Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. If you're like me
Speaker 1: and suffer from insomnia, you know what, that's not fun.
Speaker 1: You know I tried everything I couldn't get a good
Speaker 1: night's sleep. And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
Speaker 1: That's right. It is my pillow. Mike Lindell invented it
Speaker 1: and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and
Speaker 1: it's changed my life. I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer,
Speaker 1: and the good news you can to let go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com promo code Sean and take advantage
Speaker 1: of one of Mike Glendell's best offers, his special four pack.
Speaker 1: You get fifty off to my Pillow Premium Pillows to
Speaker 1: go Anywhere Pillows. My Pillows made in the USA, has
Speaker 1: a sixty day unconditional money back guaranteed no risk to you,
Speaker 1: and attend you warranty. You don't want to spend more
Speaker 1: sleepless nights on a pillow tossing interney that's not working
Speaker 1: for you. Just go to my pillow dot com right now,
Speaker 1: use the promo code Sean and you get Mike Glendell's
Speaker 1: special four pack. You get to my Pillow Premium Pillows
Speaker 1: to Go Anywhere pillows fifty percent off, and you'll start
Speaker 1: getting the kind of peaceful and RESTful and comfortable and deep,
Speaker 1: peeling and recruitative sleep you've been craving and deserve my
Speaker 1: pillow dot com promo coach on all right, you want
Speaker 1: progress to stop? You want never ending investigations? Do you
Speaker 1: want the forgotten men and women to be left behind?
Speaker 1: Are you better off than you were two years ago
Speaker 1: when you're voted for Donald Trump? That is what is
Speaker 1: that issue? Forty eight days from now. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: into that later with new King Rich. Three other big
Speaker 1: stories we are following today. Project Veritas is literally through
Speaker 1: their investigative process, they are revealing a large resistant resistance
Speaker 1: movement withinside the government literally saboteaurs, trying to derail purposefully
Speaker 1: the Trump agenda, doing everything in their power to do so.
Speaker 1: Yesterday was the Department of State. Today we've got audio
Speaker 1: and video will show you tonight that it is the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. And there's more videos coming in the
Speaker 1: days ahead. Just like a non miss was written in
Speaker 1: the New York Times that they're not gonna listen to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. They're gonna go their own way. Now, we've
Speaker 1: got a big problem as it relates also, uh, a
Speaker 1: part of our business we're gonna get to in the
Speaker 1: course of this program, and that is well, now we
Speaker 1: have people like Brennan and McCabe and Shifty Shift, and
Speaker 1: they're all out there saying, you know what, don't listen
Speaker 1: to a presidential order? Who needs to listen to the
Speaker 1: presidential order? That meet basically means why listen to the
Speaker 1: United States Constitution Article to Section one, powers of the President.
Speaker 1: This is not complicated stuff here. And now Democrats they
Speaker 1: want they are asking as his people like Brennan, as
Speaker 1: his Shifty Shift, as his Schumer, as his Pelosi and
Speaker 1: as are now saying and reporting that they may not
Speaker 1: listen to the presidential order. Well, the president has the
Speaker 1: constitutional power and authority to do what he did to
Speaker 1: de class AFY and unredact. The problem is these deep
Speaker 1: state figures, they don't want any of this information out.
Speaker 1: Where's Spartacus, Where's Corey Booker when we need him? Because
Speaker 1: if this information gets out, what you're gonna learn is
Speaker 1: that there was people in the highest levels of our
Speaker 1: intel community and the highest levels of the FBI and
Speaker 1: Department of Justice that we're involved in the farious power
Speaker 1: grabbing activities to basically, you know, perform a soft coup
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump. And I'll give you all the details
Speaker 1: of it, will lay it out for you. Andrew McCabe now,
Speaker 1: who we now know has a grand jury that has
Speaker 1: been summoned and and seated and may face charges. He
Speaker 1: has a book coming out in December, The Threat, How
Speaker 1: the FBI protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's pretty pathetic. That is very pathetic. So we'll get
Speaker 1: to all of that. I want to start though today.
Speaker 1: You know, let's listen, this is a core principle, just
Speaker 1: like the president the Constitution. These are core principles now
Speaker 1: that are in jeopardy in this country. You know, we
Speaker 1: have as one of those core principles the presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1: That is the very foundation of our justice system, just
Speaker 1: like we have coequal branches of government. Just like there
Speaker 1: are enumerated powers directly in the Constitution. You can you
Speaker 1: see the parallels here. And if the president exercises his
Speaker 1: constitutional power and you have people that think that they
Speaker 1: are above the president, either sabotaging him or not cooperating
Speaker 1: with an executive order. Well, they in that case they
Speaker 1: want to precipitate a constitutional crisis in the country, which
Speaker 1: is what this will do. But also the presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1: It is a very core fundamental principle of our republic.
Speaker 1: And you've got Democrats and you've got members of the media,
Speaker 1: and they're just so ever ready to rush to judgment
Speaker 1: and and throw this principle out the window and say,
Speaker 1: just come out out right. I believe Professor Ford. I'll
Speaker 1: be honest, I don't know what happened in two I
Speaker 1: wasn't there. But when a serious allegation has made, I'm
Speaker 1: all in favor that she should have the opportunity to
Speaker 1: present her case before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is this
Speaker 1: is a lifelong appointment, and then so too, should Judge
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh be given the opportunity, as he hasn't already said
Speaker 1: publicly to deny the allegations. And then, of course you
Speaker 1: have if it at that point, if it's he said,
Speaker 1: she said, well, then you look at the entirety of
Speaker 1: one's life. And we've had many many people now that
Speaker 1: knew Judge Kavanaugh back when at the time when this
Speaker 1: last minute allegation has been made, and they say the
Speaker 1: exact opposite of Professor Ford in terms of the type
Speaker 1: of person that he is. People that have dated him
Speaker 1: in high school, people that knew him in high school.
Speaker 1: Sixty five women in high school, women that knew him
Speaker 1: and dated him in college, women that knew him and
Speaker 1: dated him in in law school. People that knew him
Speaker 1: when he served in the Bush administration, people that have
Speaker 1: clerked for him, women that have clerked for him, women
Speaker 1: that have known him in the subsequent thirty six years
Speaker 1: of his life. They paint a very different picture. But
Speaker 1: we're hearing a lot of crazy things. We got one
Speaker 1: senator actually saying that men need to shut up and
Speaker 1: that the Kavana accuser needs to be believed, and I
Speaker 1: believe her. Is there any presumption of innocence here? No, Now,
Speaker 1: the Professor Ford doesn't remember where, she doesn't remember the time,
Speaker 1: the month, the year, what happened here or specifics. Just
Speaker 1: says that Judge Kavanaugh groped her over her bathing suit
Speaker 1: and other clothes that she had on, and she felt
Speaker 1: like it was an attempted rape. And then the other
Speaker 1: friend that she mentioned that was in the room says
Speaker 1: it didn't happen, and then people say he's got credibility
Speaker 1: problems because he had written a book about how in
Speaker 1: those years of his life he was an alcoholic and
Speaker 1: at times blacked out. But it's amazing. Let me play
Speaker 1: a montage. Well, fur then you got the views joy
Speaker 1: joyless Behar saying white men are protecting the probably guilty
Speaker 1: Breck Kavanaugh. These white men, old by the way, are
Speaker 1: not protecting women. Republicans who stand by Kavanaugh, they're protecting
Speaker 1: a man who's probably guilty. These people in Congress right
Speaker 1: now and not send a judiciary committee. These white men,
Speaker 1: old by the way, are not protecting women to protecting
Speaker 1: a man who is probably guilty. If you're not judge Kavanaughs,
Speaker 1: take a lot of detector test. Prove it the way
Speaker 1: she did and the way Anita Hill did that they
Speaker 1: were not lying. Let's see that from you. Well, the
Speaker 1: problem with that is light detector tests and not full proof.
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem if he does or doesn't. Now,
Speaker 1: there are some other good questions raised by Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: and others, especially about the the polygraph. And I know
Speaker 1: that Professor Ford provided this information to the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: But hang on a second. She she had said from
Speaker 1: the get what go that she didn't want to come
Speaker 1: forward at all, She didn't want her name involved in this.
Speaker 1: Then why did she take a polygraph back in August?
Speaker 1: Why did Diane and Feinstein not questioned Kavanaugh when they
Speaker 1: met privately for long periods of time. Why did Diane
Speaker 1: Feinstein not mentioned it in the public hearings that we had.
Speaker 1: Why was this brought up with less than a week
Speaker 1: ago before the final vote for Kavanaugh. I also say
Speaker 1: you have a right to be skeptical. Why because we've
Speaker 1: seen this playbook before by Democrats. Chap Aquittic Ted Kennedy
Speaker 1: know all about him. You know the man, the great
Speaker 1: Lion of the Senate that drove his car with another woman,
Speaker 1: not his wife, late at night off of bridge into
Speaker 1: I guess it's Chappaquittic River where a woman. He got
Speaker 1: out of the car, left the woman to drown. There
Speaker 1: was a house with a light on across the street.
Speaker 1: He never went to the house, He never asked anybody
Speaker 1: for help. He didn't even tell anybody. He went home
Speaker 1: and he went to bed, The great champion of the Senate.
Speaker 1: And we know the smear and the lies that he
Speaker 1: told about Robert Bork. We we heard the same thing.
Speaker 1: We watched Clarence Thomas with and the Anita Hill accusations
Speaker 1: at the last minute at his response to that. We
Speaker 1: watch every election year we see the same even thing.
Speaker 1: We see Republicans of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic. Republicans
Speaker 1: want dirty year and water, even though they drink it
Speaker 1: and breathe it. Republicans hate children, They want young kids
Speaker 1: to die, and they want to throw granny over the cliff.
Speaker 1: And they come up with ads Paul Ryan look alike,
Speaker 1: throwing your grandmother over a cliff. It's the same playbook
Speaker 1: every election year. It's the same playbook pretty much with
Speaker 1: every Supreme Court nomination. You know, as Lindsey Graham said
Speaker 1: to me, if miss Ford didn't want to come forward,
Speaker 1: never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward,
Speaker 1: why did she pay for a polygraph in August? Why
Speaker 1: did she hire a lawyer in August? If she never
Speaker 1: intended to do what she's doing now, she just happened
Speaker 1: to hire an attorney, Ms Katz, who is a staunch
Speaker 1: liberal activist and that spoke out often against PAULA Jones
Speaker 1: when she made the accusate. I thought were supposed to
Speaker 1: believe people Paul Jones eventually want to settle lawsuit Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton paytor eight hundred fifty thou dollars. Then she did
Speaker 1: apparently was advocating for Al Franken. What a creepy is
Speaker 1: Why would you advocate for him? So certainly there's politics
Speaker 1: on the side of the the attorney who hired the attorney.
Speaker 1: I think that now is an interesting question to ask,
Speaker 1: But I guess it's neither here nor there. But you
Speaker 1: know now that we have some interesting questions. Now the
Speaker 1: Republicans have been trying to accommodate Professor Ford. Now they
Speaker 1: her lawyers said repeatedly that she would testify in public
Speaker 1: under oath no conditions here. Listen, will your client Christine
Speaker 1: Ford be willing to testify in public to the Judiciary Committee? Answers, Yes,
Speaker 1: she is willing to do it. Has she been asked
Speaker 1: by any of the lawmakers to do so? The point
Speaker 1: is they didn't. She had been asked many times. The
Speaker 1: lawyer said, they do it publicly under oath. Okay, Now
Speaker 1: the bar changed last night when they sent a letter.
