Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. All right, glad you
Speaker 1: with us right down our toll free telephone number. We
Speaker 1: got a great show for you today, eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: for one Shawn, if you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. Didny did you see Alan Dershowitz and
Speaker 1: Joe de Geneva last night on TV? They were both amazing.
Speaker 1: We have Joe de Jenneva and Sarah Carter on today.
Speaker 1: Where New Kingridge is back? Where is New Gingridge? Ben?
Speaker 1: I know his wife is now the the ambassador to
Speaker 1: the Holy See too, to Rome and to the Church,
Speaker 1: and I guess in the Vatican. I guess he's spending
Speaker 1: a lot of time in Italy, having the time of
Speaker 1: his life. Seems to have just what would you do
Speaker 1: if you were in Italy? I think I wouldn't have
Speaker 1: me not asking that question. You're not any fun? Let
Speaker 1: me tell you what he's doing in Italy. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: not any fun. I'm not any fun at all. Say yourself,
Speaker 1: you're not fun. Well, I mean, I'm a happy person.
Speaker 1: I love doing what I'm doing every day. But the
Speaker 1: I I don't need to go to Italy and you're
Speaker 1: even happier because the grapes are sweeter, the wine is stronger,
Speaker 1: the air is wire. She's walking through Italy and she's saying,
Speaker 1: the grapes are stronger here. There's so much stronger. I
Speaker 1: can't believe it. I said the grapes were sweeter of
Speaker 1: the wine. The wine is stronger, and you get drunk
Speaker 1: of fast. I have a feeling i'd be very popular
Speaker 1: in Italy. Oh yeah, who's the crazy girl from New York.
Speaker 1: Who's that crazy woman from the United States of America.
Speaker 1: That's the first thing that they'd be saying. I wish
Speaker 1: we could do a reality show were you and when
Speaker 1: to travel to all different countries. That's all different cultures. Okay,
Speaker 1: And I guarantee you if we took a vote based
Speaker 1: upon the people that met us and we said they
Speaker 1: would like, they would like obviously. Obviously, I'd be there
Speaker 1: on my iPhone looking up the latest news, walking down
Speaker 1: watching the Drudge Report, my head down, my glasses, and
Speaker 1: he's like, hold on, I just gotta send this tweet
Speaker 1: out one second. Well, no, I don't tweet as much
Speaker 1: as I used to. All right, and we have to Jennifer,
Speaker 1: we have Sarah carter Um. It's getting really scary with
Speaker 1: all of these social media sites censoring. They're doing data
Speaker 1: mining on you, they're spying on you, and we've got
Speaker 1: all the evidence. I mean, look at these examples. Facebook
Speaker 1: admitted they routinely suppressed conservative news stories from their trending
Speaker 1: news section in now just recently Facebook. And I meant,
Speaker 1: I told us to Lauren the other day, I gave
Speaker 1: you that newspiece rejected an ad because it had a
Speaker 1: crucifix with Jesus Christ on it, on the cross, and
Speaker 1: they said it was too violent. That is so offensive,
Speaker 1: you know, But why because it's unbelievable. In the past,
Speaker 1: face book as approved Christian hate groups, and they've shut
Speaker 1: down Christian groups. I mean, they're run by a bunch
Speaker 1: of left wing radicals. On top of that, then you've
Speaker 1: got Facebook removed to patriotic picture honoring fallen Marines. Have
Speaker 1: an instance where Facebook removed photoshop picture of Obama wearing
Speaker 1: a che Guvera shirt. And I mean, I'm pretty much
Speaker 1: all free speech except if you start making threats of
Speaker 1: violence or some type of terroristic threat. I mean, we've
Speaker 1: got to monitor social media sites because almost all of
Speaker 1: these school shooters and church shooters and all of these
Speaker 1: people that are involved in terrorism, they're all telegraphing what
Speaker 1: they're planning and what they want to do. So we've
Speaker 1: got to do something on on that front. Uh, Now,
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino, Jonathan Gillum and Diamond of Diamond and Silk Fame,
Speaker 1: they've all been through this, and we've been through it.
Speaker 1: You know, Twitter is now how many times told us officially,
Speaker 1: well you guys have been compromised, Like okay, So they're like, well,
Speaker 1: don't use this site, this part of the site. Am
Speaker 1: I Why do I even go on your stupid site?
Speaker 1: If you can't protect a stupid site? And nothing is nothing,
Speaker 1: by the way, is private anymore? Nothing. It's unbelievable governments
Speaker 1: buying on you. You got these companies buying on you,
Speaker 1: like leave us alone. So i'mbelieving Linda will be interested
Speaker 1: by on her. Now think about this though, because then
Speaker 1: it becomes us, sorry, are you inviting people to spy
Speaker 1: on me? Absolutely? Uh? And you'll they'll find that you're
Speaker 1: you're pretty boring to um. Just say, all right, what
Speaker 1: do you do every weekend? Now? Okay, what do you
Speaker 1: do every weekend, you go home to your two year
Speaker 1: old and you go to two year old extravaganzas, which
Speaker 1: is like, that's the operative word extravagance. Okay, So you
Speaker 1: go to a pond, you go to I think recently
Speaker 1: you went to aquarium. Uh, you go to museums. By
Speaker 1: the way, taking your kid to a museum. What that
Speaker 1: is the worst thing you could ever do to a
Speaker 1: kid is take him to a museum. About what I
Speaker 1: do when my son's awake, About what I do when
Speaker 1: he's during his naptime. That's when you're cleaning, and that's
Speaker 1: when you're cooking that night's dinner. Just just a guess,
Speaker 1: because I know what she does. She tells us what
Speaker 1: she does. Did I say anything that's not true? No,
Speaker 1: I do. I clean, I cook, and while I do it,
Speaker 1: I dance around. And I know, all right, we don't
Speaker 1: need the details. Now you don't want to, now I don't.
Speaker 1: I have absolutely noticed here this would be interesting. You
Speaker 1: can't embarrassment. Thank you nice? Try though? All right, So
Speaker 1: you know, and here's all of this is going on.
Speaker 1: And I went through this in great detail last night
Speaker 1: about the president because you know, something happened in the
Speaker 1: last week, and I can't really explain there's been a
Speaker 1: huge momentum shift because we've spent like thirty thirty five
Speaker 1: forty days or so, and it has been a NonStop
Speaker 1: assault on Donald Trump. And you know what, the media
Speaker 1: has to look at his approval rating holding now at today,
Speaker 1: and they've got to be saying to themselves, Wow, this
Speaker 1: isn't working. And you look at the president. Okay, he's
Speaker 1: keeping another campaign promise. Fine, Congress is slow. They only
Speaker 1: appropriated X number of dollars. I'm sending the National Guard
Speaker 1: to the southern border and will protect the border that
Speaker 1: way until we can build the wall. He deserves credit,
Speaker 1: you know, or this guy wants to keep his promises.
Speaker 1: People say, oh, he didn't really mean it when he
Speaker 1: said build the wall. He did, and the wall is
Speaker 1: gonna get built, I bet any amount of money. And
Speaker 1: you know, for everyone, all the liberals and wetting their
Speaker 1: pants over this and having a heart attack and getting hysterical,
Speaker 1: the problem they have is that that precedent for doing
Speaker 1: that was already done by George W. Bush and Barack
Speaker 1: Obama and the president's tough rhetoric. He's now demanding Mexico
Speaker 1: to spand the caravan of asylum seekers. You've got the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Canada now saying, yeah, it looks like
Speaker 1: we're gonna probably get a deal, a NAFTA deal, and
Speaker 1: it's gonna be more favorable than the one we already have. Oh,
Speaker 1: I guess Mexico is gonna make less money and that
Speaker 1: means they'll pay for the wall. But remember, and for
Speaker 1: anyone said when I said to him during the campaign,
Speaker 1: you don't expect Mexico is gonna write you a check
Speaker 1: and build the wall, because no, not at all. Well
Speaker 1: I said, well, how are they gonna pay for the wall?
Speaker 1: He goes, because I'm gonna renegotiate trade deals more in
Speaker 1: our favor and we'll get more money and we'll apply
Speaker 1: that money to the wall. So the headline on Drudge
Speaker 1: right now is a new NAFTA deal is near. So
Speaker 1: all of which tells me that this president series about
Speaker 1: keeping you know, his word and that and it's showing
Speaker 1: up in the polls, and it ought to be something
Speaker 1: that the rest of the Republican Party follows, because if
Speaker 1: you keep your word, you fight for the things you
Speaker 1: believe in, well, then people are gonna reward you with
Speaker 1: with higher approval ratings and with reelection. You know, if
Speaker 1: didn't even have the fake new CNN poll, the president
Speaker 1: making major gains uh in key voting groups. He went
Speaker 1: up eight points with men since February, went up five
Speaker 1: points with young voters since February, nine points with middle
Speaker 1: age dson's February, and he's up by ten points with
Speaker 1: college graduates. Now, what's so interesting about these polls. Imagine
Speaker 1: if he didn't have Robert Muller hanging all over his
Speaker 1: head and a corrupt media, you know, talking Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: Russia NonStop, and the media having an apoplectic meltdown over
Speaker 1: the fact that he's not a target. Oh, he's gonna
Speaker 1: be a target. It's a year and a half later,
Speaker 1: but he's gonna be a target. I Meanwhile, they missed
Speaker 1: the biggest abuse of power scandal in their history. Has
Speaker 1: become nothing but a witch hunt. Now the president's got
Speaker 1: to decide if he's gonna sit down with Robert Muller,
Speaker 1: and Robert Mueller's now big threat. It's even the Washington
Speaker 1: Post as a report out today, Muller unlikely to indict Trump.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna indict a sitting president. It's just like
Speaker 1: everyone thinks that collusion is a crime. Collusion is not
Speaker 1: a crime, all these things that they've been throwing out.
Speaker 1: That the president has an absolute right to fire anybody
Speaker 1: he wants in the government, and the first witness in
Speaker 1: the firing of Comie would be Rod Rosenstein, who's conflicted
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand ways and sideways. You know, now we
Speaker 1: got Mueller's chasing down Russian oligarchs seeing if they donated
Speaker 1: to Trump. This is how far off phase this has gotten.
Speaker 1: You got fic By, Why do these FBI love birds
Speaker 1: still have a national security clearance? You know what I'm
Speaker 1: beginning to suspect. I'm thinking they flipped. I'm thinking Strucking
Speaker 1: Page are now cooperating witnesses because they know we've only
Speaker 1: seen about a thousand of the fifty thousand emails that
Speaker 1: are out there, and their insurance policy I'm sure was
Speaker 1: discussed in a lot more detail, That's my guess. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So you got the president, he's doing his jobs, and
Speaker 1: you know, we've got a million We've got three million
Speaker 1: jobs created since he's become president. You've got two million
Speaker 1: fewer people on food stamps since he's become president. Manufacturing
Speaker 1: now at the strongest in three years. The American people
Speaker 1: are getting results. On top of the three million jobs
Speaker 1: created a DP and Moody's analyt they're now saying two
Speaker 1: extra jobs were created in March. That's on top of
Speaker 1: record low unemployment levels in the country, uh, the lowest
Speaker 1: unemployment level for Hispanic Americans and Black Americans. Whole equity
Speaker 1: is now at a record level five point four trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: And the President's making a big step. I think what
Speaker 1: he did on healthcare. I was trying to explain this
Speaker 1: a little bit yesterday. You know, finally they're implementing what
Speaker 1: the President signed as an executive order. And what this does.
Speaker 1: It allows trade associations and groups of people to join
Speaker 1: together and buy embulk, even across state lines, their healthcare plans.
Speaker 1: So that increases people's choices, it lowers their costs. It
Speaker 1: expanded by just expanding the association of health plans. You know,
Speaker 1: I could organize everybody that works on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Now we can come up with our own healthcare plan
Speaker 1: where let's say, otherwise we actually all have to most
Speaker 1: of us have to be union here. But it's a
Speaker 1: long story work in New York radio. You have to.
