: can take with you to sign up today for Hannity
Speaker 1: Headlines Kennedy dot com. All Right, as we continue, Sarah
Speaker 1: Carter now, who has been doing incredible investigative work on
Speaker 1: this whole issue of surveillance and unmasking and leaking of intelligence.
Speaker 1: She is a senior national correspondent for Circa dot com,
Speaker 1: and she along with John Solomon, have their latest piece
Speaker 1: out today about how US by agencies intercept and unmasked
Speaker 1: congressional figures as often as once a month. And we
Speaker 1: have Peter King on record saying that, well, the information
Speaker 1: that was being gleaned by Susan Rice's unmasking, etc. Contained
Speaker 1: personal dirt on people associated with Donald Trump. He described
Speaker 1: it as news and information about their everyday lives. Like
Speaker 1: a divorce case. We have attorneys and investigators looking into
Speaker 1: what a spouse is doing to the other spouse. All right,
Speaker 1: So I know you probably because you're all over the story.
Speaker 1: Maybe people have asked you about me in this case.
Speaker 1: But I mean I'm getting asked by everybody every single
Speaker 1: minute of every day, and I don't have an answer,
Speaker 1: and I'm just reading what everybody else is reading, and
Speaker 1: I haven't gotten any word back as of yet. I mean,
Speaker 1: what is all of this about me? And this whole thing? Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I think that you know, people obviously see you. I
Speaker 1: mean you've been very outspoken, You've had a very close
Speaker 1: relationship with President Trump, and of course you're swept up
Speaker 1: into this whirlwind of controversy, and I think you have
Speaker 1: a right to be concerned and wonder if you know
Speaker 1: there was any unmasking of your phone conversations. Now, remember
Speaker 1: it would be conversations that you would have had from
Speaker 1: the United States to somebody foreign, or they could have
Speaker 1: rerouted it foreign to foreign back over to somebody else
Speaker 1: that was talking about you. So there's very interesting ways
Speaker 1: and different kinds of loopholes that would allow people to
Speaker 1: unmask and find out more information about you. Like I said,
Speaker 1: you've interviewed Julianna Sange many times. If you had conversations
Speaker 1: with him on your cell phone, very easily your name
Speaker 1: could have been unmask Shaun. The thing is, we don't know,
Speaker 1: right because they are such highly classified document and unless
Speaker 1: somebody's willing to leak that information, unless someone's willing to
Speaker 1: share that information. So I need, if I need, a
Speaker 1: friend inside the intelligence community that knows about it that
Speaker 1: would give me that information. Wouldn't that look I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm being very clear about this. I cannot confirm or
Speaker 1: corroborate this in any way, and I'm only reading what
Speaker 1: other people are reading. But wouldn't that open up for
Speaker 1: me a right for civil litigation and civil action against
Speaker 1: those people? That surveiled and unmasked me. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: not a lawyer, but I believe it would. I believe
Speaker 1: it would because there are certain Amendment rights, and you know,
Speaker 1: we think of certain protections, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: and I don't know, especially when it comes to our
Speaker 1: civil liberties, and you know, be able to speak privately
Speaker 1: to someone on a phone, especially when you're not conducting
Speaker 1: and you're not doing anything criminal, when there's no warrant
Speaker 1: for you, when you're just a regular citizen with a
Speaker 1: right to believe the way you want to believe, and
Speaker 1: everybody has those right as long as you don't harm
Speaker 1: anyone else or you're not committing a criminal act, you
Speaker 1: should have the right to privacy. But one of the
Speaker 1: interesting things that we discovered in our reporting, both John
Speaker 1: and I, was that, you know, when the FBI wrote
Speaker 1: the ruled in twenty fifteen, it actually came up with
Speaker 1: this idea like of circumstances in which you know, by
Speaker 1: the intercepts could be enmassed and shared in other sensitive
Speaker 1: professions like we think, I think of myself as a
Speaker 1: journalist as having you know, extra care. They're going to
Speaker 1: take extra caution, right because the FBI is really not
Speaker 1: going to want to get involved in investigating me per
Speaker 1: se because I'm trying to report stories. We have sources.
Speaker 1: I mean, what happens as long as I'm not violating
Speaker 1: any laws, you should not be exactly. I've got to go,
Speaker 1: but I've got to praise you and John. I mean,
Speaker 1: you guys are like the Woodward and Bernstein of our time,
Speaker 1: and the work you've done has been phenomenal, and you're
Speaker 1: so generous and sharing this information with our audience. And
Speaker 1: thank you Sarah Carter CIRCA News when we come back
Speaker 1: in Culture straight Ahead. We know you never want to
Speaker 1: miss the Sean Hannity Show, and now you never have to.
Speaker 1: Just sign up for Hannity Headlines, a bite sized version
Speaker 1: of the show that you can take with you on
Speaker 1: your laptop. You're mobile phae everywhere you go, even to
Speaker 1: your liberal in law's place in Vermont. So yeah, after
Speaker 1: a few hours of that, you'll be glad you've brought
Speaker 1: sewn along. To sign up today for Hannity Headlines. Go
Speaker 1: to Hannity dot com twenty five now till the top
Speaker 1: of the hour, eight hundred nine for one Sean. You
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program. Right, We're
Speaker 1: gonna bring in in Coulter here in just a second.
Speaker 1: But first and foremost, let's let's go over Susan Rice
Speaker 1: lying just two weeks ago on PBS and then totally
Speaker 1: contradicting yourself two days ago on NBC. I know nothing
Speaker 1: about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman
Speaker 1: Unis on that count today. I mean, let's back up
Speaker 1: and recall where we have been. The President of the
Speaker 1: United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, wire tapping Trump
Speaker 1: Tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred. Did
Speaker 1: you seek the names of people involved in to unmask
Speaker 1: the names that people involved in the Trump transition, of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, people surrounding the President elect, let me
Speaker 1: be ordered to spy on them, and absolutely, absolutely not
Speaker 1: for any political purposes to spy expose anything. I really
Speaker 1: don't know to what Chaman Nunez was referring, but he
Speaker 1: said that whatever he was referring to was a legal,
Speaker 1: lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on
Speaker 1: American citizens. And I think it's important for people to
Speaker 1: understand what incidental means. That means that the target was
Speaker 1: either a foreign entity, or somebody under criminal investigation. But
Speaker 1: the fact is that in the President did request back
Speaker 1: in December the intelligence community compile all of the information
Speaker 1: that it had on what it transpired during the campaign
Speaker 1: with respect to the Russians involving them selves in the
Speaker 1: presidential campaign, and that report was provided to the American
Speaker 1: people and unclassified for him into Congress, in classified for
Speaker 1: him in early January. Did the pace accelerate during the transition,
Speaker 1: perhaps in early December, perhaps when the President ordered investigation
Speaker 1: into the hacking, the Russian hacking? Did the pace of
Speaker 1: unmasking requests, if you're unmasking requests accelerate towards the end
Speaker 1: of the White House a tenure? And I can't say
Speaker 1: the pace of unmasking requests would accelerate, but if you're
Speaker 1: asking where they're more reports provided to senior US officials
Speaker 1: after the President requested the compilation of the intelligence which
Speaker 1: was ultimately provided in January. Yes, what happened was, as
Speaker 1: the IC went about the business the intelligence community religencesiness
Speaker 1: of following up on the Presidence order fulfilling the Presidence
Speaker 1: requests for such a report, they went back and scrubbed
Speaker 1: more reports. They began to provide more such reports to
Speaker 1: American officials, including myself. This is not anything politicals has
Speaker 1: been alleged. The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials
Speaker 1: utilized intelligence for political purposes. That's absolutely false. So it
Speaker 1: goes from knowing nothing to knowing everything and admitting unmasking,
Speaker 1: and that means acknowledging surveillance of a candidate and then
Speaker 1: a president elect and his transition team. And all the
Speaker 1: reports now from Sarah Carter goal a step further that
Speaker 1: they were looking not into anything connected to Russia, but
Speaker 1: into the personal lives of individuals, which then raises a
Speaker 1: lot of questions about how we have weaponized and politicized
Speaker 1: intelligence gathering in the country. And Coulter, author of the
Speaker 1: best selling book in Trump We Trust Eat Pluribus, awesome
Speaker 1: as you have to talk about this and obviously the
Speaker 1: constitutional option that is being used today. How are you, thanks?