Speaker 1: By the way, anybody that's getting death threats or any
Speaker 1: type of intimidation. We've got to do everything we can
Speaker 1: do to protect Professor Ford and her family. It's horrible
Speaker 1: being in the public eye today. I'm sure. I'm sure
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh's family is going through similar things. We don't
Speaker 1: know the answer, but I feel bad for anybody. I've
Speaker 1: lived at myself. It's not fun. But then you listen
Speaker 1: to your media and the Democrats will start with the Democrats,
Speaker 1: they don't care. They believe her. All they know is
Speaker 1: one letter that she wrote to the Washington Post and
Speaker 1: a letter that she wrote to Diane Feinstein that they
Speaker 1: sat on since July. But they come out no presumption
Speaker 1: of innocence, new rush to judgment. This woman is to
Speaker 1: be believed. And you can believe Dr Ford. This was
Speaker 1: attempted rape. And this is a woman who exhibits dr
Speaker 1: rich but the classic signs of post traumatic stress. I
Speaker 1: believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward
Speaker 1: at this point um to to to be prepared to
Speaker 1: testify in the United States Senate against someone who is
Speaker 1: being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in
Speaker 1: the United States government. That takes an extraordinary amount of courage.
Speaker 1: Not only do women like Dr Ford who bravely comes
Speaker 1: forward need to be heard, but they need to be believed.
Speaker 1: They need to be believed. Let me just say right
Speaker 1: at the outset, I believe Dr Ford. I believe the
Speaker 1: survivor here. There's every reason to believe her. She has
Speaker 1: come forward courageously and bravely. You have no knowledge whether
Speaker 1: I believe forward, because I'm gonna stop it there. I
Speaker 1: can go on and immediate. It's the same thing the Democrats,
Speaker 1: same thing I can tell you right now based on
Speaker 1: his life, his background, and his experience, is nothing that
Speaker 1: indicates this type of behavior at all. But I wasn't there,
Speaker 1: and I've got to believe in the presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1: If you let her make her case, the professor, you
Speaker 1: let the judge make his case, then you interview all
Speaker 1: the people that knew him at the time around him
Speaker 1: and his behavior for the last thirty six years. I
Speaker 1: have faith the American people will make the right decision
Speaker 1: about who's telling the truth in this case. All Right,
Speaker 1: we got a lot more to get to. Eight nine one, Sean.
Speaker 1: All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show, eight
Speaker 1: nine one, Shawn is part of our program. You know,
Speaker 1: it's um it is interesting to watch people on the
Speaker 1: left and see who they are and see core principles
Speaker 1: go by the wayside and all of the rush to judgment.
Speaker 1: We see that, for example, all the people shot in Chicago.
Speaker 1: Here about Michael Brown and Ferguson, here about Trayvon Martin
Speaker 1: and Florida. You hear about Freddie Graham Baltimore. But you've
Speaker 1: got thousands of people shot in Chicago. But they don't
Speaker 1: politicize that. I mean, it's just it's it's unbelievable. But
Speaker 1: these this is why every American should be skeptical. Democrats
Speaker 1: have one playbook for elections and Supreme Court appointment smear, slander, smirch.
Speaker 1: Now with that said, they're serious allegations. But the difference
Speaker 1: is I'm saying, I don't know. The difference is we
Speaker 1: are holding true to the presumption of innocence. You know,
Speaker 1: you Judge Kavanaugh is willing to testify again now all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the bar has been raised. They're willing
Speaker 1: to testify under oath in public. Now that's changed, and
Speaker 1: the Republicans on the committee are trying to be accommodating. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let you do it buying closed doors where you want
Speaker 1: behind closed doors? No answer on that. Would you like
Speaker 1: us to send people to you. You're trying to do
Speaker 1: everything possible so that Professor Ford can be heard and
Speaker 1: then they can make an informed decision. You know, when
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein, listen what she says. She actually said, I
Speaker 1: don't know if any of this is true. I think
Speaker 1: that truly bad that no one called her or called
Speaker 1: her lawyer. Of my understanding is she got emails, and
Speaker 1: this is a woman and I really believe who's been
Speaker 1: profoundly impacted by this. Now, I can't say everything's truthful.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I do know that um, they
Speaker 1: had to contact her lawyers. Okay, the lawyer was, she
Speaker 1: was invited numerous times. I can't say that everything is truthful.
Speaker 1: I don't know now because she said that the left
Speaker 1: went nuts. How dare she say she doesn't know? You know?
Speaker 1: And then when you compare the Democrats reaction to um,
Speaker 1: Judge Kavanaugh would say the reaction of Keith Ellison or
Speaker 1: Shared Brown or Bill Clinton, you see a very different
Speaker 1: reaction from them. With only a kite, a husky and
Speaker 1: wet hempstring Benjamin Franklin captured lightning in a bottle over
Speaker 1: two d and sixty years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity,
Speaker 1: and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun
Speaker 1: and wind, we're storing it, ensuring Americans have the energy
Speaker 1: they need whenever they need it. Learn more about the
Speaker 1: nation's leader and energy storage at next Era Energy dot Com.
Speaker 1: Of course, it helps as there are women on that committee.
Speaker 1: But you know what, I expect the men in this
Speaker 1: country and the men in this committee, and many of
Speaker 1: them believe me because we all signed on to this
Speaker 1: letter to demand an FBI investigation. But really, guess who's
Speaker 1: perpetuating all of these kinds of actions. It's some men
Speaker 1: in this country. And I just want to say to
Speaker 1: the men of this country, just shut up and step up.
Speaker 1: Do the right thing for a change. Men in this country,
Speaker 1: the senator from away, step up and are sorry it
Speaker 1: up and step up, and you've got the views. Joy behar,
Speaker 1: joy lost behar. White men are protecting and probably guilty,
Speaker 1: uh Kavanaugh, these people, and I don't want to hear it.
Speaker 1: Then we've got, you know, more Democrats. So let's see
Speaker 1: the genius that is Michael Moore's out selling his his
Speaker 1: stupid movies so he can fly around in his private jet. Uh,
Speaker 1: then you've got just when the Democratic Party can't stoop
Speaker 1: any lower. You know, he's actually claiming, in all likelihood,
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist. That's what he's claiming.
Speaker 1: I am Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer. You know this
Speaker 1: is your Democratic Party. This is the party that wants
Speaker 1: control of the House and the Senate in forty eight days.
Speaker 1: It's pretty unbelievable. Um, but I can tell you where
Speaker 1: this is all selective moral outrage. I mentioned Ted Kennedy,
Speaker 1: earlier lion of the Senate, praised when he died, one
Speaker 1: of the greatest colleagues, one of the best senators at
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. Okay, such a you know, look at
Speaker 1: his case. He drives a car off a bridge at
Speaker 1: chap Aquitic Bridge in Massachusetts. He literally gets into right
Speaker 1: into a body of water. What's it called again, It's
Speaker 1: called pucha pond the bridge. So he gets off, he
Speaker 1: gets out of the car, saves his life. Says that
Speaker 1: he dove once or twice or a few times to
Speaker 1: try to get Mary Joe Capectney out of the car,
Speaker 1: not his wife, but this other woman, not implying anything,
Speaker 1: tries to get her out of the car. But what
Speaker 1: does he do. He turns around, and he goes home
Speaker 1: and goes to sleep, telling nobody, not one person, what
Speaker 1: had happened. The lion of the Senate praised by many
Speaker 1: of the Democrats that are in there today. You know
Speaker 1: there was look the other hero. It's a fascinating that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. No, so she has a right to be believed. Well, okay, uh,
Speaker 1: did you believe Paula Jones? No, sir, He gets Monica Lewinski,
Speaker 1: Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willie. I wanta need a broderick,
Speaker 1: I need a brodrick, tweets out today, where's my investigation?
Speaker 1: FBI investigation into the rape of Bill Clinton. It's around
Speaker 1: the same time, just a little earlier for that particular case.
Speaker 1: You got all these people, you got Feinstein, Schumer, Dick Durbin.
Speaker 1: They loved the Clinton's loved them case of Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: voted against his impeachment. They never they never went to interview.
Speaker 1: I want need a broderick or Paula Jones or Kathleen
Speaker 1: Willie or Jennifer Flowers. They were just called names. There
Speaker 1: was a war room set up to destroy the names
Speaker 1: of anybody that dared to say anything against candidate Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton and then President Bill Clinton. You know, now we've
Speaker 1: got a current US Senator Shared Brown back in the
Speaker 1: day his ex wife accused him of domestic abuse by
Speaker 1: a restraining order. There's a new political add out and
Speaker 1: in that ad it goes through the history of Shared
Speaker 1: Brown that this happened, by the way, after the time
Speaker 1: the allegation that they talked about with Brett Camanall. Now
Speaker 1: I know that they've kind of get along now is
Speaker 1: what I understand the divorce, But those core papers remain
Speaker 1: now Senator Shared Brown is facing his own me too
Speaker 1: movement from his past. These court records shows sworen evidence
Speaker 1: that Brown's ex wife accused him of abusing her. She
Speaker 1: said Brown assaulted her a judge had to issue a
Speaker 1: restraining order. Later, she said Brown violated the court order pushing,
Speaker 1: shoving and bullying her. Brown claims it's a family matter,
Speaker 1: but his ex wife, like they're victims, has a right
Speaker 1: to be believed. This senator had to resign when evidence
Speaker 1: emerged he mistreated women why is Senator Brown different. And
Speaker 1: in that case they're talking about al Franken abused his wife,
Speaker 1: pushed his wife, shoved his wife, bully and his wife.
Speaker 1: I don't know that, even though they now have put
Speaker 1: their differences aside, I don't know. Probably for the betterment
Speaker 1: of the family and the children, whatever, but those are
Speaker 1: in the court papers. We did reach out no comment,
Speaker 1: Senator Feinstein to all these Democrats that now say that
Speaker 1: that Professor Ford should be believed no, no presumption of
Speaker 1: innocence for for Judge Kavanaugh. It's also the d n
Speaker 1: C each deputy chair. You know Keith Ellison, you've heard
Speaker 1: his name. He's running to be Minnesota's next attorney general.
Speaker 1: Ellison's ex girlfriend recently accused him of serious physical and
Speaker 1: emotional abuse. And Ellison, by the way, apparently there are
Speaker 1: tapes and videos of the Ellison went on to win
Speaker 1: the party's nomination for Minnesota a g that's interesting. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: by the way, this is current, this has happened fairly recently.
Speaker 1: She tweets yesterday the d n C in other words,
Speaker 1: the very people that want to go back to two
Speaker 1: and believe the woman that's made this last minute allegation
Speaker 1: against Judge Kavanaugh. Well, they haven't talked about Keith Ellison
Speaker 1: at all that I've seen. I reached out to the
Speaker 1: d n C in Ellison's office. I haven't received a
Speaker 1: comment yet. Anyway, The woman tweeted that the d n
Speaker 1: C refused to believe her accusations and even smeared, threatened
Speaker 1: and isolated her. This is the same party of let's
Speaker 1: see Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, shared Brown. This
Speaker 1: is the party now that's trying to block Kavanaugh's confirmation
Speaker 1: over a charge just brought up that took place in
Speaker 1: night two. The party of Harvey Weinstein, the party of
Speaker 1: Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer. And I can Eric Schneiderman,
Speaker 1: and I can go on and on. You know, now,
Speaker 1: the charges are serious. I believe in the presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1: I believe these charges should be taken seriously, and that
Speaker 1: Professor Ford should have every right to testify. And the
Speaker 1: Republicans have literally gone above and beyond anything they can do.
