Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Shawan Hannity Radio show podcast. All right, so I
Speaker 1: have insomnia, but I've never slept better. And what's changed
Speaker 1: just a pillow. It's had such a positive impact on
Speaker 1: my life. And of course I'm talking about my pillow.
Speaker 1: I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now
Speaker 1: you can to just go to my pillow dot com
Speaker 1: or call eight hundred zero nine zero use the promo
Speaker 1: code Hannity, and Mike Lindell, the inventor of My Pillow,
Speaker 1: has the special four pack. Now you get off to
Speaker 1: my Pillow premiums and to go Anywhere pillows. My pillows
Speaker 1: made here in the USA has a sixty day unconditional
Speaker 1: money back guarantee and a ten you warranty. Go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com right now or call eight zero
Speaker 1: nine zero promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special
Speaker 1: four pack offer. You get to my Pillow Premium pillows
Speaker 1: and to Go Anywhere pillows for forty percent off. And
Speaker 1: that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the
Speaker 1: kind of peace full and RESTful and comfortable and deep
Speaker 1: peeling and recuperative sleep. The you've been craving and you
Speaker 1: certainly deserve my pillow dot com promo code, Hannity, you
Speaker 1: will love this pillow. All right, Glad you're with us.
Speaker 1: Hope you had a great Labor Day weekend. Right down
Speaker 1: our toll free telephone number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of this extravaganza because we've got way too many
Speaker 1: topics to get to and way too little time. The
Speaker 1: revelation when I was away, James Comey before he ever
Speaker 1: interviewed the key witnesses, and Hillary Clinton's email case, and
Speaker 1: Hillary yourself had already started writing her exoneration. Wow, this
Speaker 1: is this is beyond unethical and irresponsible, and it is
Speaker 1: frankly now a a a classic case where now the
Speaker 1: Attorney General needs to reopen this case so that we
Speaker 1: don't have a dual system of justice. That's what I
Speaker 1: keep saying. You can't have a system of justice where
Speaker 1: you don't have equal justice under the law and one
Speaker 1: system for the Clintons and one system for the rest
Speaker 1: of us. You can't have it. We'll get to that today. Um,
Speaker 1: You've got We're gonna get into Dhaka in great detail
Speaker 1: here in a minute. Because the media is so wrong
Speaker 1: on their coverage of this. Like everything else we've got
Speaker 1: now North Korea moving possible intercontinental ballistic missiles, more saber rattling,
Speaker 1: and of course the latest that we had I forget
Speaker 1: the day now, but it's almost like once every three
Speaker 1: or four days where latest events are now showing that
Speaker 1: they have no problem firing their missiles over Japanese islands. Um,
Speaker 1: we have now shown them that we have the capacity
Speaker 1: to shoot these things down, and there really is only
Speaker 1: gonna be one option, and that is we've got to
Speaker 1: start start taking out their missiles, either on the launchpad
Speaker 1: or as soon as they go up in the air,
Speaker 1: because there's no telling unless you have inspections whether or
Speaker 1: not they have the capacity to launch a nuclear weapon
Speaker 1: against another country. And this now becomes a clear and
Speaker 1: present danger. And this is the worst case scenario that
Speaker 1: all of us warned about while Bill Clinton was out
Speaker 1: there trying to bribe them into being good people, and
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. Just like Obama has been bribing the
Speaker 1: Iranians into trying to be good people. You cannot deal
Speaker 1: with evil by bribing them and then saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: give us the money, we'll stop our nuclear program. Well
Speaker 1: they never stopped. They got everything they wanted, and they
Speaker 1: got the money to help from US to help build
Speaker 1: this thing. It's really ridiculous. Um, So we'll get to
Speaker 1: all of that today. Republicans now back in session, and
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna be very blunt this month September, next
Speaker 1: month October and November, and two weeks into December, suming
Speaker 1: they don't want to stay late, although they probably should.
Speaker 1: I can tell you right now they're gonna We're gonna
Speaker 1: see a lot of last minute happenings as usual. Um,
Speaker 1: they better get their act together here. There are agenda
Speaker 1: items are simple, and I'll start with us today before
Speaker 1: I get to Dhaka. Is Republicans better think about the
Speaker 1: men and women that put them there. They better start
Speaker 1: focusing in on the fact that their approval rating is
Speaker 1: in the sewer. Mitch McConnell's now down eight percent. We've
Speaker 1: had Congress in general down in the teens and the president's,
Speaker 1: you know, with his handling of Hurricane Harvey, where the
Speaker 1: media is. Their only criticism was Milania's shoes, which he
Speaker 1: didn't wear to Texas. He just boarded Air Air Marine
Speaker 1: one to take that helicopter to air Force one. And
Speaker 1: that's how you know that Trump scored a victory, because
Speaker 1: that's all they really could criticize. So if Republicans can
Speaker 1: do the following, I think they might be able to
Speaker 1: salvage this last year. And by the way, I'm talking
Speaker 1: about salvaging a C plus or maybe maxim I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about an A here. That opportunity has
Speaker 1: slipped through their fingers. But if they want to keep
Speaker 1: their jobs and they want to instill confidence, and they
Speaker 1: want to show the American people that their word means something,
Speaker 1: then the following things need to be done before Christmas
Speaker 1: of this year. And this is their day back, and
Speaker 1: they don't have a lot of scheduled work days, believe
Speaker 1: it or not, between now and Christmas. I've got to
Speaker 1: believe that that's gonna change, because they love their vacations,
Speaker 1: as we all know. But if they can think about
Speaker 1: the forgotten men and women, those in poverty on food stamps,
Speaker 1: out of the labor force, that have been a victim
Speaker 1: of the worst recovery in forty years and the lowest
Speaker 1: home ownership rate in fifty one years, that's who they
Speaker 1: ought to be thinking. About. So if they offer the
Speaker 1: middle class tax cuts, that will be a great first step.
Speaker 1: Because middle class Americans that work hard, played by the rules,
Speaker 1: pay their taxes, obey the laws, are literally suffocating under
Speaker 1: burdensome taxation and regulation of their government, both state, local,
Speaker 1: and the federal government. Now the president is undoing a
Speaker 1: lot of the Obama error regulations on his own, which
Speaker 1: is extraordinarily helpful. If they can give a corporate tax rate. Now, Hannity,
Speaker 1: why don't we give a corporate tax that rate corpse? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, it's a myth that corporations really pay taxes.