Speaker 1: How are you? I'm good. It's always great to talk
Speaker 1: to you. By the way, I love reading rumors about
Speaker 1: you on the internet. I'm not even going to mention them,
Speaker 1: but it was very entertaining from my perspective considering our
Speaker 1: history together. Um, well, for people who don't know basically
Speaker 1: any well Gotha columns are always sent in by the agents.
Speaker 1: It was on the AOL Private Life, but basically anyone
Speaker 1: that I am alleged to be dating. You know that
Speaker 1: in the universe possible, I am not dating those people.
Speaker 1: It was very It actually made the wheel on AOL,
Speaker 1: which I thought was, Wow, this must be huge, and
Speaker 1: uh we are This one has been going around forever.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Walker and I are friends, no romance. And he's
Speaker 1: a great guy too. I like him a lot and
Speaker 1: a Republican. It's correct, all right, Let's start with the
Speaker 1: lies and the Papaha Benghazi lies and then contradicting and
Speaker 1: then admitting surveillance on masking and Sarah Carter and now
Speaker 1: saying it's about personal lives. Well, it's hilarious that this
Speaker 1: has gone. I mean, everything Trump says is hysterically denounced,
Speaker 1: and usually within two days as it's proved true from
Speaker 1: the hysteria over at the very beginning, Um, Mexico isn't
Speaker 1: sending their best And then you know what, a week
Speaker 1: later we get Kate Steinley, Um, we had the um,
Speaker 1: look at what's happening in Sweden? What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Sweden is the safest place in the World's huge riot
Speaker 1: Muslim rides blow up, and now we've gone to I mean,
Speaker 1: this is one of the most stunning turnabouts I've seen
Speaker 1: from Trump. Means to apologize to Obama for accusing him
Speaker 1: of committing a felony and spying on the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: to well, yeah, we were spying, but it wasn't political
Speaker 1: and it wasn't too love. We do it everybody. It's
Speaker 1: the craziest turnabout, and now you know, we at least
Speaker 1: understand m. It seems like kind of overkill to be
Speaker 1: so upset about Hillary losing, um, for Democrats and the
Speaker 1: media to obsess on this nothing burger Russia story um,
Speaker 1: which is completely collapsed um. And I wrote a little
Speaker 1: about that this week. But now we see why they
Speaker 1: were doing it. This was going to be their excuse
Speaker 1: when they get exposed for spying on private citizens, unmasking
Speaker 1: them from the White House itself. I mean, it's getting
Speaker 1: to the point where we're going to find that Obama
Speaker 1: was actually crawling around, you know, wiring Trump power. The
Speaker 1: way things are going with their story unraveling, but now
Speaker 1: this is going to be their defense. Well, we had
Speaker 1: to because of this fear of Russian collusion with the
Speaker 1: Trump team, And if I could just mention one thing
Speaker 1: that hasn't been hasn't been talked about because there's no
Speaker 1: evidence for Russia trying to influence the election. What I
Speaker 1: wrote about this week because I hadn't seen anyone else
Speaker 1: say this. The basic story, apart from the absence of evidence,
Speaker 1: the basic story is is cockamami. Their claim is Russia
Speaker 1: wanted Trump to win point one point two, that their
Speaker 1: dastardly planned for accomplishing making from the President of the
Speaker 1: United States was to get in and release emails from
Speaker 1: the DNC showing that the DNC was being horrible to
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. It's just a crazy theory on every level.
Speaker 1: This is that Russia is a nation trained in spycraft. Um,
Speaker 1: we didn't even know. We American experts, in politicans didn't
Speaker 1: know how this election was going to turn out. I
Speaker 1: remember the Democrats were praying, Oh, we want to run
Speaker 1: against Trump. Pah, this is disaster for Republicans. M The
Speaker 1: day of the election, New York Times had Hillary with
Speaker 1: a ninety one percent chance of winning. But oh and
Speaker 1: plus the idea that Russia would not want to deal
Speaker 1: with the corrupt, biable president Hillary Clinton, but rather a
Speaker 1: loose cannon who wants to drill Donald Trump. But how
Speaker 1: are releasing these emails with the DNC and W Washington
Speaker 1: going after Bernie Sanders? How does that help Trump? It
Speaker 1: could have been the worst thing that happened to Trump.
Speaker 1: The Democrats might have gotten their act together and said,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, taking us down to defeat. We've got
Speaker 1: to have a come to Jesus moment with with Hillary
Speaker 1: and tell her she's got to drop out. We're running
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. You just never know how these things are
Speaker 1: going to affect an election, and the idea that this
Speaker 1: was Russia's idea. Add to that the fact that Julian Assange,
Speaker 1: I mean, quite obviously the logical leaker here is someone
Speaker 1: within the DNC who thought Hillary's taking us down to defeat.
Speaker 1: We've had it with the David Brox and the de
Speaker 1: Wie Wasserman. Schulza's um leaking this stuff. And that's what
Speaker 1: Julian Assange says, as well as one of his associates.
Speaker 1: That's where they say it came from a DNC whistleblower,
Speaker 1: which is the only story that makes sense. Well, it
Speaker 1: was actually one of his associates. He's never confirmed. I
Speaker 1: did ask him when I had a chance to interview him.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny how he comes under fire. But
Speaker 1: the New York Times printed everything he printed. Well, he
Speaker 1: did clearly say it's not roche. He'd say, he said
Speaker 1: that the guy who collected it um allegedly he describes
Speaker 1: where it was a DNC whistle blow were past him,
Speaker 1: the emails. It was a park near American University. And
Speaker 1: whatever you think of it, Julian Assaji, maybe you know
Speaker 1: a reckless zealot. Nobody says he's a liar. He's very
Speaker 1: nearly the opposite. He's, you know, maybe a little too
Speaker 1: self righteous, but he's not the kind of person who lives.