Speaker 1: They're trying to accommodate Professor Ford. Our attorney said she
Speaker 1: testified publicly under oath. She's now resist She's now demanding
Speaker 1: an FBI investigation before any such discussion would take place. Now,
Speaker 1: the FBI has addressed this, and the FBI has been
Speaker 1: very clear about it that the allegation doesn't evolve any
Speaker 1: potential federal crime. So the FBI, it's not their jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: Now you have Democrats, according to the Washington Times in
Speaker 1: the Hill, as the FBI said, it's that's not what
Speaker 1: their jurisdiction is. But now Democrats are encouraging Professive Ford
Speaker 1: to contact of Montgomery County, Maryland Police, whose jurisdiction would
Speaker 1: include the home of where Ford says that the crime
Speaker 1: took place. We didn't have an exact location or an
Speaker 1: exact year. Lawrence Tribe is saying there's no statute of
Speaker 1: limitations in Maryland for rape or sexual assault of a
Speaker 1: minor under sixteen years of age. His observation on Twitter
Speaker 1: set off a firestorm of demands the Maryland Attorney General
Speaker 1: get on the investigation. Having all critics are calling for
Speaker 1: Maryland Attorney General Brian Frost to open an investigation. I
Speaker 1: have no doubt that Democrats will be actively pushing for
Speaker 1: that as well here, but if they really cared about
Speaker 1: sexual assault, then they would be consistent in their views,
Speaker 1: this would not be a political topic for them. I
Speaker 1: did take the time, and I've interviewed one Ita Broderick,
Speaker 1: Kathleen Willie, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, and other women. After
Speaker 1: interviewing them, in some cases numerous times, I've come to
Speaker 1: the conclusion I believe them all. I think that's why
Speaker 1: the of an allegation has made as older as in it.
Speaker 1: Let's listen, and then Judge Kavanaugh is saying, yeah, he's
Speaker 1: willing to go under oath, and he's willing to show
Speaker 1: up Monday, and he'll take all questions from the Democrats.
Speaker 1: And Professor Ford now has changed the standard. At least
Speaker 1: the lawyers said well, no, no no, no, we're not gonna
Speaker 1: do unless the FBI does this, this and this. But
Speaker 1: that's not what they said in the beginning. They have
Speaker 1: Democrats Washington Post pointing out they're all now turning against
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein as she plots the next step. Finstein is
Speaker 1: dealing with questions about her decision in eight weeks before
Speaker 1: sharing the forward letter, issuing only a cryptic statement last Thursday.
Speaker 1: This is now a week before the vote was supposed
Speaker 1: to take place yesterday, or today. I'm glad we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a hearing and get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: It's been it would have been nice to have it
Speaker 1: done before, said Senator Senator John Tester. He's up for
Speaker 1: reelection though in Montana he doesn't want to lose, raises
Speaker 1: a lot of questions. What are these Democrats and read
Speaker 1: states that supported Trump gonna do. What's Joe Manchin gonna do.
Speaker 1: What's Bill Nelson gonna do. What's Claire mccaskell gonna do.
Speaker 1: What's Joe Donnelly gonna do. What's Heidi hike Cam gonna do.
Speaker 1: I listen to Hillary last night that she says the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh sex assault accusa deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1: Anita Brodrick said that she wants an FBI investigation into
Speaker 1: the rape allegation she made against Bill Clinton. You know,
Speaker 1: so there's a lot of doubts whether or not this
Speaker 1: is gonna happen. But Diane, fine stuff. I can't say
Speaker 1: that everything is true. I don't know. I got hurt
Speaker 1: a lot of heat on social media and from the
Speaker 1: base of the Democratic Party because nobody knows, because nobody
Speaker 1: was there. You have to look at all the other issues.
Speaker 1: Then we got the I believe her, I believe she
Speaker 1: hasn't right to be believed. Well, does that mean that Senator,
Speaker 1: that Judge Kavanaugh has no right to be believed at all.
Speaker 1: We rushed to judgment guilty as charged. You know, but
Speaker 1: this is to be predicted. I told you when the
Speaker 1: opening in the court came, I told you it would
Speaker 1: come to this because I know Democrats, I know liberals.
Speaker 1: I know who they are. That's why I have a
Speaker 1: right and you have a right to be skeptical. Take it,
Speaker 1: treat it seriously. But I think the Republicans are doing
Speaker 1: everything possible to treat Professor Kavanaugh fairly. You know, things
Speaker 1: are gotten so bad on the Deep State investigation. You
Speaker 1: know the President now declassifying and unredacting Keith FISA documents,
Speaker 1: and that means PISA. The last VISA warrant pages ten
Speaker 1: through twelve, seventeen to thirty four, all the reports of
Speaker 1: Russian related interviews with Bruce or Christopher Steele, Jim Comey, Paige,
Speaker 1: Struck McCabe, all their emails, all their texts, tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of them that now the President has demanded that
Speaker 1: they be released. Now he does have the constitutional authority
Speaker 1: to do so. Article to Section one of our Constitution
Speaker 1: gives the president unfedit authority over all executive branch matters. Well,
Speaker 1: the President is in charge of the executive branch of
Speaker 1: government that would include the d o J and the FBI.
Speaker 1: Executive powers shall be vested in a president of the
Speaker 1: United States. This empowers the President to issue executive actions, orders, memorandums, proclamations,
Speaker 1: and directives to executive branch officials to take certain actions
Speaker 1: and refrained from taking other actions. President is everyone superior
Speaker 1: in the executive branch. Failure to follow his order is
Speaker 1: an active in subordination and meriting the person's termination. Moreover,
Speaker 1: the president can ultimately, you know, has the ultimate authority
Speaker 1: over classification and declassification. By the way, the latest executive
Speaker 1: order on classification came from Obama Executive Order one three,
Speaker 1: five to six. You know, this is uh, this is
Speaker 1: what this is what the president's power. By the way,
Speaker 1: both Presidents Clinton and Obama declassified documents and their orders
Speaker 1: were faithfully followed. Why do I say this? People like
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff and you've got John Brennan are scared to death.
Speaker 1: And you've got Andrew McCabe is writing a book. It
Speaker 1: will be out in December. Remember if they paneled the
Speaker 1: Grand Jury to look into potential crimes with him, the threat,
Speaker 1: how the FBI protects America in the age of terror
Speaker 1: and Trump. Wow, guy, that is under investigation for many crimes.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you now, we have members of Congress
Speaker 1: demanding the FBI, Department of Justice, Director of National Intelligence
Speaker 1: refused to comply with the president's executive order to declassify
Speaker 1: his constitutional authority. They want a constitutional crisis. They don't
Speaker 1: want to cooperate because they're going to be exposed and
Speaker 1: we're gonna learn that there was a deep state attempt
Speaker 1: to derail not only the election and steal the election
Speaker 1: from the American people to help their favored candidate who
Speaker 1: had committed crimes that they exonerated her without investigating her on.
Speaker 1: But then, of course all the lies told defies a
Speaker 1: court judges to get warrants based on what was frauds
Speaker 1: committed before the court, using funneled money to a op
Speaker 1: research firm, to a foreign national Russian lies and then
Speaker 1: used and distributed Lisa Pates. At nine months they had
Speaker 1: no evidence of any collusion whatsoever, but they don't want
Speaker 1: any of this information to come out. Now when a
Speaker 1: letter intended to undermine the president's constitutional authority over the
Speaker 1: executive branch, you got the highest ranking Democrats, Adam Shift,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, Mark Warner, Chucky Schumer saying, don't listen to
Speaker 1: the President of the United States, the former CIA director,
Speaker 1: don't listen to the President of the United States. They
Speaker 1: want a constitutional crisis because they don't want to get exposed.
Speaker 1: That's what this is. You know, there are poles out
Speaker 1: there showing a lot. You know, the generic ballot Pole
Speaker 1: is now down to four points in the hill. The economists,
Speaker 1: you got pole. You know what I think is happening.
Speaker 1: I think Americans are waking up to how bad this
Speaker 1: party would be in power in forty eight days if
Speaker 1: you're not motivate. They don't care about the forgotten men
Speaker 1: and women in the good economy and the safety and
Speaker 1: security of the country. They just want to destroy Trump
Speaker 1: and they want their crumbs back, and they want open borders,
Speaker 1: and they want Obamacare, and they want investigations that will
Speaker 1: be endless to divide the country. Sad, the very sad
Speaker 1: time for this country. Better get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: it before it's too late. You have you have the power.
Speaker 1: You don't think this midterm is important. I've been warning
Speaker 1: you it's more than important. It's more important than I
Speaker 1: even thought. Anyway. Eight one Shaun is a toll free
Speaker 1: telephone number if you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program. New king Ridge is coming up at the top.
Speaker 1: We've got Greg Jarrett and Sarah Carter coming up. James
Speaker 1: O'Keefe with new video from so much news is breaking today. Obviously,
Speaker 1: will she or will she not testify before the Senate
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee. The committee is trying to be accommodating to
Speaker 1: Professor ford Uh. They have offered, even though her attorney
Speaker 1: said she would do so publicly under oath, they've offered
Speaker 1: to allow her to do it privately on Monday. They've
Speaker 1: also offered, just in the last hour and a half
Speaker 1: that they would send people to her to interview her
Speaker 1: to get to the truth and the veracity of this
Speaker 1: last minute allegation that the Democrats knew of back in July.
Speaker 1: Here to win on this and much more is former
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House New king Ridge is with us.
Speaker 1: How are you, sir? I'm doing great and I have
Speaker 1: to ared um. We can come back to that in
Speaker 1: a minute, but I want to start with three pieces
Speaker 1: of election news that I think are just so different
Speaker 1: from the liberal media. I just want to share it
Speaker 1: with our audience, Sean. The first is that yesterday in Texas,
Speaker 1: Pete Flora's Republican candidate in a special election for the
Speaker 1: state Senate defeated Pete Glego. Now, this is a district
Speaker 1: which is sixty six percent Hispanic. If you combine Hispanic
Speaker 1: and Black votes, it is seventy. It is an eleven
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton district. For a hundred and thirty nine years,
Speaker 1: the Democrats held it thanks to the lieutenant governor and
Speaker 1: the Republican Party in Texas and a great candidate and
Speaker 1: Pete Flores we wanted yesterday. And so for those who
Speaker 1: tell us that there's a blue wave, tell tell me
Speaker 1: how we pick up a seat. We've not had an
Speaker 1: hundred nine years, but the blue wave was coming. Second
Speaker 1: UH in Florida. And I love this one because I've
Speaker 1: known Donna Shilela for years. She's a remarkably competent, interesting liberal,
Speaker 1: was a great chancellor of the University Wisconsin UH and
Speaker 1: is running for the House seat to try to fill
Speaker 1: Republican Congressman uh Ross Layton and Seaton. Well, she's now losing.