Speaker 1: But you know, these plans now allow any business to
Speaker 1: come together. Let's say you're in the my pillow business
Speaker 1: and you're you want to work with Mike Lindell. He's
Speaker 1: in the pillow business. While you can bring all the
Speaker 1: pillow people together and join as one and buy a
Speaker 1: healthcare plan that in bulk at a lower price, with
Speaker 1: with better services. You know, then the President I thought
Speaker 1: one of the most amazing thing he did was he
Speaker 1: he was piste off signing that one point three trillion
Speaker 1: dollar omnibus bill. Well, now he's gonna use the Empowerment
Speaker 1: Control Act of nineteen seventy four that allows the President
Speaker 1: gives him the authority. You just need a simple vote
Speaker 1: up or down in the Senate to cancel spending already
Speaker 1: approved by Congress. He has forty five days to get
Speaker 1: that done. That would be good for the Republicans if
Speaker 1: they can get it done. You know, I've listed way
Speaker 1: too many times the list of accomplishments that the Republicans have.
Speaker 1: You got Nancy Pelosi's already saying that she's gonna try
Speaker 1: and repeal the tax cuts, and we know that you know,
Speaker 1: we got a whole chorus of pill led by Maxim
Speaker 1: Waters and Peach forty five and Peach forty five if
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi ever become speaker. So you know, the Republicans
Speaker 1: have an opportunity. Now, how about reallocating that money to
Speaker 1: build the wall. Put it in escrow so the wall
Speaker 1: will be both built in full. On top of that,
Speaker 1: we got the National Guard down to the border. On
Speaker 1: top of that, you've got jobs being created, you got
Speaker 1: the tax cut plan. America now has opened up an war.
Speaker 1: We have the pipelines that are being built. We saved
Speaker 1: the coal industry, and we're gonna drill in the forty
Speaker 1: eight states and off the coast of the East coast,
Speaker 1: West coast, and in the Gulf. I mean, everything is
Speaker 1: now beginning to work the way it should work. And
Speaker 1: that means now people that have been left behind are
Speaker 1: now in a better position than they were. And all
Speaker 1: the media has been talking about a stormy, stormy, stormy
Speaker 1: and that creep that creepy Anderson Cooper interview is so bizarre,
Speaker 1: very weird. You know, it's nice when you can say, hey,
Speaker 1: guess what, three million more Americans have jobs. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the corporations now have tax. Manufacturing is up the highest
Speaker 1: level we've had in three years. You see corporation after
Speaker 1: corporation committing millions and billions of dollars to the American
Speaker 1: economy and too and to building in UH factories and
Speaker 1: manufacturing centers. And that's all great news. And you never
Speaker 1: hear about any good news from any of these idiots
Speaker 1: that call themselves journalists. There they'll think through this, their
Speaker 1: only hope is is that they yet Trump, They stop
Speaker 1: Trump after eight years of Obama. You know, you would say,
Speaker 1: who are they cheering for here? What? What is it
Speaker 1: they actually want? What is it? Collusion is not a crime.
Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz, Joe de Jenneva, Uh, everything, Greg Jare, every lawyer,
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, I've talked collusion not a crime. Today we
Speaker 1: see that Mueller announces that one of the things that
Speaker 1: he's going to go after Trump for, and Rosenstein says
Speaker 1: he can do it is collusion. Now he's inventing a crime.
Speaker 1: There's no such crime as collusion in the federal statute.
Speaker 1: You can't just make up crimes. Nobody likes collusion. If
Speaker 1: collusion had occurred, and there's no evidence it did, if
Speaker 1: collusion had occurred, it would be a political sin. But
Speaker 1: neither Rosenstein nor Muller can simply magically make up a
Speaker 1: crime and say, now collusion is a crime. You want
Speaker 1: to make collusion a crime in the future, pass the statute.
Speaker 1: It's not on the books. What is the media in
Speaker 1: this country looking for? Why can't they ever report anything
Speaker 1: good about Donald Trump? Especially because there's so much good
Speaker 1: that you can discuss. I've gone through the list, I
Speaker 1: put it up on the screen even last night eight
Speaker 1: And what what? What is their goal? It's obviously not
Speaker 1: about the American people, it's not They don't They don't
Speaker 1: advocate for the working men and women that are in poverty,
Speaker 1: out of work and on food stamps. They're not out
Speaker 1: there celebrating that companies are gonna spend billions and not
Speaker 1: celebrating the tax cuts. They're just trying to take the
Speaker 1: president down any way they can. I don't even think
Speaker 1: they realize how sick they are. They This is an
Speaker 1: illness on their part. It's bordering now on psychosis, and
Speaker 1: it's just hate Trump, hate Trump. If Trump is quiet
Speaker 1: and doesn't tweet, they're like opioid addicts that are going
Speaker 1: through withdrawal, and their body is contorting and twisting and purging,
Speaker 1: and they don't like a spiritual warfare taking place, and
Speaker 1: they need the next fix. Are they hoping that the
Speaker 1: president fails? What does that say about their lack of
Speaker 1: caring for the American people? Alright, twenty five till the
Speaker 1: top of the hour. We'll get to some calls here
Speaker 1: in a minute, you know. Um, So we're getting to
Speaker 1: a tipping point as it relates to Robert Mueller. There's
Speaker 1: really nobody left to interview that I know of. We
Speaker 1: should bring me in for an interview. I'd start interviewing
Speaker 1: them about their background, about their credentials, about exculpatory evidence
Speaker 1: that some of the people he hired had had withheld
Speaker 1: in high profile cases, about innocent people going to jail,
Speaker 1: about anthrax, about a hundred million plus dollars UH paid
Speaker 1: to four individuals to who died in jail turned out
Speaker 1: to be innocent. That's in the Whitey Boulder case. Then
Speaker 1: we'll get to Andrew Weisman. Exculpatory evidence withheld UH, tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of people losing their jobs, and of course
Speaker 1: a nine old decision in the Supreme Court. Why would
Speaker 1: you hire that guy puts four Meryal executives in jail,
Speaker 1: and why why? And then then they were found innocent?
Speaker 1: Fifth circuit overturn that why did you hire these people?
Speaker 1: I'd answer every question with a question, why did you
Speaker 1: hire these people? Let me ask you, are you the
Speaker 1: guy that withheld the exculpratory every Why would you withhold
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence? And people say to me, Hannity, you're living
Speaker 1: in your mind in a fantasy world. You would never
Speaker 1: act that way. Yeah, I probably would. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: I probably would. You know what, because it's wrong. You know,
Speaker 1: all of this good news that I'm throwing out here,
Speaker 1: nobody in the media covers. Here's another thought. Now, I
Speaker 1: was just talking about the President keeping his promises, talking
Speaker 1: about millions of jobs created, a fewer you know, two million,
Speaker 1: fewer people on food stamps, and and how the economy
Speaker 1: is roaring back, and the commitments by all these companies
Speaker 1: now to spend billions in on factories and manufacturing centers.
Speaker 1: That's going to create jobs for Americans. That's all I
Speaker 1: care about. I want to make sure that they can
Speaker 1: feed their families, they can get a nice house, they
Speaker 1: can live in a nice, safe neighborhood and got a
Speaker 1: decent car, and send their kids to a decent school,
Speaker 1: and take a yearly vacation and go out to eat
Speaker 1: once a week or whatever whatever they like to do,
Speaker 1: you know, go to a movie or something, bowling, I
Speaker 1: don't know, whatever people like to do, go to a
Speaker 1: baseball game, football game, not bankrupt you. A lot of
Speaker 1: people that can't do all this stuff. Sad, especially after
Speaker 1: the eight years of Obama. You know how ironic would
Speaker 1: it be though, if the president meets with Little rocket Man.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine we're now discussing and this is the
Speaker 1: president that didn't decide to bring in cargo planes full
Speaker 1: of cash and other currencies adding up to a hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion like Obama did with a rant or
Speaker 1: or billions that were handed over by Bill Clinton to
Speaker 1: Kim Jong Ill, Kim Jong UN's father. You know. So
Speaker 1: he just says, little rocket Man, we've got a bigger
Speaker 1: we got bigger weapons, will annihilate you now all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, The next thing that we know is Kim
Speaker 1: Jong Un he wants to go to the Olympics and
Speaker 1: he wants to meet with Trump to talk about d
Speaker 1: nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Well, that's good news anyway
Speaker 1: you slice it. Maybe it doesn't work out, but at
Speaker 1: least we got a shot. You know, people said to
Speaker 1: me or some one of these political fact checkers wrote,
Speaker 1: all Hannity said that Obama shouldn't talk to the MLAs
Speaker 1: and arranging because Obama is weak. There's a reason, you know,
Speaker 1: you got a different president here. Obama wants to give
Speaker 1: these people a hundred and fifty billion dollars and they
Speaker 1: still continue to spend their centerfuges. I mean, I never
Speaker 1: trusted Obama because Obama is clueless about negotiating. And more importantly,
Speaker 1: you know, he's too willing to to bow down and
Speaker 1: kiss the ring of of dictators and mulas, and I
Speaker 1: was not. I he wasn't the guy to do it.
Speaker 1: I'll think about this if we ever de nuclearized Korean peninsula,
Speaker 1: and look at where we are, Look at the new
Speaker 1: crown Princess Saudi Arabia. Look do I believe everything he's
Speaker 1: saying in terms of liberalizing policies and pulling back on
Speaker 1: Sharia and modification on basically everything, and and human rights
Speaker 1: and more tolerance. We'll see. Time is gonna tell how
Speaker 1: they treat women, whether or not they still kill gays
Speaker 1: and lesbians, and whether they persecute Christian as a Jews.
Speaker 1: But he did say that Israel has a right to exist,
Speaker 1: and Israel has a right to their own property because
Speaker 1: it is historically their land. That's that's progress. But what's
Speaker 1: happened is because the Iranians are so nuts and they
Speaker 1: have the money because of Barack Obama, it has created
Speaker 1: an unprecedented moment in Middle Eastern history. We're literally now
Speaker 1: the Israelis, the Saudias, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Emirates.
Speaker 1: They're now working together sharing intelligence to prevent Iranian hegemony
Speaker 1: in the region. Now, can you imagine if everybody would
Speaker 1: just literally surround Iran and prevent them from getting nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons or just take them out, and that all these
Speaker 1: countries once and for all, they finally could make peace
Speaker 1: and get on with their lives and and start making
Speaker 1: a better Middle East. I don't know, beginning to sound
Speaker 1: like John Lennon give piece a chance, but I mean
Speaker 1: that could happen. But the media doesn't even talk about that.
Speaker 1: They don't talk about economic success, They don't give the
Speaker 1: president credit on anything in foreign policy. You know, we
Speaker 1: have a new NAFTA deal is near. You know, let
Speaker 1: me interpret that for you. Mexico is gonna pay for
Speaker 1: the wall. That's what the new NAFTA deal is going
Speaker 1: to be. I know everybody's worried about China, and China
Speaker 1: holds a lot of our debt. China is not gonna
Speaker 1: pull out from our debt from this country, because then
Speaker 1: they're gonna be the ones we don't have to pay
Speaker 1: them back. They're last on the list to pay back.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna take that chance. What's gonna happen is
Speaker 1: is they're gonna negotiate a better trade deal. I'm all
Speaker 1: for open free trade. I'm a free trader, but I'm
Speaker 1: also for free and fair trade. And there has been
Speaker 1: we have been abused by some of these countries. Now
Speaker 1: here's the biggest obstacle for the president to keep going forward.
Speaker 1: His name is Robert Mueller, and as Mary banned a
Speaker 1: Democratic corrupt donors that he appointed. So we're at the
Speaker 1: point in the investigation where, by the way, this is
Speaker 1: bad news for the destroy Trump media. The Washington Post
Speaker 1: is even reporting listen from the Washington Post that it
Speaker 1: is unlikely Robert Mueller will indict President Trump, but will
Speaker 1: instead is your a report summing up his investigation to
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. And it turns out the Republican Congress
Speaker 1: or even President Trump may have the power to decide
Speaker 1: whether Mueller's report ever sees the light today. By the way,
Speaker 1: somebody better get some xan X for you know, Maxie
Speaker 1: Waters and some of these other people that have been
Speaker 1: screaming about impeachment. Now, Robert Mueller will have a lot
Speaker 1: of discretion here, And Robert Muller could do as much
Speaker 1: damage in a report as he could do with you know,
Speaker 1: anything legal that he might put together. Again, you're not
Speaker 1: gonna indict a sitting president. And anyway, for the Washington
Speaker 1: Post to go on and say it has always seemed
Speaker 1: unlikely that Trump would be indicted, that's not what they've
Speaker 1: been That's not how they've been presenting it, or the
Speaker 1: New York Times or fake news CNN or conspiracy TV, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: you know, particularly obstruction of justice. They've been treating it
Speaker 1: like this is gonna be a crime that the president
Speaker 1: is going to be proven to have committed crimes. Rather,
Speaker 1: the question has been now serious as misconduct was They
Speaker 1: act as though he's guilty. And if you asked them
Speaker 1: to say it any information, well is they always say
Speaker 1: the same thing. A lot of smoke, but there's no
Speaker 1: fire anyway. Mahler's investigators have vindicated to the president's legal
Speaker 1: team that they're now considering writing reports on the findings
Speaker 1: in stages. Now, what's the purpose of that, because if
Speaker 1: the Democrats ever got control of Congress in the midterms,
Speaker 1: all of that would mean that they're going to use
Speaker 1: that as the basis of making a case for high
Speaker 1: crimes and misdemeanors. In other words, that Pelosi could use
Speaker 1: it in in the instance of trying to impeach the president.