Speaker 1: He says, not Russia. It's a d NC whistleblower. And again,
Speaker 1: the whole story. It only makes sense of the DNC whistleblower.
Speaker 1: But now we see lives. They're so obsessed with these
Speaker 1: weird connections and really crazy conspiracy theories, which is always
Speaker 1: a specialty of the left. They need to pretend there's
Speaker 1: some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia to explain
Speaker 1: why they were using the apparatus of the federal government,
Speaker 1: national security, deep state intelligence to spy on political opponents. Well,
Speaker 1: and it gets deeper, and this goes to the heart
Speaker 1: of Sarah Carter's big breakthrough article today, and that is
Speaker 1: that not only were they surveiling and unmasking and in
Speaker 1: the case of general fun leaking, which is a felony,
Speaker 1: but we now find out that almost it resembled almost
Speaker 1: a private investigator's file, and the information is about people's
Speaker 1: everyday lives. And that's confirmed by Peter King of New York,
Speaker 1: the congressman. He said, it's sort of like in a
Speaker 1: divorce case where the lawyers are hired, investigators are hired
Speaker 1: just to find out what the other person is doing
Speaker 1: morning until night, until you try and piece it together, right, right,
Speaker 1: And that's a police state. And this is now I know, well,
Speaker 1: the police state is now in the control of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and I think they got to start declassifying and releasing
Speaker 1: all this stuff. I mean, I suspect what they're doing
Speaker 1: is allowing the Democrats to go out more and more
Speaker 1: and more on a limb before revealing the truth. But
Speaker 1: this is now in the control of President Trump, and
Speaker 1: it may be I doubt it'll be particularly embarrassing. It
Speaker 1: might be a little embarrassing for some people who are
Speaker 1: being secretly surveiled, but I think it's worth it. This
Speaker 1: is a pretty shocking I may have to hire you
Speaker 1: as my lawyer too, because I got Jay Seculo and
Speaker 1: Joe Degeneva and maybe I'll get you in Levine and
Speaker 1: part of my team. If I was surveiled in a
Speaker 1: mass what do you think, Oh, you're just gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about the Penny plan. It'll be fine. See thanks
Speaker 1: a lot, and you know, just at least let's create
Speaker 1: an image that it might be a little more interesting
Speaker 1: than that. You know, you can demand that your tapes
Speaker 1: be released because I'm want to see them all. I mean,
Speaker 1: if they were going after you, I have no problem.
Speaker 1: I have no problem if they were. I mean that
Speaker 1: he only does show how crazy and how political. No,
Speaker 1: that's just it's tied in with the whole there's obsession
Speaker 1: with Bill O'Reilly right now. And if we could just
Speaker 1: have a little footnote on that. What Fox News compared
Speaker 1: to other cable networks. Good grief at one prominent cable networks.
Speaker 1: And I know it's unbelievable. You and I know more
Speaker 1: stories and by the way, also the heads and networks,
Speaker 1: if you know what I'm talking about. Stay right there.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll take a break more within culture, all right,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show News Round Up, Information Overload Hour coming
Speaker 1: up at the top of the next hour. Our buddy
Speaker 1: Rick Unger is here to get beaten up again today.
Speaker 1: I don't know why it comes back for more punishment.
Speaker 1: He's going to join us in studio in a minute.
Speaker 1: We continue with Ann Coulter. All right. So, I don't
Speaker 1: know if I like the term nuclear option, I would
Speaker 1: call it the Harry Read precedent, or I'd call it
Speaker 1: the constitutional option. And that is this is the first
Speaker 1: time in a couple of hundred years that, for purely
Speaker 1: partisan reasons, you have a political party that won't allow
Speaker 1: an up or down vote. So Republicans finally are showing
Speaker 1: a little bit of backbone. I've got to give him
Speaker 1: credit on this. Yes, I'm so glad you asked about
Speaker 1: this because I know other people have jobs, they don't
Speaker 1: sit around reading all day like I do. And I
Speaker 1: think conservatives should know the truth about this. And the
Speaker 1: truth is the supermajority requirements are absolutely unconstitutional. The Constitution
Speaker 1: clearly expected majority votes for basically everything in the Senate,
Speaker 1: and when it is not those cases are expressly identified.
Speaker 1: There are five cases where you need a two thirds
Speaker 1: vote to pass something in the US Senate. One impeachment,
Speaker 1: two expulsions, three to override a presidential veto, four treaties,
Speaker 1: and five to pass a constitutional amendment. Now, what sense
Speaker 1: does it make for the Constitution to expressly say, after
Speaker 1: Congress passes a law sends it to the president, the
Speaker 1: president vetos that you can override that Vito with a
Speaker 1: two thirds vote. But wait, now, suddenly we need a
Speaker 1: two thirds vote to even pass the law in the
Speaker 1: first place. It makes no sense. This is an unconstitutional
Speaker 1: rule that's been invented by the Senate. I don't know
Speaker 1: if anyone's ever challenged or if the courts would feel
Speaker 1: like they had a right to rule on a political
Speaker 1: rule of the Senate. But all we're doing with the
Speaker 1: so called nuclear option is getting back to a constitutional
Speaker 1: method of voting. And by the way, sometimes this will
Speaker 1: go against us. I'm not saying this with passion because
Speaker 1: Republicans have a majority right now. They wouldn't have needed
Speaker 1: Al Franken's vote to pass that monstrosity obanare, But it
Speaker 1: is the way the constitution is written. And I think
Speaker 1: our constitutional framers are smarter than we are. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think so too, and I've been proven right again and
Speaker 1: again over time. What do you think about expanding it
Speaker 1: or broadening these rules changes beyond just judiciary appointments. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: as I was just saying, to pass a law, it
Speaker 1: shouldn't be a majority vote. Now, look, that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: the Senate can have rules. They keep defending this two
Speaker 1: thirds vote is saying, well, we have to the minority
Speaker 1: have be able to chit chat. Okay, you can listen
Speaker 1: to their views. There are other things you can do.
Speaker 1: We can say we'll give you an hour. We can
Speaker 1: say you can filibuster. Go ahead, but you got to
Speaker 1: stand on the floor and filibuster. But but no, that
Speaker 1: in fact, I mean, as many constitutional scholars have written about,
Speaker 1: that was part of the reason the Articles of Confederation
Speaker 1: were dumb time we moved to a constitution, and also
Speaker 1: the whole mood of the country after the revolution was
Speaker 1: we're sick of being ruled by a tiny minority of elite.