Speaker 1: According to the most recent survey, Maria Olvera Salazar, who
Speaker 1: was a local TV personality, is ahead by seven percent
Speaker 1: in the district that Hillary Clinton carried by twenty And finally,
Speaker 1: by the way, in that particular race against Donna Lela,
Speaker 1: I heard that the Republican candidate is a rock star.
Speaker 1: It would be an instant star in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, she had a big star nationally.
Speaker 1: She has a television personality. She has for years been
Speaker 1: to to bring the news in Miami because you know,
Speaker 1: my daughter Katy lives in keep Asking and is watching
Speaker 1: this race. And and Maria Evera Salazar is just gonna
Speaker 1: be a big winner. And this is a seat. I mean,
Speaker 1: if they can't pick up a Clinton's seat, they have
Speaker 1: a huge problem. Finally, in California, now we're talking about
Speaker 1: the three biggest states in the country, California, Texas, in Florida.
Speaker 1: In California, Young Kim now leaves Gholsts of Snares by
Speaker 1: onety one in the district that Hillary carried by eight percent.
Speaker 1: By the way, she's a great candidate a candidate, wonderful candidate.
Speaker 1: And by the way, she's a great tribute to the
Speaker 1: Republican State Leadership Council, which has been growing state legislative
Speaker 1: Canada's everywhere in the country, and she's a great example
Speaker 1: of one of the people that they have helped win elections,
Speaker 1: and she is now going to be I think the
Speaker 1: next let me ask you. I have some I have
Speaker 1: some news too in Texas. You know, there's been a
Speaker 1: lot of talk about the Democratic challenger, the Senator Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: but there's a poll out today that has Cruise up
Speaker 1: by nine. I would think that the people of Texas
Speaker 1: have got to be smart and keep Ted cruizing Congress.
Speaker 1: We need him there. He's been an amazing ally of
Speaker 1: the President. I know they had a pretty hostile campaign
Speaker 1: against each other, but they have put all those differences
Speaker 1: aside and he's been, frankly, one of the strongest constitutional
Speaker 1: voices we have. UM. There is also a new poll
Speaker 1: out that actually shows it's only a four point race
Speaker 1: UH in the generic ballot polling UM according to YouTube
Speaker 1: dot gov poll that came out today, which I think
Speaker 1: is particularly interesting to me because you're right about the
Speaker 1: blue wave now with that said, Mr Speaker, I I
Speaker 1: agree with you. I think that this election needs to
Speaker 1: be nationalized behind five or six big ideas, and that
Speaker 1: is that they will make the tax cuts permanent, that
Speaker 1: they will fully fund the wall if they were elected,
Speaker 1: that they will help the president the case of the Senate,
Speaker 1: continue to pick originalist justices to the Court. I think
Speaker 1: that there are other security issues that that can be
Speaker 1: put forward, and maybe energy independence is another one. What
Speaker 1: would your five big items be? Well, look, look, I
Speaker 1: think first of all, you've done great work on this
Speaker 1: and you're in the right general direction. Let me just
Speaker 1: point out to our whole everybody listening to us, you
Speaker 1: want to go and make the case to your friends
Speaker 1: and neighbors. You have a party led by Donald Trump
Speaker 1: trying to appoint constitutional conservatives to the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: you seven Brett cabin On, somebody who fits that. Now,
Speaker 1: by contrast, you have a Democratic party so desperate, so crazed,
Speaker 1: but at the last minute they come up with an
Speaker 1: allegation that is thirty five years old. And now you
Speaker 1: have the Republicans do an exactly the right thing. In
Speaker 1: President Trump. I hope he'll stay this discipline. He has
Speaker 1: been perfect and saying, look, the accuser deserves her day
Speaker 1: in court, she deserves her time to explain her case.
Speaker 1: We all owe her the respect for doing it. And
Speaker 1: as a result, Senator Grastias said, look, we're gonna postpone
Speaker 1: the vote in the committee. We'll have a special hearing
Speaker 1: on Monday, and now let's bring in the accuser and
Speaker 1: see at which point of course we now are living through. Well,
Speaker 1: they may not show up, and so you have you
Speaker 1: have a dual question. One is how can Senator fine
Speaker 1: Stein when we will Senior Member the seven have sat
Speaker 1: on this information since July except for the purpose of
Speaker 1: screwing things up and slowing things down in order to
Speaker 1: stop a constitutional conservative federal justice on the Supreme Court. Second,
Speaker 1: if this person is not willing to show up, not
Speaker 1: willing to testify, not willing to explain, I think the
Speaker 1: average Americans going to say, this is really obvious and
Speaker 1: the result will be the bread capital next week. It's
Speaker 1: at some point will be confirmed for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You know, Mr Speaker, there's a lot in play, and
Speaker 1: there's a lot at stake in all of this, and
Speaker 1: there are certain things that I know about the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party now thirty years, almost thirty years in radio twenty
Speaker 1: three plus a Fox whatever it is, and every election,
Speaker 1: and I back it up with tape and evidence. Republicans
Speaker 1: a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, z amophobic, Islamophobic, they want
Speaker 1: dirty air and water, they want children to die, and
Speaker 1: they want to kill Grandma, throw over the cliff. And
Speaker 1: when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. Now I do
Speaker 1: agree with you. I do believe that Professor Ford should
Speaker 1: be heard. It's a serious allegation. She's been given every opportunity.
Speaker 1: Her lawyer said she would testify under oath publicly. Now
Speaker 1: they've they've they've raised the bar. We need an FBI investigation.
Speaker 1: The FBI said this is not something within their purview
Speaker 1: to investigate. It's also thirty six years ago. Now they
Speaker 1: want the Maryland Attorney General involved here. But it seems
Speaker 1: when you look at Ted Kennedy and the treatment of
Speaker 1: Robert Bourke, and you look at the treatment of one
Speaker 1: of the greatest justices in our time, Clarence Thomas Um
Speaker 1: and this last minute they had this since July, I
Speaker 1: think people also have a right to be skeptical of
Speaker 1: the Democrats and they're all, you know, all these people
Speaker 1: to come out and say that they believe her. Believe
Speaker 1: I believe her. I believe First of all, she only
Speaker 1: told the story in the Washington Post. She doesn't remember
Speaker 1: even the year where this all had occurred. Um that
Speaker 1: one witness says it didn't happen, although he has I
Speaker 1: guess had drinking problems at the time. But okay, the
Speaker 1: judge denies it. Um. Whatever happened to the presumption of
Speaker 1: innocence in this country. It's a little scary to me. Well,
Speaker 1: the thing that's fascinating to watch is the first forty
Speaker 1: eight or seventy two hours, this story was a liberal
Speaker 1: Democrats dream and everything was stopped. And on the articles
Speaker 1: I was reading, they're talking about how the crisis and
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh nomination, et cetera. Then after about seventy two hours,
Speaker 1: it began to be obvious that the story was not
Speaker 1: being reinforced. Um, but you weren't getting people to come
Speaker 1: out as witnesses for her, You weren't getting corroboration, you
Speaker 1: weren't getting Excuse me, and I'll fill on the plane.
Speaker 1: By the way, nudes has has a bad throat today.
Speaker 1: Let me just help you. I've been there myself. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: so I need a cough The only difference is I
Speaker 1: have a cough button and you don't. So what I like, apologize,
Speaker 1: that's okay, and I hope your technicians can cover up
Speaker 1: most of the Yeah, it was going to be that
Speaker 1: the average person at first legitimately gives the accused of
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubts. It tastes courage to come
Speaker 1: out and say this. It tastes courage to feel like
Speaker 1: you have to testify, and so people want, are I sure?
Speaker 1: And I think that President Trump has been exactly right
Speaker 1: in this tone things down. Let's make sure we get
Speaker 1: to the truth. Let's give her the opportunity. But what's
Speaker 1: happened is as people rolled out the red carpet and said, hey,
Speaker 1: you can come in and testify in public, you can
Speaker 1: come in and testify in private. We'll do anything we
Speaker 1: can to accompany you. Right, I'm sorry about your I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, all of a sudden, people have said,
Speaker 1: wait a second, just doesn't sound right. And that's why
Speaker 1: in the last forty eight hours, I think he saw
Speaker 1: the tide turn pretty dramatically, and people, even Republican senators
Speaker 1: who have been skeptical are now swinging back and say, well, look,
Speaker 1: she has to testify by Monday or I'm a yes,
Speaker 1: because I'm not just going to have Senator Fine Sime
Speaker 1: manipulate the system at the last minute in order to
Speaker 1: block everything. And I think, if anything, it's now starting
Speaker 1: to really weaken the Democrats and put the Trump State
Speaker 1: Democrats in the Senate in a real box. I mean
Speaker 1: today stick with the left and the story that has
Speaker 1: no support, no validity. If but now again and we
Speaker 1: have to wait and see until Monday. But I think
Speaker 1: the Burton now has shifted. It's from Kavanaugh to we'll
Speaker 1: take a break, we'll come back more with Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House New king Ridge. Uh. And we do hope
Speaker 1: you feel better. I know you've had a call for
Speaker 1: the last number of days. All right, as we continue
Speaker 1: former Speaker of the House, New king Ridge, forty eight
Speaker 1: days to all election day, there's a lot of steak um.
Speaker 1: You're right, it's now a four point race and the
Speaker 1: generic ballad pole Uh that came out and the Hill
Speaker 1: was in the Hill today and Republicans are maybe in
Speaker 1: this race. I think what you pointed out our earlier
Speaker 1: is true. Let me ask you about. We now have
Speaker 1: former CIA director John Brennan. We now have Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff and Mark Warner and
Speaker 1: and others demanding that the do J and FBI refused
Speaker 1: to comply with the President's declassification and unredactioned order on
Speaker 1: fis awarrants. But that basically now the president has Article
Speaker 1: two Sexual one powers of the Constitution, executive powers vested
Speaker 1: in a president of the United States that empowers him
Speaker 1: to issue executive actions, orders, memorandums, proclamations, directives to the
Speaker 1: executive branch officials to make certain actions and reframed from
Speaker 1: actions he's in charge. Look, look, I think what you
Speaker 1: have to recognize. And you see this in a number
Speaker 1: of areas, but this is the most recent one that
Speaker 1: the left wing Democrats are prepared to destroy the constitution,
Speaker 1: eliminate the rule of law, break any sense of routine
Speaker 1: understandable behavior in order to try to get Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is it is astonishing. Um and frankly reminds me
Speaker 1: of the moment in the great play A Man for
Speaker 1: All Seasons where Sir Thomas More explains to his son
Speaker 1: in law that if you're willing to break the law
Speaker 1: to get after the devil. What stops you once you've
Speaker 1: broken every single law and the devil turns on you
Speaker 1: because you no longer have the law to protect. These
Speaker 1: are people who either because they're utterly totally ignorant, which
Speaker 1: is very possible given our modern schools. I don't think
Speaker 1: they're ignorant. This is they they want to precipitate a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis. Well is. I mean, look, it is a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis. That's what we're living through. We have a deliberate,
Speaker 1: continuing effort to create a bureaucratic coup data to repudiate
Speaker 1: the American people and impose the wishes of left wing
Speaker 1: activists and bureaucrats on the United States of America. I mean,
Speaker 1: we should understand that we're in the middle of a
Speaker 1: struggle right now that is outside anything we have seen
Speaker 1: since the Civil War, and it is an enormous problem.
