Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Shawan Hannity Radio show podcast. All right, so I
Speaker 1: have insomnia, but I've never slept better. And what's changed
Speaker 1: just a pillow. It's had such a positive impact on
Speaker 1: my life. And of course I'm talking about my pillow.
Speaker 1: I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now
Speaker 1: you can to just go to my pillow dot com
Speaker 1: or call eight hundred zero nine zero use the promo
Speaker 1: code Hannity, and Mike Lindell, the inventor of My Pillow,
Speaker 1: has the special four pack. Now you get off to
Speaker 1: my Pillow premiums and to go Anywhere pillows. My pillows
Speaker 1: made here in the USA has a sixty day unconditional
Speaker 1: money back guarantee and a tenure warranty. Go to my
Speaker 1: pillow dot com right now or call eight zero nine
Speaker 1: zero promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special four
Speaker 1: pack offer. You get to my Pillow Premium pillows and
Speaker 1: to go Anywhere pillows forty percent off. And that means
Speaker 1: once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of
Speaker 1: peace full and RESTful and comfortable and deep pealing and
Speaker 1: recuperative sleep that you've been eaving and you certainly deserve
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com promo code Hannity, you will love
Speaker 1: this pillow. All right, glad you with us Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Right down our toll free telephone number. You want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. We're going to try
Speaker 1: and do something that I think is going to be
Speaker 1: informative today, and that is explained what the deep state,
Speaker 1: what the intelligence issues are all about. We'll talk about surveillance.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, We'll talk about unmasking, We'll talk about intelligence leaks,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about minimization. I'm gonna try and explain this
Speaker 1: because it gets very complicated. And I keep telling you
Speaker 1: about five forces that are trying to destroy President Trump,
Speaker 1: and the number one in the biggest danger he faces
Speaker 1: is from the deep state. Then, of course you've got Democrats,
Speaker 1: Then you've got a corrupt media. Then you've got weak, pathetic, visionless,
Speaker 1: identity less Republicans and never Trumpers who just want him
Speaker 1: to fail. Um, I'll give you a quick example. Now
Speaker 1: we've got full transcripts of the President's calls with Mexico.
Speaker 1: In Australia, the Australian Prime Minister, the Mexican President. You
Speaker 1: got the full transcript up there now on top of
Speaker 1: the media spin, which is most interesting to me. The
Speaker 1: one thing is I've read through them all. It's amazing
Speaker 1: how the media takes out of con the presidents like,
Speaker 1: I don't even want to do a deal with you,
Speaker 1: and next so I'm just gonna put a tariffy on
Speaker 1: you and you're done. But I guess, all right, you
Speaker 1: want to negotiate. Jared wants to give a shot. All right,
Speaker 1: I'll give a shot. But I'm really happy just putting
Speaker 1: up the putting up the teriff against you, because you
Speaker 1: guys have played unfair. It's bad for the American people,
Speaker 1: it's hurting jobs, and we're gonna build the wall. And
Speaker 1: the media takes one little point again when the President says, well,
Speaker 1: the wall is the least important part of it in
Speaker 1: terms of dollars, and that's all the President was saying.
Speaker 1: That's all they took out of it. But if you
Speaker 1: actually take the time to read the transcript and are lazy, pathetic,
Speaker 1: ideological news media today, you know are trying to create
Speaker 1: a headline that doesn't exist. If you take the time
Speaker 1: to do your job, Now I have the transcripts, both
Speaker 1: of them, printed out in front of me, and it's
Speaker 1: about a hundred pages. So I took the time to
Speaker 1: actually read the transcripts a little less than a hundred
Speaker 1: and reading the transcripts you get a very different You
Speaker 1: want to see how the media bias exists. Print out
Speaker 1: the transcripts, read it for yourself, and then make a
Speaker 1: decision on your own if the media is reporting accurately
Speaker 1: to you what it is that happened in these phone calls. Now,
Speaker 1: that's not the point I'm really trying to make here.
Speaker 1: Why these transcripts out? This ever happen to Obama? This
Speaker 1: ever happened to George W. Bush? Okay, do you think
Speaker 1: of other presidents presidents that have had to deal with
Speaker 1: the selective deep state leaking of intelligence that should never
Speaker 1: be leaked to anybody? Have we not seen enough of this?
Speaker 1: I know many many people. We go on with our
Speaker 1: busy lives and we're worried about other things. But General
Speaker 1: Flynn's life was destroyed because of deep state leaking in
Speaker 1: a violation of the law and felonies that were committed.
Speaker 1: And then you add to that a hundred twenty five leaks,
Speaker 1: and there's many, many more that was only in a
Speaker 1: d six day period, and we see on a daily
Speaker 1: basis that this intelligence community, and I want to be
Speaker 1: very clear how I'm talking about, that it is now
Speaker 1: an effort to prevent the president, to undo an election,
Speaker 1: to delegitimize him, to prevent him from from fulfilling the
Speaker 1: promises that he made to all of us, the American people,
Speaker 1: of his agenda and getting his agenda accomplished. And then
Speaker 1: the media will come in after the leaks come out.
Speaker 1: They don't care that it's leaked material. I mean, everyone
Speaker 1: cares if Julian Assange does it. Everyone cares if somebody
Speaker 1: on the outside does it, But they don't care that
Speaker 1: it's even happening from within our own government. And that's
Speaker 1: why I say the deep state is the biggest threat
Speaker 1: that is now facing this country. I want to be
Speaker 1: very clear here within the intelligence community, and I know
Speaker 1: many of them, as a matter of fact, some have
Speaker 1: been unfairly viciously run out of their jobs because of
Speaker 1: an internal battle that is going on, which we're gonna
Speaker 1: get to in great detail here in a minute. Within
Speaker 1: the intelligence community, people that have been working to expose
Speaker 1: the deep state, get rid of the Obama holdovers, those
Speaker 1: people within the government that don't like the president and
Speaker 1: don't support his agenda, those that are responsible for the leaks.
Speaker 1: So when I talk about the deep state, who am
Speaker 1: I talking about here hand? Any deep state? And this
Speaker 1: is a fairly new term, Hannity, you use it a lot.
Speaker 1: I'm not fully sure what it means. Well, that's why
Speaker 1: we're doing the next hour with Sarah Carter and Caroline
Speaker 1: Glick to help you understand it more deeply. But when
Speaker 1: you're leaking transcripts of own calls with the President of
Speaker 1: the United States of America and the President of Mexico
Speaker 1: and the Prime Minister of Australia, those are conversations that
Speaker 1: are supposed to be private. Those are conversations that are
Speaker 1: supposed to be encrypted end to end. But with the
Speaker 1: weaponry of intelligence, it's possible to tap into anything. Bill Benny,
Speaker 1: longtime n s A whistle Blow. He's at the n
Speaker 1: s S S A what thirty two years, have been a
Speaker 1: frequent guest on this program. Is explained to you over
Speaker 1: and over again. Every text, every email, every phone call
Speaker 1: you make is being metadata stored by the government. And
Speaker 1: he has never backed off that claim, and I personally
Speaker 1: believe him. And I'll get to that in a second. Now,
Speaker 1: when we talk about the intelligence community, to be very clear,
Speaker 1: who am I talking about. I want you to know
Speaker 1: because I know some of them, I've met some of them.
Speaker 1: There are ninety nine point nine percent people just like
Speaker 1: I would argue cops that that that sacrifice to serve
Speaker 1: and protect their community. To get one bad cop and
Speaker 1: then all cops get smeared and slandered. You get one
Speaker 1: pad TV or radio host, let's slander them all, you know,
Speaker 1: And that's I'm kidding. But you get one bad military
Speaker 1: guy and you want to just throw the baby out
Speaker 1: with the bathwater and sweep with a broad brush and
Speaker 1: smear and slander everybody because one person did something wrong. Now,
Speaker 1: the people I know, the people I've met, the people
Speaker 1: that serve you in the intelligence community, they the vast
Speaker 1: overwhelming majority, are great Americans that sacrifice and work hard.
Speaker 1: And many of them, so you know, are putting their
Speaker 1: lives in jeopardy for you and me, and I thank
Speaker 1: them for their service. They are serving their country. Many
Speaker 1: of them are ex military people for example. Many of
Speaker 1: them are just geniuses beyond any any knowledge that I
Speaker 1: would ever be able to accumulate in my life because
Speaker 1: my brain just works differently, and they just think on
Speaker 1: this whole other level. I mean, if you think you
Speaker 1: can develop a hacking system and hack in the Russia,
Speaker 1: are hack into this place, hacking to that place and
Speaker 1: get it done and get the intelligence that keeps Americans safe.
Speaker 1: Thank God, we have smart people in the world. So
Speaker 1: I know many of them. I know the risks they take.
Speaker 1: I know that their lives are in jeopardy. That is
Speaker 1: our number one priority to protect them. That is my
Speaker 1: my biggest fear when it comes to the fact that
Speaker 1: we've never learned the lesson of cybersecurity in this country.
Speaker 1: I have said there's many times before Julian Ossang did
Speaker 1: us a favor, we're too stupid to listen when he
Speaker 1: hacked into the d D and NASA at sixteen. The
Speaker 1: guy's forty five. Now you would think that if people,
Speaker 1: once you learn that they can do this stuff, that
Speaker 1: we would set up defensive. We don't have cybersecurity, as
Speaker 1: we've had expert after expert after expert on this program
Speaker 1: tell you. So we see these leaks going on, and
Speaker 1: we see the leaks against the president. Then we see
Speaker 1: on maskings increased during the last election cycle, and then
Speaker 1: we'll start naming names, and you see this president is
Speaker 1: subject to more leaks, seven times more leaks than the
Speaker 1: previous two administrations. And you begin to realize that this
Speaker 1: is a clear and present danger, that what they are
Speaker 1: doing to this country is you've got the one tenth
Speaker 1: of one percent is doing a lot of damage, and
Speaker 1: they're trying to damage the president. Now we give our
Speaker 1: intelligence community in the world of evil. We have an
Speaker 1: evil world we live in, whether you know it or not,
Speaker 1: or want to face it or not. I wrote a
Speaker 1: book Deliver Us from Evil. There is evil in the world.
Speaker 1: Al Qaeda, Bolkahaam, Radical Islama terrorists, they're evil. What's happening
Speaker 1: in North Korea is evil. Trust me. The Iranian mulas
Speaker 1: that threaten a white Israel off the map and destroy
Speaker 1: America and burn American flags and Israeli flags that are
Speaker 1: in pursuit of nuclear weapons, that those mulas are evil.
Speaker 1: You know, you gotta worry about China, you gotta worry
Speaker 1: about Russia and their nukes. A lot of evil people
Speaker 1: in this world. One of the ways we keep all
Speaker 1: of us safe is through intelligence gathering, so we know
Speaker 1: what our enemies are thinking. Most of us go about
Speaker 1: our daily lives. We have no idea what's happening. No
Speaker 1: no crime, no foul. We're just glad that people are
Speaker 1: there to protect us, like the military's there to protect us,
Speaker 1: like cops are there to protect us. We don't think
Speaker 1: about it every day until something happens. Well, now something
Speaker 1: is happening. So we give them the most sophisticated weaponry.
Speaker 1: And it is a form of warfare. There is cyber warfare.
Speaker 1: It is real. So we give these guys the tools
Speaker 1: to prevent us against those that in North Korea that
Speaker 1: would want to launch nukes against US, or or South
Speaker 1: Korea or Japan, and I have a madman in charge
Speaker 1: of nukes. There's no good answer there, as I said yesterday.
Speaker 1: Or we want to prevent and find out what's going
Speaker 1: on in the ground in Iran and China and Russia
Speaker 1: and maybe some of these other countries that want to
Speaker 1: do harm to the world. So we have developed an
Speaker 1: arsenal of the most sophisticated intelligence gathering methods that you
Speaker 1: would ever dream of. The things I've learned in the
Speaker 1: last two years. I it's been an education and the
Speaker 1: majority of them use those weapons for the right purpose,
Speaker 1: just like we have people in charge of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: Now they have maybe not the access to launch, but
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, you've got to trust people.