Speaker 1: We don't want to be bossed around. Yes, we don't
Speaker 1: have a pure democracy, but when it comes to our
Speaker 1: representatives in Congress, it is supposed to be majority wins,
Speaker 1: not some special two thirds law. No again, that's for
Speaker 1: our train. I gotta I'm up on a clock here.
Speaker 1: But m E plurib is awesome. And Caulter's new book
Speaker 1: and we could talk forever as always. We love having
Speaker 1: you on. Thank you, Anne. And these are interesting times,
Speaker 1: aren't they? In Trump We truck, Yes, ma'am. Flora is awesome.
Speaker 1: All right, Thank you, Ann Caulter. When we come back,
Speaker 1: News Roundup, Information Overload, right, News Roundup, Information Overload hour
Speaker 1: here on the Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: four one, Sean, Oh, we got little Chucky Schumer, of course,
Speaker 1: crybaby Schumer, and he's out there attacking the president, trying
Speaker 1: to sounds like a tough guy. Mister, mister filibuster himself,
Speaker 1: mister obstructionists himselves. Listen to this. When Donald Trump campaigned,
Speaker 1: one of the main issues he campaigned on was that
Speaker 1: China takes us out to lunch, stealing millions of American jobs,
Speaker 1: trillions of American dollars in wealth through unfair trade practices.
Speaker 1: And yet since Donald Trump has become president, when it
Speaker 1: comes to trade. His policies make America look like a
Speaker 1: ninety eight pound weekling. He has done virtually nothing. Isn't
Speaker 1: this the same cry baby Schumer we've known about forever.
Speaker 1: I named my daughter her middle name is Emma, named
Speaker 1: for Emma Lazarus, the great poet who wrote those lines
Speaker 1: on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. Give me
Speaker 1: you're tired, you're poor, You're huddled masses yearning to breathe.
Speaker 1: Three free what we cost? So this executive order, it
Speaker 1: was mean spirited American who was implemented in a way
Speaker 1: that created chaos and confusion across the country, and it
Speaker 1: will only serve to embolden and inspire those around the
Speaker 1: globe who will do us harm. I noticed that Chuck
Speaker 1: show me yesterday with fake tears. I'm going to ask
Speaker 1: him who was his acting coach, because I know very
Speaker 1: well I don't see him as a crier. If he is,
Speaker 1: he's a different man. It was about a five percent
Speaker 1: chance that it was real, but I think there were
Speaker 1: fake tears. I say, where was the outrage of the
Speaker 1: Democrats when all of our companies were fleeing to Mexico
Speaker 1: and to other places far away and leaving your jobs behind.
Speaker 1: Now they're all coming back. Uh, Johnny Us now, Rick
Speaker 1: Hunger and Jonathan Gillham. We're going over all the news
Speaker 1: of the day, which is veried. Top story obviously remains surveillance.
Speaker 1: Now we've discovered that they're literally looking into the private
Speaker 1: lives like divorce hearings of Trump associates and of course
Speaker 1: the Republicans. Who's in the constitutional option? Uh, mister Unger,
Speaker 1: you want to weigh in on your your buddy Chucky.
Speaker 1: You love Chucky, don't you chuck e cheese? Actually I
Speaker 1: got a bigger kick out of hearing Kray there. That
Speaker 1: was pretty good. Uh. You know, listen, I don't know
Speaker 1: why Chucky is so upset because that executive order he
Speaker 1: was crying about it's still stuck in the courts. You
Speaker 1: mean you're judge shopping little technique worked? Is that what
Speaker 1: your suggestion? Shopping? Oh? Come on, they want judge shopping
Speaker 1: based on the states. Yeah, I guess that's probably too.
Speaker 1: You pick states that are gonna exactly except that it
Speaker 1: doesn't entirely work out because the states end up coming together. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you what, Well, then they know they're
Speaker 1: going to the ninth. Ninth Circuit's gonna surprise you, now,
Speaker 1: I don't. I think the Ninth Circuit's gonna come down
Speaker 1: in a different way. But well, the Ninth Circuit is
Speaker 1: embarrassed because about over eighty percent of the time they
Speaker 1: are overturned. They I thought the Ninth Circuit was right
Speaker 1: the first time around. I think it's hard to make
Speaker 1: the case this time around. What do you think, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: I think Chuck Schumer when he talks, it's like this,
Speaker 1: that's not Chuck humor at all. That is so bad.
Speaker 1: That is not a good Chuck Schumer. It's it's a
Speaker 1: little bit off. He has a little more rasp in
Speaker 1: his voice. But I'm I'm really scary. I'm really worried
Speaker 1: now because I'm afraid that Muslim I call him fundamentalist,
Speaker 1: everybody else calls him extremists are going to attack us
Speaker 1: now because somebody is well, first of all, he misquoted
Speaker 1: what the Statue of Liberty says. But I don't think that. Uh,
Speaker 1: I don't think you have to worry. Yeah, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: you know what, Listen, I know we're joking about this,
Speaker 1: but this is the perfect example of why we're in
Speaker 1: the mess. That we're in in this country because we
Speaker 1: of these political games. He's talking about Trump as though
Speaker 1: he's been in office for years and years. He's been
Speaker 1: in off us three months. He hasn't done There's nothing
Speaker 1: that has been able to be done where we see
Speaker 1: lasting effects. So I don't know what this guy saw
Speaker 1: to do this, but I'm going to agree with you
Speaker 1: on that. Look, I have seen. I have seen the
Speaker 1: memo that got leaked with respect to what Trump's plans
Speaker 1: are with renegotiating on NAFTA, and I will tell you
Speaker 1: I was a little surprised that it was as soft
Speaker 1: as as it was, and we'll see if that holds up.
Speaker 1: But no, I mean, after three months, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: you can say that he's done nothing on trade because
Speaker 1: I don't think you could expect him to do something
Speaker 1: yet on trade there's been no negotiation to take place.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I've you know, I actually when I heard that,
Speaker 1: I wonder why is Senator Schumer stretching to that degree.
Speaker 1: There's enough if he wants to go after the president,
Speaker 1: there's lots there he can pick on it. It's a
Speaker 1: little premature to do it on trade. But I tell
Speaker 1: you what I think you I think, Sean, you're going
Speaker 1: to be disappointed when you see what he has in mind.
Speaker 1: I'm not his anti trade, so I was not particularly
Speaker 1: disappointed with what he has in mind. You guys, I
Speaker 1: know a stronger point of view on that. The other way,
Speaker 1: I think. I think, I think it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: negotiation tactic, and I think these these countries that don't
Speaker 1: practice fair trade with US are are gonna get one
Speaker 1: or two of them will get slapped in the head,
Speaker 1: and then everybody and then everybody else will fall in
Speaker 1: line because they need this work with the United States.