Speaker 1: And these people are playing there, but they're they're like
Speaker 1: children playing with the with the with the nuclear weapon. Uh,
Speaker 1: they have no idea the dangers that they're running and
Speaker 1: what they could do the United States of America. And
Speaker 1: I this is true, whether whether it's Nancy Pelosi or
Speaker 1: it's Chuck Schumer, or it's Elizabeth Warren. I mean, all
Speaker 1: these people wander around and they say things which, if
Speaker 1: you think about them, represent the in the United States
Speaker 1: as a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law,
Speaker 1: and it is it is an enormous threat to our country.
Speaker 1: All Right, Mr speaker, thanks for being with us. Hope
Speaker 1: you feel better. James o'cape Sarah, Greg all coming up
Speaker 1: in your call straight ahead, alright to the top of
Speaker 1: the hour one Sean, We've got incredible deep state news.
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, John Solomon, and Greg Jared. We're all working
Speaker 1: on a big piece. Greg and Sarah will join us
Speaker 1: and talk about it. So yesterday are friends over a
Speaker 1: project Veritas James O'Keefe. Well, they released and what is
Speaker 1: now a series showing resistance within our government, within the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Now, this all came to light when The
Speaker 1: New York Times had this big anonymous and we're working
Speaker 1: to undermine the president's agenda. We're preventing him from doing
Speaker 1: his job. We're making his job harder. And yesterday we
Speaker 1: have a Department of State employee who apparently now has
Speaker 1: been verified. He's now being investigated and the Department of
Speaker 1: State or State Department says that they take these charges
Speaker 1: seriously and people are not allowed to do We had
Speaker 1: a guy on tape literally admitting that he works for
Speaker 1: a left wing resistance group about Democratic Socialists and it
Speaker 1: works for the State Department as of yesterday, Democratic Socialists
Speaker 1: for America and is doing that work on our dime
Speaker 1: and admits it all on tape. It'll be interesting to
Speaker 1: see how that career ends. The problem is it's not
Speaker 1: just in the White House, it's not just in the
Speaker 1: State Department. Project Veritas is now released the second in
Speaker 1: a series showing the resistance within the Trump administration from
Speaker 1: Democratic Socialist of America, this time within the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: D o J employee literally says co workers are resisting
Speaker 1: Trump from within the Department of Justice, and we got
Speaker 1: video footage of all of it. Will play some of
Speaker 1: it on TV tonight of a Department of Justice employee
Speaker 1: discussing the resist movement within the agency. It was all
Speaker 1: captured by the cameras a Project Veritas as an explosive
Speaker 1: series they're now unfolding every day, called the Deep State.
Speaker 1: Have a d o J paralegal Allison or Bars their
Speaker 1: name and was asked by an undercover Project Veritas journalist
Speaker 1: whether it or not to follow Uh, d o J
Speaker 1: employees fellow d o J employees were doing anything to
Speaker 1: fight against Trump? Oh, I mean a lot of us
Speaker 1: talk about it. So most of them are like vaguely
Speaker 1: politically involved, so they may support candidates, to fundraisers, and
Speaker 1: some of them actually canvas. She goes on to say,
Speaker 1: and then there's a lot of talk about how we
Speaker 1: can like zist from the inside and a lot of
Speaker 1: kind of pushback. Anyway, this is the leader of the
Speaker 1: d C chapter for Democratic Socialists for America. Back in June,
Speaker 1: she made headlines when she led that unhinged protest against
Speaker 1: the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Nielsen at a
Speaker 1: Mexican restaurant. She works at the Department of Justice. We're
Speaker 1: gonna play this tape just released, uh, and this is
Speaker 1: not good for the country. You have people that are
Speaker 1: hired on our payroll that are working actively to undermine
Speaker 1: the president, the Justice Department, the State Department and basically
Speaker 1: run a role government. Listen, like, what can we do
Speaker 1: to slow down? Yeah, the hair but it happened this awesome. Yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: these kids will never be reunited with their parents because
Speaker 1: here's stid Nielsen's staff. Don't think it's necessary to about them.
Speaker 1: I'm am apparently goal at Perfect Justice. I work on
Speaker 1: the corner from the court. That's how I got boked.
Speaker 1: So since a lot of your coworkers are like an
Speaker 1: employers more leftists, are they trying to do anything? Um? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I was to described I couple socially really
Speaker 1: agree U n most just sort of like regulars. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't remember lawyers, which is like what is the
Speaker 1: most radical? Okay? What are they doing anything to like
Speaker 1: fight against Trump? Um? Yeah, I mean a lot of
Speaker 1: us talk about it. So most of them are like
Speaker 1: vaguely polically involved. They might support candidates and do fundraisers
Speaker 1: and smith on canvas okay, um, And then there's a
Speaker 1: lot of talk are like help can't post side and
Speaker 1: there would mean side. We have a works in the
Speaker 1: people who just to take food stands and they can
Speaker 1: take that away and they're what they do on naked
Speaker 1: do you I'm just one other game day there doing
Speaker 1: five yea And what does that do though? It just
Speaker 1: means that you're getting small just taking a company and yeah,
Speaker 1: but like that means to be what they're doing, beings
Speaker 1: that people are going to be able to stay on
Speaker 1: food stance, which is an interesting which is really import
Speaker 1: In April, Raybar lit a protest on the home of
Speaker 1: a d C lobbyist. Is a lobbyist. Her course is
Speaker 1: everybody ready let go? How they found Wiley's address was
Speaker 1: potentially felonious, So we we looked it up and we
Speaker 1: got it did part across from him, and it turns
Speaker 1: out the base all that housing moved in the last months,
Speaker 1: so we sounds the secondary address. Their license plate was
Speaker 1: outside and it had a popper figure for a school.
Speaker 1: Either came up too. I know that's very grey, but
Speaker 1: it was very the school information um so, and so
Speaker 1: we ran a license plate as a car resaan Jeremy
Speaker 1: Wildy so have his car parts had a house that
Speaker 1: he does own as a very recently and someone saw
Speaker 1: through the way back calling out, as we're able to
Speaker 1: run a license place through like you, we have do
Speaker 1: it a visually. How do you find these people's addresses
Speaker 1: because it's his personal home. So Living is researching, okay,
Speaker 1: So she's very good at researching partment companies and the
Speaker 1: Okays like, how did you even find just like it's
Speaker 1: just all that we used public information on research. Yeah, anything,
Speaker 1: And it was fine when I'm like I at this
Speaker 1: click was telling me that she uses less Denis. But
Speaker 1: that's like a plaid program. She she has used it,
Speaker 1: she robs, not like d S got a less Okay.
Speaker 1: I was thinking that, I mean, pretty expensive if if
Speaker 1: we get it for d s A. But I think
Speaker 1: it's great that she's able to have that resource at
Speaker 1: work and use it for d S A. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: you know that's the kind of thing that you would
Speaker 1: get fired for it before walk she the things that
Speaker 1: people know about about her and her activities outside of
Speaker 1: this organization, like people do not have the silver buet
Speaker 1: or like this boks about or whatever um and if
Speaker 1: they were able to get to do that, you know. So,
Speaker 1: I mean we're all walking that line, all right. Joining
Speaker 1: us now is James oak Eve and he is the
Speaker 1: CEO and head of Project Veritas. Alright, day two. Now,
Speaker 1: just like yesterday when you heard from the Department of Stay,
Speaker 1: you've now heard from the Department of Justice today. What
Speaker 1: they say, Well, we had people inside the d O.
Speaker 1: J Allison Raybar works for the Antitrust Division, and she's
Speaker 1: basically reportedly using these government resources to resist Trump. She says,
Speaker 1: as you said, there's a lot of pushback from the inside,
Speaker 1: but we try to resist this policies. And there are
Speaker 1: colleagues who are quote slowing what they do, slowing Trump down.
Speaker 1: And she even there's even an admission in here that
Speaker 1: they're targeting political opponents, running license plates unofficially and using
Speaker 1: Lexis nexis, which is on her work computer. Is what
Speaker 1: these ds A Democratic Socials people say that the d
Speaker 1: o J person uses the work computer of the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice and Lexus Nexus to target political opponents. And
Speaker 1: in the in the video, there's a submission that's the
Speaker 1: kind of thing that you would get fired for if
Speaker 1: people were able to get proof of it. Is what
Speaker 1: they say in this video. That's a pretty pretty massive
Speaker 1: deal that that they're using government resources to target people.
Speaker 1: And and what what this Department of Justice woman says,
Speaker 1: And she says, I can't get fired. She says, it's
Speaker 1: you can't get fired of the Department Justice. So we
Speaker 1: sean we have gotten a statement from the DJ an
Speaker 1: hour ago. I actually called them myself and got a statement,
Speaker 1: and they're taking it very seriously. They referred the matter
Speaker 1: at the Inspector General. Well, I mean, that's going to
Speaker 1: be interesting and let's see what happens there. Um, why
Speaker 1: do you see this as dangerous? And how widespread is it?
Speaker 1: I know you have how many days are you going
Speaker 1: to be releasing new information? Can I ask that, yes,
Speaker 1: of course you can. And I always try to give
Speaker 1: you exclusive on on on these things, and so we're
Speaker 1: releasing another one tomorrow. I think that the conduct and
Speaker 1: the behavior and the statements made in tomorrow's video are
Speaker 1: the most inflammatory, and it involves another another agency. And
Speaker 1: why does this matter, Shawn? It's what I said yesterday
Speaker 1: on your program. I think that they're a thwarting a
Speaker 1: duly elected administration and they're taking taking it amongst themselves
Speaker 1: to to to there's no equal justice under the law.
Speaker 1: They're choosing who they should go after, and they're a
Speaker 1: thwarting a duly elected administration. They work in the executive branch,
Speaker 1: so they work for the people. It's the will of
Speaker 1: the people, and I think, you know, it may not
Speaker 1: surprise the people listening to the show, but it's visually
Speaker 1: confirming what we all suspected to be the case. And
Speaker 1: that's very very important in this day and age, with
Speaker 1: all these documents coming out, we have to see the
Speaker 1: faces of the people and the agencies and and here
Speaker 1: it is, and and it's serious. We've gotten a comment
Speaker 1: from the State Department and the Department of Justice have
Speaker 1: both issued statements saying they're looking into it. Um, these
Speaker 1: people all probably ought to be fired. I think you're right.
Speaker 1: I mean, not only that they're they're using taxpayer dollars
Speaker 1: and all of this. All right, boyd James O'Keefe, he
Speaker 1: is the head of Project Veritas dot com. Um, you
Speaker 1: have the former chief of staff for the Centers of
Speaker 1: Medicaid Medicaid Services admitting that a little resistance in the
Speaker 1: federal government and friends leaked things to her and saying
Speaker 1: she sends out leaked information to combat new policy. Let's
Speaker 1: play that inside. Do you have any friends that are
Speaker 1: worker They like to screw him over, but they give
Speaker 1: me Like your friends mailed you the policy that was
Speaker 1: about to come into effect. Policy was it was the
Speaker 1: policy that allows the work requirement. She mailed it to
Speaker 1: you in the physical like snail mail, like the post office,
Speaker 1: and then you got it. That's like awesome, Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: like kind of like Nixon, a deep type of thing
Speaker 1: is like, is there this is just your friend or
Speaker 1: is it like a bunch of people people, So they
Speaker 1: were leaking information to you to help be able to
Speaker 1: help on the outside, help on the outside. And then
Speaker 1: let me add one more. You know, she works for
Speaker 1: the state Department, and uh this this individual members work
Speaker 1: for the deal where members work for the d o J.