Speaker 1: Now we're discovering that people are, in fact, people are
Speaker 1: in this country are misusing it. And they've been leaking
Speaker 1: like sieves against the president again and again and again
Speaker 1: and again and again. And what do we learned. There's
Speaker 1: an article, for example, out today, how is it possible
Speaker 1: that the U n Ambassador Samantha Power, headline in the
Speaker 1: Washington Free Beacon unveiled hundreds unmass sorry, hundreds in the
Speaker 1: final years of the Obama administration, hundreds of a masking
Speaker 1: request by the UN ambassador to identify individuals named and
Speaker 1: classified intelligence community reports related to Trump and its presidential
Speaker 1: transition team. Well, that sounds like the abuse of the
Speaker 1: tools and the weaponry of intelligence. Do you understand what's
Speaker 1: in play here? Because we learned that about Ben Rhodes
Speaker 1: and we're investigating him, and we learned it about Susan
Speaker 1: Rice and we're investigating her. And we see that comey
Speaker 1: leaked intelligence. So we can get a special counsel and
Speaker 1: we know James Baker, the General Council of the FBI,
Speaker 1: is now being a estigated for releasing intelligence. In other words,
Speaker 1: this is the single most dangerous thing when you have
Speaker 1: the deeper state, some individuals abusing, misusing the tools the
Speaker 1: weaponry we give them to keep us safe for political
Speaker 1: purposes and against the American people. That's the deep state
Speaker 1: danger the president's facing. That's why we have transcripts of
Speaker 1: a prime minister in a president conversation that we never
Speaker 1: should have. That's why all this crap about Russia has
Speaker 1: been a no go nonsense from the beginning. That's why
Speaker 1: we've got to get to the bottom of it. And
Speaker 1: we've got to enforce the laws because the Espionage Act
Speaker 1: is being violated every single solitary time. And you've got
Speaker 1: to understand one thing. If we don't solve this problem,
Speaker 1: our Constitution is shredded. Our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable
Speaker 1: search and seizure are shattered because what they're doing with
Speaker 1: unmasking is they're surveilling. Maybe in some cases they incidentally
Speaker 1: pick up Americans, but they're supposed to minimize those conversations.
Speaker 1: They're never supposed to unmask them. And then they're supposed
Speaker 1: to certainly never release the information one Shawn, I'll explain
Speaker 1: this as we continue today. We're gonna do a special
Speaker 1: hour in the next hour on this so you understand it.
Speaker 1: How did we get to a point where there's so
Speaker 1: much leaking, so much unmasking. How are the tools of
Speaker 1: intelligence now for the first time that I can think
Speaker 1: of in my lifetime, being turned against one person, one
Speaker 1: administration to overturn the will of the people, unmasking innocent
Speaker 1: people when you surveil, well, let's say there's inner incidental
Speaker 1: pickup of surveillance. Let's say there is a target or
Speaker 1: the the n s A or one of these agencies
Speaker 1: is doing their job, which we need them to do,
Speaker 1: and they're they're buying on an enemy country that we've
Speaker 1: got to protect ourselves from. Okay, And Americans on the
Speaker 1: call caused nothing to do with anything nefarious. And when
Speaker 1: they recognize as an American system citizen, the law requires
Speaker 1: that they minimize because they don't have a warrant against
Speaker 1: that American. You don't have a right, the government doesn't
Speaker 1: have a right to spy on Americans, although Bill Benny
Speaker 1: says they do it all the time, but anyway, they're
Speaker 1: supposed to minimize the conversation, and when they write up
Speaker 1: the report, they'll just say an American let's say the
Speaker 1: ambassador of Iran or the ambassador of China or whatever.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. You're supposed to say American. In the
Speaker 1: case of General Flynn, they said, General Flynn, that's unmasking.
Speaker 1: Now we know that Ambassador Samantha Power may have made
Speaker 1: hundreds of unmasking request Why and to identify and classified
Speaker 1: intelligence reports related to the Trump administration, the presidential transition team.
Speaker 1: Why would she ever do that? Why was Susan Rice
Speaker 1: doing it? Why was Ben Rhoades doing it? They're all
Speaker 1: being investigated now for it. Why the FBI director released
Speaker 1: classified information? Why is the General Council of the FBI
Speaker 1: being investigated? This is this goes to the heart of
Speaker 1: our constitutional protections and freedoms and your government. There are
Speaker 1: some deep state officials that are now weaponizing the tools
Speaker 1: of intelligence, and they are clearly spying, unmasking, and leaking
Speaker 1: intelligence on American citizens. And clearly there's a political motivation here,
Speaker 1: and clearly the fact that it went up three during
Speaker 1: the Trump years tells us all it's politically motivated to
Speaker 1: begin with. And if we don't get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of this, you won't have safety security, constitutional protections, Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendment protection And I'm not overstating this alright, told the
Speaker 1: top of the AI we drive liberals crazy. We do
Speaker 1: eight nine one, Shawn our number, and I'm i'm We're
Speaker 1: gonna do an hour in the next hour. Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: is going to join us from Circu News and also
Speaker 1: Caroline click who is with the Jerusalem Post. We've got
Speaker 1: incredible information about all of these Obama hold over people
Speaker 1: that are involved in the unmasking of well Trump officials.
Speaker 1: Let me let me give read to you. For example,
Speaker 1: from today's Washington Freebeacon. Former United States Ambassador Samantha Power
Speaker 1: is believed to have had made hundreds of a masking
Speaker 1: request to identify individuals named and classified intelligence community reports
Speaker 1: related to Trump and his presidential transition team, according to
Speaker 1: multiple sources, who said the behavior is unprecedented for an
Speaker 1: official in her position. Powers first identify hide by the
Speaker 1: Washington Free Beacon last month as a central figure and
Speaker 1: a Congressional investigation into efforts by senior Obama administration officials
Speaker 1: to obtain classified intelligence information and what made many alleged
Speaker 1: was an effort to undermine President Donald Trump and his
Speaker 1: incoming national security team. Samantha Powers believed to be the
Speaker 1: anonymous official responsible for hundreds of a masking request during
Speaker 1: the final year of the Obama administration. By the way,
Speaker 1: the same period that we now know Ben Rhodes is
Speaker 1: being investigated into. According the current former U S officials
Speaker 1: who spoke to the Free Beacon about the ongoing investigation.
Speaker 1: Now we expect tomorrow we're going to hear from the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Jeff Sessions on a lot of this efforts
Speaker 1: by the former Obama administration to obtain the names of
Speaker 1: Trump allies, including raw intelligence reports. Raw is important because
Speaker 1: raw doesn't give the full picture. It may not be
Speaker 1: context and textured of what actually went on in that call.
Speaker 1: Anyway it goes on. They have fueled speculation that subsequent
Speaker 1: leaks to the press orchestrated by former Obama administration officials
Speaker 1: and its allies in a bid to damage the current
Speaker 1: White House and smear Trump's most senior confidence. Remember Representative
Speaker 1: Devin Newness, He's the chairman of the House Intelligence Community,
Speaker 1: which is handling the probe. He petitioned the Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence Dan Coates last week to request his help
Speaker 1: in addressing this unmasking issue. Newness disclosed in his letter
Speaker 1: that the former Obama administration at easy access to sensitive
Speaker 1: classified information and that they may have used it to
Speaker 1: achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of
Speaker 1: such information. And it goes on from there. Congressional investigators
Speaker 1: uncovered that one official whose position has no apparent intelligence
Speaker 1: related function, now believed to be Samantha, were made hundreds
Speaker 1: of um asking requests during the final year of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Do you understand what we're talking about here?
Speaker 1: You're talking about people. Remember, we keep talking about Obama holdovers,
Speaker 1: we keep talking about deep state, we keep talking about
Speaker 1: some of the intelligence community, only a very small I
Speaker 1: want to be clear, these intelligence officials are amazing. They
Speaker 1: keep us safe, but some of them have other motives.
Speaker 1: And clearly there's a political motive here. And if somebody
Speaker 1: likes Samantha, power has the ability to unmasked hundreds of
Speaker 1: of Trump and presidential transition team members. We have now
Speaker 1: weaponized politically the tools of intelligence gathering, and they're using
Speaker 1: it to advance their own political position and undermine the country. Here,
Speaker 1: you understand that this is illegal when when you're talking
Speaker 1: about surveillance on masking for political purposes, that is an
Speaker 1: abuse of intelligence gathering, and then taking it to another level,
Speaker 1: and that's leaking raw intelligence, which has happened again and
Speaker 1: again and again. You have now taken the powerful tools
Speaker 1: that are designed to keep you and me an Americans safe,
Speaker 1: and you're using them as a political weapon against an
Speaker 1: opposition party. Do you see how dangerous this is? Do
Speaker 1: you understand now what I've been talking about. I have
Speaker 1: known so much more than I have been able to
Speaker 1: tell up until this point, and I have so much
Speaker 1: more that is coming out. This is not a game here.
Speaker 1: If you believe in privacy, if you believe in your
Speaker 1: Fourth amend and protections against unreasonable search and seizure, your
Speaker 1: government needs a warrant, even the fives of courts, you've
Speaker 1: got to have a warrant. And then we learned very on,
Speaker 1: very very early on with Sarah Carter and John Solomon,
Speaker 1: Oh the warrants were issued. Remember there was talk that
Speaker 1: in fact they were spying on the Trump administration. And
Speaker 1: I went against the media and I said, oh, there
Speaker 1: were warrants. Nobody else talked about him. All the media
Speaker 1: cares about his palace intrigue. All the media cares about
Speaker 1: is Russia. Russia. Well, this is far more important right now,
Speaker 1: and there's more evidence to prove. We now know are
Speaker 1: increase and I'm masking of of Americans. We know a
Speaker 1: lot of it was targeted specifically to use intelligence to
Speaker 1: hurt the incoming president, to hurt the candidate, to hurt
Speaker 1: his transition team. We know it hurt General Flynn. He
Speaker 1: lost his job because of an illegal leak in a
Speaker 1: violation of the Espionage Act. Do you understand how profound
Speaker 1: this is? Do you understand why it is that we
Speaker 1: have these protections in place? Do you understand and the dangers?
Speaker 1: Do you know how powerful these tools of surveillance are
Speaker 1: that we've given our government to protect us. Do you
Speaker 1: understand that the fact that we have not upgraded cybersecurity
Speaker 1: at all, it's a it's a you know, at some
Speaker 1: point you can't blame some outside hacker because you were
Speaker 1: too stupid as a country to protect the data. When
Speaker 1: you know they've been trying to do this for thirty years.
Speaker 1: They've been doing this people and getting away with it.
Speaker 1: And then when you see that the way that the
Speaker 1: government is run and the level of corruption. Now we've
Speaker 1: got Ben Rhodes, Okay, Ben Rhodes, we have Circa documents.
Speaker 1: According to documents reviewed by Circa dot com, government officials
Speaker 1: conducted thirty thousand, three fifty five searches in seeking information
Speaker 1: about Americans and NSA intercept metadata metadata, which include telephone numbers,
Speaker 1: email addresses. The activities a thirty percent increase over the
Speaker 1: prior year. Why in an election year is there such
Speaker 1: an increase? Why is that possible? Because they wanted to
Speaker 1: spy on the Trump administration. They wanted to weapon rise
Speaker 1: the tools of intelligence, and they wanted to do it
Speaker 1: for political purposes. And now they're doing it to undermine you,
Speaker 1: the American people. And now they're doing it to prevent
Speaker 1: the agenda you voted for from getting enacted. These are
Speaker 1: serious issues we're talking about. When the General Council of
Speaker 1: the FBI is now being investigated for leaking intelligence, we've
Speaker 1: got a problem. If James Comey can come along and
Speaker 1: and use government documents and violate the Records Act potentially
Speaker 1: and violate the Espion on Jack potentially because it's classified information,
Speaker 1: and have his buddy at Columbia leak it to the
Speaker 1: New York Times. We've got not a problem. If the
Speaker 1: U n Ambassador for crying Out is making hundreds of
Speaker 1: a masking requests, we've got a problem. Ben Rhodes. Remember
Speaker 1: who Ben Rhodes is? Oh yeah, Ben Rhodes. Let me
Speaker 1: see Ben Rhodes. He rose to the level deputy National
Speaker 1: Security advising. He's now a person of interest in the
Speaker 1: unmasking investigation of the House Intelligence Committee, along with Rice
Speaker 1: and Power and other Obama officials. You know what, where's
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's national security advisor? Is he gonna show up too?