Speaker 1: That's possible, all right, So we have the read option,
Speaker 1: and for the first time in a couple of hundred years,
Speaker 1: we've got a partisan filibuster where Democrats won't allow an
Speaker 1: up or down vote, and you have two former majority
Speaker 1: leaders in the Senate, Bob Dole from Kansas and Trent
Speaker 1: Lott from Mississippi, saying it's time to let it go.
Speaker 1: And the rules have changed because the Senate has changed,
Speaker 1: and the Senate has become a bittest bitter partisan become
Speaker 1: the House pretty much. Yeah, I mean, I actually, but
Speaker 1: here's the thing. Republicans are stupid. Republicans played by different rules.
Speaker 1: If it's Alana kay Game, we know a left winger. Right.
Speaker 1: If it's Ruth bad Againsburg, we know a left winger.
Speaker 1: Sonia Sodom Noah, left winger. Republicans, they go along, they
Speaker 1: allow the vote. Okay, they don't have to. They play along,
Speaker 1: And there's no reciprocity here. You can't tell me there's
Speaker 1: one thing wrong with Neil Gorsuch's background, credentials to sit
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. No, No, I mean I may
Speaker 1: disagree with some of his rulings, but that's not you
Speaker 1: know what, when you elect a president that's the Republican
Speaker 1: you know what you're going to get. You're going to
Speaker 1: get a conservative Supreme Court, just right, whether you like
Speaker 1: it or not. The time to fight that battle is
Speaker 1: not now. The time, to a thought, that battle was
Speaker 1: before the election. So I think for the Republicans, the
Speaker 1: best thing is what they're doing. They're using the constitutional option.
Speaker 1: I get rid of culture on every vote. Actually, I
Speaker 1: think you'd be disappointed if you did. I think it's
Speaker 1: a shame when the House or Senate and it now
Speaker 1: means something. I thought it was a shame when Harry
Speaker 1: redid it. I was against that right because to me,
Speaker 1: and I mean I understood his reasoning, just like I
Speaker 1: understand McConnell's reasoning. Now, But you take those kinds of
Speaker 1: issues to the people, you don't destroy the one thing
Speaker 1: that makes the Senate a more deliberative body than the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives. If this continues, it happened today, it
Speaker 1: is what it is. If they continue down this road
Speaker 1: and they do away with the legislative filibuster, well what
Speaker 1: an awful, awful shame. I just think, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go a little philosophical here, and that we have
Speaker 1: no individual thinkers in politics anymore. You have the Senate,
Speaker 1: you have the House of Representatives, you have the Presidency,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and the only way that they make
Speaker 1: decisions is based on party lines. That's I mean, there's
Speaker 1: no individual thinkers in the Republican Party that say what
Speaker 1: you just said, Sean, that say, hey, listen, we gotta
Speaker 1: stand up and we gotta go forward on this. There,
Speaker 1: you don't see with the what's going on with this
Speaker 1: spygate stuff, the Republicans should be going nuts about this
Speaker 1: brand new congressman that just stepped in to this field
Speaker 1: of a career. Should be going bullets stick saying I
Speaker 1: will not work under an environment where we may be
Speaker 1: spied on it. Because you're not. You're not hearing that
Speaker 1: from anybody. And that's because we don't yet, I mean,
Speaker 1: but it's because their allegiance is to two political private
Speaker 1: organizations and not to the American people, and not to
Speaker 1: this this whole thing, this whole thing that's happening today,
Speaker 1: the nuclear option. But I find so astounding. You don't
Speaker 1: have to be a political science genius to know that
Speaker 1: this is not a good strategy on the part of
Speaker 1: the Democrats. I've been squawking about this on my show
Speaker 1: for weeks. This is not an intelligent strategy. You know what.
Speaker 1: There is what at least a seventy five or twenty
Speaker 1: five percent chance that we're going to get to the
Speaker 1: last year of this president's term, and that's going to
Speaker 1: be when he needs to pick a justice. Right. I
Speaker 1: would have loved to have heard the Republicans explain why
Speaker 1: it's okay to do it in that year when it
Speaker 1: wasn't okay when it was another president. Now because you
Speaker 1: chose to fight over a nominee who is getting approved,
Speaker 1: it was he's clear he's going on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: All they're doing is playing to the base. They aren't
Speaker 1: doing their job. Aren't you worried at the admission of
Speaker 1: unmasking the contradiction of of of of what's her name?
Speaker 1: M farcas? No price still on that. By the way,
Speaker 1: did you did you ever get it? A lawyer up,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to answer the question, did you ever
Speaker 1: get it? To come on? Did you? I mean her talking?
Speaker 1: I mean I'm trying. Did she know that I was
Speaker 1: actually trying to help her? I like, she's gonna She's
Speaker 1: in trouble, dude, She's in big trouble. She is being
Speaker 1: very capably represented. So you got Susan Rice out there,
Speaker 1: and she's out there. You know now we've learned from
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter today that in fact, they're looking into the
Speaker 1: personal lines of people. There has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: except you guys. Are you're getting as ahead of the
Speaker 1: story as the other side. Let me tell you why
Speaker 1: you are. You know, as far as anything that we know,
Speaker 1: it isn't hirely possible that there's nothing to the Susan
Speaker 1: Rice story, and there's nothing illegal. It's illegal when you
Speaker 1: leak it. If she leaks something, but she's leaked. It's
Speaker 1: also illegal if you are read into a program and
Speaker 1: then you take that information and then you give it
Speaker 1: to somebody else in the government. Yeah, that we don't
Speaker 1: know that she did. Why did Why did Farcas need
Speaker 1: to know this? See? I don't think she had an idea.
Speaker 1: Well hold on a second, you say, I'm sure talking
Speaker 1: about Rice, but here, Well, you can't talk about Rice
Speaker 1: without talking about her and everybody else because the information
Speaker 1: that Rice unmasked is the same information that Farcas is
Speaker 1: talking about. So in that case, it got disseminated. No.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're you're making you're making a very big
Speaker 1: leap there that there's no may you may get there
Speaker 1: at some point, but we're not there yet. There's me
Speaker 1: to me. We went from two weeks ago, does she's no,
Speaker 1: I know enough thing? Remember Starr right, remember? And then
Speaker 1: then we got to oh yeah, surveillance took place, and
Speaker 1: oh yeah, I did a masking of Trump. And now,
Speaker 1: by the way, Sarah Carter has gotten everything right to
Speaker 1: this point. Now she's saying they're going after the personal
Speaker 1: lives of individuals, which means and proves it was weaponizing
Speaker 1: the intelligence communities. Oh you guys, we'll wrap things up
Speaker 1: get to your calls in the next half hour. News
Speaker 1: Round Up, Information Overload, Rick Hunger and Jonathan Gillhim straight ahead,
Speaker 1: bite sized version of the show that you can take
Speaker 1: with you. To sign up today for Hannity headlines, go
Speaker 1: to Hannity dot com. A right as we continue, Rick
Speaker 1: Hunger and Jonathan Gillhim staying with us, News Round Up,
Speaker 1: Information Overload Our all. Right, So what I'm trying to
Speaker 1: understand is why you aren't more upset that we now
Speaker 1: know your friend Evelyn Farkas sent it. She admitted that
Speaker 1: there was surveillance on masking She's talking about, let's get
Speaker 1: it to our friends, our colleagues on the Capitol on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill. Well, that would sound to me, and I'm
Speaker 1: not an attorney, but that sounds to me like leaking intel.