Speaker 1: You know that corporations don't really pay. Corporations just increase
Speaker 1: the price of whatever good or service they're providing and
Speaker 1: pass the tax increases onto you. So, in essence, you
Speaker 1: pay for the corporate taxes. But when the regulatory environment
Speaker 1: and the tax environment, and we're like one of the
Speaker 1: highest tax countries in the industrialized world, when you lower
Speaker 1: those taxes, you're you're incentivizing corporations to build and invest
Speaker 1: in this country. Now, why is that a good thing?
Speaker 1: Because if corporations now are incentivized to bring their money
Speaker 1: here and build their factories here and their manufacturing centers here. Well,
Speaker 1: that means people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Missouri, Missouri,
Speaker 1: and Florida. And by the way, we're watching IRMA closely.
Speaker 1: All of these, all of that investment results in opportunity
Speaker 1: for the forgotten men and women in poverty, on food
Speaker 1: stamps and out of work to get jobs. And the
Speaker 1: same argument goes for allowing multinational corporations. You know it's estimates.
Speaker 1: The estimates are trillions and trillions of dollars. They are
Speaker 1: parked overseas and tax haven countries and being tax and
Speaker 1: being tax rate. Why should they bring that money to
Speaker 1: America when the federal government's gonna take We're saying, bring
Speaker 1: it back at a low rate, maybe seven ten, bring
Speaker 1: it back to America. Park your there's no safer place
Speaker 1: to invest in America. That too, would incentivize because corporations
Speaker 1: are in business to make money. They're not looking for
Speaker 1: a two percent return on their money. They want to
Speaker 1: invest in factories and manufacturing centers, and they want to
Speaker 1: produce their goods and services. But they don't want to
Speaker 1: get robbed. And if you have excessive regulations and excessive taxation,
Speaker 1: it does, it kills the prospects of them being willing
Speaker 1: to do that. So that's got to get done, all right.
Speaker 1: Then I would go from you can simplify the code
Speaker 1: from seven brackets to three. You can get rid of
Speaker 1: double taxation, which is the death tax. You paid taxes
Speaker 1: your whole life on on the money you earn, only
Speaker 1: to have the government come in when you die and
Speaker 1: take another And if you live in New York State,
Speaker 1: another ten percent in the state. So your money that's
Speaker 1: been taxed all your life ends up being taxed again.
Speaker 1: And it's not the government's money. They don't have a
Speaker 1: right to confiscate it, and that's what they're doing. So
Speaker 1: the next thing I would move is Congress has got
Speaker 1: to do their part to incentivize, assist and help those
Speaker 1: companies in the energy sector that we can become energy independent. Now,
Speaker 1: if we do this one thing, number one, it helps
Speaker 1: our national security. How does it helps our national security
Speaker 1: because we're not dependent on foreign countries that hate us
Speaker 1: for the lifeblood of America's economy. Now, the great thing
Speaker 1: about the energy sector, and I don't care if it's
Speaker 1: fracking natural gas, I don't care if it's drilling. I
Speaker 1: don't care what it is. But we've got more natural gas,
Speaker 1: we've got more oil, we've got more energy resources clean
Speaker 1: burning coal than we'd ever need in hundreds of years.
Speaker 1: Now we can simultaneously be looking for new sources of energy.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with that. But in the meantime, let's not
Speaker 1: import the energy from other countries, and in the process
Speaker 1: we're not dependent on them. And we could even be
Speaker 1: selling to our allies and friends in Western Europe the
Speaker 1: energy that they need and maybe even be helping China out,
Speaker 1: and maybe that betters our relationship with China. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Putin is not going to be too happy
Speaker 1: with it, because Putin makes the whole Russian economies depending
Speaker 1: on energy, and if he ever gets mad and turns
Speaker 1: the spick it off, God help Western Europe. So it's
Speaker 1: great for national security. And the better part is in
Speaker 1: the energy sector, you're talking about high paying career jobs
Speaker 1: for Americans that desperately need them, and they'll be training
Speaker 1: associated with it, and and you're talking about and we
Speaker 1: did this when we did our our whole partnering with
Speaker 1: all these energy companies, we were getting people paid a
Speaker 1: hundred grand a year and just starting people that were
Speaker 1: making nothing, they had no job, or people that were
Speaker 1: making twenty five dollars a year, saw there their wages triple.
Speaker 1: You know, guys with Paul's pack. I just bought a
Speaker 1: new truck. I just I finally put a down payment
Speaker 1: on my house. I changed my life. And we could
Speaker 1: have that at an institutionalize that in a way that
Speaker 1: it's going to be amazing for every man, woman in child.
Speaker 1: So they gotta get that done. The other thing is,
Speaker 1: and we'll get to DACA throughout this hour, but you've
Speaker 1: got to build the wall. Why because Republicans have promised
Speaker 1: it over the years. Number Two, it's good for national security,
Speaker 1: and building the wall will create jobs. Just as a
Speaker 1: side note, they're not permanent career jobs. But certainly it's
Speaker 1: gonna take a lot of time and a lot of
Speaker 1: resources are going to be spent in building the wall. Now,
Speaker 1: the big question we're dealing with on DHAKA is really simple.
Speaker 1: Because then President Obama, and I'll play it later in
Speaker 1: the program, he repeatedly said he never had the authority.
Speaker 1: Two not enforced the law. He never by twenty five
Speaker 1: times he said it. We've got a nearly three minute
Speaker 1: montage of him saying he doesn't have the authority to
Speaker 1: do it. It was in the beginning, by his own admission, unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Every Republican Paul Ryan told me in multiple interviews, it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: The president doesn't have the authority to do well. Now,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is taking the first step towards restoring constitutionality
Speaker 1: in the rule of law and not usurping the legislative branch. Now,
Speaker 1: if the legislature, if Congress, if they want to pass
Speaker 1: some type of DOCCA bill, they can do that. They're
Speaker 1: free to do it. But as of today, it's not
Speaker 1: the law of the land. Now. The President, to his credit,
Speaker 1: gave Congress a six month window where they can do
Speaker 1: their job. Whether or not they do it or not
Speaker 1: is going to be at the end of things up
Speaker 1: to them, you know. But you know the idea that
Speaker 1: you know, President Obama, by his own admission as a lawyer,
Speaker 1: said he didn't have the authority to do it and
Speaker 1: did it anyway and then use some contorted prosecutorial discretion
Speaker 1: argument on his behalf when all he was really doing
Speaker 1: was coming up with a justification to breach his own
Speaker 1: sworn duty and said he was forced to act because
Speaker 1: Congress failed to act that. That's not how coequal branches
Speaker 1: a government work. You know, that's not what the rule
Speaker 1: of law says, that's not what the Constitution infers on
Speaker 1: these different branches of government. But the way laws are
Speaker 1: written in this country, you don't get to overturn the
Speaker 1: laws you don't like in the laws you don't respect,
Speaker 1: the laws that you don't think should be on the books.