Speaker 1: If you look at Rhodes, it was a good piece
Speaker 1: of the American thinker today. Uh. And they go on
Speaker 1: to remind us, well, who is he? He was the
Speaker 1: author of the infamous Benghazi talking points. He's not exactly
Speaker 1: somebody that tells the truth. Remember he was unable to
Speaker 1: get an interim security clearance in in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: the only one of a hundred and eighty seven people
Speaker 1: who otherwise got them. But so much you know, handed
Speaker 1: to him and and his his access to this. Okay,
Speaker 1: he's a serial liar. We know that he worked in
Speaker 1: communications for Obama. He's the author of the talking points
Speaker 1: on Benghazi, which we all know sought to cover up
Speaker 1: the the the terrorist planned assassination of a U. S ambassador,
Speaker 1: and Susan Rice then delivered the talking points on the
Speaker 1: five Sunday Shows. He's the architect, apparently two involved in
Speaker 1: the Iranian deal giveaway of billions of dollars to the
Speaker 1: Malahs of a Ran and they continue to spend their centerfuges.
Speaker 1: He's the author too, of the great giveaway to communist Cuba.
Speaker 1: So now he's involved, and now it gets for us.
Speaker 1: He got Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and we've got John Brennan.
Speaker 1: He eased access of this very sensitive information. Why would
Speaker 1: Clapper ever do that? And Clapper now has been politicized
Speaker 1: on TV. You can see now he's working for the
Speaker 1: fake news a news network. You know, when when you
Speaker 1: got the likes of Rice and Power and Rhodes and
Speaker 1: Brennan and Clapper and other Obama loyalists and people that
Speaker 1: are being accused of unmasking innocent Americans and those on
Speaker 1: the opposite side of the aisle and political opposition whose
Speaker 1: names are innocently caught up an intelligence dragnets, and they
Speaker 1: don't use minimization, and they don't use They unmasked their names,
Speaker 1: and they seek to unmask them. This is such a
Speaker 1: strong surveillance instrument, This is such a weapon. You have
Speaker 1: no idea what they're capable of. They can get anything,
Speaker 1: they want anything. And now it's clear that they've also
Speaker 1: like stored on a cloud somewhere all the information that
Speaker 1: they want that they got illegally to get the president
Speaker 1: and prevent him from doing the job you hired him
Speaker 1: to do, and they want to use it to try
Speaker 1: and take them down. Politically speaking, you know, if an
Speaker 1: official reading an intelligent report wants to unmask a name,
Speaker 1: this historically has got to be for a grave national
Speaker 1: security purpose. Well, Clapper eases the ability, the sharing is
Speaker 1: eased by Obama team. Obama finds hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 1: grave national security purposes during an election year. Sounds a
Speaker 1: little weird to you, sounds weird to me. Sounds like
Speaker 1: the tools of intelligence are weaponized for political purposes. And
Speaker 1: then it even gets worse today and this is where
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter is going to come in in the next hour.
Speaker 1: And this this I read this today, I'm like You've
Speaker 1: got to be kidding me. This is never gonna end.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Sarah Carter doing her great work. She comes
Speaker 1: out with a piece today and what do we find.
Speaker 1: This makes no sense to me. After Susan Rice a
Speaker 1: month after she was exposed as unmasking or being investigated
Speaker 1: and disclosed that Susan Rice was unmasking members of Trump's
Speaker 1: transition team and other Americans, this makes no sense. Why
Speaker 1: did Trump's own national security adviser, I've been told apparently
Speaker 1: was recommended by John McCain HR McMaster. Why did he
Speaker 1: send an official letter giving Susan Rice continued, unfettered, continued
Speaker 1: access to classified information and waiving even her need to
Speaker 1: know requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure. Tenure.
Speaker 1: Sorry now that updated and un up Sorry undated unclassified
Speaker 1: letter from McMaster was sent to the mailbox of Susan
Speaker 1: Rice back in April. Trump was not aware of this letter,
Speaker 1: according to two senior white West Wing officials, Why would
Speaker 1: McMaster ever do this? We're talking about you know, names,
Speaker 1: phone numbers, personal addresses all blurred. I hereby waived the
Speaker 1: requirement that you must have need to know access to
Speaker 1: any classified information contained and items you originated, reviewed, signed,
Speaker 1: received while serving. What the hell is going on here?
Speaker 1: It also states the NSC will continue to work with
Speaker 1: you to ensure the appropriate security clearance documentation remains on
Speaker 1: file to allow you access the classified information. What is
Speaker 1: he doing? Why would he allow this to continue? This
Speaker 1: makes no sense. A circuit revealed back in March. Let's see,
Speaker 1: we got Rice and Brannan and Attorney General Lynch routinely
Speaker 1: reviewed intelligence reports were received from the National Security Agency
Speaker 1: incidental intercepts of Americans. And they were doing so by
Speaker 1: taking advantage of Obama's relaxed rules and the House and
Speaker 1: Tell Committee subpoena at Rice. And you remember she'd never
Speaker 1: and she maintains she'd never accessed that information for political sins. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna believe her. Under the law and under conditions.
Speaker 1: It's common practice for senior government officials to be given
Speaker 1: unfettered access by the way on a need to know.
Speaker 1: But it was waved by McMaster and June Trump called
Speaker 1: the revelation that Rice and other Obama senior officials were umasking.
Speaker 1: He said, that's the big story, and Trump was right.
Speaker 1: This letter was signed. It undercuts the President's assertion. The
Speaker 1: point is that lowers the bar for her. This makes
Speaker 1: no sense. I want an answer to this. We need
Speaker 1: an answer to this. We need it. Yesterday, we're gonna
Speaker 1: spend an hour with Sarah Carter from Caroline Glick on
Speaker 1: the deep state. I know this is new to a
Speaker 1: lot of you. What I'm explaining to you is the
Speaker 1: accumulation of information and knowledge that I've been developing now
Speaker 1: for a couple of years, and in this particular case,
Speaker 1: that I've had to hold back some of it, and
Speaker 1: I still have some that I'm holding back. Oh shocking,
Speaker 1: another leak. Oh grand jury paneled on the Russia issue. Well,
Speaker 1: I thought we didn't hear about those things. Just the latest.
Speaker 1: All right, We're gonna get to the deep state as
Speaker 1: much as we can and explain to you what it
Speaker 1: is we're dealing with the dangers to the Constitution, our liberties,
Speaker 1: our freedom, and of course our security and the right
Speaker 1: to privacy. That's next. I know nothing about this. I
Speaker 1: was surprised to see reports from Chairman Unis on that
Speaker 1: count today. I mean, let's back up and recall where
Speaker 1: we have been. The President of the United States accused
Speaker 1: his predecessor President Obama wire tapping Trump Tower during the campaign.
Speaker 1: Nothing of the sort occurred. Did you seek the names
Speaker 1: of people involved in to unmask the names of people
Speaker 1: involved in the Trump transition to Trump campaign? People surrounding
Speaker 1: the present the president elect let me be arder to
Speaker 1: spy on them, and absolutely absolutely not for any political
Speaker 1: purposes to spy expose anything. I really don't know to
Speaker 1: what termen Nunez was referring, but he said that whatever
Speaker 1: he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and
Speaker 1: that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens. And
Speaker 1: I think it's important for people to understand what incidental means.
Speaker 1: That means that the target was a either a foreign
Speaker 1: entity or somebody under criminal investigation. But the fact is
Speaker 1: that uh in, the president did request back in December
Speaker 1: and the intelligence community compile all of the information that
Speaker 1: it had on what it transpired during the campaign with
Speaker 1: respect to the Russians involving themselves in the presidential campaign,
Speaker 1: and that report was provided to the American people and
Speaker 1: unclassified for him into Congress, in classified for him in
Speaker 1: early January. Get the pace accelerate during the transition, perhaps
Speaker 1: in early December, perhaps when the President ordered investigation into
Speaker 1: the hacking, the Russian hacking, did the pace of unmasking requests,
Speaker 1: if you're unmasking requests, accelerate towards the end of the
Speaker 1: White House tenure? And I can't say the pace of
Speaker 1: an unmasking request would accelerate, but if you're asking, where
Speaker 1: they are more reports provided to senior US officials after
Speaker 1: the President requested the compilation of the intelligence, which was
Speaker 1: ultimately um provided in January. Yes, what happened was as
Speaker 1: the i C went about the business, intelligence community religence
Speaker 1: business of following up on the president order fulfilling the
Speaker 1: president's request for such a report, they went back and
Speaker 1: scrubbed more reports. They began to provide more such reports
Speaker 1: to American officials, including myself. This is not anything political.
Speaker 1: Has has been alleged. The allegation is that somehow Obama
Speaker 1: administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes. That's absolutely false,
Speaker 1: all right, that is of more Susan Rice and she
Speaker 1: was on with Andrea Mitchell and I don't believe a
Speaker 1: word she said. Notice she said, well, not for political purpose.
Speaker 1: We didn't ask unmasked people. I'm like, okay, but did
Speaker 1: you unmask Americans. We now know because of the investigative
Speaker 1: work of people like Sarah Carter, Circu News, John Solomon,
Speaker 1: The Hill, and others, that in fact, there was an
Speaker 1: awful lot of unmasking going on, and James Clapper and
Speaker 1: the President, you know, easing the rules sharing intelligence information.
Speaker 1: Now it went to sixteen seventeen agencies where it was
Speaker 1: only two or three before James Clapper easing the rules
Speaker 1: on the issues of people who had the ability to
Speaker 1: unmask American citizens. We're gonna spend this hour describing why
Speaker 1: this matters, because we give great people in the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: and they're great. These are people that even risk their lives,
Speaker 1: many of them, for the purpose of keeping America safe.
Speaker 1: This is a dangerous and it is an evil and
Speaker 1: diabolical world. And when you're up against the likes of
Speaker 1: North Korea and Iran and China and Russia and radical
Speaker 1: Islamis and ISIS and al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups,
Speaker 1: we need the best and greatest intelligence out there available.
Speaker 1: That danger becomes are if the tools of intelligence can
Speaker 1: be turned on the American people. And I can say
Speaker 1: with great authority and confidence at the ninety nine point
Speaker 1: nine percent of people in the intelligence community that we
Speaker 1: entrust with this intelligence weaponry are good people that do
Speaker 1: their jobs, that protect this country, that risk their lives
Speaker 1: to protect us. But they're powerful tools. And if you
Speaker 1: have one percent within the intelligence community or more that
Speaker 1: are turning the intelligence weaponry against the American people, it
Speaker 1: is a grave danger to the ability of this republic
Speaker 1: to function because it would render the Constitution meaningless, our
Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure meaningless. And
Speaker 1: that would mean that they can spy illegally on Americans.
Speaker 1: That what they can do without a warrant, they can
Speaker 1: do without a FISA warrant. They do it without any
Speaker 1: reason whatsoever. And then look at the case of General Flynn.
Speaker 1: There was he was picked up in when when surveillance
Speaker 1: was taking place, incidentally, when he was doing his job,
Speaker 1: then his name was unmasked. Now, when that kind of
Speaker 1: situation happens, they are supposed to practice something called minimization.
Speaker 1: In other words, of an innocent American is caught up
Speaker 1: with the target of some type of tap, wire tap
Speaker 1: sign that tap, it doesn't matter, then the American is
Speaker 1: supposed to be minimized in terms of what it is
Speaker 1: they hear and what they're listening to and recording. That
Speaker 1: not only didn't happen in the case of General Flynn,
Speaker 1: then they unmasked what is called raw intelligence. In other words,
Speaker 1: you're only getting, you know, one side of the story.
Speaker 1: You only get a picture in time, you don't get
Speaker 1: the full context and texture of what was actually going on.
Speaker 1: And then they leaked that raw intelligence, which is a
Speaker 1: violation of the espionage hack. Now, this is why these
Speaker 1: investigations into people like James Comey are so important. James
Speaker 1: Comey not only was using government property, he wrote on
Speaker 1: a government computer and a government cards notes about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But we found out later so of the information is classified,
Speaker 1: that he's talking to a president in the United States
Speaker 1: and he has his friend Lenka to the New York Times.