Speaker 1: We're all over. Let's play that one too, people. So
Speaker 1: what we have here, James is a it seems like
Speaker 1: an orchestrated effort on all of these things. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: is orchestrated, Sun because they're all part of this group
Speaker 1: called Democratic Socialists of America. This is the group that
Speaker 1: Cortez is part of. So how we got to these
Speaker 1: federal deep state people as we just simply got into
Speaker 1: this ds A group and we found many federal workers
Speaker 1: who are part of DA say, who are quite quite arrogant,
Speaker 1: demonstrating a lot of hubrious I mean, they were just
Speaker 1: completely open about it. But it was not easy. They're
Speaker 1: they're kinda say, my supervisor doesn't know. On one hand,
Speaker 1: we can't get fired. On the other hand, you hear
Speaker 1: a lot of other statements where hey, listen, I do
Speaker 1: this Alison Raybar at the Department of Justice. If she
Speaker 1: uses the government computer, the d o J can find
Speaker 1: that out in fifteen minutes. Someone right now can just
Speaker 1: look at her Lexus nexus and see what she's doing.
Speaker 1: So there's this theme, Sean, where there's no accountability. No
Speaker 1: one actually does anything, no one drops the hammer or
Speaker 1: or or fires them. And there's a greater issue here, Sean,
Speaker 1: which is that nothing can happen to these people. And
Speaker 1: they that about Allison her Bar said that you know
Speaker 1: what's kind of lucky is that the d o J.
Speaker 1: We can't get fired. We can't get fired at the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. And I've been told by sources that
Speaker 1: this is exactly the type of thing that Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: would do something about because it's in his own universe there.
Speaker 1: But I don't have the power to fire these people.
Speaker 1: I just have the power to expose them in a
Speaker 1: way that's inflammatory and that outrageous people. So it is
Speaker 1: going to be very interesting because sources have also told
Speaker 1: me the statement I got from the Department Justice today
Speaker 1: that that this is very concerning and we're referring to
Speaker 1: Inspector General goes farther than what most people get the
Speaker 1: d o J to do. So very interesting development here.
Speaker 1: It's gonna get worse for everybody to um, can you
Speaker 1: tell us what department comes out tomorrow? It's a government
Speaker 1: oversight agency and and speaking of the inspector generals off,
Speaker 1: does it? Does it? Does the series end tomorrow? No? No,
Speaker 1: it doesn't. Does does the series end this week? No? No? Does?
Speaker 1: Does the series end in two weeks? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: the news cycle is so quick these days. I have
Speaker 1: to play it day by day, Seawan, But I'm trying
Speaker 1: to break through a media firewall as as you do
Speaker 1: a very good job of every day, and that's not
Speaker 1: an easy being to pull off. And I have to
Speaker 1: get reactions from the government agencies. I have to, you know,
Speaker 1: release this a little bit of time. We're making serious
Speaker 1: progress tomorrow's videos. Inflammatory I'm really excited to release it.
Speaker 1: I'm sad that it's so bad, but I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: it will really galvanize reform here. All right, Thanks so much,
Speaker 1: James O'Keefe, great work project. Veritas dot Com will show
Speaker 1: this footage tonight on Hannity nine Eastern on the Fox
Speaker 1: News Channel. You've got a deep state. Within a deep state,
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem to ever end. In order to get
Speaker 1: a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by
Speaker 1: a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the
Speaker 1: information in the affidavit is true and correct to the
Speaker 1: best of his knowledge and belief. UH. And that's the
Speaker 1: way we operate. And if it's wrong sometimes it is.
Speaker 1: If you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that
Speaker 1: person is going to face consequences. All right. That was
Speaker 1: Rob rosen Stein back in May saying that if there's
Speaker 1: something wrong in a FISA warrant, there's gonna be consequences
Speaker 1: for it. We have every reason to believe that almost
Speaker 1: everything in the FISA application and for of them on
Speaker 1: carter page to get inside the Trump campaign UH were
Speaker 1: based on false Hillary Clinton bought and paid for UH
Speaker 1: foreign agent put together Russian lines. But now we're awaiting
Speaker 1: the release of these important documents, which should you know,
Speaker 1: now rock the deep state at its core. And it's
Speaker 1: interesting to watch the people that we know are going
Speaker 1: to be impacted by all of this. You know, you've
Speaker 1: got Shifty Shift, the Mr TV himself, he's he's out
Speaker 1: there screaming that that this will put our country at risk.
Speaker 1: And this is uh evidently of no consequence to the president.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's consequence to the president. What are they
Speaker 1: afraid of? Why is he so scared? Why is former
Speaker 1: CIA director Brennan, you know, feeling the heat so much
Speaker 1: that he's calling upon government bureaucrats to actually defy the
Speaker 1: president's orders, which he has full complete authority to do.
Speaker 1: Now it's getting even more interesting as you've got Andrew McCabe.
Speaker 1: We he has a grand jury convened in d C
Speaker 1: looking into his lying and his leaking and probably issues
Speaker 1: involving this, certainly the questions that were revealed in the
Speaker 1: latest page Struck memos. So we gotta get this to
Speaker 1: Andy fast, so you know, while he's acting director after
Speaker 1: the firing of COMI, and we can use these things
Speaker 1: as a pretext and then they could talk about, you know,
Speaker 1: chargeable offenses. Anyway, he's writing a book now, the Threat,
Speaker 1: How the FBI protects America on the Age of Terror
Speaker 1: and Trump. Wow, pretty amazing, And that's coming out now.
Speaker 1: We have more news that just broke. You have Schumer
Speaker 1: and Pelosi and others Congressional Democrats demanding the FBI, the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, the Director of National Intelligence refused to
Speaker 1: comply with the President's order, which is to declassify explosive
Speaker 1: Russia Gate documents unless they get to review it first. Really, well,
Speaker 1: this has been now subpoena it in some cases for
Speaker 1: over a year, and they're demanding that under no circumstances
Speaker 1: should President Trump be given access to the secret Russia
Speaker 1: Gate material. Well, guess what, he has the authority to
Speaker 1: do it. I believe it's under article too, Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: Fox News investigative reporter, contributor, and he has the number
Speaker 1: one best selling book, Uh, The Russian Hoax. Uh. Greg
Speaker 1: Jared is with us Fox News Legal Analysts. Thank you both.
Speaker 1: Let's start from a legal standpoint, Greg, if I may,
Speaker 1: and start with a simple question. They're demanding that the
Speaker 1: FBI d o J not comply with the president's order.
Speaker 1: I think there are numerous areas where constitutionally the president
Speaker 1: has the authority to do so. One is he has
Speaker 1: the power to declassify a and he has the power
Speaker 1: to release it. B And uh, hasn't this been done
Speaker 1: in the past by Democrats hands and the legal authority
Speaker 1: for the president to make these decisions and order executive
Speaker 1: branch officials to comply with his order. Derives from Article on,
Speaker 1: Section one of the Constitution. It says the executive power
Speaker 1: shall be vested in the President United States. It goes
Speaker 1: on to explain that it is his job to be
Speaker 1: in charge of the executive branch and to enforce all laws. UH.
Speaker 1: And it would be rank insubordination for anyone UH in
Speaker 1: the executive branch branch to defy his his orders, and
Speaker 1: if they do that, they should be fired immediately. And
Speaker 1: that would include Dan Coates, the Director of National Intelligence,
Speaker 1: if he decides to defy the president. It would certainly
Speaker 1: mean Rod Rosenstein, the depty Attorney General, who has much
Speaker 1: reason to continue to obstruct these documents because they likely
Speaker 1: incriminate him, and also Christopher Ray, whose interest in obstructing
Speaker 1: Congress is to uh cover up the impropriety and I
Speaker 1: think illegality on the part of FBI officials. So if
Speaker 1: they should all be fired immediately if they do not comply, Sarah,
Speaker 1: I'm hearing it even gets worse than this, that there
Speaker 1: potentially is out there, uh. If you will, two sets
Speaker 1: of record among the upper echelon of the FBI, one
Speaker 1: that was real and one that was made for appearances.
Speaker 1: Is there any truth to this? Absolutely sean. UM. I
Speaker 1: think that right now, especially with the number of sources
Speaker 1: that I've been speaking with as well as some others,
Speaker 1: that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate
Speaker 1: sets of books. And if that is the case, I
Speaker 1: mean it certainly appears that this. As Greg has already
Speaker 1: stated over and over again that there could be and
Speaker 1: there will be criminal charges pressed against people, well if
Speaker 1: the women. So, in other words, is saying one thing publicly,
Speaker 1: but the real story, the real set of books, has
Speaker 1: held privately among How many people are we talking about,
Speaker 1: and Hi, how high up in the echelon of the
Speaker 1: d O J FBI. I think there are quite a
Speaker 1: few people, especially higher ups. I will not name names
Speaker 1: until all of the evidences out there, but there were
Speaker 1: certain people above Peter Struck and above Lisa Page that
Speaker 1: we're aware of this. UM. I also believe that there
Speaker 1: are people within the FBI that have actually turned on
Speaker 1: their former employers and are possibly even testifying uh and
Speaker 1: and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the
Speaker 1: Inspector General and possibly even a grand jury. What you know, Greg,
Speaker 1: I mean that would then mean at that point that
Speaker 1: this is a coup, that this is an attempted You know, look,
Speaker 1: I think we've already we already know that that there
Speaker 1: has been enormous amounts of effort, time, influence, and abuse
Speaker 1: of power one to allow their favorite candidate get away
Speaker 1: from crimes that other Americans would never be exonerated from.
Speaker 1: Then we know that that it's all goes back to Hillary,
Speaker 1: you know, funneling money so fusion GPS through the law firm,
Speaker 1: hiring a foreign national, which is Christopher Steel, Christopher Steel,
Speaker 1: using Russian lies, putting together the dossier. And we know
Speaker 1: that the dossier contents was spread before the election for
Speaker 1: the purpose of really indoctrinating and misinforming the American people
Speaker 1: to influence them and their voting decision. If that's not
Speaker 1: bad enough, And we know it was used as the
Speaker 1: basis for four fis a warrants against Carter Page at
Speaker 1: Trump campaign associate, And all of the information presented to
Speaker 1: the court was that bony dossier and and these phony
Speaker 1: manufactured press reports from the same sources. So basically it
Speaker 1: is the dossier, and they never verified, never corroborated it
Speaker 1: and then they also had a leak media leak strategy,
Speaker 1: and Lisa Page said they didn't have any information of
Speaker 1: any collusion nine months into the investigation, so they start
Speaker 1: leaking for the purpose of what to get the special counsel,
Speaker 1: which we know Comey also did. And then it seems
Speaker 1: like now there you've got a group of people that
Speaker 1: think that they know better than the American people. And
Speaker 1: and they've got one two separate you know, groups of books.
Speaker 1: One tells the truth and the others for public consumption.