Speaker 1: That's my problem. I am an attorney, and that's why
Speaker 1: you haven't heard me screaming about President Trump and his
Speaker 1: people collaborating with with somebody from overseas, because I haven't
Speaker 1: seen any evidence to prove that yet. And I haven't
Speaker 1: seen any evidence to prove that Susan Rice did anything wrong.
Speaker 1: When I see evidence on either both or none. What about? What?
Speaker 1: What about what she's admitting to and how she contradicted
Speaker 1: what she said two weeks ago because she didn't. You know,
Speaker 1: that's not fair. What she said two weeks ago was
Speaker 1: not in response to the stay at the beginning of
Speaker 1: her two weeks ago when she says she knows nothing.
Speaker 1: I was surprised to see reports from chairman unis I
Speaker 1: know nothing about this. It's not very useful without the
Speaker 1: question that she's answering. Then all right, but she's talking
Speaker 1: about the very specific issue. Wa sit there and I go,
Speaker 1: I know that. But then she goes on and be
Speaker 1: saying she admit she knew everything about it. But she
Speaker 1: didn't say she knew nothing to this stuff, the very
Speaker 1: thing she saying she knew nothing about. You know the question.
Speaker 1: Let's look in the context of how And I hate
Speaker 1: to say these initials, but CNN has covered this, and
Speaker 1: like John Lemmont for instance, if you know, sometimes when
Speaker 1: the cops roll up on a scene and there's a
Speaker 1: dead body there, there's no evidence and so they have
Speaker 1: to do an investigation. They don't just assume that nothing
Speaker 1: has happened here and that the person just died in Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: according to the mainstream media and a lot of these
Speaker 1: people on the left, we should just let this go.
Speaker 1: And there's no evidence. That's why. That's why when you
Speaker 1: say the things that you say, you have to be
Speaker 1: very careful with that, because there is more circumstantial evidence here.
Speaker 1: When we look at farcas, when we look at Susan Rice,
Speaker 1: you do see that they were moving around information that
Speaker 1: was unmasked by Susan. Wait, let's let's just set a
Speaker 1: few things straight there. Number one, I'm not CNN. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you what I see. I have always been mistrustful
Speaker 1: of circumstantial evidence, and I apply the same to mister
Speaker 1: Trump's situation. Right, show me evidence. I have no objection
Speaker 1: whatsoever to an investigation of that, none whatsoever. You got
Speaker 1: a question, it should be investigated. And if the investigation
Speaker 1: ms turns up evidence that she or anybody in the
Speaker 1: in the previous administration did anything wrong, go get him.
Speaker 1: The problem is the problem is the people who are
Speaker 1: going to be doing the investigations. One don't want to.
Speaker 1: It's half of them are establishment from the GOP and
Speaker 1: they don't like Trump. The other half for Democrats who
Speaker 1: hate Trump. So see, this is why we need body
Speaker 1: responsible for that, and I'm all for an independent investigation.
Speaker 1: That's why I think I think James coming. It's the
Speaker 1: Republicans that won't let that happen. I think James Comen
Speaker 1: should be fired, and I think, a how do you
Speaker 1: how do you fire him? Term you ask him to resign?
Speaker 1: You have you ask me to resign, but you also
Speaker 1: can look and see if he's done malpractice of his job,
Speaker 1: and then you can you can ask Listen, my take
Speaker 1: is very clear, and I think the what we see
Speaker 1: unfolding before our eyes is gonna be much deeper than
Speaker 1: Watergate ever was, and that is we are now weaponized
Speaker 1: and politicized intelligence gathering in the country. That is the
Speaker 1: beginning of a police state. As a liberal, you should
Speaker 1: be on my side about this. I'm on your side
Speaker 1: once I know that it happened, but I just you're
Speaker 1: presuming it happened. I'm not making I am. I'm citing
Speaker 1: Fox News as report from yesterday that says they literally
Speaker 1: look Peter King said, this information is about people's everyday
Speaker 1: live We gotta let you both go by the way.
Speaker 1: I love having you both in studio. Good to see
Speaker 1: you both. Thanks for being one of eight quick Break
Speaker 1: quick Pack will continue. We know you never want to
Speaker 1: miss the Sean Hannity Show, and now you never have to.
Speaker 1: Just sign up for Hannity Headlines, a bite sized version
Speaker 1: of the show that you can take with you on
Speaker 1: your laptop. Your mobile phauled everywhere you go, even to
Speaker 1: your liberal in law's place in Vermont. So yeah, after
Speaker 1: a few hours of that, you'll be glad you've brought
Speaker 1: sewn along. To sign up today for Hannity Headlines. Go
Speaker 1: to Hannity dot com twenty five now till the top
Speaker 1: of the hour. We'll get to your calls here in
Speaker 1: just a minute. I want to update you on the story.
Speaker 1: Remember this fourteen year old girl forced into a bathroom stall,
Speaker 1: repeatedly and brutally raped in Rockville High School in Maryland
Speaker 1: by two illegal alien teenagers and those accused, one of
Speaker 1: which had a pending deportation order. We're seventeen, eighteen years old,
Speaker 1: but under the district sanctuary policy, they were placed in
Speaker 1: ninth grade. And a detailed and gruesome account of this
Speaker 1: rape we have talked about in detail, and this local
Speaker 1: national outrage about this. There's a group called that has
Speaker 1: put a petition together called Stand United calling for the
Speaker 1: superintendent Jack Smith to reverse the sanctuary policies there. And
Speaker 1: I wanted to get an update on this and a
Speaker 1: senior campaign organizer for Stand United as Angela morbidos with
Speaker 1: US Angela. How are you gist on him doing well? Well,
Speaker 1: explain to me obviously, did you see that the lawyers
Speaker 1: for these two illegal immigrants are claiming that this was
Speaker 1: consensual sex with the fourteen year old girl? What are
Speaker 1: the laws in Maryland as it relates to statutory rape?
Speaker 1: What are the age consent laws? Well, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: definitely not an expert on those, but I can tell
Speaker 1: you that, you know, there is no none of that's
Speaker 1: supposed to be happening inside a school, let alone during
Speaker 1: school hours, where you have two people who are perpetrating this,
Speaker 1: who dragged her in your bathroom stall. They're seventeen and eighteen,
Speaker 1: she's fourteen. There are so many layers here of how
Speaker 1: this is illegal. Okay, So now what is your petition
Speaker 1: calling for that they stopped being a sanctuary city or so.