Speaker 1: Now we have an investigation into James Baker, he's the
Speaker 1: General Counsel of the FBI, and whether or not he
Speaker 1: is leaking intelligence. And we find out as we have
Speaker 1: been discovering just this week, Ben Rhodes, who worked under
Speaker 1: Obama national Security advisor, that Ben Rhodes is now being
Speaker 1: investigated from unmasking Americans names. And we look and we
Speaker 1: discovered today Samantha Power. According to You Know a Point
Speaker 1: in the Washington Beacon today, she's now believed to have
Speaker 1: made hundreds of a masking requests to identify individuals Americans
Speaker 1: named and classified intelligence community reports related to the President
Speaker 1: and in his transition team. Well, that sounds like they're
Speaker 1: spying on an opposition party, and it sounds like all
Speaker 1: of it is illegal, and it sounds like the misuse
Speaker 1: of the weapons of intelligence that we give people. Now,
Speaker 1: in the case of Susan Rice, it goes even further.
Speaker 1: Earlier today we learned that in Rice, we know earlier
Speaker 1: that she was unmasking of President involved in unmasking of
Speaker 1: President Trump's team and other Americans. But it turns out
Speaker 1: that hr McMaster, who was the National security adviser of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, apparently sent an official letter giving Susan Rice
Speaker 1: unfettered continuing access to classified information and waiving her need
Speaker 1: to know requirement on anything she viewed or received during
Speaker 1: her tenure, according to CIRCA and Sarah Carter. Now, this
Speaker 1: the undated unclassified letter from McMaster, was sent in the
Speaker 1: mail to Rice's home during the last week of April. Well,
Speaker 1: that almost sounds like a get out of jail free
Speaker 1: card to me what is going on here? Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: now joins a circunows also Carolyn Glick Jerusalem Post. Welcome
Speaker 1: both of you to the program. Thank you, Sarah. I
Speaker 1: got I count a hundred and twenty five deep state
Speaker 1: leagues in a d twenty six days. I think is
Speaker 1: your number increase and unmasking of Americans with great acceleration
Speaker 1: during the last political season and in a transition period.
Speaker 1: Tell us why tell us give us the background of
Speaker 1: this unmasking and leaking and then give us the background.
Speaker 1: Why would hr mc master ever do this? We'll remember this, Sean.
Speaker 1: I don't know if people remember this story, but it's
Speaker 1: really significant here. It was actually reminded New York March.
Speaker 1: Early March disclosed that in the last days of Obama's administration,
Speaker 1: White House officials were scrambling to spread information that they
Speaker 1: had found this type of classified information that they had
Speaker 1: discovered about what they said were Russian efforts to undermine
Speaker 1: the presidential election. They were scrambling that President Trump had
Speaker 1: already won. Now they were going to get all this information,
Speaker 1: gather all of this classified stuff, and find a way
Speaker 1: to get it out there so that the public would
Speaker 1: have this information. Well, when you look at all the
Speaker 1: pieces of the puzzle and you connect all of these dots,
Speaker 1: you know, right now the House Intelligence Committee has this
Speaker 1: ongoing investigation into unmaking. Susan Rice is right or at
Speaker 1: the center of it. Samantha as well, um Power, former
Speaker 1: UN ambassador, and according to these stories, is now at
Speaker 1: the center of it. We have others within the former
Speaker 1: administration now being looked at, like Ben Rhodes. The story
Speaker 1: I just published this week now expanding to him and others.
Speaker 1: So what we see at this consistent uh gathering of
Speaker 1: information unmasking of Americans which used to be just as
Speaker 1: you said, used to be very minimal. It's like it's
Speaker 1: so highly classified nobody even wants to release that outside
Speaker 1: of their most clear the Samantha Power did they get
Speaker 1: these letters? That's what I would like to know as well.
Speaker 1: What I do know is that this yeah, that this
Speaker 1: letter was. You know, McMaster has the right to, at
Speaker 1: his own discretion, give his former n Essay advisor the
Speaker 1: ability to continue with their security clearance and also have
Speaker 1: this ability to look back at the documents that they
Speaker 1: were accessing while they were in office. While she was
Speaker 1: in tenure. But the biggest question here is during this
Speaker 1: type of investigation and with what has been going on publicly,
Speaker 1: and remember the president for the president, and he tweeted
Speaker 1: this out. This was the biggest story, the annasking, the spying,
Speaker 1: if the alleged spying, if that was happening, and getting
Speaker 1: to the bottom of it, but without his knowledge, according
Speaker 1: to my sources, without the president's knowledge. AJR McMaster sent
Speaker 1: this letter at the end of April. That's almost a
Speaker 1: month after John and I first reported about the annasking,
Speaker 1: and even almost a month after it was first reported
Speaker 1: that season. Rice, Yeah, I think, all right, let me
Speaker 1: go to Caroline Click. We're having a little problem. Caroline.
Speaker 1: You also wrote Wednesday evening that hr McMaster is purging
Speaker 1: a pro Israel staff from the National Security Council. Now
Speaker 1: there have been in the last two or three weeks
Speaker 1: now three people that apparently very knowledgeable and up to
Speaker 1: their eyeballs and purging the deep state in Obama holdovers
Speaker 1: that have been walked out of that building. It's now
Speaker 1: being written about finally in the US media. Um, can
Speaker 1: you explain what that means? And I also read that
Speaker 1: hr McMaster favors the Iranian deal. That's not possible, is it, Well,
Speaker 1: it is possible. You know. It's interesting. One of the
Speaker 1: things that I learned since I posted then on Facebook
Speaker 1: last night was that Derek Harvey, who was fired a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago, who was the senior Middle East
Speaker 1: Advisor or director at the National Security Council, had put
Speaker 1: together a comprehensive plan for the United States to exit
Speaker 1: the Iran Deal, and McMaster refused to allow him to
Speaker 1: present it to the President. And then McMaster told the presidents,
Speaker 1: I'm told that there's no option for leaving the Iran deal.
Speaker 1: But that he said while he was blocking his own
Speaker 1: deputy from presenting his comprehensive plan to exit the Iran
Speaker 1: Deal from President Trump um and then he fired him
Speaker 1: after the fact and blocked the President from implement in
Speaker 1: his policy, which is who leaves the very bad deal
Speaker 1: that Obama made with the Iranian Mullahs that enable them
Speaker 1: to acquire nuclear weapons and develop ballistic missiles. So that's
Speaker 1: one thing. The other thing that he stayed right there
Speaker 1: on the other point, we gotta take a break. Now,
Speaker 1: let me explain what we're doing for this hour. We're
Speaker 1: going to spend the whole hour on the deep state,
Speaker 1: on the unmasking, on the surveillance. We appreciate all in
Speaker 1: the intelligence community do, but these people that are abusing
Speaker 1: the tools of intelligence, they all need to be held
Speaker 1: accountable to the letter of the Law'll take a quick
Speaker 1: break more with Sarah Carter more with Caroline Glick more
Speaker 1: on this breaking news eight nine one Shawn, as we continue,
Speaker 1: and as we continue, Sarah Carter big breaking news with
Speaker 1: Circuit dot Com today. Somehow hr McMaster, the National Security Advisor,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, is given Susan Rice a letter that
Speaker 1: allows her access to classified information, even waving waving the
Speaker 1: need to know requirement on anything that she viewed or
Speaker 1: received during her tenure. I don't know why this happened.
Speaker 1: We have not gotten an answer. Also, there's been a
Speaker 1: purging within the National Security Council in terms of people
Speaker 1: that we know are active and involved in trying to
Speaker 1: eliminate the deep state. That is extremely disconcerting to me
Speaker 1: and a lot of other people. I'll let you finish
Speaker 1: your point, Caroline Glick about McMaster and what he's doing
Speaker 1: here and his belief on the Iranian nuclear deal. So
Speaker 1: the first thing, as I said, was that he blocked
Speaker 1: President Trump from hearing a comprehensive plan presented a produced
Speaker 1: by Derek Harvey, who then he subsequently fired, that would explain,
Speaker 1: that explained point by point, how the United States can
Speaker 1: leave the Iran deal and block them from then turning
Speaker 1: around and going to full weapons production immediately the Iranian um. Moreover,
Speaker 1: Derek Harvey had put together a joint plan to work
Speaker 1: with Israel to defeat his Bala worldwide, and McMaster barred
Speaker 1: him from traveling to Israel to begin carrying out that plan.
Speaker 1: And all of these things are antithetical, of course, to
Speaker 1: present and trump stated policies, both in regards to Iran
Speaker 1: and its terrorists proxy because Valla, so you know, this
Speaker 1: is this is the sort of thing that he did
Speaker 1: with Harvey, and um, you know, he he did similar
Speaker 1: things with other people who he purged, who he's recently fired,
Speaker 1: and some of these firings' he's carried out without the
Speaker 1: knowledge of the President, without the knowledge of the Human
Speaker 1: Resources office at at the White House, and it's really
Speaker 1: just kind of stunning, really, all right, Sarah Carter back
Speaker 1: to here. I want to get back to this question
Speaker 1: to mc master in this waiver that he's giving Susan
Speaker 1: Rice is the only other possible person he could have
Speaker 1: granted it to Ben Rhodes. Well, sure I believe or
Speaker 1: because you said former national security advisors, is it possible
Speaker 1: that How does Samantha power? How does the U N
Speaker 1: Ambassador have the power to unmask hundreds of people um as,
Speaker 1: especially in Trump and his presidential transition team. How did
Speaker 1: he she get that power? Well, remember Obama loosen the
Speaker 1: rules under the Obama Minute Ration shan in two thousand eleven.
Speaker 1: He loosened those rules so that his top advisors could
Speaker 1: get more unfettered access to to unmasking Americans. So basically
Speaker 1: they didn't have to go through the eighty pages of
Speaker 1: explanation as to why they needed this person unmasked, which
Speaker 1: is normal for most intelligence analysts and people working in
Speaker 1: those fields that have that kind of classified access. They
Speaker 1: didn't have to do that. They just had to have
Speaker 1: a need to know. But if the strange thing is
Speaker 1: is the need to know in the letter, Now attorneys
Speaker 1: will say that maybe this has to do with her
Speaker 1: ability to look back on her documents. Also possibly for
Speaker 1: providing testimony to Congress. She might still have to have
Speaker 1: these security clearances. But this is a very detailed, you
Speaker 1: know letter that says he's waving under this executive order.
Speaker 1: You know, her need to know that she can have
Speaker 1: unfettered access to all of the information she reviewed, she received,
Speaker 1: she looked at anything. Would we have a record of
Speaker 1: what we have a record of everything she looked at?
Speaker 1: Because I believe we would. I want to take a
Speaker 1: break more with Sarah Carter, her big breaking a letter
Speaker 1: that hr McMaster said that Susan Rice keeps her top
Speaker 1: security clearance. This makes no sense at all. Alright now
Speaker 1: till the top of the hour one, Shawn, We're spending
Speaker 1: this full hour of the program to try and explain
Speaker 1: to the extent that we can what this deep state is.
Speaker 1: How is it that you have Ambassador Samantha Power, Susan Rice,
Speaker 1: Ben Rhodes all unmasking the names of Americans? What is
Speaker 1: this deep state? A d leagues hundred and twenty six
Speaker 1: days selective leaking against the President of intelligence? Is the
Speaker 1: intelligence community being taken over the weaponry of the intelligence
Speaker 1: community by a very small small group of people. Are
Speaker 1: they abusing the powers that we give them? Who are they?
Speaker 1: Why are peep so many Americans being unmasked? Why a
Speaker 1: three increase in unmasking. Why are there the intelligence leaks
Speaker 1: that are a violation of law? And the big story
Speaker 1: today from Sarah Carter, why did hr McMaster actually grants
Speaker 1: Susan Rice, who's being investigated for unmasking and intelligence leaking,
Speaker 1: Why in fact did he give her a waiver and
Speaker 1: access to classified information beyond her tenure this past April
Speaker 1: and even waving the need to know requirement on anything
Speaker 1: she viewed or received during a tenure. What is going
Speaker 1: on here? And why were three and why were three
Speaker 1: intelligence people that I am told are the masters of
Speaker 1: knowledge as it relates to the deep state? Why were
Speaker 1: they recently fired? I'm trying to understand, and we've got
Speaker 1: let me remind you Susan Rice on the surveillance program,
Speaker 1: James Comey, I'm not aware of anybody unmasking American citizens
Speaker 1: James Clapper. He says, uh, one thousand, nine hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty four American citizens unmasked in twenty seen alone. Why
Speaker 1: let's play it. I know nothing about this. I was
Speaker 1: surprised to see reports from Chairman Unas on that count today.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been.