Speaker 1: But when the first report is posted to focus on
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, under the regulations that governed the appointment
Speaker 1: of a special Council, baller's supposed to provide a confidential
Speaker 1: report explaining his conclusions to the Attorney general. In this case,
Speaker 1: I guess it would be Rod Rosenstein, the man that
Speaker 1: shouldn't be there, the man that's conflicted, the man that
Speaker 1: would be witnessed. Number one as it relates to anything
Speaker 1: involving obstruction of justice. For example, in the firing of
Speaker 1: James Comey, because he recommended it, and every single legal
Speaker 1: exper it I talked to said, the president has an
Speaker 1: absolute right to fire anybody he wants, like he has
Speaker 1: an absolute right to the power of the party. Well,
Speaker 1: did he ever discuss pardoning any of these people? Huh,
Speaker 1: not with me, But he does have an absolute right
Speaker 1: to do it anyway Mueller is so. Rosenstein is then
Speaker 1: supposed to provide the chairman and ranking members of the
Speaker 1: House and Senate Judiciary committees with an explanation for any
Speaker 1: decision to conclude the investigation. The explanation can be released
Speaker 1: if he decides it would be in the public interest.
Speaker 1: The real question maybe whether Rosenstein's support is ever gonna
Speaker 1: come out and what it might look like. According to
Speaker 1: many legal experts, the regulations appear to give Rosenstein room
Speaker 1: to decide what is explanation to the judiciary committees would
Speaker 1: entail in terms of detail and scope. Now, this is
Speaker 1: the same Rod Rosenstein doesn't doesn't want anything out there
Speaker 1: that's negative against the d o J or his buddies
Speaker 1: that have been in the upper echelons of the INTEL,
Speaker 1: or the f I communities that have been doing the
Speaker 1: farious things. Interesting interesting sounds just like Alec Baldwin, he
Speaker 1: could write a two sentence explanation. According to Andrew Kent,
Speaker 1: the professor at Fordham Law School, that point, Rosenstein could
Speaker 1: release it himself, or if not, the report could leak
Speaker 1: or portions could be described to reporters. But however, congressional
Speaker 1: Republicans could block a vote on whether to release Rosenstein's
Speaker 1: report or vote against it, or President Trump could respond
Speaker 1: to a congressional vote to release the report with a veto,
Speaker 1: or Trump might try some kind of executive action. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just this is what they're doing to the country.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. Interesting, Just talk show host Alec Baldwin. I
Speaker 1: think it was the best five minutes of radio that
Speaker 1: I've ever heard of my entire life. Um, when we
Speaker 1: come back, Uh, we got some time, we're gonna h
Speaker 1: When can we take some calls whenever we want? Do
Speaker 1: we we have calls that are on there now? No
Speaker 1: calls yet? What number do people call to get on
Speaker 1: the air of mean, do we have that number? It's
Speaker 1: right there? You know? Do I have the call number
Speaker 1: in front of me? Oh, I'm so sorry. Uh, that's interesting.
Speaker 1: Interesting at twelve ten at PhD. Of course, any other
Speaker 1: questions you have any other comments you have, call us
Speaker 1: um to the what else? Call us please at now um.
Speaker 1: If you don't call, we're gonna keep reading from the
Speaker 1: Scientology Manual. You might not feel it. You might not
Speaker 1: feel the energy right now. You might not feel the
Speaker 1: swell of what's happening hereybody calls yet? There? Ivan, no calls?
Speaker 1: Let's spead some more about scientology. Is Sean Hannity a
Speaker 1: scientologist Alec Baldwin posing the big questions tonight? Here? Do
Speaker 1: we have any calls here yet? Ivan? None? Boy, it's
Speaker 1: just incredible, unbelievable. Well, you leave us no choice listeners.
Speaker 1: And then he called his mother because he had nothing
Speaker 1: left to say. Here's the funny apartment. Now. Rush used
Speaker 1: to do this bit about the Tom Dashel Show, and
Speaker 1: it was a bit. It was, you know what a
Speaker 1: boring liberal like Tom Dasher would sounded like, this is real,
Speaker 1: that really happened. He was auditioning for a job. Oh man,
Speaker 1: so funny. All right. One other point, and I mentioned
Speaker 1: this yesterday that Devin Noonness House Intel Committee Chairman, he
Speaker 1: sent a letter to the Deputy Attorney General, the ever
Speaker 1: so corrupt Rod Rosenstein, and the FBI Director Christopher Raynness
Speaker 1: blasting the repeated stonewalling by the department. This goes back
Speaker 1: to augusteen. They've been asking for documents now. Rosenstein is
Speaker 1: the guy that didn't want to release what eventually became
Speaker 1: the new Nest memo that talked about and exposed all
Speaker 1: the FISA abuse issues that we have discussed, also part
Speaker 1: of the Graham Grassley Memo or the Grassly grand Memo.
Speaker 1: Without these documents, and Rosenstein successfully been able to plead
Speaker 1: his case to Paul Ryan, and Ryan capitulated, we wouldn't
Speaker 1: have learned any of this. We wouldn't know about any
Speaker 1: of the massive scandals that we've been following, like the
Speaker 1: FIS abuse scandal, lying to the judge to get a
Speaker 1: warrant to spy in a Trump campaign associate. Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, doesn't want us to know anything. And
Speaker 1: Newness has been looking for these documents since August the
Speaker 1: last year. It's ridiculous how the entire process now is.
Speaker 1: You know, they don't want to give us any information.
Speaker 1: Why not? Why don't you turn over any of these
Speaker 1: FBI memos related to the bureau's opening of the Russia investigation.
Speaker 1: Why and why are Peter Struck and Lisa Paid. Why
Speaker 1: are they still on the pay roll anyway? Well, now
Speaker 1: Newness has given them on April eleven deadline, and given
Speaker 1: you know, of course, what we see from Rosenstein, it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a long time before the House Intel Committee
Speaker 1: gets to see it. Listen, I'll be honest. I think
Speaker 1: they just ought to go straight to court, or they
Speaker 1: ought to bring these people in and hold them in
Speaker 1: contempt to Congress. And it's time for people like Rosenstein
Speaker 1: to top stop hiding the truth from the American people
Speaker 1: and Jeff Sessions he needs to get involved here. He
Speaker 1: might be refused, but he's not refused from being the
Speaker 1: boss of Rod Rosenstein. And if Rosenstein doesn't want to
Speaker 1: do it, then he needs to go. He's already conflicted
Speaker 1: as he has signed off on one of the Hives
Speaker 1: extensions and he appointed Robert Mueller. Can you not say
Speaker 1: that's a conflict of interest? Because it is right as
Speaker 1: we roll along Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred nine for
Speaker 1: one Shawn. By the way, the number of the illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants who have been stopped while trying to enter the
Speaker 1: US has now doubled since Donald Trump became president, So
Speaker 1: he's getting the job done that way. California issues, you know,
Speaker 1: key voter registration document to a million illegal immigrants. They're
Speaker 1: just breaking the lay out there left and right. And
Speaker 1: that caravan, by the way, canceled their plans to storm
Speaker 1: the US border. Thank you Donald Trump again. An hour
Speaker 1: two Sean Hannity Show, Gladial with us right down our
Speaker 1: toll free telephone numbers eight hundred nine for one. Shawn,
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of the program. I
Speaker 1: think he must be mad at me because he is
Speaker 1: usually used to be, once upon a time a regular
Speaker 1: on the program, but we never hear from anymore. And uh,
Speaker 1: we do miss him. I guess he's spending a lot
Speaker 1: of time now that his wife, Calista is the ambassador
Speaker 1: to the Vatican, the Holy See. And how are you,
Speaker 1: Mr Speaker? And I'm doing great and I mus being
Speaker 1: on the show, and so Linda, we're gonna do it
Speaker 1: a lot more often. I love having a chance to
Speaker 1: chat with you about all the different things we're doing
Speaker 1: and how you know, how countries evolving. Well, the first
Speaker 1: thing that I wanted to point out is you look
Speaker 1: at the president. He's got the highest approval rting now
Speaker 1: he's had in some time. And this is after you know,
Speaker 1: he's been through NonStop abuse about Russia, Russia, Russia. You know,
Speaker 1: the creepy interviews of Anderson Cooper with women that may
Speaker 1: or may not have been with twelve, fifteen years ago,
Speaker 1: whatever it is. But then you got the president. You
Speaker 1: know what a day he had. Yesterday he signed a
Speaker 1: proclamation He's sending the National Guard to the border. The
Speaker 1: President has now opened up the people can create their
Speaker 1: own healthcare cooperatives and buy in bulk and buy across
Speaker 1: state lines, a way of circumventing Obamacare. The President now
Speaker 1: has moved towards energy independence. We have now three million
Speaker 1: jobs that have been created in the country. Uh. Then
Speaker 1: you look at you know, even in the CNN poll,
Speaker 1: the president gained eight points with men since February, five
Speaker 1: points with young voters, nine points with middle age voters,
Speaker 1: and ten points with college graduates. Then you have the
Speaker 1: lowest unemployment rate in the African American and Hispanic communities.
Speaker 1: And I'm looking at you know what, things are really
Speaker 1: changing for the better and people are beginning to feel it.
Speaker 1: And I think the media is just lost in these
Speaker 1: narratives that they can't get out of Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I did my newsletter a Genuis Productions, and I think
Speaker 1: I love it. Basically was Trump up, elite media down,
Speaker 1: and I think they lost. I think they threw in
Speaker 1: the kitchen sink for thirty days. I think they thought, boy,
Speaker 1: this will really getting and the country, first of all,
Speaker 1: as Rasmussen has reported, by something like fifty two to five,
Speaker 1: the country now believes that the elite media lives, I
Speaker 1: mean five is relia. It's even of Americans now believe
Speaker 1: that news media is absolutely involved in fake news. They
Speaker 1: they try to beat up Trump, and people just shrug
Speaker 1: it off. I don't think anybody, you know, at these
Speaker 1: various networks and newspapers realized what they've actually done is
Speaker 1: they haven't heard Trump. They've destroyed themselves because people have
Speaker 1: to be One of the things Trump understood beginning in
Speaker 1: two thousand and fifteen that in retrospect was amazing, was
Speaker 1: if you're seeing him on television on scripture, sometimes he's clumsy,
Speaker 1: sometimes he's brilliant, but she gets the sense he's always
Speaker 1: authentic because he's never scripted, he's never in some kind
Speaker 1: of set up deal. And after a while, people began
Speaker 1: to go, you know, that's that's the real guy. You
Speaker 1: know what a look at what else he did when
Speaker 1: the President signed the one point three trillion dollar omnibus bill.
Speaker 1: And I was pretty disgusted by that omnibus bill. You know,
Speaker 1: I go, I'm never doing this again. But Congress had
Speaker 1: pretty much left town, so he really didn't have a choice,
Speaker 1: and he wanted the authorization for the defense funds. Uh. Now,
Speaker 1: the president, as he has done many times, he goes
Speaker 1: back into the law, and he's been able to find
Speaker 1: a way that There is a nineteen seventy four act
Speaker 1: called the Impoundment Control Act, which gives him the authority
Speaker 1: to cancel spending that was already proved approved by Congress.