Speaker 1: And because he couldn't get it done legislatively, just decided
Speaker 1: to use executive fiat his own words in doing something
Speaker 1: that he knew he didn't have the authority to do.
Speaker 1: And I'll explain this is a more detail with some
Speaker 1: appropriate and accompanying audio when we get back. Shawn, It's
Speaker 1: great to be back. Um. I hope you all had
Speaker 1: a great Labor Day weekend. UH New Gingrich is coming
Speaker 1: up here today. Also, Sarah Carter is gonna check in.
Speaker 1: James Comey is a disaster. We'll get to the Comey
Speaker 1: basically call me an exonerated Hillary without doing his job.
Speaker 1: Then we'll have more on Dhaka and we'll have more
Speaker 1: Republicans need to get their job done. We also not
Speaker 1: only have the aftermath of Harvey, but now we got
Speaker 1: Hurricane irma barreling towards Florida, South Florida. Well as a
Speaker 1: Cat five hurricane, this could be a disaster. According to
Speaker 1: job ASTARTI will check in with us at the bottom
Speaker 1: of the hour. So for just one corporate job, only
Speaker 1: four to six people even get an interview for every
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty resumes received. Now, those are not
Speaker 1: very good odds if you're accounting on getting a job
Speaker 1: when you're only uploading your resume. Now, the fact is
Speaker 1: you need a real person advocating to a real employer
Speaker 1: that has a real job available. And that's where our
Speaker 1: friends that Express Employment Professionals come in. Now. Express Pros
Speaker 1: is your local resource to help you get a brand
Speaker 1: new job. And Express Pros has more than eighteen thousand
Speaker 1: jobs available weekly. It's eighteen thousand jobs that need to
Speaker 1: be filled right now, So find the nearest office at
Speaker 1: express pros dot com. And Express Pros never charges a
Speaker 1: job seeker to help find employment. Just go to express
Speaker 1: pros dot com and find jobs in manufacturing, accounting, customer service, sales, distribution,
Speaker 1: information technology, you name it, they've got it. So just
Speaker 1: visit the nearest Express Pros office today, speak with the
Speaker 1: hiring professionals connected to the available jobs in your community.
Speaker 1: Just go to express pros dot com today to find
Speaker 1: the location nearest you. Right as we roll along Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show one, Sean, so much happening. Uh, Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: is going to weigh in on comey. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: if you think of everything that's corrupt, if you think
Speaker 1: of everything that's wrong in in law enforcement. Sometimes and
Speaker 1: I backtrack here, I'm the biggest supporter of law enforcement
Speaker 1: there is. It's sad when politics enters a legal decision
Speaker 1: such as Look, if any of you mishandled classified information,
Speaker 1: you'd probably go to jail. There are people that have
Speaker 1: gone to jail for this. There is a guy in
Speaker 1: jail now, Christian Saucier, because he took six pictures inside
Speaker 1: a submarine that he worked at and he's away from
Speaker 1: his wife, mother and baby girl. Six pictures. That's it
Speaker 1: that he kept just for himself. He didn't give it
Speaker 1: to anybody. So we know top secret, classified special Access
Speaker 1: program information. For Hillary, we know she mishandled it putting
Speaker 1: in in the mom and pop shop bathroom closet. We
Speaker 1: know that she destroyed such when she bleached bit the
Speaker 1: hard drive and the computers. We know that she destroyed
Speaker 1: such when she broke up blackberries and iPhones, and we
Speaker 1: know she was obstructing justice when in fact she didn't
Speaker 1: hand over blackberries and iPhones to the FBI that had
Speaker 1: been requested and subpoenaed, and they didn't have the sim cards.
Speaker 1: All of those represent an obstruction of justice. So Comey
Speaker 1: doesn't even bother Ton interview Hillary or seventeen other witnesses,
Speaker 1: and he's writing her exoneration. There's something wrong with the
Speaker 1: rule of law. And it goes the same with the
Speaker 1: DOCA decision. You may not like you, you may not
Speaker 1: like that we don't have DACA as the law of
Speaker 1: the land. Okay, we don't have DACA. But even Obama
Speaker 1: multiple more, dozens of times said he didn't have the
Speaker 1: power and the authority under the Constitution with coequal branches
Speaker 1: of government to assert what the law of the land
Speaker 1: is and this, and then you can go to Tebbie
Speaker 1: Wasson and Schultz, and then you can go to well, Okay,
Speaker 1: why isn't Mueller, Why did he hire so many people
Speaker 1: biased against the president. Why doesn't he go see Julian Assan,
Speaker 1: who knows who gave him the information. When it comes
Speaker 1: to the d n C and the emails and Podesta,
Speaker 1: we have so many things wrong here. It's it's almost
Speaker 1: it's incomprehensible. Yeah for like a nine year old. But anyway, Willie,
Speaker 1: you see the relief the president is getting involved in
Speaker 1: relief efforts tonight. It's it's hardening to mean can tell
Speaker 1: that he's done this. I don't know if he did
Speaker 1: it with AmeriCares. I don't know if he's a Red
Speaker 1: Cross guy. First thing he did he actually put in
Speaker 1: the cap. Well, that was obviously a photo for the
Speaker 1: President who did a nice job going down there twice.
Speaker 1: Let's give him credit for going down there. But he
Speaker 1: was asked to put I think we have the video
Speaker 1: similar put the bucket in the back of a pickup?
Speaker 1: Is president put this in the pickup? So where do
Speaker 1: you put that? You just right back put it back
Speaker 1: in the bed? Why or where do you put anything?