Speaker 1: The President of the United States accused his predecessor, President
Speaker 1: Obama of wire tapping Trump tower during the campaign. Nothing
Speaker 1: of the sort occurred. Did you seek the names of
Speaker 1: people involved in to unmask the names of people involved
Speaker 1: in the Trump transition, of the Trump campaign, people surrounding
Speaker 1: the press the President elect let me be ordered to
Speaker 1: spy on them, and absolutely, absolutely not for any political
Speaker 1: purposes to spy expose anything. I really don't know to
Speaker 1: what Chairman Nunaz was referring, but he said that whatever
Speaker 1: he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and
Speaker 1: that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens. And
Speaker 1: I think it's important for people to understand what incidental means.
Speaker 1: That means that the target was a either a foreign
Speaker 1: entity or somebody under criminal investigation. But the fact is
Speaker 1: that uh In, the President did request back in December
Speaker 1: the intelligence community compile all of the information that it
Speaker 1: had on what it transpired during the campaign with respect
Speaker 1: to the Russians involving themselves in the presidential campaign, and
Speaker 1: that report was provided to the American people and unclassified
Speaker 1: form into Congress. Uh In classified for him in early January.
Speaker 1: Did the pace accelerate during the transition, perhaps in early December,
Speaker 1: perhaps when the President ordered an investigation into the hacking,
Speaker 1: the Russian hacking. Did the pace of unmasking requests, if
Speaker 1: you're unmasking requests, accelerate towards the end of the White
Speaker 1: House tenure? And I can't say the pace of an
Speaker 1: unmasking request would accelerate, But if you're asking where there
Speaker 1: are more reports provided to senior US officials after the
Speaker 1: Resident requested the compilation of the intelligence which was ultimately
Speaker 1: um provided in January. Yes, what happened was, as the
Speaker 1: i C went about the business intelligence community religencesness of
Speaker 1: following up on the President's order fulfilling the presidence request
Speaker 1: for such a report, they went back and scrubbed more reports.
Speaker 1: They began to provide more such reports to American officials,
Speaker 1: including myself. This is not anything political. Has has been alleged.
Speaker 1: The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence
Speaker 1: for political purposes. That's absolutely false. Unmasking Are you familiar
Speaker 1: with that? I'm familiar with that term. Okay, has the
Speaker 1: Beer ever requested unmasking of an American citizen caught up
Speaker 1: an incidental collection? Oh? Yes, I did it this week
Speaker 1: in connection with an intelligence report, all right before I
Speaker 1: authorized reauthorized seven or two. And I'm a pretty hawkish guy.
Speaker 1: I want to know how unmasking works. Are you aware
Speaker 1: of any request by the White House, anybody in the
Speaker 1: abomb administration to unmasked American citizens that were caught up
Speaker 1: in incidental surveillances. I'm not. I'm not aware of any
Speaker 1: request to the FBI. Would you know what they who?
Speaker 1: Would they make the request too? Well? They can make
Speaker 1: it to to anyone in the FBI. Who was What
Speaker 1: about the n s A. Wouldn't you make it to
Speaker 1: the n s A? Sure if it was an n
Speaker 1: A report? Okay. There are cases when to fully understand
Speaker 1: the context of the communication that has been obtained or
Speaker 1: the threat that is posed, the consumer of that collected
Speaker 1: intelligence may ask the identity of the U S person
Speaker 1: be revealed. Such requests explain why the unmasking is necessary,
Speaker 1: and that explanation is conveyed back to the agency that
Speaker 1: collected the information. It is then up to that agency
Speaker 1: whether to approve the request and to provide the identity,
Speaker 1: and if U S person's identity is revealed, that identity
Speaker 1: is provided only to the person who properly requested it,
Speaker 1: not to a broader audience. This process is subject to
Speaker 1: oversight and reporting and in the interests of transparent and
Speaker 1: see my former office published as a report on the
Speaker 1: statistics of how many US person's identities are on mass
Speaker 1: based on collection that occurred under section seven or two
Speaker 1: of the Five Amendment Act, which I'll speak to in
Speaker 1: a moment, and in that number was one thousand, nine
Speaker 1: thirty four. All right, we continue Sarah Carter breaking that
Speaker 1: big story with Circuit News dot Com. We'll get back
Speaker 1: down in a second, and Caroline Glick is with us,
Speaker 1: she writes for the Jerusalem Post. Let's get back to
Speaker 1: the issue of what you were saying about hr McMaster
Speaker 1: and I'll let you finish your point Caroline, then we'll
Speaker 1: go back to Sarah. So the only thing I just
Speaker 1: wanted to say, in terms of two things that Sarah
Speaker 1: brought up, the New York Times report that came out
Speaker 1: a few months ago about how Obama ordered his people
Speaker 1: to just push out classified information so that it could
Speaker 1: be slowly leaked during the Trump administration period. Um is
Speaker 1: really I think very tied up with this letter that
Speaker 1: Sarah reported on today, because if if their process is
Speaker 1: to gradually incremental, continuously leaked information about what's happening with
Speaker 1: the Trump administration or anything else, um, then her continued
Speaker 1: to access to classified information facilitates this. And we just
Speaker 1: have to look at today's headlines where suddenly we see
Speaker 1: the New York Times again or sorry, the Washington Post
Speaker 1: again reporting verbatim transcripts of President Trump's conversations with foreign
Speaker 1: leaders in in their paper. And you see that we
Speaker 1: have the whole transcripts there. Yeah, with the President of
Speaker 1: Mexico and in Australia. And I know, but the thing
Speaker 1: that's most disturbing me is you're saying make Master does
Speaker 1: not supports Obama on the Iranian deal. Well, that's the
Speaker 1: other thing that I wanted to speak to because you know,
Speaker 1: one of the weird things right about the Iran Deal,
Speaker 1: and Senator Tom Cotton has talked about this a lot,
Speaker 1: is that Obama signed these side deals with the Iranians
Speaker 1: that were kept that were kept secret from the American people,
Speaker 1: that were kept secret from Congress, that nobody was allowed
Speaker 1: to see, and so nobody knew what was actually agreed
Speaker 1: to between the Obama administration and the Iranian. So you
Speaker 1: would think that when the Trump administration came in that
Speaker 1: they would have access to side deals that presumed presumably
Speaker 1: um are obligate the Trump administration the American people. But
Speaker 1: the Obama administration refused to transfer that information to the
Speaker 1: Trump White House, and they took it all under the
Speaker 1: Presidential Records Act to the Obama Archive and there and
Speaker 1: now UH. And one of the things that Ezra Cullen,
Speaker 1: who was fired UH this week, was trying to do
Speaker 1: is get his hands on that information. And even weirder
Speaker 1: is that the State Department, which has copies of those
Speaker 1: side deals, is not sharing it with the White House,
Speaker 1: so that the Trump white House doesn't even have access
Speaker 1: to deals that the Obama and CHI if not have
Speaker 1: access to that I don't know, I mean no sense, Sarah,
Speaker 1: have you heard that? That's insane. Absolutely everything Caroline is
Speaker 1: saying I have verified through other sources for story a
Speaker 1: spot on and everything she is saying is what I
Speaker 1: am hearing as well from our sources. She explained it
Speaker 1: very well, I think, and what we have to ask
Speaker 1: ourselves is one, if the president is not having access
Speaker 1: to this information and to the information that these people
Speaker 1: wanted delivered to him. What is he doing about it
Speaker 1: now that he knows and to if he didn't know
Speaker 1: about it, then we have to ask ourselves that question.
Speaker 1: Has he changed his point of view on Iran? I
Speaker 1: don't believe he has. I mean, he stood on that
Speaker 1: issue as part of his platform to become president of
Speaker 1: the United States, and he has never made an argument
Speaker 1: as to why that is a good deal. Now he's
Speaker 1: always said it was a bad deal, the bad deal,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to get rid of it. And another point,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely true that you know, when you're looking at
Speaker 1: these leaks and these continuing leaks, if you reauthorize the
Speaker 1: ability for people like Susan Rice and others to have
Speaker 1: that type of access to classified information. We don't know
Speaker 1: we're alleging, but we know that information is leaking out.
Speaker 1: So it was the discretion of McMaster to give her
Speaker 1: that or to not give her that, and to do
Speaker 1: that raises a lot of questions. He gave her that
Speaker 1: reauthorization and then he waived her need to know on
Speaker 1: all of this stuff with her past, even though the
Speaker 1: President has spoken out against this. So that's another question
Speaker 1: I think for the president that did McCain recommend McMaster.
Speaker 1: That's what I understand that McCain recommended McMaster, and he
Speaker 1: was hired on the basis of a one half hour
Speaker 1: conversation that he had with President Trump at the Marl
Speaker 1: Lago Resort at Palm Beach at a time when the
Speaker 1: President was really under an enormous out of strain and
Speaker 1: stress to find a new national security advisor after he
Speaker 1: was essentially forced to fire his trusted national security advice
Speaker 1: from Mike Mike Flynn. Well, Sarah, then let me get
Speaker 1: back to you, because I think this now gets to
Speaker 1: the heart of what this deep state is all about.
Speaker 1: I've also heard McMaster as a horrible temper. Is that true?
Speaker 1: I have heard from senior officials in the White House
Speaker 1: who have witnessed his temper. He has lashed out at
Speaker 1: people in the White House, verbally assaulted them. There have
Speaker 1: been verbal fights I heard even between him and Steve Bannon.
Speaker 1: There's been enormous tension in the White House with him there. Uh,
Speaker 1: and you know that there there are things that are
Speaker 1: happening within the White House that I have heard from sources,
Speaker 1: very senior level sources that stage distressed the President with
Speaker 1: regard to hr McMaster. Now those are alleged. Let me
Speaker 1: go to the bigger, broader picture here. If you've got
Speaker 1: call me now leaking to get a general counsel, and
Speaker 1: he successfully does so, then you've got the FBI zone
Speaker 1: general counsel suspected of being an anti Trump leaker. Then
Speaker 1: we've got all of the deep state investigations going on
Speaker 1: about unmasking and leaking intelligence. And you have top Obama officials,
Speaker 1: everyone from Samantha Power to Susan Rice to Ben Rhodes
Speaker 1: and and Clapper and Brennan and maybe others. We don't
Speaker 1: We don't know the full extent of this. And then
Speaker 1: McMaster is giving sort of a sort of immunity to
Speaker 1: Susan Rice and maybe others we don't know yet. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense to me. Does it make sense
Speaker 1: to you, Sarah? No, it doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 1: And I mean, the buck stops with the president. So
Speaker 1: the president is going to make those final decisions. He's
Speaker 1: going to make the judgment as to what's been going
Speaker 1: on in his White House and his n to see
Speaker 1: whether that's been appropriate or not. And I think you
Speaker 1: know it's not my place or anyone else's place to
Speaker 1: say what the president should do or shouldn't do. But
Speaker 1: it would be interesting to hear what the president is
Speaker 1: going to say at the revelation of all of this information,
Speaker 1: if he says anything at all. But it makes no
Speaker 1: sense whatsoever. You see the policies very so drastically. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's the whole thing here. Um,
Speaker 1: we're American citizens unmasked. And do you both see that
Speaker 1: this was done for political purposes? In other words, are
Speaker 1: these very few people within the intelligence community abusing the
Speaker 1: tools of intelligence? Are they doing this to hurt the
Speaker 1: president and stop as agenda? Because it seems to me
Speaker 1: that would be the only reason they would do it. Well,
Speaker 1: I you know, you have to look and ask yourself.
Speaker 1: Did this ever happen to anybody who wasn't on Trump's team?
Speaker 1: I mean, have we have these kinds of leaks, these damaging,
Speaker 1: reputation destroying leaks from National Security Agency reports being leaked
Speaker 1: about Obama personnel, even about you know, George W. Bush's people.