Speaker 1: Our petition asks the school superintendent to come up with
Speaker 1: a policy that at least looks into the background of
Speaker 1: new students who are enrolling in the school of Montgomery
Speaker 1: County Public School right now has a policy where anyone
Speaker 1: can show up and be allowed into their public schools,
Speaker 1: no questions asked about their background. In fact that by
Speaker 1: these two suspects were considered freshmen, they had come across
Speaker 1: the border in twenty sixteen, they had no educational records,
Speaker 1: and instead of asking why not, the schools just said, Okay, great,
Speaker 1: I guess you're a freshman. That's pretty unbelievable to me that,
Speaker 1: you know. I just I don't understand the thinking in
Speaker 1: the mindset that you know. You know. This is one
Speaker 1: of my biggest arguments. It's been nobody realizes that we're
Speaker 1: spending billions and billions and billions of dollars a year
Speaker 1: on education, on healthcare, the criminal justice system, and that
Speaker 1: is not even the most devastating impact of illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: Then you have people that are competing for jobs at
Speaker 1: lower wages, so that puts Americans out of work. Then
Speaker 1: you've got those people that commit crimes. I've given the
Speaker 1: statistics when I sat through a briefing down, a security
Speaker 1: briefing down in Texas with then Governor Rick Perry six
Speaker 1: hundred and forty two thousand crimes, including murders and rapes
Speaker 1: against Texans, just in a seven year period of time.
Speaker 1: I was stunned and shocked. And you know, here we
Speaker 1: have an incident where you have people in the country illegally,
Speaker 1: and you have a sanctuary city policy, and then you
Speaker 1: have the eighteen and seventeen year old kids in with
Speaker 1: thirteen fourteen year old kids in school and a rape happens,
Speaker 1: and then they claim it's consensual. It just doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense to me. This whole story is just so
Speaker 1: sad and so tragic that now you have a fourteen
Speaker 1: year old girl whose life has been changed forever because nobody,
Speaker 1: none of the adults who were supposed to be educating
Speaker 1: her and at least keeping her safe while she's in
Speaker 1: school every day, because none of them thought to ask
Speaker 1: questions of men who were One of the men was
Speaker 1: an adult, the other one seventeen, so just shy at
Speaker 1: the age of majority. No one asks them any questions.
Speaker 1: And when you think about how something like this happened
Speaker 1: and the bureaucracy in place failed this goal at every level, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: All right, well, thank you for the update, and if
Speaker 1: people want to sign your petition. Where do they go
Speaker 1: to it? You can check us out at stand united
Speaker 1: dot org or on Facebook at stand United Petitions. We
Speaker 1: hope that you will sign this petition. It's going to
Speaker 1: go to the school superintendent and we're looking forward to
Speaker 1: getting a policy in place to make sure this never
Speaker 1: happens again. All Right, Thanks Angela for all you're doing.
Speaker 1: We really appreciate it. Thanks for the update eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine for one Sean toll free telephone number you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. Kimberly is in Idaho. Kimberly,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. Glad you are with us. Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you doing, Sean? I'm good? How are you today?
Speaker 1: I am in shock? What's the matter? I mean, well,
Speaker 1: the thing that I also just realized and was that
Speaker 1: you were part of You were partly survailable along with
Speaker 1: I can't remember the gentleman's first name, but yeah, last
Speaker 1: name was Prince. Yeah, Eric, Prince. Listen. I've read the
Speaker 1: stories I've got. I've been very clear on Twitter. I
Speaker 1: have not been able to confirm, although I have my
Speaker 1: sources looking into it, I have not been able to
Speaker 1: confirm or corroborate that I was surveiled or unmasked. As
Speaker 1: you know all these stories, I mean, I've seen a
Speaker 1: number of them now all over the place. I've not
Speaker 1: been able to independently confirm that, but I am making
Speaker 1: it very clear that if in fact, that did happen
Speaker 1: to me, and I consider it such a violation because look,
Speaker 1: there's no way that I was picked up in any
Speaker 1: incidental legal incidental surveillance, because I don't know. But this
Speaker 1: is a thing that concerns me as an American. We
Speaker 1: did not sign up for this. We did not sign
Speaker 1: up for a police state. No, we didn't. And we've
Speaker 1: had one liar after another in the Oval office. Parted
Speaker 1: with Clinton, then I went to George Bush getting us
Speaker 1: into Iraq under false pretenses. Then it went to then
Speaker 1: I went to Obama, and it's ridiculous, it's out of hand.
Speaker 1: And I read this article that m Hillary's plan for
Speaker 1: you and Barack Obama's plan for you too was that
Speaker 1: if Hillary won that they were going to try to
Speaker 1: get you fired from Fox. I didn't say where did
Speaker 1: you see that? I did not see that. Um, it
Speaker 1: was an article, it was on it was on Facebook
Speaker 1: about how how Obama did not like you, because you're
Speaker 1: you didn't paint him in a flattering light. Listen all
Speaker 1: of that truth. Look, nobody vetted him harder and got
Speaker 1: to the truth of Look, I think I've been proven
Speaker 1: through the prism of history that I was dead on accurate,
Speaker 1: even beyond my imagination. As it relates to Obama, I
Speaker 1: know he hated it. I mean he mentioned me, you know,
Speaker 1: a dozen times, and then was told by somebody to
Speaker 1: stop because as I kept using every time, he did
Speaker 1: it as a promo. And so you know, my only
Speaker 1: answer to him is listen, nothing surprises me. You know,
Speaker 1: you got to remember, remember the secret police stories that
Speaker 1: Dick Morris used to tell about the Clintons, and then
Speaker 1: you've got the irs being used. Now we've got confirmation
Speaker 1: they've weaponized the intelligence community. I mean this blockbuster discovery
Speaker 1: that they were more interested in getting into the private
Speaker 1: lives of individuals and any more than anything else. I'm
Speaker 1: not afraid of whatever they might have done to me,
Speaker 1: but I listen, I will not stop, and I'm I
Speaker 1: would do this just for the principle that no American
Speaker 1: and if it happened, if it ever turned out it
Speaker 1: was me that no American because of their political point
Speaker 1: of view, should be surveiled and unmasked. And so if
Speaker 1: it if I ever get to confirm it, and I
Speaker 1: have people looking, people that like me within the intelligence
Speaker 1: community are looking into it for me. If my sources ever,
Speaker 1: it's ridiculous. And the thing is is I wish that
Speaker 1: Trump wouldn't have signed signed over. Our search histories too
Speaker 1: are to be released. You know, Listen, all of that
Speaker 1: is the beginning of a police state. Everything you're talking
Speaker 1: about is this is it now? If they want to
Speaker 1: embarrass me, intimidate me, silence me, that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: And I'm willing the time was so glad. I love
Speaker 1: watching your show and I love how how hard hitting
Speaker 1: you are towards these Listen, I make a lot of enemies.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not surprised, I mean nothing. I have for
Speaker 1: years assumed that my tax returns are gone over with
Speaker 1: a fine tooth comb and percentage wise. Even my own
Speaker 1: accountant says to me, what are you doing? You know
Speaker 1: you really should be taking these deductions. Um, and I'm
Speaker 1: My next question is is it going to likely trigger
Speaker 1: an audit? Yes? Okay, leave it in, just don't don't
Speaker 1: take it because it's not worth it to me to
Speaker 1: be the target. And even with those part actions that
Speaker 1: I've put in place, I still get attacked by them.