Speaker 1: But we'll show the video of the video. He hands
Speaker 1: it in the front window. Yeah, yeah, okay, it's better
Speaker 1: when he's seen it. But you have to just take
Speaker 1: it because if the president's putting it in the wrong place,
Speaker 1: you know, you're your baggers, you you know, and you're like, okay,
Speaker 1: well you got a whole like back there, the flat
Speaker 1: bed part you can put it. That's where you're supposed
Speaker 1: to if you have like bags stuff. Yeah, bucket. That's
Speaker 1: why they call it a truck. It's like you put it, yeah,
Speaker 1: right here, Okay, you go, uh gay, I'll put that
Speaker 1: on the gearshift. Okay. I bet they're not breaking this
Speaker 1: down on Fox and Friends. Wow. I just I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to say to that. I mean, except
Speaker 1: that these two I guess they came off their summer
Speaker 1: vacation which seemed never ending. You're not allowed to play
Speaker 1: this so bad. There's something wrong with this too. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it is. I don't we need a
Speaker 1: psychoanalysis of Joe and Mika. They're lost their mon her too.
Speaker 1: We can we can do some psychoanalysis of that, alright.
Speaker 1: One Sean told free telephone number, you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. Our friend job is starting
Speaker 1: back with us, and that never is good news because
Speaker 1: that means something horrific weatherwise is about to happen. The
Speaker 1: official meteorologist of the Sean Hannity Show, where the Bell
Speaker 1: dot Com and by far he was the most accurate
Speaker 1: about all things Texas and Hurricane Harvey. Um, and I
Speaker 1: hate to say this, but you've been writing me notes
Speaker 1: now for days, and you've really pinned this thing down,
Speaker 1: and you don't think this is gonna be good at all. No,
Speaker 1: I don't less low. In fact, last week when I
Speaker 1: left you Monday, I said, you know, you can have
Speaker 1: me on again this week because this is going to
Speaker 1: be a big, big deal. And uh, the pattern that
Speaker 1: you could see this coming like seeing a freight train
Speaker 1: coming down the track when this thing came off Africa,
Speaker 1: and the overall pattern in the Western Atlantic Ocean is
Speaker 1: ripe for all this it was, you know, we it's
Speaker 1: a break from previous years where storms would come towards
Speaker 1: the coast and weekend we had the exact opposite patterns
Speaker 1: set up this year. We saw it in the spring.
Speaker 1: We let as many people know as possible, and so
Speaker 1: that when this started happening it wouldn't be a big surprise.
Speaker 1: But apparently it is a big surprise, especially people that
Speaker 1: to want to push the issue the other way. But
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit worried about the you know, I'm look,
Speaker 1: even Cuba, Cuba seems to be in a direct hit
Speaker 1: path of this in terms of the track, but also
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico worries may Um, the Bahamas and Dominican Republican.
Speaker 1: Tell me, what's gonna get hit here? Oh my goodness,
Speaker 1: we've been, We've been. You know, I have friends on
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico. I'm very good friends. They're on the Puerto
Speaker 1: Rican Wrestling freestyle wrestling team and they train over here
Speaker 1: in State College. And one of my dearest friends, we've
Speaker 1: been warning him since Tuesday, so they they know what's
Speaker 1: coming at them. The Virgin Islands are just they're probably
Speaker 1: some of the Virgin Islands may get the worst hurricane
Speaker 1: that they've seen in modern memory and may beat Hugo.
Speaker 1: That's how bad this is going to be. However, in
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, this is going to go far enough north
Speaker 1: of Puerto Rico, so while they have a bad hurricane,
Speaker 1: they are spared the worst of this hurricane, which is
Speaker 1: just you know, I can't even describe how bad hundred
Speaker 1: and seven hundred and eighty mile in our hurricane is.
Speaker 1: So it goes north of Puerto Rico, it's mainly north
Speaker 1: of Hispaniola. It's the Turks and Caicos island that are
Speaker 1: going to take a direct hit and it's going to
Speaker 1: be absolutely devastating there now here is where the problems starts.
Speaker 1: On tonight's forecast from six days out, my company is
Speaker 1: going to have a zero mile error because it's been
Speaker 1: easy to see this. No, there will be no error
Speaker 1: on a hundred forty four forecasts a hundred forty four
Speaker 1: hours from now, which is six is five, six days
Speaker 1: down the road. What day are we talking about hitting
Speaker 1: the US right now? What? What day specific? Is it
Speaker 1: gonna hit Monday or Sunday, Sunday, Monday into Tuesday? What
Speaker 1: happens is this? I want I want people to understand
Speaker 1: what's going on as the storm comes through the Bahamas.
Speaker 1: There are all sorts of nuances that starts showing up
Speaker 1: that haven't been there before. But for instance, the influence
Speaker 1: of land on the storm can actually change the storm's path.
Speaker 1: When a storm is accelerating up the eastern seaboard, showing
Speaker 1: they like to stay off shore around Hispaniola, Cuba, the Yucatan,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, the storm moving westward with those
Speaker 1: big islands the south in their mountains, it's been known
Speaker 1: to pull the storm in. That's not going to happen
Speaker 1: with Hispaniola. It could happen with Cuba the way the
Speaker 1: United States escapes. The worst case scenario is that it
Speaker 1: gets into Cuba for a while, then comes back out,
Speaker 1: and as bad as that is, it would not be
Speaker 1: as bad as it just just running the needle through
Speaker 1: the Florida Straits and on into what could be very
Speaker 1: close to the Southwest Florida Fort Myers, Naples. So we're
Speaker 1: talking about the By the way, he's saying this on
Speaker 1: purpose because he knows I have a condo down to
Speaker 1: Naples that look, listen, listen, here's my advice. I have
Speaker 1: friends in Southwest Florida, in Naples and in Miami. I'm
Speaker 1: just the only thing I'm gonna say that everybody is.