Speaker 1: That's a lie. Well, if they have two separate books,
Speaker 1: then they're obstructing not only Congress, but they're obstructing justice. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, this whole Trump Russia investigation is a case
Speaker 1: study and how personal and political bias motivated the FBI
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice to abuse their authority to
Speaker 1: target Trump to spy on his campaign. They broke the
Speaker 1: law in the process. You know, as I explained in
Speaker 1: my book the Russia Hoax, James Commy's FBI department guidelines
Speaker 1: were completely violated by him and McCabe and Struck and Paige.
Speaker 1: They never had the legal basis to launch the investigation.
Speaker 1: They had no probable cause new evidence of crimes. Uh.
Speaker 1: They invented in exaggerated facts based almost entirely on a
Speaker 1: fabricated dossier that they knew was from a British spy
Speaker 1: who was not credible, and all they had to do
Speaker 1: was read it, and they would have said this, this
Speaker 1: is garbage, but they didn't care. They used it uh
Speaker 1: to frame Donald Trump. And and that is a violation
Speaker 1: of multiple felony codes in the United States criminal Code.
Speaker 1: All of these people who were involved in framing Trump
Speaker 1: need to be brought before a grand jury by a
Speaker 1: serious and legitimate prosecutor and beheld accountable. On what are
Speaker 1: we gonna learn that? Let me ask Sarah first, and
Speaker 1: Greg we'll get your take. What are we gonna learn
Speaker 1: when the declassification takes place, the unredacted materials are released
Speaker 1: and the American people see it. Although I'm getting many
Speaker 1: sources telling me that the d o J and FBI
Speaker 1: trying to slow walk this is and roll this out
Speaker 1: as as absolutely slowly as possible, and even trying desperately
Speaker 1: to take out uh, some well damning information that is
Speaker 1: in them, I think Sean, in fact, I know what
Speaker 1: we're going to see as an extraordinary abuse of power,
Speaker 1: one that we have never seen the likes of in
Speaker 1: the history of our country, coming from officials within the
Speaker 1: FBI and the d o j UH, there will be
Speaker 1: an enormous amount of exculpatory evidence that should have been
Speaker 1: turned over to the Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Court. And as
Speaker 1: for the slow rolling, I am hearing the same. But
Speaker 1: remember this is a direct order from the President of
Speaker 1: the United States. He is asking for all of this
Speaker 1: information to be declassified. They are fighting him tooth and nail,
Speaker 1: to the point where John Brennan and others have literally
Speaker 1: come forward asking UH the of the agencies not to
Speaker 1: cooperate with the president's order that he has under his
Speaker 1: own authority. I can tell you this that the people
Speaker 1: my sources who have seen these documents in full, who
Speaker 1: have the classification to look at these documents and have
Speaker 1: never divulged to me the classified portions of those documents,
Speaker 1: said there is nothing in those requests that would violate
Speaker 1: national security. The only reason why they are throwing temper
Speaker 1: tantrums at the d j the FBI They're going to
Speaker 1: be exposed community, Yeah, they're going to be exposed. Well,
Speaker 1: what they're doing here by saying don't cooperate. Is they're
Speaker 1: really saying to create a and precipitated constitutional crisis? And
Speaker 1: as we continue with Sarah Carter and Greg Jarrett, what
Speaker 1: about the new book? We now know that a grand
Speaker 1: jury has been convened as it relates to Andrew mcab
Speaker 1: former deputy FBI director, same guy that page and struggle writing,
Speaker 1: we gotta we gotta get Andy to act now while
Speaker 1: he's in charge after Comey was fired, and we how
Speaker 1: to find chargeable offenses and we can use this as
Speaker 1: a pretext to go interview people. Well, he's gonna have
Speaker 1: a book out in December, the Threat, how the FBI
Speaker 1: protects America and the age of terror and Trump really
Speaker 1: and this guy, uh, the likelihood of him going to
Speaker 1: jail or being charged indicted pretty high, I would say,
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, all these guys want to cash in. James
Speaker 1: Cummy certainly did to the tune of millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: And you know, his book was a vain, glorious exercise
Speaker 1: in deception um, which is what he is really good at.
Speaker 1: Mccab's will be the same. I'd be shocked if McCabe
Speaker 1: isn't criminally indicted. So he's trying to make some money
Speaker 1: in advance. These are unprincipled, unscrupulous individuals who had no
Speaker 1: business serving in government, and their track record demonstrates just
Speaker 1: how corrupt they were. You know, I wrote a column
Speaker 1: yesterday on Fox news dot com and it's I believe
Speaker 1: it's on your west side, Sean, that It's entitled if
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein to bys President Trump's order to declassified documents,
Speaker 1: he should be fired. In the alternative, you know, these people,
Speaker 1: if they really feel as though, uh, the order to
Speaker 1: declassified offends them and they and they can't and shouldn't
Speaker 1: do it, even though the law dictates they must, then
Speaker 1: they should simply resign their positions. We remember during Watergate
Speaker 1: when the Attorney General refused to fire the Independent Council
Speaker 1: upon order by Nixon. Well what did he do? Rum's
Speaker 1: not Rumsfeld. I forget his name, but at any rate,
Speaker 1: he resigned, and so did the number two. And finally
Speaker 1: it went down the list until they found Richardson. Was
Speaker 1: his name, Elliott Richardson. I mean that's how the system
Speaker 1: is supposed to work. Yeah, all right, last word, Sarah, Look,
Speaker 1: by the way, by any more question of what was
Speaker 1: going on here? May redact documents despite Trump's request. By
Speaker 1: the way, that's what they keep saying. Oh, absolutely absolutely,
Speaker 1: But I mean, but we're going to see a big
Speaker 1: fight here. Nonetheless, and this isn't just about a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: I know, Donald Trump says that over and over again.
Speaker 1: Everybody says this is a witch hunt. As I said
Speaker 1: the other night on your show, Sean, there is certainly
Speaker 1: clear evidence that indicates that this was an attempted silent
Speaker 1: coup or what the CIA calls a white coup, a
Speaker 1: bloodless coup, or a soft overseas. Yeah, you know, and
Speaker 1: then the president doesn't have an attorney general that backs
Speaker 1: them up. It'll be interesting to see if they wanted
Speaker 1: defy the president and create a constitutional crisis in the country,
Speaker 1: because that's the next step, last word, Gregg. Yes, And
Speaker 1: what will happen is um these documents will be provided
Speaker 1: to Congress, supposedly declassified and unredacted. If any of them
Speaker 1: are indeed redacted, Congress will complain to the President, and
Speaker 1: the President should then fire the individuals who did not
Speaker 1: fully comply with his order to d classified. That's what
Speaker 1: should happen. And I agree with you and with Sarah
Speaker 1: that that they will try to slow roll this and
Speaker 1: delay it, hoping that the political winds may shift at
Speaker 1: by time, maybe control of Congress will change hands in
Speaker 1: the upcoming election. This is what Rosenstein has done throughout
Speaker 1: the last year. He has every reason to suppress these
Speaker 1: records because, as I said before, they will likely incriminate him.
Speaker 1: All Right, thank you all for being one of those
Speaker 1: who have a lot more on this tonight on Hannity. Well,
Speaker 1: they precipitate the deep state, a constitutional crisis and trying
Speaker 1: to fire a president and his clear constitutional authority. One
Speaker 1: Shaun is our number. We'll get to your phone calls.
Speaker 1: Coming up next. A lot more on Hannity tonight, also
Speaker 1: following the story of the accuser of Judge Kavanaugh of
Speaker 1: the latest on that coming up in much more straight ahead.
Speaker 1: Listen to this show one time and you're hannitized. Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity is back on the radio alright now till the
Speaker 1: top of the hour. One Shawn is our toll free
Speaker 1: telephone numbers. Promise we're gonna get to the calls. We're
Speaker 1: following two big stories. UH Democrats now threatening uh and
Speaker 1: asking the FBI, the d o j will don't don't
Speaker 1: follow the constitution don't don't let the president, don't give
Speaker 1: him fully declassified information, take out all the stuff that
Speaker 1: will protect the deep state, and let's create a constitutional crisis,
Speaker 1: even though clearly the Constitution, Article two, section one gives
Speaker 1: the president complete and full authority of his office to
Speaker 1: demand that these documents that he's asked for be released,
Speaker 1: unclassified and unredacted. That's how desperate they're now all becoming.
Speaker 1: Obviously a lot of people know that there's damaging information
Speaker 1: in these specific documents, and they don't want you to
Speaker 1: see it. You know, where's Spartacus, Where's Corey Booker? Now? Anyway,
Speaker 1: we're following that story, the latest on Professor Ford and
Speaker 1: the demand that the FBI look into this particular case before.
Speaker 1: She's willing to testify. That's not what she she our
Speaker 1: lawyers said before, actually have any tape of a lawyer
Speaker 1: say no, no, no, she's gonna be willing to testify publicly. Now,
Speaker 1: the senators offered to send somebody over a group of
Speaker 1: people to interview her. Now, they also said she can
Speaker 1: do it in private, but her attorney, Deborah Katz, had
Speaker 1: said that yes, she's willing to testify publicly. Will your
Speaker 1: client Christine Ford be willing to testify in public to
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee. Answers, Yes, she is willing to do it.
Speaker 1: Has she been asked by any of the lawmakers to
Speaker 1: do that? That's interesting the answers, No, she's not been asked,
Speaker 1: but she is now willing to do so. She in
Speaker 1: conversations with people, have people have the lawmakers reached out
Speaker 1: and tried to talk to her via phone? We've heard
Speaker 1: from no one. We've seen various statements made on television
Speaker 1: but UH and statements that are being bandied about for
Speaker 1: political reason, but no one's asked her. Now, Debra, let
Speaker 1: me ask you this, would your client be willing to
Speaker 1: testify under oath in front of the full Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: My client will do whatever is necessary to make sure
Speaker 1: that the Senate Judiciary Committee has the full UH story
Speaker 1: and the full UH set of allegations to allow them
Speaker 1: to make a fully informed decision. But testifying in public
Speaker 1: under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee with
Speaker 1: the American people watching, that's an enormous amount of pressure.
Speaker 1: Is she willing to go that far? She's willing to
Speaker 1: do what she needs to do. She is willing to uh,
Speaker 1: hopefully tell her story in a manner that is a
Speaker 1: fair uh proceeding. We now know she's been as numerous
Speaker 1: times by the Senate Judiciary Committee, many many times, and
Speaker 1: even after they had they had said on their own
Speaker 1: she's willing to testify under oath in public. And last
Speaker 1: night when the letter came out from the attorney who
Speaker 1: is by the way, well known for her political activism,
Speaker 1: that's the attorney cats in this particular case, Deborcats. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a woman that didn't believe Paula Jones. Interestingly, it's
Speaker 1: a woman that supported Alt Frankin interestingly. So I don't
Speaker 1: see there's a consistency in her position. But this is
Speaker 1: again thirty six years ago, and you know they've so
Speaker 1: there's political considerations here. What does this now mean for
Speaker 1: Red state Democrats like Joe Manchin and Bill Nelson and
Speaker 1: Heidi high Camp and Claire mccaskell and Joe Donnelly and others.
Speaker 1: What does it mean for their candidacies here? And it
Speaker 1: seems I'll tell you the person that I think is
Speaker 1: raised the best questions as Susan Collins. It's not fair
Speaker 1: to anybody that they had this and they withheld this
Speaker 1: information since July, and I think there are other points
Speaker 1: that are being made that really need to be paid
Speaker 1: attention to. We now know that Lindsey Graham, when he
Speaker 1: was on my show two nights ago, raised concerns about
Speaker 1: the polygraphs UH polygraph that she had taken back in
Speaker 1: August and UH at experts, by the way contacted by Fox.