Speaker 1: Has this ever happened before? Um? And as far as
Speaker 1: I know, and I could and and perhaps I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: but my sense is that it's never happened before. At
Speaker 1: last word, we'll give to Sarah Carter with our blockbuster
Speaker 1: a lot more on Hannity tonight. Yeah, will Sean. I
Speaker 1: I have not heard of this happening before either to
Speaker 1: this extent, and certainly there's an ongoing investigation, and hopefully
Speaker 1: the public will get the truthful, straightforward answers with regard
Speaker 1: to this, and if something was going on and if
Speaker 1: information is being used for political espionage, they will find
Speaker 1: a way to stop this because it violates every foundation
Speaker 1: of our Constitution and our Fourth Amendment rights. Very scary.
Speaker 1: We'll stay on this. This is a clear and present
Speaker 1: danger and if the Constitution itself and our Fourth Amendment
Speaker 1: protections are in jeopardy here, Thank you both, great work,
Speaker 1: both of you. Great article today, Sarah. We'll have more
Speaker 1: on Hannity tonight when we come back. News round Up,
Speaker 1: Information Overload and Jim Acosta gets a beat down. It's
Speaker 1: Miller time at the White House yesterday. We'll continue, all
Speaker 1: right when we come back News round Up in Information
Speaker 1: overload our Okay, big shocker this And you know, I
Speaker 1: don't understand people in the media of us, the Mueller
Speaker 1: with his abusively biased Clinton donating Obama donating, Democratic donating
Speaker 1: staff and hiring Hillary Clinton's attorney. Of course they a
Speaker 1: panel to grand jury. Why is that a surprise to
Speaker 1: so many people? I hope the time we're spending on
Speaker 1: the deep state is valuable to you. We'll get to that.
Speaker 1: By the way, did you see Stephen Miller was Miller
Speaker 1: time at the White House yesterday against Jim Acosta of
Speaker 1: fake news CNN. That's next. Stay right here for our
Speaker 1: final news round up and information overload. Aren't you trying
Speaker 1: to change what it means to be an immigrant coming
Speaker 1: into this country? If if you're telling them, uh, you
Speaker 1: have to speak English? Can't people learn how to speak
Speaker 1: English when they get here? Well, first of all, right, now,
Speaker 1: it's the requirement to be naturalized you have to speak English.
Speaker 1: So the notion that speaking English wouldn't be a part
Speaker 1: of immigration systems would be actually very a historical. Secondly,
Speaker 1: I don't want to get off into a whole thing
Speaker 1: about history here, but the Statue of Liberty is a
Speaker 1: symbol of liberty and lightening the war world is a
Speaker 1: symbol of American liberty lighting the world. The poem that
Speaker 1: you're referring to, it was added later, is not actually
Speaker 1: part of the original statue of liberty, but more fundamentally
Speaker 1: the history. But more fundamentally history, not represent I'm saying
Speaker 1: that this notion of I'm saying the notion that the king,
Speaker 1: I'm saying the notion. I'm sorry, No, it sounds like that,
Speaker 1: sounds like some national park revisionism statue liberty. But let
Speaker 1: me ask you hope to the world for people to
Speaker 1: say him, do you believe to this country? And they're
Speaker 1: not always? When to sim Stephen, Jim, do you believe
Speaker 1: it's going to be highly skilled? They're not always? Jim, Jim, Jim,
Speaker 1: I I appreciate your speech. Jim, I appreciate your speech.
Speaker 1: So let's let's talk about this. It wasnt Let's talk
Speaker 1: about this in nineteen seventy when we let in three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people a year, was that violating or not
Speaker 1: violating the statue of liberty law of the land. In
Speaker 1: nineteen the nineteen nineties when it was half a million
Speaker 1: a year, was it violating or not violating the statue
Speaker 1: of liberty Law of the land. It was in violating
Speaker 1: when it was five thousand years. Tell me what years
Speaker 1: and tell me what years, Tell me what years meet,
Speaker 1: tell me what years meet Jim Acossa's definition of the
Speaker 1: Statue of Liberty Home Law of the Land. So you're
Speaker 1: saying a million a year is the Statue of liberty?
Speaker 1: Number nine hundred thousand violates at eight hundred thousand violates it.
Speaker 1: You're you're sort of bringing a press one for English
Speaker 1: philosophy here, Jim. Immigration and that's number four, Jim, what
Speaker 1: the United States has been about the Jim Gym talk
Speaker 1: talking about how border crossings. Do you really I want
Speaker 1: to be serious, Jim, do you really at CNN not
Speaker 1: into the difference between green card policy and illegal immigration? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, you really don't know that he came to
Speaker 1: this country right before the Cuban missile crisis and obtained
Speaker 1: a green card. Yes, people whoever, okay, eventually people who
Speaker 1: country question not throughout as a factual Jim, as a
Speaker 1: factual question. Ways do obtain a green card at some point?
Speaker 1: They do it through a lot of hard work. And yes,
Speaker 1: they may learn English as a second language later on
Speaker 1: in life. So but with this whole, this whole notion
Speaker 1: of well they could learn you know, they have to
Speaker 1: learn English before they get to the United States. Are
Speaker 1: we just going to bring in people from Great Britain
Speaker 1: and Australia. Actually to say, I am shocked at your
Speaker 1: statement that you think that only people from Great Britain
Speaker 1: and Australia would know English. It's actually it reveals your
Speaker 1: cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree that in your mind, no,
Speaker 1: this isn't an amazing this is an amazing moment. This
Speaker 1: is an amazing moment. That you think only people from
Speaker 1: Great Britain or Australia would speak English is so insulting
Speaker 1: to millions of hard working immigrants who do speak English
Speaker 1: from all over the world. Jim, if you honestly, Jim,
Speaker 1: have you honestly never met an immigrant from another country
Speaker 1: who speaks English outside of Great Britain in Australia. Is
Speaker 1: that your personal experience are people who coming But that's
Speaker 1: not what she said, and it shows, it shows your
Speaker 1: cost of Politan bias. And I just want to say,
Speaker 1: you're trying to engineer ethnic flow with people into this country.
Speaker 1: That is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant, and
Speaker 1: foolish things you've ever said. And for you, that's still
Speaker 1: a really the notion that you think that this is
Speaker 1: a racist bill is so wrong and so insulting, Jim Wow,
Speaker 1: checkmate game over Stephen Miller presser yesterday and fake news
Speaker 1: CNN exposed. That's supposed to be their objective, discerning and
Speaker 1: fair and balanced reporter. The level of ignorance is breathtaking.
Speaker 1: Glad you with US News round Up Information Overload our
Speaker 1: here on the Sean Hannity Show. We have our good
Speaker 1: friends Jonathan Gillum and Rick Gunger with us. And you've
Speaker 1: got to admit that was a checkmate moment. Why why
Speaker 1: is CNN's reporter acting as though they're with the A
Speaker 1: C L You who you asking you? Well? Why would
Speaker 1: I give Jonathan the easy question? I mean Acosta clearly
Speaker 1: wandered over the line into opinion that if he sounded
Speaker 1: like you, you, as a matter of fact, you're small
Speaker 1: and more reasonable. It was not his shining moment, you know, disarming.
Speaker 1: You are here. You think we've got Rick Onnger, John
Speaker 1: Jonathan back in the corner, and every time I backed
Speaker 1: him in the corner, You're right, I can't defend that.
Speaker 1: It's like you can't. I don't. I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: think you should defend Miller either. I mean the point
Speaker 1: of a news cup of conference like that is to
Speaker 1: give us information. He made it personal. Did you hear
Speaker 1: him make it personal about Stephen Miller say that? Say
Speaker 1: what again? He was making it personal about Miller. I
Speaker 1: think they were both making it personal and it was silly.
Speaker 1: And what we don't get out of that present gaggle
Speaker 1: was any information about the build that's being proposed, no
Speaker 1: discussion about it, just this little war between a reporter
Speaker 1: who clearly wasn't reporting. He was telling us what he thought,
Speaker 1: and Miller, who tends to be, you know, not very pleasant.
Speaker 1: Let's put it that way. Most people don't think he
Speaker 1: belongs in front of a TV camera. I disagree. I
Speaker 1: thought it was a checkmate moment. I could watch that
Speaker 1: every day all day. And Sarah Huckabee Sanders is doing
Speaker 1: crag too. You know, I've been saying way a long
Speaker 1: time ago, when Stephen Miller first started getting introduced to
Speaker 1: the public when he was working with the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: that he should have been the press secretary. But I
Speaker 1: do think that both he and Sarah Huckaby centers. I
Speaker 1: think I said last week on your program, I've been
Speaker 1: trying to get this word to uh, to Sarah that
Speaker 1: she's like the Tony Soprano of the press secretaries. She
Speaker 1: she does not have a vicious tone. She smiles at
Speaker 1: people and crushes him at the same time. It's the
Speaker 1: most fascinating thing I've ever seen. But Stephen Miller, man,
Speaker 1: that guy. What Trump has in those two people, he
Speaker 1: should just stop with the communication stuff, wrap it up.
Speaker 1: He's got his team and go on. Those two people
Speaker 1: are all he needs to worry about for the rest
Speaker 1: of his uh his time as president to handle communication.
Speaker 1: I would be absolutely thrilled if he would make Steve
Speaker 1: Miller the press sect Terry from my side, is the
Speaker 1: nicest thing you could do for us. But he's factual.
Speaker 1: You said a second ago, you said that this was
Speaker 1: a go back and forth between the two, but Jim
Speaker 1: Acosta started that. It wasn't Stephen Miller just he did start.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree. He absolutely started it. Uh. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that that Miller's behavior is what you want at
Speaker 1: a press secretary. As I say, he's a warrior of
Speaker 1: my side of offence, happy, go for it. I love it.
Speaker 1: But now I'm not cutting Acost and he slack. He's
Speaker 1: not there to give us his opinions and to uh
Speaker 1: to force his point of view. He's there to ask
Speaker 1: questions to get us news. He didn't do that yesterday.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, Miller accommodated him by getting
Speaker 1: into a personal fight instead of explaining the bill to us,
Speaker 1: which is I thought, what the point was. Well, listen,
Speaker 1: that's what these these press conferences don't really make a
Speaker 1: whole lot of sense because they are more out to
Speaker 1: get a sound bite than there an explanation of a bill.
Speaker 1: And the thing about Stephen Miller and Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Speaker 1: is that if that's the game the media is gonna play,
Speaker 1: because you gotta remember, these press conferences there for clarity
Speaker 1: and transparency and uh, the administration is offering these people
Speaker 1: up so they can give these explanations. But the media
Speaker 1: shows up with their bias and they try to get
Speaker 1: in there and get these people up. Did you see
Speaker 1: the other are you're doing that yesterday? I thought Jim
Speaker 1: Acosta doing it. I even thought Glenn Thrush doing it
Speaker 1: a little bit from the New York Times, But you
Speaker 1: had a rule full of people there. So rather than
Speaker 1: say the media if if you have a beef, which
Speaker 1: I think is deserved with Mr Acosta, then they you know,
Speaker 1: have to have the problem. But what's the point of saying.
Speaker 1: All the media didn't get into that discussion was deep Miller?
Speaker 1: They asked perfectly normal quest. Cost is he never shuts
Speaker 1: up and he runs his mouth. I think he should
Speaker 1: be kicked out of the White House. If they're not
Speaker 1: going to kick him out, then they need to allow
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller to pull out his verbal sword and stab
Speaker 1: him directly in the heart, which he did yesterday like
Speaker 1: a warrior. I mean, that's what has to be there.
Speaker 1: But this is happening more and more. Look at Kelly
Speaker 1: Ann has been amazing. She went on CNN and crushed them.
Speaker 1: I mean it was a beat down and or MS.
Speaker 1: I don't even know which channel is the same because
Speaker 1: they're all fake news. And Sebastian Gorka going on both
Speaker 1: the with Alison Camarada and with Anderson Cooper saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you're ratings a lower than Nick at Night and hey,
Speaker 1: boo boo, let's get a Bucca Nick basket. Fifty year
Speaker 1: old Yogi Berry runs. I mean, if you're getting ratings
Speaker 1: lower than you have, what you're funny, okay, because you're
Speaker 1: living in your childhood. I mean, you're never grown up.
Speaker 1: You have never grown up at all that time I've
Speaker 1: known you. I made millions of dollars you have you
Speaker 1: made millions of dollars watching Yogi Bear. It's impossible. But
Speaker 1: the problem we have is let's look at Russia. Russia, Russia. Okay,
Speaker 1: we got a Ukraine collusion story. Ukrainians wanted Donald Trump
Speaker 1: defeated the d n C. A paid operative met with
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian ambassador at the Ukrainian embassy. Politico says, reporting
Speaker 1: back to the Clinton campan reporting back to the d
Speaker 1: n C that there's no difference between that and Russia.