Speaker 1: I'm in this with you. I don't care about anybody's property.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure everybody stays safe and heed
Speaker 1: your warning because if this lands as a Cat five
Speaker 1: this we're talking about serious high winds, damage, flooding, the
Speaker 1: whole bit. I'm gonna tell you the same thing I
Speaker 1: told you. This is a catastrophic storm for Florida. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure quite you know exact details of where it's
Speaker 1: going to make landfall. I keep going back and forth
Speaker 1: between the southeast coast and the southwest coast, but it's
Speaker 1: coming and once it wherever it makes landfall, it's going
Speaker 1: to move north. The worst case scenario, the absolutely worst
Speaker 1: case scenario, my opinion, is a landfall near Miami and
Speaker 1: then north upp alone, just you know, hugging the coast
Speaker 1: and just going at one one site after another all
Speaker 1: the way up the coast until you make another would
Speaker 1: be the western coast of Florida, the southwestern coast right,
Speaker 1: well know, the worst case scenarios the southeast coast, and
Speaker 1: then up if it hits on the southwest coast, what
Speaker 1: happens is that weekends quicker. And I'll tell you why,
Speaker 1: because it's pulling in air off Florida, and that if
Speaker 1: we look at the nineteen five hurricane is a benchmark, folks.
Speaker 1: It went through there with the strongest hurricane ever to
Speaker 1: hit the United States. But by the time I got
Speaker 1: the cedar key in a week into a category one.
Speaker 1: So here's the bottom line. That once we get to
Speaker 1: late Saturday, Sunday into Monday, the state of Florida, remember
Speaker 1: what I said about Harvey, would go into Texas weather
Speaker 1: Lore Hurricane laure This is going to go into Florida
Speaker 1: Hurricane Law also, and the exact details of that are
Speaker 1: very tough, and so you know we're looking at a
Speaker 1: hundred mile window in their back or forth, and so
Speaker 1: we will keep you informed on that. But a catastrophic event,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, is on the way for that area
Speaker 1: of the country where it makes exact landfall, I can't tell.
Speaker 1: I can't tell exactly yet. I suspect the southwest coast.
Speaker 1: This is Do you think it's likely if I can
Speaker 1: interrupt for one side, do you think it's likely to
Speaker 1: hit at a Cat five stage? Well that say that
Speaker 1: there's a problem if it threads the needle and comes
Speaker 1: through the straits without monkeying around with Cuba. Yes, I
Speaker 1: think right it will be. It could even be on
Speaker 1: top of what five was. It's going to be a
Speaker 1: very big hurrs. Nobody knows what was Nobody was and
Speaker 1: wasn't me I explained a couple of times that is
Speaker 1: the benchmark hurricane to the United States, that two in
Speaker 1: our winds in the Florida Keys. The Labor Day hurricane
Speaker 1: bariments for pressure eo MILLI bars. This could get that
Speaker 1: bad if it doesn't monkey around with Cuba. I'm very
Speaker 1: worried about that. But the other thing, the hurricane force
Speaker 1: wins are going to extend out a hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: to two hundred miles from the center. That there's going
Speaker 1: not not the hundred and fifty mill in our wins,
Speaker 1: but in our wins. So when you were looking at Andrew,
Speaker 1: where hurricane force wins are only out fifty miles in
Speaker 1: the north the center, this is a much bigger beast
Speaker 1: when it comes at You still have some time to
Speaker 1: be wrong. Like I said, before, you prepare you you
Speaker 1: you prepare for the worst, prey for the best. And
Speaker 1: I hope I'm wrong, But it really looks to me
Speaker 1: like this is coming on all right, pretty scary. Um,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna advise people now I know it's six
Speaker 1: days out, what is your certainty that you think you're
Speaker 1: right on this, Well certainty, I think that it's going
Speaker 1: to hit the other And we love when you're wrong
Speaker 1: because then there's less destruction and there's less misery and
Speaker 1: less people's you know, life dream destroyed. So we actually
Speaker 1: hope you're wrong and then we can make fun of you,
Speaker 1: but in a lighthearted way. I just you know, all
Speaker 1: your notes this weekend to me scaring the crap out
Speaker 1: of me. To be honest, well, the uh, I think
Speaker 1: you have to take very very seriously what the governor
Speaker 1: is saying. All Right. They've been times like, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a tropical storm someplace and they go state of
Speaker 1: emergency and I'm like, what the heck is that? You know? Uh,
Speaker 1: this is not this is completely opposite that. You know.
Speaker 1: I've had people email me say, well, look at this,
Speaker 1: We've got a state of emergency from governor you know,
Speaker 1: Darth Vader or whatever. I go, this is nothing to
Speaker 1: monkey around with. This, h This is absolutely, absolutely has
Speaker 1: the potential to be as bad a hurricane as we've
Speaker 1: seen in Florida. I mean, you know, if you look
Speaker 1: at those tracks in the nineties, I mentioned Florida was
Speaker 1: ground zero for all these major hurricanes. People don't understand that.
Speaker 1: So this has the potential to be as bad as
Speaker 1: those big, massive Atlantic hurricanes that we had in the
Speaker 1: thirties and forties. So you folks, you just listen to authorities,
Speaker 1: and you know, in this particular case, I think they
Speaker 1: are right spot on in making sure people are prepared
Speaker 1: for the worst. Well, all right, job is STARREDI official
Speaker 1: meteorologist of the Sean Hannity Show. I'm assuming you're on
Speaker 1: every day this week. And I don't think the country
Speaker 1: is gonna start paying attention to a toll towards the
Speaker 1: end of the week, but I people to at least,
Speaker 1: and I know some people down in Florida are and uh,
Speaker 1: this sounds like the potential to be a real, real
Speaker 1: dangerous disaster. So we do appreciate you given us early warning.
Speaker 1: We're gonna watch it closely and pay very close attention. Um.
Speaker 1: I actually and thanks so much, Joe, appreciate it. I
Speaker 1: also talked to people in the White House. I said,
Speaker 1: somebody that works inside, not the president. Everybody you talk
Speaker 1: to the president, he's stupid, right you he talks to
Speaker 1: you a college dropout. I mean the fact that the
Speaker 1: media tries to tie me constantly. Well, he's a right winger.
Speaker 1: He the President's friend. I'm like, I like the President's policies.
Speaker 1: We'll get into this later in the program today. And
Speaker 1: I've been advocating the same for my entire career in
Speaker 1: some way shape matter reform. Yes, I've gotten more mature
Speaker 1: over the years. Yes, I've evolved over the years. Yes,
Speaker 1: my my study and reason and understanding of what conservatism
Speaker 1: isn't isn't is it drives me. Principles drive me. Good
Speaker 1: principles drive me. Uh And I'm more libertarian than I've
Speaker 1: ever been in my life and in terms of other issues. Right,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you say that's an accurate statement, Linda? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's very accurate. How is your weak on? You
Speaker 1: didn't even say hello to me one? Hello, welcome back?