Speaker 1: You only need a fifty one majority in the Senate,
Speaker 1: and Congress has forty five days to approve of the
Speaker 1: request of the President to cut it. Now, I would
Speaker 1: think that's an opportunity for Republicans to stand for small
Speaker 1: government and fiscally responsible budgets. Oh, I think it is.
Speaker 1: I think frankly that and I wrote about this at
Speaker 1: the time, having lived through the Reagan years as a
Speaker 1: member of Congress supporting Reagan. He always had three goals.
Speaker 1: National security first, economic goes second, balanced the budget third,
Speaker 1: And I thought candidly that Reagan would have signed this
Speaker 1: bill because I think Reagan was said with with with
Speaker 1: Secretary Matters, retired four star Marine general, saying to him,
Speaker 1: Obama has so radically weakened our military that we're putting
Speaker 1: our young men and women to risk every single day,
Speaker 1: so we don't fix it. And I think as a
Speaker 1: commander in chief, Trump felt that that was his number
Speaker 1: one prior. Didn't I get it. With deregulation and with
Speaker 1: tax cuts, He's begun to work on economic growth, which
Speaker 1: was Reagan's second goal. And you saw the numbers this
Speaker 1: week of continued application for more and more jobs. Last year,
Speaker 1: I believe over two million people left food stamps and
Speaker 1: went to work. Correct By the way, it's worth almost
Speaker 1: five billion dollars five a year every single year in
Speaker 1: the savings um and so you know things are moving
Speaker 1: in the right direction. But I do this thing to
Speaker 1: watch if it's a design it correctly. The Recision Bill,
Speaker 1: which is what it's called, the Recision Bill, could put
Speaker 1: people in Congress and some very difficult challenges because some
Speaker 1: of the stuff is so stupid, because it's really hard
Speaker 1: to go home and defended. What do you make Now,
Speaker 1: it's been a long time since I've interviewed you, and
Speaker 1: you're gonna join me on TV tonight. We'll get into
Speaker 1: more details, uh what now that we've discovered so much
Speaker 1: about Robert Muller and Mueller's team, and it's been you know,
Speaker 1: fourteen months, and here we are. We have two committees,
Speaker 1: three committees looking into Trump Russia collusion and there's no evidence.
Speaker 1: And you know, then everything that we see in terms
Speaker 1: of the overreach by Mueller and the fact that he
Speaker 1: put a very biased team UH together to do all
Speaker 1: of this with I think some of the greatest corruption
Speaker 1: issues and problems and ethical problems that I've ever seen
Speaker 1: of any special counsel. What does your take on it
Speaker 1: at this point and what should happen? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that we do have a new UH attorney
Speaker 1: who was brought in by Attorney General Sessions to look
Speaker 1: into the corruption in the way in which the Clinton
Speaker 1: scandals and the Clinton illegality was handled. I think that's
Speaker 1: an important step in the right direction. Second, I think
Speaker 1: it's very telling, if you put it correctly, with all
Speaker 1: of these UH, very high powered Democratic lawyers with all
Speaker 1: of this effort, uh Moll of this week said, you know,
Speaker 1: the president is really not the target of the investigation. Now,
Speaker 1: if in fact this continues into the summer, when we discover,
Speaker 1: oh say, around August, that there's nothing there at all,
Speaker 1: that even Moller can't find anything, the left is going
Speaker 1: to have a really big problem because they have banked
Speaker 1: so much of their energy, so much of their enthusiasm
Speaker 1: around the notion that come died something wrong, that if
Speaker 1: even Moreer ends up saying, you know, in the end
Speaker 1: there ain't nothing there. Um, I think you can see
Speaker 1: an enormous collapse of energy and the lust. What do
Speaker 1: you think of the argument that has now going on
Speaker 1: because we appear to be at the end of the investigation,
Speaker 1: and you know by that, what do we mean? We
Speaker 1: mean that now they're having discussions and some negotiations of
Speaker 1: some kind about questions a special counsel wants to ask
Speaker 1: the president. Now, collusion is not a crime. There is
Speaker 1: no underlining crime. You know, the idea that they want
Speaker 1: to know why the president fired James Comey. Well, Rod
Speaker 1: Rosenstein would be witness number one. He's got more conflicts
Speaker 1: of interest in this than anybody you know, and and
Speaker 1: how do we get to you know, the real investigations?
Speaker 1: It is? It is, the evidence is overwhelming. Hillary obstructed justice,
Speaker 1: violated eighteen US Code seven, mishandled and destroyed classified information.
Speaker 1: Then she deleted subpoena emails, acid washed her hard drive,
Speaker 1: and then beat up her devices with a hammer. And
Speaker 1: then people like come and Stroke and Page and McCabe
Speaker 1: and Loretta Lynch, they were all involved in an exoneration
Speaker 1: before they ever investigated or even interviewed her. And then
Speaker 1: of course it was Hillary that paid for Russian propaganda
Speaker 1: to manipulate the general election uh in her favor, And
Speaker 1: that then becomes the basis, even though it's unverified and
Speaker 1: they never tell afis the court that she paid for
Speaker 1: it as a FISA warrant, as buying a Trump campaign
Speaker 1: associate and the lead up to the campaign. What do
Speaker 1: we do with that? Well, that's why I think that
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, having appointed this prosecutor to look into it,
Speaker 1: so a step in the right direction. I think they
Speaker 1: are reopening all of that. I think they thought they
Speaker 1: had to reopen it because there are so many different
Speaker 1: crimes that are associated now with the Clinton campaign. The
Speaker 1: Clinton staff, the Clinton Foundation. That's almost impossible, uh, to
Speaker 1: to avoid having to look into it, and they get
Speaker 1: into it. I think that will become as we get
Speaker 1: into the fall, as all of the attacks on the
Speaker 1: president disappear, I think that will reappear as something that
Speaker 1: is just astonishing, and you know, it really is. Every
Speaker 1: time I try to understand them myself, and then, like you,
Speaker 1: I've sarent a lot of time on this. It is
Speaker 1: so complicated. There are so many different things that were
Speaker 1: illegal and wrong and unexplainable that we almost need an
Speaker 1: encyclopedia of corruption. Do you know how hard it is
Speaker 1: to explain this every day? I mean, we have new
Speaker 1: developments every single day. And the difference between what we
Speaker 1: have a report and Mr. Speaker and what the rest
Speaker 1: of the media has reported on Trump Russia collusion is
Speaker 1: we actually have the evidence, We actually have the text messages.
Speaker 1: We actually found out Hillary did pay for the phony dossier,
Speaker 1: she did fire a foreign agent, she did erase, uh,
Speaker 1: subpoenat emails, she did acid wash the hard drive. You know,
Speaker 1: struck page or struck in Comey in particular, did write
Speaker 1: an exoneration before an investigation. You know, I'm not making
Speaker 1: any of this up. We have evidence they don't. Well.
Speaker 1: One one one of the most amazing things about all this,
Speaker 1: I guess the reason I remade an optimists is that
Speaker 1: facts do matter, and in a free society, over time,
Speaker 1: facts duout away propaganda and the facts of their corruption.
Speaker 1: This is the perfect example of Teach State taking the
Speaker 1: people here descriving he's having very very senior people in
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, very very senior people in uh, the FBI,
Speaker 1: very very senior people in the State Department, and I
Speaker 1: think you know, it may well reach all the way
Speaker 1: up to the to President Obama. Clearly, Uh, there's a
Speaker 1: level of corruption here unprecedented in American history. And I
Speaker 1: believe it's all going to keep coming out. As I've
Speaker 1: said to you before, these things have a tendency to
Speaker 1: start unraveling, and as they unravel, more and more pieces
Speaker 1: fall apart, and it just becomes kind of mildly amazing. Well,
Speaker 1: I hope we do get to the truth. How do
Speaker 1: you think all of this impacts the mid terms? And
Speaker 1: if you could give advice to Mitch McConnell and Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan and the president. And here we are in April,
Speaker 1: these elections coming fast in November. What would your advice
Speaker 1: be so this, you know, media predicted blue wave doesn't materialize. Well,
Speaker 1: my first advice would be to too, uh, have the
Speaker 1: Senate adopt a series of reforms they could actually approve
Speaker 1: all the people the presidents sent up there. I mean
Speaker 1: it is it really weekends America. Forget whether you're a
Speaker 1: Democrat or Republican, a weekends America. To have Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: blocking so many different appointments all around the world in
Speaker 1: a way which is really unconsiderable and no patriotic. So
Speaker 1: that'd be my first piece of advice, and you see
Speaker 1: the Senate send to become a lot more effective. Second,
Speaker 1: I think they have to keep hammering away at the
Speaker 1: tax cuts. Every single Democrat voted against the tax cuts.
Speaker 1: The tax cuts are clearly working, uh. And I think
Speaker 1: going to the country this fall saying if you want
Speaker 1: your taxes to go up, vote Democrat, you want to
Speaker 1: create more jobs Republican is a pretty good dividing line.
Speaker 1: And then third, I think they've got to bring up
Speaker 1: issues that matter. I think people want to see a
Speaker 1: work requirement for welfare. I think people want to see
Speaker 1: uh drug testing for people are going to get a
Speaker 1: government aid. I think there are a number of steps
Speaker 1: you could take. They would clearly distinguish the two parties, uh,
Speaker 1: and would remind people that there's a huge difference in
Speaker 1: terms of who wins. All right, we gotta take a rake.
Speaker 1: Former Speaker of the House, Fox News contributor actually joined
Speaker 1: us on Hannity. For some reason, he has abandoned us
Speaker 1: now for a while. He's been spending I guess, a
Speaker 1: lot of time at the Holy See and the Vatican One,
Speaker 1: Shawn is our number. You want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program, We'll take a quick break, we'll come back,
Speaker 1: we'll continue, and also the great one Mark Levin will
Speaker 1: join us tonight and we'll continue right as we continue
Speaker 1: with former Speaker of the House, Fox News contributor new
Speaker 1: King Ridge. Here's the most compelling argument I think that
Speaker 1: you can make foren and that is Nancy Pelosi a
Speaker 1: is going to rescind the tax cuts that the Republicans passed.
Speaker 1: More importantly, I don't have any doubt in my mind
Speaker 1: that if Nancy Pelosi is Speaker that they will find
Speaker 1: something to try and impeach this president with Do you
Speaker 1: agree with that? Well? I agree. In fact, you have
Speaker 1: a number of Democrats now running for Congress who have
Speaker 1: signed pledges if they get a lecture, they will automatically
Speaker 1: for impeachment no matter what, whether there's any reason too
Speaker 1: or not. But in addition, I just want to say
Speaker 1: I've watched with real surprise as the Democrats have turned
Speaker 1: into an anti submitic socialist party. When you look at
Speaker 1: the people who are running in these partmaries, you look
Speaker 1: at the attitude of a large number of Democrats, as
Speaker 1: people like Farrakan, who's clearly an overt anti submitted person,
Speaker 1: and you realize that this is a party which is
Speaker 1: going to a radical view in a way which would
Speaker 1: be pretty scary of it if they were to get
Speaker 1: power in the House as radicals are becoming. I think
Speaker 1: it would really be scary for the country. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think you're right there. You know that we used to
Speaker 1: have blue dog Democrats Zell Miller who recently passed away.
Speaker 1: We both knew well. I mean, Zell Miller was a
Speaker 1: good man and he was a Democratic uh governor in
Speaker 1: Georgia at the time, and very different party. Remember No
Speaker 1: ultimately endorsed George that we Bush spoke of the Republican
Speaker 1: National Convention two thousand four. I knew Zell nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: three A and I dropped out of college and ran
Speaker 1: a congressional campaign. So was a young state senator running
Speaker 1: a Democratic fribrary and so we had a friendship that
Speaker 1: went for a long time. And when he came to
Speaker 1: Washington as a senator, Uh, he asked me come for
Speaker 1: breakfast one morning. I was happy to do it because
Speaker 1: he's a great guy. And he said he wanted to
Speaker 1: apologize him and I said, what are you talking about.
Speaker 1: He said, he used to tell me how left winging
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party was in Washington, and I didn't believe you.
Speaker 1: He said, Now that I'm here and I'm in the room,
Speaker 1: he said, they're worse than you said they were. I
Speaker 1: had to apologize to him once because I was so
Speaker 1: hard on him when I was at a radio host
Speaker 1: in Atlanta. And then we became great friends. Um, he'll
Speaker 1: be missed. Mr Speaker, will see it tonight on Hannity.