Speaker 1: And if you want a really bad Russia scandal, go
Speaker 1: to Uranium one. There's a real scandal. And Rick about
Speaker 1: this last week? Are you doing this every note? I
Speaker 1: never talked about that. I am making a point that
Speaker 1: the news media is abusively biased and fixated only on
Speaker 1: palace intrigue and Russia, and they're doing a disservice to
Speaker 1: the American people. Does that include Fox? Fox News is
Speaker 1: the only listen you know. People write me all the
Speaker 1: time about this hose and that Hosan, this Hosanna host.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of liberals on the air, a
Speaker 1: lot a lot of people that disagree with me on
Speaker 1: the air, and you know, because you've been there. I'm
Speaker 1: like the I am. I am the only one that
Speaker 1: is as strongly supportive of the president of anyone else
Speaker 1: at Fox. I think that's a fair statement. There are
Speaker 1: a couple of others. Fair statement. Okay, So is that
Speaker 1: a fair statement, Jonathan, Yeah, I absolutely believe that, and
Speaker 1: I do mean I think they're supportive, but nobody as much. Okay,
Speaker 1: have you ever watched the News People? If you watched
Speaker 1: Brett's Panel, have you watched The Specialist? Have you watched
Speaker 1: The Five? Have you watched any of these other shows
Speaker 1: that you know Brett Bear is fair and and and
Speaker 1: we have other Martha's fair. But the rest of these programs,
Speaker 1: I mean, you have liberals and conservative Ever seen Haraldo
Speaker 1: on my show? He drives me nuts like you do,
Speaker 1: and I love both of you. I don't know why
Speaker 1: I actually I agree. I think I think Brett Bear
Speaker 1: does a perfectly good show. Yeah, because he puts that
Speaker 1: he has tons of never Trumpers on, tons of weak
Speaker 1: Republicans on. I agree. I agree. Not the only reason
Speaker 1: I asked the questions. I don't disagree with any of
Speaker 1: that is that everybody once in the media. And remember
Speaker 1: you've got conservative media too. I see that there's liberal media,
Speaker 1: but there's also conservative media. Let me take a quick break.
Speaker 1: We'll come back. Rick Unger, Jonathan Gilham straight ahead, all right?
Speaker 1: As we continue, Rick Hunger and Jonathan Gillham here, all right,
Speaker 1: So what are we to make of this? And this
Speaker 1: is really scary. A month after it was disclosed that
Speaker 1: the President Obama's national security advisor, Susan Rice among many
Speaker 1: now and Ben Rhodes and Samantha Powers and all these
Speaker 1: other people are involved in unmasking of members of President
Speaker 1: Trump's team and other Americans. Trump's own national security advisor,
Speaker 1: Hr McMaster sends an official letter giving, in this case,
Speaker 1: Susan Rice unfettered and continued access to classified information and
Speaker 1: waving her need to know requirement on anything she viewed
Speaker 1: or received during her tenure. I'm like, you've got to
Speaker 1: be kidding me. That is the single dumbest decision I
Speaker 1: think I've ever heard. Jonathan Gillham, Well, let me tell
Speaker 1: you there's a McMaster is person and on garrata with
Speaker 1: anybody that knows anything about national security right now, and
Speaker 1: the American public are starting to figure it out that
Speaker 1: McMaster is another one of these uh swamp insiders. And
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I know that you're very close
Speaker 1: with the president. And he has to realize, Seahn, that
Speaker 1: they're two things. One the people that he's chosen. I
Speaker 1: know he likes big things. He's you know, he likes
Speaker 1: flashy things. He's a flashy guy. He's got to realize
Speaker 1: these aren't expensive trinkets. These people are deadly insiders. And
Speaker 1: but just because they have general behind their name doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that they know anymore than the East seven that's
Speaker 1: the chief. I think he needs to take a step back,
Speaker 1: and he needs to start interviewing people that are contractors
Speaker 1: and chiefs and people who have been vetted with their
Speaker 1: experience and bringing those people in and getting rid of
Speaker 1: the McMasters, getting rid of of all these people that
Speaker 1: that have that are just retreads. I mean, there's nothing
Speaker 1: he can do now about Christopher Ray. But chrispher Ray
Speaker 1: is another example this. He is just another DI O
Speaker 1: J attorney and he is close with Mueller, Comy and
Speaker 1: UH the acting Attorney General. Why is it taking so
Speaker 1: oldlong to clean house on Obama holdovers? Why what possible
Speaker 1: reason would would hr make Master ever make that decision
Speaker 1: to ostensibly give her immunity, Because these people come from
Speaker 1: the same universe. They scratched their back and then they
Speaker 1: get their back scratched by those people. And these are relationships.
Speaker 1: You don't become a general overnight. These are people that
Speaker 1: have built their careers since the Clinton era, and so
Speaker 1: they came up to Clinton Bush forty three, they worked
Speaker 1: for Obama, so theyre But Forster has to understand and
Speaker 1: I'll throw this to to my good liberal friend that
Speaker 1: is here. Sorry about that, um but but in all seriousness,
Speaker 1: we've had a three increase in unmasking since we we
Speaker 1: know what happened with Clapper, and he changes the rules
Speaker 1: and Obama changes the rules. That goes back to then
Speaker 1: we see unmasking at unprecedented levels than Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes,
Speaker 1: Susan Rice Clapper, who's now working at CNN for crying
Speaker 1: out loud, allowed a lot of this to happen. Obama,
Speaker 1: let's it happen. And I'm sure by the time all
Speaker 1: said and done, it's going to be more people. Why
Speaker 1: would you allow this to happen when there's a hundred
Speaker 1: weeks and a hundred and twenty six days and clearly
Speaker 1: the deep state Rick Hunger is trying to take out
Speaker 1: the president. Guys, this is an easy one. If you
Speaker 1: want to eat your own, why would I stand in
Speaker 1: your way? Well, I don't think it's eating own as either.
Speaker 1: You know, eat you can have people that make really
Speaker 1: dumb decisions Canada people that there's the president's choice to
Speaker 1: be the top Nashville security adviser in the country. I
Speaker 1: you know, I would have thought you'd be more supportive,
Speaker 1: but as I say, I'm shocked at this, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to stop you. Eight hundred nine four one, Shawn,
Speaker 1: thank you both. When we come back to Gobby one,
Speaker 1: Kitty Hopkins, we'll get the great Britain perspective next. As
Speaker 1: we continue the Sean Hannity Show, you'll hear what everyone
Speaker 1: really thinks in d C. This is the Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: Shows how to hateist music. Oh my gosh, alright till
Speaker 1: the top of the hour. If you hear that British music,
Speaker 1: you're probably watching the Telly Listen into the radio, the
Speaker 1: Baby's c and the spot. And that can only mean
Speaker 1: one thing that Katie Hopkins is back. Our friends from
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail. You know what, Ethan who works on
Speaker 1: our team, just said, why don't you like Katie Hopkins?
Speaker 1: Because we've had Diamond and soilcon for the last two
Speaker 1: weeks doing the last word on my TV show? Why
Speaker 1: not let Katie Hopkins do the goobby one do the
Speaker 1: last word on our television show. And I'm sitting there
Speaker 1: thinking that's a great idea, But I'm just wondering how
Speaker 1: much we're gonna have to edit out if we give
Speaker 1: you that opportunity. I don't know if America is ready
Speaker 1: for a final word from Katie Hopkins, but I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm that much more frightening than Diamond and Silk,
Speaker 1: who I love. By the way. No, I think a
Speaker 1: little Hopkins final word would be good, and I can
Speaker 1: guarantee you we wouldn't have to edit out anything. We
Speaker 1: might just need your viewers to promise not to be
Speaker 1: offended that evening. I don't care if that they're offended
Speaker 1: every evening. Every liberal in this country hates me and
Speaker 1: wants to destroy me. You know that, just like well
Speaker 1: you're kind of hated a little bit in Great Britain.
Speaker 1: Well maybe you're hated even more than me. Yes, but
Speaker 1: you could. You know, if it's that many number of
Speaker 1: liberals want to hate you or can't stand you, that
Speaker 1: means you're definitely doing something right. You know, if you
Speaker 1: annoy enough people, it means you must be getting them
Speaker 1: where it. So that's what's happening because you speak the truth,
Speaker 1: You're telling it how you see it, and you are
Speaker 1: also articulating the views of so many people who can
Speaker 1: no longer have their boys heard. I personally think you
Speaker 1: should be given a medal to America and I will
Speaker 1: be putting that idea forward to Mr Trump. I think
Speaker 1: Mr Trump will be laughing this minute you push forward
Speaker 1: that idea. But he does have a good sense of humor.
Speaker 1: If you know, Linda Tommy, you went to l A.
Speaker 1: I went to l A. I did. I was in
Speaker 1: past there that I was in downtown l A. And
Speaker 1: I got a little taster of your road system and
Speaker 1: your crazy drivers in America. And I was there for Politicon,
Speaker 1: which is essentially where a whole bunch of Democrats argue
Speaker 1: with a whole bunch of Republican commentators. And unfortunately they
Speaker 1: thought it would be a good idea to put me
Speaker 1: on a panel with women female liberals from the women's marches,
Speaker 1: so and the ones that we're wearing, the vagina outfits
Speaker 1: and everything, those ones, you know, And I think the
Speaker 1: idea be could it Anna Navarro? And I think she
Speaker 1: works on like MSNBC or something, right, yeah, like she
Speaker 1: must be a democrat. I think. Anyway, her and I
Speaker 1: didn't get along. What would we say? So well, you
Speaker 1: didn't get you didn't get on so well with her?
Speaker 1: How did it go? Well? I told the assembled room
Speaker 1: of a thousand or so women's marches that I had
Speaker 1: never been so disappointed by women, that they had utterly
Speaker 1: let me down, that they failed to have a single
Speaker 1: point to their lives, and that standing around marching with
Speaker 1: stupid hats on, holding a banner somewhere cosmopolitan at the
Speaker 1: center of a nice city doesn't get anything done. And
Speaker 1: I'd much rather see their ugly little faces outside the
Speaker 1: courts where people are being tried for grooming gangs, where
Speaker 1: we have Muslim grooming gangs, or we have women assaulted
Speaker 1: by men who are here because we have to tolerate multiculturalism.
Speaker 1: I never hear anything from the semin Nazis apart from
Speaker 1: a deafening silence, and so I brought that message to them.
Speaker 1: How did they react. Well, I got out of there alive,
Speaker 1: and then like the conservative came up to give me
Speaker 1: a hug and say thank God for you. Well, there
Speaker 1: was one conservative in a room. I've never understood this
Speaker 1: mindset of mentality. And let me make one serious note
Speaker 1: I say on this program all the time. And this
Speaker 1: really irked me about Hillary Clinton, because when it comes
Speaker 1: to money in the Clinton's it's okay to hand over
Speaker 1: of our uranium to Vladimir Putin and get hundred forty
Speaker 1: five million kicked back to the Clinton Foundation, that apparently,
Speaker 1: in the media's mind, is not a Russian conspiracy, But
Speaker 1: when she would take money from all of these countries
Speaker 1: that abuse women. Women are told how to dress, they
Speaker 1: can't drive, they can't vote, they can't travel abroad, they
Speaker 1: can't even leave their house in some instances without a
Speaker 1: male approval um. And and the women are beaten. And
Speaker 1: you know, they just need three times for their husband
Speaker 1: to say I divorce you, and the divorce is complete,
Speaker 1: and they get nothing in their their ostracized and women
Speaker 1: of course, or we have general mutilation around the country.
Speaker 1: You know, there's real abuse of women, there's real murder
Speaker 1: of gaze and lesbians. There's real mistreatment of Christians and
Speaker 1: Jews in these countries. But you give Killery money, she'll
Speaker 1: take it. That's such apology. It is a madness. And
Speaker 1: that's precise to the point I was kind of trying
Speaker 1: to make in this blooming woman's panel. You know, I
Speaker 1: hate seeing I don't see myself as a woman anywhere.