Speaker 1: Can we tell the secret about somebody on our team?
Speaker 1: I would love that she as she very much protests
Speaker 1: next to me. Am I allowed or not? You're allowed?
Speaker 1: I think the audience would love it to look at
Speaker 1: that face. You're not happy. I'm gonna be hated for
Speaker 1: the rest of my life if I do this. You know,
Speaker 1: get started? Why stop now? I'm always gonna love you.
Speaker 1: Stopping me? Is that you in my ear or on
Speaker 1: the air. I'm here on the air. I love you
Speaker 1: and I always will love you, no matter what I
Speaker 1: say or do right now, no matter what sean, no
Speaker 1: matter what you sure I might not like you, I'm
Speaker 1: still gonna love you. You You have a bad A minute
Speaker 1: in thirty seconds and make up your mind. I think
Speaker 1: I'm gonna let it go. You know what, She's probably
Speaker 1: the only one person on the team that I know
Speaker 1: doesn't like all of this public. And I'm just for now,
Speaker 1: it's only going to be a short while. There's only
Speaker 1: so much I can contain myself because once the thoughts
Speaker 1: begin to bubble in my mind to my brain, you
Speaker 1: know it's coming out. I love you even more than
Speaker 1: I thought I could. Oh, I get another hundred, Is
Speaker 1: that what you're saying? And look at it's it's just
Speaker 1: such an awesome story though. I mean, it's family love.
Speaker 1: It's all I know is if everything about talking about
Speaker 1: it right now, we'll be talking about it, we'd be
Speaker 1: getting all the details out. But because it's congratulations, Linda
Speaker 1: did get a new home over the weekend and the
Speaker 1: first you bought your first house. And I wrote you
Speaker 1: that is a huge milestone in your life and you're, yeah, whatever,
Speaker 1: I have to furnish it. No, first of all, what
Speaker 1: I said, didn't I say? It was a huge accomplishment
Speaker 1: you all deserved. You worked hard, and you should be
Speaker 1: so proud of that. You worry, by the way, then
Speaker 1: I said Obama built that that actually was very funny.
Speaker 1: You're like, you didn't build that, Obama build it. Bama
Speaker 1: built that. Then I said, I'm not talking to you
Speaker 1: if you mentioned him again in a text message, because
Speaker 1: that's not nice. But no, Um, yeah, it's it's it's great,
Speaker 1: it's scary, it's wonderful. You know, it's all those things. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's nothing to be scared about. Worst case scenario, I
Speaker 1: fire you and the bank takes it back exactly. That's
Speaker 1: exact something to look forward to. Thank you, Sean. You're
Speaker 1: not getting fired. You're under contract. You can't leave one.
Speaker 1: Shawn is a number. All right. We've got a lot
Speaker 1: to get to, Sarah Carter. We have a lot of
Speaker 1: top stories were following today. We're gonna get into the
Speaker 1: Coomy issue a predetermined conclusion before any fat gathering or
Speaker 1: evidence was gathered. We have more on the Daka issue
Speaker 1: that I've been discussing, and I'll play the cuts of
Speaker 1: Obama saying it's unconstitutional, Ryan saying it's unconstitutional. Then we'll
Speaker 1: have an update on North Korea with new King Rich
Speaker 1: and the need now I think, to take their missiles
Speaker 1: out of the sky preemptively, and how Republicans need to
Speaker 1: get get their work on. So that's all coming up.
Speaker 1: And as we were all along, Sean Hannity Show, a
Speaker 1: lot coming up in the program today. Stay right there.
Speaker 1: James Comey had the fix in for Hillary? What's that
Speaker 1: all about? Also, DACA, we have old cuts of Obama,
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan will play for you, new King Ridge ways
Speaker 1: in and so much more. Welcome back, glad you with us.
Speaker 1: Hope you had a great labor day. I had not
Speaker 1: sent classified material nor received anything mark classified. Sartor clintons
Speaker 1: that she never sent or received any classify information over
Speaker 1: her private email. Was that true? Our investigation found that
Speaker 1: there was class of information since so it was not true.
Speaker 1: And I am confident that I never sent nor received
Speaker 1: any information that was classified at the time it was
Speaker 1: sent and received. Mr Clinton said there was nothing mark
Speaker 1: class of auto on her emails, either sent or received.
Speaker 1: Was that true? That's not true. There were a small
Speaker 1: number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Speaker 1: I never sent um classified material on my email and
Speaker 1: I never received any that was marked classified. Mr Clinton said,
Speaker 1: I did not email any classified material to anyone on
Speaker 1: my email. There is no classified material. Was that true?
Speaker 1: There was classified material? Emailed. People across the government knew
Speaker 1: that I used one device. Maybe it was because I
Speaker 1: am not the most technically capable person and H wanted
Speaker 1: to make it as easy as possible. CHR. Clinton said
Speaker 1: she used just one device. Was that true? She used
Speaker 1: multiple devices during the four years of her term as
Speaker 1: Secretary of State. But we turned over everything that was
Speaker 1: work related, every single thing personal stuff. We did not.
Speaker 1: I had no obligation to do so and did not. R.
Speaker 1: Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the
Speaker 1: State Department. Was that true? No, we found work related
Speaker 1: emails thousands that were not returned. All I can tell
Speaker 1: you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process,
Speaker 1: I did not participate. Terrctor Clinton said her lawyers read
Speaker 1: every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did
Speaker 1: her lawyers read the email content individually? This is not okay? Alright, Sewn,
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of the program. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's Trey Goudy and James Comey and Hillary Clinton and
Speaker 1: juxtaposed together. You see that Comey is admitting that numerous
Speaker 1: crimes were committed by Hillary Clinton, because that's what the
Speaker 1: law says. Just like DOCCA is not the law of
Speaker 1: the land, and Obama recognized they didn't have the right
Speaker 1: to use executive action, although he then ended up doing
Speaker 1: the very thing he said he couldn't do. Do we
Speaker 1: have a two tier justice system? Is there equal justice
Speaker 1: under the law? That question keeps coming up again and
Speaker 1: again and again, and the only answer we keep getting is, oh,
Speaker 1: there's a two tier justice system anyway. Sarah Carter and
Speaker 1: John Solomon are with us to address these new developments.