Speaker 1: I've known this myself many times over the years that
Speaker 1: while the polygraph can be useful, they're ultimately a fallible
Speaker 1: tool out of courts don't even allow them to be admissible.
Speaker 1: And of course, as well intentioned individuals come to believe,
Speaker 1: you know, there's stories of false they then have instances
Speaker 1: where they can take polygraph test. People can beat it.
Speaker 1: It's just a fact. Anyway. They did provide it to
Speaker 1: the Washington Post as they released their article. She took
Speaker 1: the polygraph, she says on the advice of her attorney.
Speaker 1: Cats didn't respond to numerous requests for Fox News concerning
Speaker 1: the polygraph. You know, one good question that Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: raised is you know that can cost anywhere from five
Speaker 1: hundred dollars to a thousand dollars. Remember ms Ford Professor
Speaker 1: Ford said she didn't want to come forward, never intended
Speaker 1: to come forward. Well, then why was she paying for
Speaker 1: a polygraph back in August? Why did she hire a
Speaker 1: lawyer back in August? Who paid for that lawyer? Is
Speaker 1: anybody paying for that lawyer? Who arranged for her to
Speaker 1: get somebody's very politically connected in her council? Cats Um
Speaker 1: and then Democratic politicians now several people, you know, holding
Speaker 1: onto that. But you know, if you just look at
Speaker 1: what this whole thing has been from the get go,
Speaker 1: they tried to turn this whole thing into a circus.
Speaker 1: And then you've got Diane Feinstein demanding a long drawn
Speaker 1: out investigation, and they're now saying that the FBI has
Speaker 1: to look into this and needs to look into it
Speaker 1: sooner rather than than later. But it's kind of backfiring.
Speaker 1: Washington Post points out Center Democrats are beginning to realize
Speaker 1: that Professor Ford's refusal to testify about this thirty six
Speaker 1: year old case will likely, you know, hurt their party
Speaker 1: as their best hope to block Brett Kavanaugh has as
Speaker 1: sent to the Supreme Court. We've interviewed people that have
Speaker 1: known him in high school, people that he's dated, We've
Speaker 1: interviewed people that have known him since that point in
Speaker 1: his life, and then in college, and then in law school,
Speaker 1: and then when he worked for the Bush administration, and
Speaker 1: then when he served as a judge, and Clarks that
Speaker 1: worked for him. All women all say the same thing
Speaker 1: as a total gentleman. So Diane Einstein actually had a
Speaker 1: moment of clarity in truth yesterday, and then as soon
Speaker 1: as she said it, she got just pounded by the
Speaker 1: base of her party. I think it's really too bad
Speaker 1: that no one called her or called her lawyer. My
Speaker 1: understanding is she got emails, and this is a woman,
Speaker 1: and I really believe who's been profoundly impacted by this. Now.
Speaker 1: I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know, but I
Speaker 1: do know that um he had to contact her lawyers.
Speaker 1: I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know. By the way,
Speaker 1: an honest, real comment. The minute after she made it,
Speaker 1: she was getting pounded by the base of a party.
Speaker 1: Then she tried to go out and clarify that remark,
Speaker 1: which says a lot about the base of the party.
Speaker 1: I went through a whole monologue on TV last night
Speaker 1: earlier today talking about we the presumption of innocence is
Speaker 1: key to a fair legal system in this country. Everyone said, well,
Speaker 1: the FBI needs to investigate. Well, the FBI rightly pointed
Speaker 1: out the allegation does not involve any potential federal crime.
Speaker 1: This would not be their jurisdiction in terms of any
Speaker 1: crime whatsoever. The statute of limitations have long since past
Speaker 1: decades ago. And it was funny to watch Hillary last night.
Speaker 1: There's an interview on fake news Conspiracy TV, Hate Trump TV, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: And you know, she claims that that this woman, Professor Ford,
Speaker 1: deserves the benefit of the doubt. Okay, well what about
Speaker 1: you know, her husband, Waneda Broderick has weighed in calls
Speaker 1: Dick Durban or fraud for pushing this particular assault allegation
Speaker 1: and also saying, uh, where's my FBI investigation? And I
Speaker 1: interviewed one it to Broderick and she was compelling and
Speaker 1: believable to me about an assault of rape of Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton took the time to interview or I take the
Speaker 1: time to interview Professor Ford if she would want to
Speaker 1: sit down for an interview and her attorney, So we
Speaker 1: don't know if this woman now is going to testify.
Speaker 1: All we know this is a last minute thing. Now
Speaker 1: the Senate Judiciary Committee has done a lot to try
Speaker 1: to accommodate Professor Ford, even though she said she would
Speaker 1: testify publicly under oath, and a lawyer said that many times. Well,
Speaker 1: they said, well, you can do it privately if you
Speaker 1: like to, if it makes you more if it would
Speaker 1: be more comfortable for you. Then the Senate Judiciary went
Speaker 1: an extra mile again today and said, well, we'll send
Speaker 1: a group of people to go see you, so this
Speaker 1: way you don't have to we could do it privately.
Speaker 1: We still don't have any answers on any of that. Uh.
Speaker 1: I see that a lot of Democrats are getting angry
Speaker 1: at Diane Feinstein quote Washington Post. As she plots the
Speaker 1: next steps, Feinstein is dealing with questions about her decision
Speaker 1: of eight weeks before sharing Ford's letter, only issuing a
Speaker 1: cryptic cryptic statement last Thursday, and words surfaced of its
Speaker 1: existence that came almost a week after Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing
Speaker 1: is wrapped up. She met with Kavanaugh privately, She didn't
Speaker 1: bring it up, but she knew about it. She she
Speaker 1: also got to, like every other Democratic colleague in that
Speaker 1: circus that we witnessed, she had an opportunity to ask
Speaker 1: him publicly. She didn't do it. I will tell you
Speaker 1: I'm glad we're gonna have a hearing to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of it. It'd be nice to have it
Speaker 1: done before, said John Tester, fellow Democrat. But you know
Speaker 1: I wasn't in her shoes. And you have the comment
Speaker 1: by Mazie Herono. Men need to shut up. Kavanaugh accuser
Speaker 1: needs to be believed. I believe her at all. Of course,
Speaker 1: it helps that there are women on that committee. But
Speaker 1: you know what, I expect the men in this country
Speaker 1: and the men in this committee, and many of them
Speaker 1: believe me because we all signed on to this letter
Speaker 1: to demand an FBI investigation. But really, guess who's perpetuating
Speaker 1: all of these kinds of actions. It's the men in
Speaker 1: this country. And I just want to say to the
Speaker 1: men of this country, just shut up and step up,
Speaker 1: do the right thing for a change that where we
Speaker 1: don't have the presumption of indicines anymore. At all. I
Speaker 1: think I've been fair. I think she should. It's a
Speaker 1: serious charge. Allow her to speak, Allow Breck Havanaugh to speak,
Speaker 1: Allow people that were either at the party, people that
Speaker 1: knew him at that time of his life, and all
Speaker 1: throughout the rest of his life, and then you're gonna
Speaker 1: get a picture painted of who Breck Cavanaugh is and
Speaker 1: then you make a a a decision based on the
Speaker 1: entirety of of what you learn about this individual. Let's
Speaker 1: get to our busines telephones here. Let's say, how to
Speaker 1: Charles is in Florida, Charles High, How are you welcome
Speaker 1: to the program? How Sean? What a great show? And
Speaker 1: let me say this, do you keep talking about your
Speaker 1: feel back the onion? You exploded the onion, my friend
Speaker 1: exploded it. We got there, We're getting there. I'm telling you.
Speaker 1: It's we're so close now. That's why it's listen. They're
Speaker 1: gonna push a constitutional crisis here and you and you
Speaker 1: said a word a minute ago, you said it's a coup.
Speaker 1: It absolutely is a coup. It's an overthrown to government.
Speaker 1: That's really what's going on. It's worse than we think
Speaker 1: it is. And this deep state thing is deeper than
Speaker 1: we think it is. I'm sure if we got to
Speaker 1: the bottom of the deep state, there'd be nobody in
Speaker 1: the d O j FBI. I know a report that
Speaker 1: is being worked on right now, and we may have
Speaker 1: it by nine o'clock tonight. That'll blow a lot of
Speaker 1: this out of water, that they purposely deceived that this
Speaker 1: was an attempt at a soft coup against Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and to undermine a duly elected president after they try
Speaker 1: to prevent him from ever getting elected by perpetua rating
Speaker 1: what was nothing but propaganda and lies against the American
Speaker 1: people and afies a court. It's bad, it is we
Speaker 1: don't get this right. We're gonna lose the country. This
Speaker 1: this is, this puts a It takes the rips the
Speaker 1: foundation out of our constitutional republican principles we hold dear
Speaker 1: in the case of Kavanaugh, presumption of innocence. In the
Speaker 1: case of the deep state, well, that would mean, you know,
Speaker 1: equal justice under the law, equal application of American laws
Speaker 1: protect one class of people, and we use the power
Speaker 1: of the state, the intel community to destroy others. Uh.
Speaker 1: Let's go to Michael. Oh. Now, my my favorite restaurant
Speaker 1: and Winston Salem is called Putters. It has the best
Speaker 1: food you've ever had in your life. And I've had
Speaker 1: the pleasure of eating there a number of times. I
Speaker 1: know the owner of Putters, Michael. He's checking in with
Speaker 1: us today. How are you, my friend, how's my favorite restaurant?
Speaker 1: I miss you, Sean. We're doing great. We miss you well.
Speaker 1: I had to see you soon. I'm gonna be down
Speaker 1: there soon. And uh, I hope to see you and
Speaker 1: I you know, so one day I wanted to order
Speaker 1: food and they had closed, and you actually opened the
Speaker 1: restaurant up for me. I hope I gave a good tip.
Speaker 1: Of course you did. You always do, buddy, I got
Speaker 1: your biggest Now, this is your son. I know George, right,
Speaker 1: it's his birthday today, right, it is Hey George, Hey buddy,
Speaker 1: how are you? Happy birthday? My friend? Say hi to
Speaker 1: about seventeen million people, say hi everybody. Now, George is
Speaker 1: like me, and I do mixed martial arts and I
Speaker 1: trained five days a week for about an hour and
Speaker 1: a half every day, and I'm really a bit working
Speaker 1: hard at it. You do martial arts too, right, And
Speaker 1: how long have you been doing taekwondo? Year? Now, you're
Speaker 1: never gonna quit, right, You're gonna become a professional. You're
Speaker 1: gonna get to be a black belt, right, all right?
Speaker 1: Do you like it? Do you like taekwondo? Well, the
Speaker 1: next time I'm down at Putters and Winston Salem, Well,
Speaker 1: I am going to Uh, I'm gonna show you a
Speaker 1: few of the moves that I've learned, okay, and you
Speaker 1: can show me the ones you've learned. All right, So
Speaker 1: you keep working hard. I'm a brown belt now, and uh,
Speaker 1: i'll probably be a black belt in a year, so
Speaker 1: I'm working really hard to get my black belt, alright,
Speaker 1: my friend it alright, guys, thank you. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you you've never had better food in your life. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's all my favorites on one menu. It's unbelievable.