Speaker 1: Great to have you back, and I hope you're enjoying Italy.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. First of all, it's not really a
Speaker 1: new set of texts. That's one thing we learned, because
Speaker 1: this is not some new batch that just went over
Speaker 1: to Conress. These texts were released earlier, and they were redacted,
Speaker 1: they were blacked out. And remember what the Justice Department
Speaker 1: said to Congress. They said, well, struck and page, you're
Speaker 1: having an affair. I mean, that's private stuff, personal stuff.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna we're gonna black that out. And Congress
Speaker 1: said fine. And then they started looking at what was
Speaker 1: sent over and there were things like meeting tomorrow and
Speaker 1: so and so's office and that the name would be
Speaker 1: blacked out, and they thought, well, that doesn't sound like
Speaker 1: personal stuff. Uh. And some of these names were names
Speaker 1: like Dennis McDonough, the the chief of staff in the
Speaker 1: Obama White House. So that has made a number of
Speaker 1: members of the House has Judiciary Committee very suspicious of
Speaker 1: what they're getting from uh, Congress, from the Justice Department
Speaker 1: in this Now the bigger picture is they have been
Speaker 1: trying to find out in how far knowledge of things
Speaker 1: like the Trump dossier, the allegations in the Trump dosia,
Speaker 1: how far did that go up the chain in the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Remember, we first thought it was just a
Speaker 1: few people at the FBI, and then it went higher
Speaker 1: in the FBI and it was the State Department and
Speaker 1: now it looks like the White House too. I do
Speaker 1: not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I
Speaker 1: do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. The
Speaker 1: we have a strict line and always have maintained it
Speaker 1: previous president. But I guarantee it. I guarantee that there
Speaker 1: is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the
Speaker 1: Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case,
Speaker 1: but in any case. And she will be full stop, period,
Speaker 1: and she will be treated no guaranteed, full stop. Nobody
Speaker 1: gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: because nobody is above the law, even if she ends
Speaker 1: up as the Democratic How many times do you have
Speaker 1: to say, Chris Guarantee to the top of the Shawn
Speaker 1: toll free telephone number. Did Obama's White House coordinate with
Speaker 1: the d o G, do o J and the FBI
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump? And I guarantee there's no political influence
Speaker 1: in any investigation conducted by the d o J or
Speaker 1: the FBI. All things we now know to be true.
Speaker 1: Joining us now, Fox News investigative reporter Sarah Carter, Joe
Speaker 1: Degeneva of Dejeneva and Tunsing, welcome both of you to
Speaker 1: the program. We have some news that we've been following.
Speaker 1: The House Intel Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence demanding that
Speaker 1: the FBI and the d o J finally comply with
Speaker 1: their committee subpoenaed to review documents pertaining to the bureau's
Speaker 1: Russia investigation, and particularly they want the committee to turn
Speaker 1: over unredacted versions of the original investigative document known as
Speaker 1: the electronic Communication that launched the FBI counter intelligence investigation
Speaker 1: into the whole Russia issue. That and of course the
Speaker 1: question of wells should a president, a sitting president, when
Speaker 1: there's no underlying crime, be talking to a special counsel.
Speaker 1: We start with Joe Degeneva. Joe collusion A is not
Speaker 1: a crime. Firing Comey is not a crime. Hoping that
Speaker 1: General Flynn doesn't get in trouble after thirty five years
Speaker 1: of military service, that's not a crime. Looking at the
Speaker 1: team that Muller is put together and the sesstuous friendships
Speaker 1: of Mueller and Coleme and Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the Special Council house in his mind.
Speaker 1: What should the White House and the lawyers for the
Speaker 1: White House too, I'm not speaking for the president, but
Speaker 1: I can tell you this, under no circumstances should the
Speaker 1: President agree to an interview with Mr Muller. And the
Speaker 1: reason is very simple. The president, and this is the
Speaker 1: most important news out of all this nonsense over the
Speaker 1: last forty eight hours. The President is not a target
Speaker 1: of a criminal investigation and never has been. From the
Speaker 1: beginning of this idiotic investigation authorized by the incompetent Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The President is said to be
Speaker 1: a subject, that is, a person whose conduct is within
Speaker 1: the scope of the grand jury's investigation. That's pure crap.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean anything. He's a witness and guess what,
Speaker 1: He's a witness who doesn't know anything about anything. The
Speaker 1: Special Counsel knows that this is nothing more than a
Speaker 1: fog designed to try and get the President into an
Speaker 1: interview and trap him into a perjury trap. This is
Speaker 1: a disgraceful abuse of power by Mueller. It is a
Speaker 1: disgraceful abuse abuse of supervisory authority by Rosenstein, who has
Speaker 1: stopped nothing in this idiotic investigation. Rosenstein is a fool,
Speaker 1: an absolute fool. But he's worse than that. I have
Speaker 1: finally come to the conclusion that Rod Rosenstein is purposely
Speaker 1: forcing the issue, to force the president to have a
Speaker 1: to decide whether or not to testify, to force a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis, to force a confrontation in the courts, so
Speaker 1: that he Rod Rosenstein can stand up just like James
Speaker 1: Comey did in that idiotic July fifth, two thousand sixteen
Speaker 1: news conference and claim that the only thing he Rod
Speaker 1: Rosenstein cares about is the rule of law. Nothing could
Speaker 1: be farther from the true of Rosenstein is a coward.
Speaker 1: He didn't want to do all the tough work that
Speaker 1: had to be done like Sessions has decided to do
Speaker 1: in apporting appointing Mr Huber to look into the fire.
Speaker 1: Trust do you trust Mr Huber? I? I do. I do.
Speaker 1: I have every reason in the world. I've been looking
Speaker 1: into him. I have every reason in the world to
Speaker 1: believe that he is a stable guy. And by the way,
Speaker 1: let me just tell you something, um, John, I've been
Speaker 1: a U S attorney, I've been an independent council. I've
Speaker 1: been a prosecutor and an investigator for over forty years. Cadence,
Speaker 1: there is a cadence to criminality. I want to repeat
Speaker 1: that for your listeners. There is a cadence to criminality,
Speaker 1: and the plot to frame President Trump has that criminal cadence.
Speaker 1: Mr Huber knows that we now know that he's had
Speaker 1: a grand jury underway for a considerable number of months.
Speaker 1: I think that Mr Brennan and Mr Clapper have much
Speaker 1: to worry about. There's no doubt that Mr McDade is gone.
Speaker 1: He's going down. What about? What about? The only issue
Speaker 1: now is whether or not the Sally Ates and others
Speaker 1: who came up with this idiotic, criminal theory that Michael
Speaker 1: Flynn violated the Logan Act in order to do spying
Speaker 1: and criminal investigation, whether or not Huber will push the
Speaker 1: envelope so far as to say that those decisions made
Speaker 1: by senior d l J people were so politically corrupt
Speaker 1: that they are criminal. The bottom line for me is
Speaker 1: it was all criminal, and it it's so obvious right
Speaker 1: now to a seasoned investigator that there was a plot
Speaker 1: to frame Trump. If Hillary lost the election, that I
Speaker 1: am predicting right now, Huber will indict a number of
Speaker 1: former FBI, d O j C, i A people and
Speaker 1: it will happen this year. That's a bold prediction. Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: let me bring you into all of this. The Washington
Speaker 1: Post is saying that Robert Mueller is now unlikely to
Speaker 1: indict Trump, but will issue a series of reports. If
Speaker 1: he issues reports, well, isn't he basically because he's not
Speaker 1: gonna die a sitting president anyway, but he's going to
Speaker 1: issue a report that is going to be interpreted by
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi. Oh, this is an impeachable offense. Therefore, if
Speaker 1: the Democrats win, they want to impeach him. Isn't that
Speaker 1: what it's really about. I absolutely believe that's what it's
Speaker 1: really about. I've been speaking to a number of sources today,
Speaker 1: Sean that are very concerned about that. You know, they
Speaker 1: tried to downplay this report. Oh, he's just putting together
Speaker 1: this obstruction report, his report on what he's just set,
Speaker 1: what he's discovered. You know, he's really pushing for the
Speaker 1: President to do this interview with him in order to
Speaker 1: finalize this report and get this report out. But there
Speaker 1: I have to agree with Joe Dejenneva here, based on
Speaker 1: the people that I've been speaking with today, if the
Speaker 1: President chooses to speak with Mueller, he is really setting
Speaker 1: himself up. If his attorneys say go ahead and speak
Speaker 1: with him. He could be setting himself up for some
Speaker 1: type of perjury trap. I mean, there's there's a lot
Speaker 1: of leeway here with the special counsel, and he's able
Speaker 1: to pretty much direct where he wants to go with this.
Speaker 1: It could be very concerning if the president had speak
Speaker 1: with him, because he is a subject, not a target,
Speaker 1: of the investigation. So well, let's talk about how far
Speaker 1: can Mueller take this show to Jennifer. In other words,
Speaker 1: the president says, no, there's no underlying crime, and you know,
Speaker 1: the idea that maybe they want to know what he
Speaker 1: was thinking at the time when he fired call me, well, thoughts.
Speaker 1: Thoughts are in crimes, you know. That's why I never
Speaker 1: understood the idea that you all, you give more penalty
Speaker 1: for somebody that kills somebody if they have certain thoughts
Speaker 1: in their head. You should punish murderers, You should punish
Speaker 1: people that are violent, you know, without trying to. But
Speaker 1: my question is, what is Mueller's move If the president
Speaker 1: and his attorney saying no, no, go went not talk,
Speaker 1: can you well, that depends upon what his purposes. If
Speaker 1: his purpose is, as the Washington Post has reported, that
Speaker 1: he just wants to interview a president so he can
Speaker 1: finalize his report. Then he has absolutely no right to
Speaker 1: interview the president of the United States. And whether that's
Speaker 1: his reason or not, Let's assume he writes a report.
Speaker 1: He can't issue that report. That report goes to Rod Rosenstein. Well,
Speaker 1: it's obvious what Rod Rosenstein is gonna do. The guy
Speaker 1: has no cajones. He'll issue the report because that's what
Speaker 1: he does. He's a bureaucrat, he's a he's a political hack.
Speaker 1: He pretends to be this above the fray lawyer who
Speaker 1: makes all these wonderful decisions. Rod Rosenstein is a career
Speaker 1: guy who cares about one thing, his next job. So
Speaker 1: what does Mueller do If the President says, I'll answer
Speaker 1: some written questions and that it, and Muller says, well,
Speaker 1: that's not good enough in my opinion, because the president
Speaker 1: is not the target, and because he obviously is not
Speaker 1: a witness who has any information whatsoever, that this is
Speaker 1: a trap and he should refuse. The President should refuse,
Speaker 1: He should refuse to get okay, and then what happens
Speaker 1: from there. Then then we have Mueller has a choice.
Speaker 1: Mueller has a choice. He can write in his report
Speaker 1: that the President refused to testify, and therefore he he
Speaker 1: harmed the the investigation by not providing his views. He
Speaker 1: can he can issue with subpoena, which the president can
Speaker 1: then claim the Fifth Amendment, and then the subpoena has
Speaker 1: to be withdrawn, and then if Mueller wants to, he
Speaker 1: could try to immunize the president, at which point he
Speaker 1: should be fired. Why would he be fired at that
Speaker 1: point because trying to immunize the president in that scenario
Speaker 1: as it played out, would show that the only thing
Speaker 1: he's trying to do is force his testimony so he
Speaker 1: can trap him into perjury. I don't disagree with anything
Speaker 1: either one of you are saying, and based on the
Speaker 1: team of people that he has put together, I think
Speaker 1: we have to lean in that direction that that's what
Speaker 1: they're trying. Joe Degenniva, Sarah Carter. The quick break will
Speaker 1: come back more with them on the other side. Right
Speaker 1: as we continue with attornade, Joe to Jenneva with the
Speaker 1: Jenneva and Tunt Singh and also with Sarah Carter, Fox
Speaker 1: News investigative reporter, Sarah, what are you hearing from Newness
Speaker 1: and his committee as it relates to the letter that
Speaker 1: they sent to Rosenstein? And to FBI Director Ray because
Speaker 1: they have been slow, and even Jeff Sessions is telling
Speaker 1: them to speed things up. Well, they're certainly concerned because
Speaker 1: they haven't gotten what they've asked for. And one of
Speaker 1: the things that they're really looking for is unredacted versions
Speaker 1: of the documents that they've requested, one being the electronic
Speaker 1: They call it an electronic communication, And what that really
Speaker 1: is is the very first document that set off the
Speaker 1: basically the Trump alleged Trump Russia collusion investigation. What was
Speaker 1: in that document? Now they received the document, but they
Speaker 1: received it so heavily redacted. They couldn't even understand what
Speaker 1: was going on in that document, and they complained about it. Uh,
Speaker 1: the FBI, I need them on it. Then they said
Speaker 1: they weren't going to give it to them. And then
Speaker 1: they said, look, if you don't give us, and this
Speaker 1: was in the letter, this information by April eleven, we
Speaker 1: will take matters into our own hands and take this
Speaker 1: to court. We have subpoenaed you for this. You said
Speaker 1: you were going to cooperate with us. That was on
Speaker 1: August twenty four of last year, and now we want
Speaker 1: this document. Not only do they want that document, they
Speaker 1: also want all of the Carter page PISA applications. Those
Speaker 1: are the foreign intelligence surveillance warrants that were on Carter page.