Speaker 1: James Comey, we found out late last week, made the
Speaker 1: decision on Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was even
Speaker 1: done or concluded. And as most on the inside, no,
Speaker 1: this was never a real investigation. Clinton never stood to
Speaker 1: suffer any consequences or actions because the fix were hit.
Speaker 1: Welcome both of you, Sarah Carter, John Solomon, appreciate you
Speaker 1: both with us. Sarah of course is with Circa dot
Speaker 1: Com and John Solomon is with the Hill. Uh, let's
Speaker 1: start with you, Sarah. I mean when you read this,
Speaker 1: and this was before she was even talked to, This
Speaker 1: was before you know, seventeen plus witnesses, key witnesses were
Speaker 1: ever talked to. That sounds to me like the fixes
Speaker 1: in what else can you say at this point, I mean,
Speaker 1: when you blatantly hear her make statements that are completely
Speaker 1: false on their face. And this is according to the
Speaker 1: former FBI director and to others who are investigating. And
Speaker 1: then you have to ask yourself the same question, which
Speaker 1: is the one you've been asking Seawan over and over again.
Speaker 1: You know, is there a two tiered system? And according
Speaker 1: to people I've been speaking within side the FBI, people
Speaker 1: who were very closely involved in this investigation, who feel
Speaker 1: that the rug was pulled out from under them, they
Speaker 1: believe it was. I mean, there was intent. They kept
Speaker 1: going to intent. They're needed. There never needed to be
Speaker 1: intent of the law. There needed to be. They just
Speaker 1: proved gross negligence. And that's what people kept saying over
Speaker 1: it again, anybody else would have been charged. Anybody else
Speaker 1: would have been charged under section under the Penal Code,
Speaker 1: Title eighteen. And that is a felony. Well, it's a felony,
Speaker 1: and it's one that called me himself as the FBI director.
Speaker 1: This is incontrovertible. This is overwhelming evidence. And how he
Speaker 1: reaches this conclusion, John Solomon is beyond any understanding I
Speaker 1: have except to conclude the fixes in yeah. And it
Speaker 1: raises another question, which is the James Coley has given
Speaker 1: sworn testimony to Congress and he said that he had
Speaker 1: not made the decision to Claire Hillary Clinton until that
Speaker 1: learning about the Clinton tarmac meeting right between OA Clinton
Speaker 1: and the Attorney General, the Red A. Lynch. If in
Speaker 1: fact he had made that decision months earlier, his Congressional
Speaker 1: testimony in one of his final appearances before Congress could
Speaker 1: could also be called into question. And it raises the
Speaker 1: question was the cart before the horse, was the decision
Speaker 1: made we're not going to indict her, and then the
Speaker 1: investigation run to fit that final conclusion. There's a lot
Speaker 1: knew that this revelation from last week brings to light.
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy rise for National Review, and he's somebody that
Speaker 1: I haven't have a lot of respect for, one of
Speaker 1: the few people over there, to be honest at this point,
Speaker 1: because there's so many never Trumper's there and they are
Speaker 1: on like their own little war that they're waging so
Speaker 1: that one day they can point their finger in everybody's
Speaker 1: faces they see we warned you were so superior to you.
Speaker 1: We should have you should have listened to us and
Speaker 1: elect an establishment person as president. But what he's pointing
Speaker 1: out is that it really wasn't Coomey's decision to exonerate Hillary.
Speaker 1: That when Obama went out in April, before Comey had
Speaker 1: begun writing this thing, and Obama stated publically that Hillary
Speaker 1: had shown quote carelessness and the use of the private
Speaker 1: email server, but he insisted that she did not intend
Speaker 1: to endanger the national security, which is the criminal statute
Speaker 1: element of all of this. Um One has to wonder
Speaker 1: if that impact did call me. Now, it's the theory
Speaker 1: of Andrew McCarthy it did. And my attitude back Sarah
Speaker 1: is it doesn't matter what Obama said or did. Isn't
Speaker 1: this the James Comey that was lecturing the president about
Speaker 1: how those in the FBI and Justice Department are separate
Speaker 1: and apart from the executive branch. Absolutely, when you think
Speaker 1: of it in those terms, and you brought it up
Speaker 1: just before I could bring it up. I mean, he
Speaker 1: was making those lectures. He was telling everybody this is
Speaker 1: how you're supposed to behave and President Trump had no
Speaker 1: business um allegedly asking him for loyalty. But then you
Speaker 1: look at this and he seems extraordinarily loyal to the
Speaker 1: statements that were made by President Obama, because on July fifth,
Speaker 1: he comes out and starts talking about extremely careless use
Speaker 1: of of of the of her emails. And you know,
Speaker 1: I want to go back to something that she said
Speaker 1: earlier in the montage that you ran, where she said,
Speaker 1: you know, she's not very good with technical things, she's
Speaker 1: not very good with electronics. I can honestly say that
Speaker 1: I'm not very good with electronics. I don't have a
Speaker 1: server inside my bathroom, you know where I'm transmitting. It's
Speaker 1: not even your path. Very good. Yeah. Well, it's also
Speaker 1: the fact that we're told that five foreign intelligence agencies
Speaker 1: were able to hack into that, and that means classified,
Speaker 1: top secret and special Access program info was on it.
Speaker 1: John Solomon, So, her doing this, the mishandling is is
Speaker 1: in and of itself a law. The destruction is also
Speaker 1: a law. And when they decided a bleach bit the
Speaker 1: thirty three thousand subpoena, deleted emails and then bleach bit
Speaker 1: the server and then destroy devices like blackberries, I think
Speaker 1: it's a pretty clear intention of obstruction there. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: the that we never got to. I mean, unfortunately, uh,
Speaker 1: the investigation never looked at those things that looked at
Speaker 1: whether she originally intended to break the law. A lot
Speaker 1: of people argue and need intend to break classification laws,
Speaker 1: you just have to really uh improperly classified information or
Speaker 1: miss mishandle it. So once the investigation got short circuited,
Speaker 1: the idea of obstruction or other things never really got
Speaker 1: fully looked at. And I think that that's one of
Speaker 1: the things that critics of COMY and the FBI can
Speaker 1: clearly see a lot to complain about. Yeah, I agree,
Speaker 1: all right, let me move on to something else that
Speaker 1: because I think at this point the Attorney General now
Speaker 1: needs to reopen this investigation. Is there any statute of
Speaker 1: limitations aspects that could complicate this, Sarah? I think for
Speaker 1: some yes, there are some statute of limiting limitations aspects
Speaker 1: that could complicate it, But I don't think in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form that should stop them. I believe in January, uh,
Speaker 1: there's kind of a final date for some of the
Speaker 1: statute of limitations. But one of the things that I
Speaker 1: think is most important is to go back and look
Speaker 1: at the law itself. I mean, when you talk about
Speaker 1: gross negligence under the law, growth negligence means that you know,
Speaker 1: anything you remove anything classified that could be intercepted by
Speaker 1: an enemy state is the reason why that's a felony.