Speaker 1: I don't know why people identify just because of a
Speaker 1: toughing chromosome that they get born with. That does not,
Speaker 1: you know, to dictate whether you're good at your job
Speaker 1: or not. That I always say to these women, you know,
Speaker 1: they they sort of seem to conflate their viewpoints with
Speaker 1: their identity, you know, so that if you therefore attack
Speaker 1: their viewpoints, you're somehow making a massive attack on their humanity,
Speaker 1: which must be nonsense. But absolutely they failed to stand
Speaker 1: up for women who are repressed by a religion. We've
Speaker 1: just got I must send you the link. Actually are
Speaker 1: propaganda news channel, the BBC, the state broadcast is putting
Speaker 1: out stuff. You know, it's got women and Burker's like
Speaker 1: sitting I'm having a laugh with each other, you know,
Speaker 1: joking to try and normalize women behind the burker. What
Speaker 1: I want to say is why why don't we watch
Speaker 1: them eat? Because if you've ever watched someone in a
Speaker 1: burker eat, it's really quite something in a food did
Speaker 1: you did you ever see? There are images and I'm
Speaker 1: not making this up. Some people listening, we'll say that
Speaker 1: I'm making this up. I'm not women in burkins. That
Speaker 1: they actually make women swim fully clothed. Now I swarm
Speaker 1: with a T shirt on because I'm too fat. But
Speaker 1: that's different. You need to step away from the fridge.
Speaker 1: Mr Hannity's you know, seriously, you're going to start on
Speaker 1: It's not that I that Listen, You've got big bones?
Speaker 1: Is that what you're about the family, Because it doesn't.
Speaker 1: We're going to, you know, part ways at this point. No,
Speaker 1: I don't have big bones. I do eat because I'm
Speaker 1: constantly having a diet. Because if I eat because you're
Speaker 1: constantly shoving food in your faces. No, I'm not constantly
Speaker 1: shoving food in my face. I am totally good. But
Speaker 1: if I have one bad week, like the fourth of
Speaker 1: July week, and I eat everything that I loved, I
Speaker 1: blow up like a balloon, blow up like a blimp.
Speaker 1: Mr Hannity, one mouth two is yes. I need you
Speaker 1: to listen. I put on fifty two pounds in three
Speaker 1: months and lost it again to prove that fat people
Speaker 1: are lazy, you, sir, a lazy. I am not lazy.
Speaker 1: I work out four days, Linda. If you can say
Speaker 1: a lot about me, am I lazy? No, Boss, you're not.
Speaker 1: I'm not lazy. You can say not about me, but
Speaker 1: I got a tazy you. If you say, you might
Speaker 1: be able to say when it comes no, this would
Speaker 1: be a true fact. There are times with food I
Speaker 1: am undisciplined. I'm saying that lightening me with that. I
Speaker 1: know that because you're chubber. But listen, Linda, am I
Speaker 1: really that fat? I'm just fat enough that I don't
Speaker 1: want to swim without a T shirt on. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you know this, Katie, but we call him
Speaker 1: mana X and here he's not fat at all. He
Speaker 1: were a T shirt because he's a pale irishman. No
Speaker 1: one wants to translucent. There's no doubt, is hell. He's
Speaker 1: nearly purple. But my I do have. My arms are
Speaker 1: tan and my legs are tan. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you shoulders tan, but that is it. That is an
Speaker 1: attractive image. You naked in your farmer's tan, barely translucent,
Speaker 1: slightly purple, and quite overweight. That's quite an image. Field.
Speaker 1: I am not quite overweight, I said, I Just look.
Speaker 1: How do we get off on this topic? I said, okay,
Speaker 1: so I don't want to get somber, and that's really
Speaker 1: the main reason. But I also have a little bit
Speaker 1: of a beer gut, and I don't even drink that
Speaker 1: much beer. We call those daddy tummies. I quite like
Speaker 1: daddy tummy. You like a daddy's hammy. Bakkini's madness, Bukini madness,
Speaker 1: That's what I say. And a lot of feminine, feminine
Speaker 1: sort of the women marches over here, the kind of
Speaker 1: real aggressive man haters. They were bikinis in solidarity with
Speaker 1: their Muslim sisters here in the UK. Well they're not.
Speaker 1: We're in burkinys. All right. Let me play this. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is how insane these people have gotten. And these
Speaker 1: are like my favorite cuts you got Ashley Judd and Madonna.
Speaker 1: I'll remind our audience and to our detractors that insist
Speaker 1: that this march will never add up to anything you
Speaker 1: you but this is the hallmark of revolution. Yes, I'm angry, yes,
Speaker 1: no kidding, I am outraged, yes, an awful lot about
Speaker 1: blowing up the White House. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: to say. I I have nothing to say that that insanity.
Speaker 1: She she. I was there because obviously I was there
Speaker 1: for the inauguration of Trump. I wasn't there for the
Speaker 1: Woman's March. But I went to the Woman's March so
Speaker 1: I could watch these curious women in action. And I
Speaker 1: remember hearing them speak, and I remember that conversation she
Speaker 1: had on stage, which made no sense at all all
Speaker 1: to anybody guys out there. I remember one of them yelling,
Speaker 1: you are we, we are you? And I was just like, yeah, maybe.
Speaker 1: And then Madonna her eyes now because she's pulled them
Speaker 1: back so far, they are so close to her ears
Speaker 1: when she cries, he has come out from behind her
Speaker 1: ears like you please being You've gotta be nice. I
Speaker 1: mean you first, you're making fun of me now, Madonna, Wow,
Speaker 1: what do you call me a chubb? You call me
Speaker 1: a chubby? Yeah? Well, when I come to New York,
Speaker 1: I'm going to take you walking. Maybe we'll do the
Speaker 1: final word, like when we're walking, I'll take you. Know,
Speaker 1: you can come to my dojo and we can do
Speaker 1: a martial arts workout and you're not going to be
Speaker 1: able to keep up with me. Okay, the challenge is on.
Speaker 1: But I warn you. I warn you, Okay, I warn you.
Speaker 1: I warn you very very gently. Have you on your
Speaker 1: bottom a threat? Oh geez, it is to be sensitive? Sure,
Speaker 1: it's okay, what is okay? I'm not doing in anything wrong.
Speaker 1: I work out four days a week. I do boxing,
Speaker 1: I do kempo, I do jiu jitsu, I do I
Speaker 1: do punching and hitting and grappling. What do you want
Speaker 1: me to do? So you purposely? You purposely, You purposely
Speaker 1: gained fifty six pounds and last it. Yes, I can
Speaker 1: set Actually later I'll send you how did you gain it?
Speaker 1: How do you gain sending? I'm going to put send
Speaker 1: you pictures of me when I was at my fattest,
Speaker 1: and it will put you off food for life. I
Speaker 1: send them out for people to put on their fridge
Speaker 1: doors and anyone, and it will make you walk away
Speaker 1: from the fridge put on by How did you? How
Speaker 1: did you lose the weight? Because the people really do
Speaker 1: struggle with this, as you know, and I did do
Speaker 1: it for a purpose, you know, I did it to
Speaker 1: kind of prove that no matter what, if you've got medication,
Speaker 1: you've got a healthful issue, you've got whatever you've got
Speaker 1: going on in your life. But if you sit down
Speaker 1: too much and you put too much food in your face,
Speaker 1: you will get bigger. And that's all I did. I
Speaker 1: sat down for three months and shove food in my
Speaker 1: face and put on half my body weight and meant
Speaker 1: to lose it. I made sure I did it like
Speaker 1: anybody so it was accessible to all your lovely list nourse.
Speaker 1: So I didn't have a trainer, I didn't have a nutritionist,
Speaker 1: I didn't join a gym. I did it outside of
Speaker 1: work hours. And what did you? What did you eat?
Speaker 1: Because in all seriousness, I mean when I do gain weight,
Speaker 1: it's a hard thing to lose those pounds. It's paint. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's hideous look And I do as much as I'm joking,
Speaker 1: it's only because I've been there. I felt the most
Speaker 1: wretched I've ever felt. It was a documentary on t
Speaker 1: LC My Fat Story, and America bought it actually from
Speaker 1: the UK, and I do. The serious point is is
Speaker 1: that most of us, our relationship with food is not
Speaker 1: it is not about food at all. It's an emotional
Speaker 1: relationship with food. And then I spoke to so many
Speaker 1: emotional it's I like how it tastes, Yeah, for sure,
Speaker 1: and that's nice and that's comforting, and I totally get it.
Speaker 1: And I also totally get you know, how hard it
Speaker 1: is and how disappointing it is to people try and
Speaker 1: lose weights. And really, because I'm a lovely person, I
Speaker 1: just want people to feel nice about themselves and I
Speaker 1: want you to feel that way too. All right, Katie
Speaker 1: Hopkins sold, can I ask what you ate? Really quick?
Speaker 1: How did you lose it? Yeah? Of course, so to
Speaker 1: put it on you know, and the people say, oh,
Speaker 1: it must have been lovely. You could have eaten anything. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was eating eight thousand, five hundred calories a day,
Speaker 1: so that's like three or four roast dinners a day.
Speaker 1: And and I was miserable. I was horrible to my husband.
Speaker 1: I was horrible to my children. And I became a nasty,
Speaker 1: nasty woman, more nasty than Madonna, but without the facelift
Speaker 1: and the issue. Yeah that was actually okay, But what
Speaker 1: did you eat? What did you how did you lose it?
Speaker 1: And then I lost it by just so I made
Speaker 1: a commitment so that I wanted people to be able
Speaker 1: to do this. So I said ten thousand steps a day.
Speaker 1: So I made myself to ten thousand steps a day.
Speaker 1: I stopped shoving eight thousand, five hundred calories in my face.
Speaker 1: And then I picked up a few other women and
Speaker 1: a few men that also wanted to shift weight, and
Speaker 1: we started my fat club and we did it together
Speaker 1: and a few of those people lost a couple of
Speaker 1: stone each. So that's my Sean Hannity challenge. And to
Speaker 1: your listeners, I don't take ten thousand steps a day.
Speaker 1: I mean I do walk from the you know, alright,
Speaker 1: I like that idea, But you can't hang with me
Speaker 1: in the dodgo. I can tell you that you're gonna
Speaker 1: get a hurt. Can I say something, Sean? So the
Speaker 1: thing I keep hearing at the moment in America, especially
Speaker 1: from l A and wherever, is people Democratic or Democrats
Speaker 1: standing up talking about a sort of repeal and replace
Speaker 1: and you know, Obamacare, and they keep using Western Europe
Speaker 1: as an example of what successful medicine and medical practices
Speaker 1: can look like. And I just want to kind of scream, Sean,
Speaker 1: because our NHS is not something anybody ever wants to copy.
Speaker 1: You do not want state medical kind of provision. You
Speaker 1: need to have the insurance market running. It needs to
Speaker 1: be run by the free market. You don't want state
Speaker 1: provision of healthcare. I really kind of want to get
Speaker 1: that message across, because all that happens is you wait
Speaker 1: for three years to have the surgery that you needed
Speaker 1: to have straight and if you've reached your life expectancy,
Speaker 1: you're never going to get your hip replaced or your
Speaker 1: near replaced, are you No, not at all. You're not
Speaker 1: going to get that here, and people will just opt
Speaker 1: out and take private services. So really, people like me
Speaker 1: end up paying to white. So I would just say
Speaker 1: anyone that says, oh, look at Western Europe, look at Sweden,
Speaker 1: look at the UK. We have the one of the
Speaker 1: worst national health services. It's a disaster, all right, Katie Hopkins,
Speaker 1: the gobby one, We're gonna work on you being in
Speaker 1: the Final Word next week on TV. God help America
Speaker 1: at that point, God help me, Donna and Nashley Judd,
Speaker 1: and God help fat people like me that you're gonna
Speaker 1: make fun of. Alright, Eight one Sean is a number,
Speaker 1: all right, that's gonna wrap things up for Today Hannity Tonight,
Speaker 1: ten eastern Sarah Carter's blockbuster Why is hr McMaster protecting
Speaker 1: Susan Rice. We'll have the latest on the Mueller grand
Speaker 1: jury impanels. Who are these people and why are they
Speaker 1: so linked into the Democratic Party with donations? And why
Speaker 1: did they hire Hillary's attorney? Ten Eastern Hannity, Fox Four,