Speaker 1: Remember the House Intelligence Committee did select Trey Goudy took
Speaker 1: you those documents because they felt he was the most qualified,
Speaker 1: and that was when they were going through their report,
Speaker 1: which they finalized and found no collusion between the president
Speaker 1: and Russia. But what they want to do is have
Speaker 1: the members see those FISA applications. They want to have
Speaker 1: the ability to see it themselves. They want wouldn't that
Speaker 1: be proof positive that they We know that they knew
Speaker 1: that Hillary paid for it. We know that they didn't
Speaker 1: tell the visor Chord, so the information was presented under
Speaker 1: false pretenses. They purposely omitted information. Joe de Gennifer, why
Speaker 1: do I believe if I purposely lied to a judge
Speaker 1: and handed over unverified, false information that was paid for
Speaker 1: by a political opponent and not telling them, why do
Speaker 1: I think I'd be in jail and you probably couldn't
Speaker 1: even get me out. You would be But here's what's
Speaker 1: interesting about what Sarah just reported. According to Sarah, Newness
Speaker 1: has said, if they don't produce the documents, they're going
Speaker 1: to go to court. Why are they going to go
Speaker 1: to court that's putting the faith, their faith in the
Speaker 1: hands of the third party. Why aren't they moving to
Speaker 1: hold the same people in contempt like they did recently
Speaker 1: with with sessions with Ray and Rosenstein? Has Ryan told
Speaker 1: them not to use contempt as a way to enforce
Speaker 1: their subpoenas. If that's the case, this oversight situation is
Speaker 1: going to be lengthy and it will not be over
Speaker 1: before the election. That is really chilling and frightening at last.
Speaker 1: It Sarah ahead, Well, so I think that definitely is
Speaker 1: an option for them, Joe and and Sean, and I
Speaker 1: think this is something they're very serious about. Look, I
Speaker 1: have heard that there will be a lot of infighting
Speaker 1: this next week between both of them, and it appears
Speaker 1: that probably in the end, Director Ray is going to
Speaker 1: give up that electronic communication because according to the sources
Speaker 1: that I've spoken with, this is not considered a highly
Speaker 1: classified document. This is a document that the House members
Speaker 1: have requested and that they would be willing to see.
Speaker 1: And remember it goes all the way back to George Papadopolis.
Speaker 1: If this is what they said started the investigation, they
Speaker 1: want to know all the details and all the facts
Speaker 1: of what originally started in all right, thank you both
Speaker 1: phenomenal work. Uh, Sarah Carter and Joe Degeneva. Also Dan Bongino,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Gillham and Diamond of Diamond and Silk will be
Speaker 1: with us. We'll tell you all about the different overall
Speaker 1: patterns and etcetera that's going on. Has Big Brother now
Speaker 1: finally arrived as conservatives now are being constantly monitored and
Speaker 1: censored Shaw on toll free number quick break right back,
Speaker 1: we'll continue. I'm the first to admit that we didn't
Speaker 1: take a broad enough view of what our responsibilities were.
Speaker 1: But I also think it's important to keep in mind
Speaker 1: that there are billions of people who love the services
Speaker 1: that we're building because they're getting real value and being
Speaker 1: able to connect and build relationships on a day to
Speaker 1: day basis. And Uh, that's something that I'm really proud
Speaker 1: of our company for doing, and and I know that
Speaker 1: we're gonna keep on doing that. All right, that was
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg and his comments we don't take a broad
Speaker 1: enough view of what our responsibilities are. Now I'm gonna
Speaker 1: do a deep dive this hour news round up information
Speaker 1: overload into the idea that there's a lot of censorship
Speaker 1: all over social media, and appears that the people that
Speaker 1: have censored the most are conservatives. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: been happening all over the place, and I have more
Speaker 1: people writing me and telling me it's happening on Twitter,
Speaker 1: it's happening on Facebook, it's happening on other social media sites.
Speaker 1: I'll give you one example. Marcia Blackburn of Tennessee, a congresswoman,
Speaker 1: has been said because she's pro life, and she shared
Speaker 1: those views on Facebook. Anyway, it ends up that they
Speaker 1: apparently took down her posting because they didn't like it.
Speaker 1: And she has now introduced what's called the Browser Act
Speaker 1: last June, and that's going to require Internet service providers,
Speaker 1: you know, as well as current providers like Facebook and
Speaker 1: Google and Twitter, to obtain a user's consent before collecting
Speaker 1: and selling their information for marketing, which we now know
Speaker 1: a lot of these companies are doing, and a lot
Speaker 1: of us, of course, in this day and age of
Speaker 1: identity theft, have got to be very careful of now.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Blackburn is also running for the US Senate to
Speaker 1: replace Bob Corker. Would be an incredible step up in
Speaker 1: my opinion, how are you. I'm doing well. Looks like
Speaker 1: Tennessee's gonna get rid of a Trump hating senator and
Speaker 1: replace them with you, which I hope you win those race.
Speaker 1: I thank you for that, and we are working hard.
Speaker 1: I tell you, we think that Tennessee and want to
Speaker 1: get solid conservative in the U s. And if they
Speaker 1: want somebody there who is going to help Donald Trump
Speaker 1: get his agenda across the finish line. So important that
Speaker 1: you say that. Let's talk about how were you censored
Speaker 1: for your pro life beliefs and where what where did
Speaker 1: it happen. Yes, it happened on Twitter and I had
Speaker 1: put a campaign video and in it I mentioned my
Speaker 1: pro life beliefs. I mentioned that I led the fight
Speaker 1: UH and the investigation into what was happening between Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood ending the Start Party body part sellers, and UH
Speaker 1: we were successful in that investigation, issued ficking criminal referrals
Speaker 1: and Planned Parenthood as being investigated by the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice in the FBI, as are these body part sellers.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Twitter didn't like that message and decided that
Speaker 1: they would Joseph Lockett, but they recanted and then decided
Speaker 1: that would let the message go back up. But here's
Speaker 1: the thing on this There is censorship, there is prioritization
Speaker 1: that is taking place. And as you mentioned, with these
Speaker 1: edge providers, which are Google and Facebook and YouTube and
Speaker 1: your social media outlets, what they are doing is it's
Speaker 1: data mining. They are using your data to sell advertising
Speaker 1: and they are monetizing your data. And Sean, this is
Speaker 1: the thing that caused me to introduce the Browser Act,
Speaker 1: because what big tech had wanted was one set of
Speaker 1: privacy rules for the Internet service providers, the I s
Speaker 1: p s, and then a different set of privacy rules
Speaker 1: for all of your social media outlets. What cause they
Speaker 1: make your money by data mining and then show access
Speaker 1: to Well, this is what happened. Facebook acknowledged that that
Speaker 1: in fact, the personal information of up to eighty seven
Speaker 1: million users, mostly here in the US, may have been
Speaker 1: improperly shared with political consultancy this group, Cambridge and Analytics,
Speaker 1: and up from previous news media estimates of fifty million,
Speaker 1: and Zuckerbird said in a conference call with the reporters,
Speaker 1: Facebook had not seen any meaningful impact on usage or
Speaker 1: ad sales since the scandal, and they said it's it's
Speaker 1: not good if people are unhappy with the company. Uh
Speaker 1: to me, that just seemed like, you know, they have
Speaker 1: left open of vulnerability. Whereby I mean I got in
Speaker 1: trouble once for putting up a link on my my
Speaker 1: website for my best friend since childhood because he was
Speaker 1: running for congress, and that was I was charged with
Speaker 1: making an in kind donation. So in this sense, Facebook
Speaker 1: allowing this data to be mind this way would be warrant.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't they be giving in kind donations in that sense. Well,
Speaker 1: I think even more specific than than that is working
Speaker 1: as a way. Facebook and Google and Yahoo and YouTube
Speaker 1: and all of these are profiting from your data because
Speaker 1: they are going in here and then they turn around
Speaker 1: and they shall They allow people to snooze in and
Speaker 1: look at everything you're going through, everything you're searching, They
Speaker 1: look at what you are, who you're talking to, They
Speaker 1: make those connections. And then when you sit down to
Speaker 1: your computer, you have all and you go into a
Speaker 1: search engine, are you go into a social media platform,
Speaker 1: happens all of a sudden, You've got all of these
Speaker 1: advertisements that are popping up all over your screen. That's
Speaker 1: because they are running They have an algorithm that is
Speaker 1: running the demographics on you, and they're deciding where it
Speaker 1: is that you want to eat, what you want to wear,
Speaker 1: who you associate with, what your thoughts are, and they
Speaker 1: are benefiting and they are profiting from that. And one
Speaker 1: of the things that I look at is how these
Speaker 1: social media companies have become big advertising companies. And they
Speaker 1: will say, well, the sign off is you say, we're
Speaker 1: going to let you use our service for free, but
Speaker 1: because of that, we're going to use access to your data.
Speaker 1: And then not only are we going to use access,
Speaker 1: uh take access to your data, we are going to
Speaker 1: sell the reason als of that data mining that we do.
Speaker 1: And then we're going to place sads and that we're
Speaker 1: going to let these advertisers into your life. Now, what
Speaker 1: they will say, but they'll what they'll say is well,
Speaker 1: we anonymize it all that it's not it's anonymous, that's right,
Speaker 1: and but but but but but they do have the
Speaker 1: ability to basically spy on any individual if they want.
Speaker 1: Of course, of course, because if they're doing it with
Speaker 1: the algorithms. And this is why in the Browser Act
Speaker 1: when I wrote that, what I said was, look, let's
Speaker 1: allow people to opt in. I believe in privacy, and
Speaker 1: I believe an individual should reserve to themselves the right
Speaker 1: to protect their privacy. This is something that is given
Speaker 1: to you in the Bill of Rights, and even online
Speaker 1: you with your virtual you, you have the right to
Speaker 1: protect your information online. So instead of all these platforms
Speaker 1: that are opt out, let's turn it around and say
Speaker 1: to the consumer, you have your shield of privacy, and
Speaker 1: then you can choose to share the information that you
Speaker 1: want to share with a provider of a service, and
Speaker 1: you can allow access to somebody for that service. Now, Sean,
Speaker 1: some people will say, I like to getting uh uh
Speaker 1: getting alert, and I like getting notifications on my phone
Speaker 1: that I'm near a coffee shop and they have a
Speaker 1: special going on, or I'm near a restaurant, or I'm
Speaker 1: near uh some other entities where there is something special.
Speaker 1: They like that. They like that geo locations. Um, but
Speaker 1: to me, it's too intrusive. But you gotta agree with
Speaker 1: you about opting in, all right, so we're going to
Speaker 1: continue to follow it. And um, I think what you're
Speaker 1: doing is the right thing. And it's amazing. Well, the
Speaker 1: censorship of conservatives and people with political views, frankly, all views.
Speaker 1: I don't want anybody censored, even views that I find repugnant.
Speaker 1: I happen to make my living with the First Amendment,
Speaker 1: and it's the left that's constantly out there trying to
Speaker 1: silence conservative voices. But I just want I don't think
Speaker 1: they should have the right to sense or anybody unless
Speaker 1: maybe it's a direct threat of violence or some or
Speaker 1: a terroristic threat of some kind. Well, that is right.