Speaker 1: I started dealing with the case right now with the irs,
Speaker 1: and it's ridiculous, and it's absolutely ridiculous what they're what
Speaker 1: they're trying to look at here. But you know, this
Speaker 1: is my this this goes with the territory. A lot
Speaker 1: of good things. I get to meet nice people like you.
Speaker 1: I get to talk to great Americans like you, and
Speaker 1: I am not shy about expressing my political views. I
Speaker 1: just don't know the answer. I can't give a I
Speaker 1: don't know, I can't confirm. I have my sources looking
Speaker 1: and if I get an answer, I promise I will
Speaker 1: be forthcoming. But I have not been able to confirm it.
Speaker 1: And I keep reading the same things that you're reading,
Speaker 1: and I'm not surprised at all to see it to
Speaker 1: be perfectly blunt. Brian is in New York City the
Speaker 1: All New AM seven ten w R The Talk of
Speaker 1: New York, New Jersey, Long Island. How are you, sir, Sean.
Speaker 1: You're doing a great job. I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: love your show. Thank you, sir, and Mark Levin are
Speaker 1: than It's great stuff. God bless us. My question is
Speaker 1: Jevin Nunez knew about the unmasking back in January. I understand,
Speaker 1: Why is it that James Comy came before Congress and
Speaker 1: he didn't really suggest that they were investigating this these
Speaker 1: intelligence leagues? Now where is he all this is coming out?
Speaker 1: And Susan Rice, where is James Comy in this whole charade?
Speaker 1: It's a really good question. I mean, it bothers me
Speaker 1: that he acknowledges one type of investigation is going on,
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation. When asked about the felony committed with
Speaker 1: the intelligence leaking, he just has nothing to say about it.
Speaker 1: And his answer is the standard, Well, we don't talk
Speaker 1: about potential or ongoing investigations, And why did you just
Speaker 1: five minutes ago start talking about the quote Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: even though we all know there's no evidence uptil this point.
Speaker 1: So I fear actually that Comy may have been politicized. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm I don't know the guy, and the way he's
Speaker 1: acting is kind of bizarre, unpredictable. I'm not sure. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure why he's doing the things he's doing, and
Speaker 1: it's troublesome to me, especially in light of the seriousness
Speaker 1: in what we know about surveillance of a presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: a president elect is transition team, and now the new
Speaker 1: discovery that they're looking into the personal lives of all
Speaker 1: these people nothing to do with any real national security investigation.
Speaker 1: That means we have weaponized our intelligence community, and that's
Speaker 1: a very, very dangerous position for the United States of
Speaker 1: America to be in. Anyway, Brian, good call, sir, Thank you,
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Let's say hi to Shannon in Florida. Shannon, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you? And we're glad you called hi? How
Speaker 1: are you? Thank you so much. I've been listening to
Speaker 1: you for a while and I'm telling you, Sean, you
Speaker 1: have a real chance. I'm so telling you. You keep
Speaker 1: screaming and telling us, and I believe you, and I
Speaker 1: want to believe you, but you keep saying how you
Speaker 1: want to keep it everybody accountable and hold everybody, And
Speaker 1: you have a chance. I have to prove you guilty.
Speaker 1: They you don't have to prove it. Nail them to
Speaker 1: the wall, Shawn. You have a chance. If they're surveilling you,
Speaker 1: make them prove that they're not. Well, I listen, I'm
Speaker 1: going to be very judicious, very cautious, but also very
Speaker 1: thorough cautious. Well, but the thing is you But I well,
Speaker 1: because I believe in the rule of law. I mean,
Speaker 1: in other words, just because just because I read something
Speaker 1: doesn't mean I necessarily believe it. Now, somebody somewhere in
Speaker 1: the intelligence community clearly, in my opinion, leaked that this happened.
Speaker 1: That's my take on it. But I've not been able
Speaker 1: to independently corroborate or confirm this, So I'm all I'm
Speaker 1: doing is due diligence. I'm using every insider source I
Speaker 1: have trying to get to the answer, and as of now,
Speaker 1: I can confirm or corroborate anything at all has happened
Speaker 1: that is inappropriate. Can't confirm I've been surveiled. I can't
Speaker 1: confirm I've been unmasked. I don't know. Am I worried
Speaker 1: about a lot of people? Look, I really appreciate a
Speaker 1: lot of people are writing me worried for me because
Speaker 1: they see it as such an invasion of privacy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not. I'm I'm I'm telling all my
Speaker 1: friends I'm not worried. I don't care. You know there's
Speaker 1: nothing they can do to hurt me, and then there's
Speaker 1: not Look at you. You will discover that I curse
Speaker 1: a lot more than you think I do. Oh no,
Speaker 1: I believe you. But here, think about this. You have
Speaker 1: a team. They make phone calls for you all the time.
Speaker 1: I know they do because you're a very busy person.
Speaker 1: So how do you know your team wasn't surveiled. It's
Speaker 1: not fair to them that you aren't taking up the
Speaker 1: staff and saying, okay, if you're going to do this
Speaker 1: to me, if somebody leaked, by the way, if they
Speaker 1: ever surveilled Linda, I mean it would be it would
Speaker 1: be every word would have to be bleeped. It would
Speaker 1: never get to begin every phone call with hello, the
Speaker 1: NSA and then I continue and then you continue. By
Speaker 1: the way, I do that a lot too. I've been
Speaker 1: doing them for years. But that's okay. You got to
Speaker 1: think about I'm challenging you to put your money where
Speaker 1: your mouth is. You want to hold them accountable. Listen,
Speaker 1: I could promise you this if I ever do confirm
Speaker 1: and I don't know where this is going. I really
Speaker 1: and and to be honest, I'm so focused on my job.
Speaker 1: It's not been top of mind for me. I'm very
Speaker 1: honest here. I've got friends. I've got friends, some of
Speaker 1: the you know them, Joe Degeneva, Uh, Jay Sekulo, I have.
Speaker 1: These guys have already agreed to represent me because that
Speaker 1: would be cause for civil action, and that means I'd
Speaker 1: be able to depose every single person involved in any
Speaker 1: surveillance of me or any unmasking of me. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I promise one thing if it happened, if
Speaker 1: it turns out it's true, I will not stop. Every
Speaker 1: one of them will be deposed under oath, and I
Speaker 1: will I will chase this down to the to the
Speaker 1: I'll squeeze every bit of truth I could get out
Speaker 1: of these people.