Speaker 1: You know the virtual space, you function as free speech
Speaker 1: does and privacy does in the physical space, And just
Speaker 1: because it's on line does not mean that you give
Speaker 1: up your right to privacy or the expectation of being
Speaker 1: able to exercise that right to privacy. So this is
Speaker 1: why we're working back through UH this issue, and we're
Speaker 1: looking forward to having Mark Zuckerberg in front of us
Speaker 1: next week and looking forward to UH seeing where he
Speaker 1: is right now. They have fought privacy and data security legislation,
Speaker 1: they have fought those consumer protections, and then they have
Speaker 1: censored views with which they disagreed. So we look forward
Speaker 1: to hearing their explanations next week. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: and good luck. How's the campaign going down in Tennessee?
Speaker 1: Listing campaign is going great. We're working on it every
Speaker 1: single day and really excited about the opportunity. I appreciate
Speaker 1: you being one of those eight hundred nine four one
Speaker 1: Shawn toll free telephone number if you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. Let's get some calls in here. Uh.
Speaker 1: Tom is an Oyster Bay, New York hometown. What's up, Tom?
Speaker 1: How are you? Sir? Hi Sean a long time listener,
Speaker 1: first time caller. Well, welcome onboard, my friend. I just
Speaker 1: want to know, do you think that more investigation will
Speaker 1: be over before? I'd like to think so, but I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think they are wrapping it up. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the last step in this is gonna be
Speaker 1: the negotiation. Does the President talk to them or not
Speaker 1: talk to them? I tend to agree with the attorneys.
Speaker 1: I've been interviewed to Jenneva Dershowitz, people like the great one,
Speaker 1: Mark Levin and Greg Jarrett. Uh that I think this
Speaker 1: is all one big perjury trap. There's no underlying crime.
Speaker 1: Collusion is not a crime. It's now become a witch hunt,
Speaker 1: and it's gone way beyond what the regular mandate is.
Speaker 1: I think Rod Rosenstein approving the expansion of the investigation
Speaker 1: a week after they had already rated Paul Manafort's home
Speaker 1: I'm Paul Manafort's attorney. I think that's gonna be a
Speaker 1: big win in the end for them, and I, you know,
Speaker 1: and then I look at the team that Mueller's appointed,
Speaker 1: and I think you have people that are bitter, bitter
Speaker 1: partisans with atrocious track records in the legal profession. And
Speaker 1: these guys have no compunctions about withholding exculpatory evidence of
Speaker 1: my stable cases. They've been overturned by the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Nine zero people have gone to jail that
Speaker 1: are innocent, both in the case of Mueller and Andrew
Speaker 1: Weissman hundred million dollar plus a settlement in the Whitey
Speaker 1: Bulger case when when he was in Boston and he
Speaker 1: was running that department, and uh, the same thing with
Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman for meryal executives. Tens of thousands of people
Speaker 1: losing their jobs at Anderson and County. All of this
Speaker 1: tells me it stinks to high heaven. This never should
Speaker 1: have been brought together in the first place. And I
Speaker 1: found the president, I wouldn't talk to him. And Muller,
Speaker 1: you want to push it, that push it. Let's go
Speaker 1: game on. Let's see what happens. Right as we continue,
Speaker 1: are is in Charlotte in North Carolina. Hey, Gary, how
Speaker 1: are you? I'm glad you called, sir. Oh, thank you
Speaker 1: a long time listening. Roller back to Hannity and Colmes, Wow,
Speaker 1: thank you A little A little background here from myself,
Speaker 1: I'm the medical professional and naty veteran questions or two
Speaker 1: points is why aren't we calling what's happening? To watch?
Speaker 1: And what it truly is, which is a smoke with
Speaker 1: two day Tom. You hear this faction, the inter chamber
Speaker 1: or the inner circle of the group trying to overthrow
Speaker 1: an upset and a duly elected president or upset the government,
Speaker 1: and by definition it's to that's a soft coup. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's no doubt in my mind. You know that. That's
Speaker 1: why if you put the fix in for Hillary, and
Speaker 1: you allow Hillary to get away with obvious felonies, multiple
Speaker 1: felonies and obstruction, and you exonerate her before you investigate her,
Speaker 1: and the fixes in to keep her in there. They
Speaker 1: they thought she was gonna beat Donald Trump. And then
Speaker 1: the Plan B is the insurance policy, and on top
Speaker 1: of it, then you've got the Plan C is you know, well,
Speaker 1: let's buy on these people and let's use Hillary has
Speaker 1: bought and paid for Russian propaganda dossier. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: really I don't think you can make this up in
Speaker 1: in a novel, to be honest, you can. My second
Speaker 1: point is, since they worked for the people, and that's
Speaker 1: the people's House, why doesn't the House, either the Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: the Oversight Committee, the Judicial Committee call in Mueller and
Speaker 1: Mosenstein under oath and just asked them why they're not
Speaker 1: investigating FISA And there was inclusion on the other side
Speaker 1: of the coin and put them on public notice, put
Speaker 1: under a Well, that's why people like myself I don't
Speaker 1: think Rod Rosenstein is capable of or Mueller is capable,
Speaker 1: nor are they ever going to be capable of investigating themselves.
Speaker 1: Now we're talking about the highest levels of the FBI
Speaker 1: and the d J. We're talking about real corruption, and
Speaker 1: we're talking about real crimes committed. And that's why people
Speaker 1: like myself have been fighting for a second special counsel.
Speaker 1: And the Attorney General addressed that last week that since November,
Speaker 1: this guy, John Huber, a prosecutor in Salt Lake City,
Speaker 1: he has been tasked with looking into these issues. And
Speaker 1: the way the Attorney General explained it, that's part of
Speaker 1: a process. Now, when we get information from the Inspector
Speaker 1: General's report, well, that would mean John Hoober can take
Speaker 1: that information and set up a grand jury and then
Speaker 1: they can go out and indictments can be given. And
Speaker 1: if there is justice and equal justice under the law,
Speaker 1: and we remain a constitutional republic and we don't have
Speaker 1: a two tier justice system, one for the Clintons and
Speaker 1: one for the rest of us, then I really believe
Speaker 1: that everything that we've been telling you about is going
Speaker 1: to be proven and and then some and there's so
Speaker 1: much more that I know that's coming out. I think
Speaker 1: the cases are overwhelming and incontrovertible. So we're gonna stay
Speaker 1: on a Gary, That's all I can tell you. So
Speaker 1: I appreciate you staying with us. Thanks for serving your
Speaker 1: country too. All right, when we come back, more of
Speaker 1: the social media abuses and censoring of conservatives. Jonathan Gilham,
Speaker 1: Damn Bongino, and Diamond of Diamond and Silk Fame will
Speaker 1: join us next now until the top of the hour,
Speaker 1: nine for one, Shawn, if you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. So at the beginning of this hour,
Speaker 1: we had Marcia Blackburn on talking about censorship on social
Speaker 1: media sites Twitter and Facebook and others. Basically, these companies
Speaker 1: have an ability to spy on every American and instances
Speaker 1: where we know in fact it's happening. Anyway, We've assembled
Speaker 1: a group of people that have, on one level or another,
Speaker 1: been dealing with all of this. We've dealt with it
Speaker 1: on our show. I mean, we don't do any Twitter
Speaker 1: direct messages anymore. What was the words that they were
Speaker 1: trying to use compromised? How do we restore our right
Speaker 1: to privacy? How do we protect First Amendment rights? And
Speaker 1: how do we protect against data mining as a means
Speaker 1: of creating profiles against us to make us buy stuff
Speaker 1: or whatever other reason they're using it for. Dan Bongino,
Speaker 1: former Secret Service agent, Jonathan Gillham, former Navy seal, author
Speaker 1: of the book Sheep No More, and the One and
Speaker 1: Only Diamond of Diamond and Silk Fame are here to
Speaker 1: talk about this abuse and bias, especially against conservatives on
Speaker 1: social media. Diamond will start with you as Diamond and
Speaker 1: Silk ever been censored on social media? Oh? Absolutely, on YouTube,
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and on Facebook. We have over a million
Speaker 1: followers on Facebook, and now Facebook has decided to put
Speaker 1: in these algorithms where people can't receive notifications. We don't
Speaker 1: come up in our people that like and follow our
Speaker 1: pages New Feet and I just stumb it down our videos,
Speaker 1: dumbing down anything that we say, and we think it's sad.
Speaker 1: This is clearly discrimination, and this is clearly says a
Speaker 1: ship of our conservative voices. What's happened to you, Dan Bongino, Well,
Speaker 1: this is a trip. I was in a hotel room
Speaker 1: up in New York. I was actually getting ready to
Speaker 1: do your show and I get an email and I
Speaker 1: thought it was a phishing email. It was from Twitter,
Speaker 1: and it said you were no longer eligible to run
Speaker 1: Twitter ads. And I swear I thought it was a joke, Sean,
Speaker 1: and I said it to my wife. I said, is
Speaker 1: this real? And it turns out it was real. And
Speaker 1: the reason Sean get a lot of trip out. It's approach.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is why I love Dan Bongino,
Speaker 1: former secret service guy at the DY What you're gonna
Speaker 1: they'll trip you out? Man, It's unbelievable. This is what's
Speaker 1: happening on social media. Um, well, I wasn't dropping acid,
Speaker 1: but it did actually happen. I said to my wife,
Speaker 1: if you have you seen any inappropriate content, And believe me,
Speaker 1: if it was, she would tell me. She goes, I
Speaker 1: don't know what they're talking about. So they banned us
Speaker 1: from running ads, and even worse, they would never tell
Speaker 1: us what the inappropriate content was. But I'll answer that
Speaker 1: for Yet it was being a conservative. There's no doubt
Speaker 1: in my mind. Well that's the thing. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: only going after Jonathan Conservatives, it seems. Have there been
Speaker 1: any instances. I have not seen an outcry from people
Speaker 1: on the left that they're being censored. No, I haven't heard.
Speaker 1: I actually haven't heard that at all. And here's what's
Speaker 1: really interesting is when you try to complain on somebody
Speaker 1: who attacks you from the left, it's virtually impossible. But
Speaker 1: somehow they're always able to complain on us when we
Speaker 1: say something that they don't like. Every time they can
Speaker 1: just do it and somebody gets blocked. And here's my
Speaker 1: instance to one with Facebook at one point, and I've
Speaker 1: never monetized my show because yet one one of the
Speaker 1: things it was with the YouTube or excuse me, with Facebook,
Speaker 1: I had a million, uh people reaching every night my
Speaker 1: show was reaching a million people, and within a week
Speaker 1: it went down to about three thousands, and then on
Speaker 1: to two weeks ago, I was restricted from putting any
Speaker 1: live videos on because I did a show on David
Speaker 1: Hogg and I criticized him. The next day, they said
Speaker 1: I was buying and pull off because well, we know
Speaker 1: that Facebook staffers had sought to delete Donald Trump's post calling,
Speaker 1: you know, on his position about immigration and and vetting
Speaker 1: people from certain countries, and that would ended up being
Speaker 1: a violation. They view to the company's hate speech policies. Well,
Speaker 1: who defines what hate speeches? I thought this was the
Speaker 1: United States of America where we had free speech now
Speaker 1: short of a direct threat against an individual, or or
Speaker 1: threatening harm against somebody, or threatening a terrorist activity of
Speaker 1: some kind. Uh, isn't it pretty routine that people can
Speaker 1: be pretty vicious on social media? Dan Bungee know you know,
Speaker 1: where does the line go? Yeah? You know, you're right, Sean.
Speaker 1: And here's the problem with social media. They want to
Speaker 1: have it both ways. And let me be clear, I
Speaker 1: am not endorsing or recommending any government intervention. I'm for
Speaker 1: a limited government all over the place. But social media
Speaker 1: wants it both ways. They don't want to be treated
Speaker 1: like a publisher, like say the Wall Street Journal of
Speaker 1: The New York Times, sean that could be legally responsible
Speaker 1: for defamatory information. Everybody knows the rules. Um, if you
Speaker 1: if Fox news dot COM's name thing, But what social
Speaker 1: media wants to say, Oh no, no, we're not responsible.
Speaker 1: People just put up their stuff. They're not our ideas
Speaker 1: and we don't have editorial control. But that's not true, Sean.
Speaker 1: They do have editorial control because they blocked conservative and
Speaker 1: it's open sea. Well. In sixteen, Facebook workers admitted that
Speaker 1: they were routinely suppressing conservative news stories from their quote
Speaker 1: trending news section. We recently had a Facebook rejecting an
Speaker 1: add with a crucifix. They deemed an image of Jesus
Speaker 1: on the cross as quote too violent and in the
Speaker 1: in the past, Facebook approved hate groups while shutting down
Speaker 1: Christian groups, and they removed a patriotic picture honoring fallen Marines.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are just a few examples that we have, Diamond,
Speaker 1: What did you experience, Well, you know, we experience instead
Speaker 1: our videos from a million views, like said, all the
Speaker 1: way down to three thousand, if not less. We cannot
Speaker 1: put out a rant video or video about how we
Speaker 1: feel about things anymore. It's not reaching anybody. They got
Speaker 1: these algorithms in place to dump down your videos, and
Speaker 1: this is happening all other places. But if I want
Speaker 1: to see somebody get shot in the head, I can
Speaker 1: find that's millions of videos. If I want to see
Speaker 1: somebody talking bad about our president, they reached millions of
Speaker 1: people and they don't even have but a handful of followers.
Speaker 1: So it is discrimination and it's not fair. It's biased.
Speaker 1: What should we do when there's like a terroristic threat.
Speaker 1: One of the things that we have pointed out, Jonathan
Speaker 1: gill him over and over again is that a lot
Speaker 1: of these people that end up either in these school
Speaker 1: shootings or these terrorists activities, we go to the social
Speaker 1: media sites and we always find, oh, they were telegraphing
Speaker 1: it's all coming. Now. We've got a razor's edge here
Speaker 1: between freedom and freedom of speech. And also those people
Speaker 1: that are are basically making threats on social media, don't
Speaker 1: we have laws that you can't make terroristic threats against individuals,
Speaker 1: You can't threaten people on social media. Short of that,
Speaker 1: is everything else fair game. Like for example, there's the
Speaker 1: publication the Anarchist Cookbook. They literally in that book teach
Speaker 1: you how to build bombs to kill people. You know,
Speaker 1: what do you do in that case? Do you allow
Speaker 1: that to to go up on social media? That's the
Speaker 1: fine line right there. And I do think when it
Speaker 1: has to do with national security or it has to
Speaker 1: do with threats, I mean, there's a clear difference between
Speaker 1: hate speech and threat A lot of the hate speech,
Speaker 1: while it may not be enjoyable to listen to, it
Speaker 1: is still a lot of this is covered through the
Speaker 1: First Amendment and our freedom of speech. And I get
Speaker 1: that they want to eliminate some of this stuff to
Speaker 1: make a greater, more happier world, whatever that is that
Speaker 1: the liberals may feel. But the problem is when you
Speaker 1: start trying to regulate hate speech, it's it gets in
Speaker 1: the way of doing exactly what you're talking about, looking
Speaker 1: for people who are doing real things that are national
Speaker 1: security threat that are real dangerous to people. And they
Speaker 1: don't make it easy for people to complain on the
Speaker 1: right things because they're trying to protect people from hate
Speaker 1: speech and things like that. I'll give you an example,
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino Netflix. There was it was actually an interview
Speaker 1: of the guy that wrote the Anarchist Cookbook, and it
Speaker 1: was back in the day, it was thought that maybe
Speaker 1: Timothy McVeigh actually had used that and and part of
Speaker 1: the planning of the Oklahoma City bombing, or is a
Speaker 1: book that he at least had read or been associated
Speaker 1: with in some way. Uh, this guy said, well, I
Speaker 1: didn't write this book built about how to build bombs
Speaker 1: so people would actually do it. I'd never write a
Speaker 1: book about how to build a bomb or how to
Speaker 1: kill somebody with you. No, I have nothing to do
Speaker 1: with it. But I mean we've but we've seen this
Speaker 1: again and again shown the double standard on YouTube, where
Speaker 1: there's there's propaganda for you know, Islamo fascist fascists out
Speaker 1: there on YouTube. You know, there's Hollywood violent videos out
Speaker 1: there on YouTube, and then yet YouTube recently, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you guys saw this, one took down a
Speaker 1: lot of gun videos. I mean not just regular firearm
Speaker 1: videos where people were putting together firearms, teaching you how
Speaker 1: to uh put them together, take them apart, disassemble them.
Speaker 1: They took down a lot of those videos. I've watched
Speaker 1: some of those videos. I like it from the standpoint
Speaker 1: it's educational and and a lot of people you know
Speaker 1: that they know that, you know, with an increase in
Speaker 1: terrorist activity and home invasions and school shootings and church
Speaker 1: shootings that you know, people want maybe if they're if
Speaker 1: they're thinking, if they ever find themselves in that situation,
Speaker 1: they want to be able to defend themselves, right, John,
Speaker 1: I mean I got an accessory for an a R
Speaker 1: fifteen recently, and I had a tough time putting it
Speaker 1: on the rail. It was the piece I was missing.
Speaker 1: I went to YouTube a little while ago and I
Speaker 1: watched the video and and and so what would you rather?
Speaker 1: You'd rather a bunch of uneducated people not knowing what
Speaker 1: to do with the firearms they I mean, it's so
Speaker 1: stupid and illogical. It really it boggles the mind trying
Speaker 1: to decide where liberalism Well, that's true, Jonathan, or I'm sorry, Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Diamond, I always have a hard time. I
Speaker 1: don't know what your last name is. I just call
Speaker 1: you Diamond. Oh what, Diamon's fine or Diamond hardaway or
Speaker 1: just calm be Diamond. I love it, but go ahead?
Speaker 1: What what what is it? Sean? Well, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: understand what happens. Why would diamond and silk very very funny?
Speaker 1: You even have the diamond and Silk Tour now going
Speaker 1: to cities all across America. And you guys, but you
Speaker 1: have strong, biting commentary. I've never heard you guys cross
Speaker 1: any lines. You certainly are non violent. You just support
Speaker 1: your president and you take a lot of heat for it.
Speaker 1: But why would they ever want to censor you guys?
Speaker 1: Because they don't like our conservative point of view. If
Speaker 1: I'm telling somebody to go out there and get into
Speaker 1: it with the police and a CAFU, oh, that would
Speaker 1: get plenty of us. But because I'm telling people we
Speaker 1: can no longer vote for the same system that keeps
Speaker 1: handing us crumbs. We need to support our president because
Speaker 1: we have more money in our pocket. They don't like
Speaker 1: to hear that. They want to keep us where we
Speaker 1: are all down, where we are in a box where
Speaker 1: they can control us, where they can dominate and they
Speaker 1: can manipulate us. That's what they're doing and it can't
Speaker 1: be tolerated. And we understand that these platforms are autonomous
Speaker 1: platforms and entities, but he has to deal. They don't
Speaker 1: have the right to silence conservative voices. And who makes
Speaker 1: the determination? What you should see? What you said, she see?
Speaker 1: What you should hear? What you shouldn't hear. I mean
Speaker 1: best dominationous is what they doesn't like. Somebody's dictate to us. Okay,
Speaker 1: well we don't like what you say, so you bet
Speaker 1: you can't. We can't let your stuff be seen, but
Speaker 1: we'll let Well it even gets worse. There's a CNBC
Speaker 1: report that is out today and it actually the headline
Speaker 1: is Facebook sent a doctor on a secret mission to
Speaker 1: ask hospitals to share patient data. They were in talks
Speaker 1: with top hospitals other medical groups as recently as last
Speaker 1: month about a proposal to share data about the social
Speaker 1: networks of their most vulnerable patients. And you know, the
Speaker 1: idea was to build profiles of people, including their medical
Speaker 1: conditions and information and so on and so forth. But
Speaker 1: is there anything more intrusive than people's private personal health care? Uh,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Gillham, I mean that that is unbelievady. That just
Speaker 1: shows you the nefarious ways that they that they're working.
Speaker 1: And here's something that goes right along with this shown it.
Speaker 1: Everybody needs to realize Facebook owns Instagram. It also owns
Speaker 1: What's App. A lot of people use and think that
Speaker 1: they're fully secure. If Facebook is doing this and in
Speaker 1: getting into people's direct messages on Messenger, on Facebook. I
Speaker 1: can guarantee it's happening on Instagram, is happening in What's App,
Speaker 1: and these people communicate. This is the other thing Dan
Speaker 1: got centered on Twitter. I've been centered on Twitter. I've
Speaker 1: been censored on YouTube. Diamond's been censored on YouTube and Facebook.
Speaker 1: The fact that they have we been said certain anyway,
Speaker 1: I don't even I have no clue. I we've we've
Speaker 1: had some posts that we've put up that we've tried
Speaker 1: to get up, and they've said that this is um
Speaker 1: sensitive time slow when quote Hannity's account is quote compromised.
Speaker 1: But let's also remember, let's remember all the threats that
Speaker 1: we had against you, the threats against you. Chill during
Speaker 1: the threats against your house, the threats against you. You
Speaker 1: know that they're gonna wave gehat over you. I mean
Speaker 1: there's there you know, fought wall is being waged on Twitter.
Speaker 1: But somehow the fault wa escapes everybody at Twitter. They
Speaker 1: never and they never take them down, or we have
Speaker 1: a hard You have a hard time because I don't
Speaker 1: do it. You have a hard time getting them taken
Speaker 1: down when they make these threats. Yeah, I have to
Speaker 1: get in touch with a lot of people. You know,
Speaker 1: Jack is a very busy man. At Jack on Twitter. Yeah,
Speaker 1: at Jack on Twitter, he doesn't answer you. You know,
Speaker 1: he's got things to do. Him and Mark, you know
Speaker 1: they're looking up your private information in Mark Zuckerberg. No,
Speaker 1: but I'm asking you. But you have actually reached out
Speaker 1: to the guy. So who do you deal with when
Speaker 1: we are I've spoken to their legal counsel as well
Speaker 1: some other friends that I have on the inside that
Speaker 1: they basically, I'm guessing you threaten that we're going to
Speaker 1: soothe them, and that's how you get so. I never threatened.
Speaker 1: I recommend ideas, recommend we might soothe them. I recommend
Speaker 1: ideas and make suggestions about possible activities. By the way,
Speaker 1: everybody that knows you on this line and knows exactly
Speaker 1: what you know what I'm saying, Dan Bongino, you see
Speaker 1: what I have to deal with every day. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: dealt with Lynda on one of these threat to do
Speaker 1: and let me tell you stuff. You want anyone to
Speaker 1: have your back, it's Linda. See that's one you should
Speaker 1: just say thank you and move on. Run through forget
Speaker 1: about running through a fire. She'll she'll stand the fire.
Speaker 1: Just you know, I got thank you, Dan. I got
Speaker 1: into this with Mark Levin once. And there's there's crap
Speaker 1: up on my Wikipedia page that is not true, And
Speaker 1: any idiot can go in there and write lies about you.
Speaker 1: Why would Wikipedia allow that? Why don't You don't know?
Speaker 1: But that's and it's true. That is the truth, and
Speaker 1: all of that kind of stuff, even having your information
Speaker 1: out there killing people. Maybe I'll sue them. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: do that. Yeah. I had a guy yesterday on Twitter
Speaker 1: put on there that after the shooting at YouTube that
Speaker 1: Jonathan Gilhan went on CNN saying that the girl was
Speaker 1: just mentally ill. I haven't been on scene instance two
Speaker 1: thousand fifteen, but he's good for you. He's hardest. By
Speaker 1: the way, it shows your staying power if you haven't
Speaker 1: been on a three years and they're still talking about
Speaker 1: on fake news and all right, So you have Hannity tonight,
Speaker 1: nineties tarn on the Fox News show all Right, New
Speaker 1: King Rich makes his return appearance The Great One, Mark Levin,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino, and Tommy Laryn versus Kathy Arue. Don't forget
Speaker 1: the latest updates. You can always check out hannity dot
Speaker 1: com the new and improved hannity dot Com. We've got
Speaker 1: everything that you need there at Sean Hannity on Twitter.
Speaker 1: If you want to talk to us again, we'll see
Speaker 1: you tonight at nine. Back here tomorrow