Speaker 1: It's the reason why the law stands. So it's important
Speaker 1: to look at it in that aspect. It's not that
Speaker 1: she intended it to end up in the hands of enemies,
Speaker 1: but removing it from a classified setting allowed it to
Speaker 1: possibly end up in the hands of enemies, and this
Speaker 1: is why we need to look at this further. I
Speaker 1: think also there needs to be some type of prosecutor
Speaker 1: called in. I know there's a lot of FBI field
Speaker 1: agents out there, special agents in charge who were working
Speaker 1: on this case that would like to see this reopened
Speaker 1: again and would be willing to testify. So if they
Speaker 1: move in that direction, I think we're going to have
Speaker 1: a lot more answers. Let me go to We know
Speaker 1: that Dana Rohbocker is the first congressman to go meet
Speaker 1: only with Julian Osang and apparently as a message for
Speaker 1: the president. Um My sources are telling me it's complicated
Speaker 1: because anything because of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russia, Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: that it's complicated if the president would have received us
Speaker 1: such a message but nevertheless he is the one guy
Speaker 1: that knows where the information came from. This all began
Speaker 1: the special counsel again with Comey, you know, purposely leaking
Speaker 1: information for the hopes that a special counsel would be appointed.
Speaker 1: Then it becomes Mueller, and then Mueller appoints eight Democrats,
Speaker 1: big Obama, Clinton Democratic donors, no Republican donors. And now
Speaker 1: it's gotten to the point where the only one person
Speaker 1: that would really know is Julian Ossang. And he keeps
Speaker 1: saying both to me and he apparently said to Dana Rohorbacker,
Speaker 1: who I interviewed, that it was in the Russians. What
Speaker 1: does that mean for Mueller's investigation, what does it mean
Speaker 1: for Congress's investigation? And what does it mean for the
Speaker 1: American people? And they're right to know the truth? John Solomon, Well,
Speaker 1: if if Bob Mueller is going to do a thorough investigation,
Speaker 1: he has a long record of doing very things, very thoroughly.
Speaker 1: You would think that if someone who's in the first
Speaker 1: primary position to know disagrees with the current intelligence assessment
Speaker 1: and has the ability to prove that the current intelligence
Speaker 1: assessment that Russia hacked the d NC emales isn't accurate.
Speaker 1: You should give him an opportunity to find out. Now,
Speaker 1: there are many ways that can happen, right. It sounds
Speaker 1: like from what Congressman Rourobacher said that there's some deal
Speaker 1: that Julian Assange wants, But there are other tactics and
Speaker 1: capabilities that the FBI and the intelligence community have to
Speaker 1: explore what where Assans may have gotten his documents that
Speaker 1: may not be public. And you would think that this
Speaker 1: investigation would re examine that that uh finding, based on
Speaker 1: what Assan just said publicly, since the January finding came out, UH,
Speaker 1: there's no evidence that that has happened, and there's no
Speaker 1: evidence that the Hill committees have shown any interest. This
Speaker 1: is true, though, I mean the whole special counsel correct
Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong. Sarah Carter was predicated on Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. Doesn't that basically blow the entire cause for
Speaker 1: the investigation to blow up? You would think so, Sean,
Speaker 1: But remember they've expanded this, They keep expanding what this
Speaker 1: first started out, it was Trump Russia collusion, and I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of questions out there as there's no proof.
Speaker 1: As John said, right now, they're still searching for proof
Speaker 1: as to what the Russians actually did. We've seen a
Speaker 1: lot of evidence pointing out a lot of other players
Speaker 1: who could have hacked into the d n C server
Speaker 1: and did get access to the d n C server
Speaker 1: from the um, you know, to two members within the
Speaker 1: d n C. So there's a lot of questions here
Speaker 1: that have to be answered and even answered those yet.
Speaker 1: But as we can see the special you know, the
Speaker 1: Special Counsels expanding, I mean they're reaching and reaching and
Speaker 1: reaching into business feelings Trump into his associates and their
Speaker 1: business feelings. So so it's just like Patrick Fitzgerald. Patrick
Speaker 1: Fitzgerald spent three years and he knew on day one
Speaker 1: the Richard Armitage was the leaker, and instead of shutting
Speaker 1: down shop and that was related to the Valerie playing
Speaker 1: phony case, he knows who the leaker is, he should
Speaker 1: have shut down. But he eventually got Wow, he couldn't
Speaker 1: get Scooter Libby to flip and turn on Vice President Cheney.
Speaker 1: So then they went after Scooter Libby for for lying,
Speaker 1: not for anything with the underlying crime that they were
Speaker 1: originally supposed to investigate. Which is my big problem with
Speaker 1: these Special Counsels, investigative creep just like Mission creep In
Speaker 1: in terms of military efforts that the country gets involved in.
Speaker 1: It's uh, stay right there. We'll continue Sarah carterri John
Speaker 1: Solomon eight d one, Shawn right as we roll along
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show. Gladuate with us eight hundred nine four one,
Speaker 1: Shan if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: Still a lot of news that we are going to
Speaker 1: be getting to today. We'll check in with the new
Speaker 1: King Rich at the top of the next hour. We'll
Speaker 1: get to some of your calls in the next half hour. Also,
Speaker 1: we'll tell you about a case of you know, kids
Speaker 1: being told we've got the audio and video in a classroom,
Speaker 1: you can't wear a Trump shirt or hat, so being
Speaker 1: a Nazi anyway. But we continue with Sarah Carter of
Speaker 1: Circuit dot Com and with the Hill John Solomon as
Speaker 1: with us. All right, so we we went over these
Speaker 1: two big issues. I can't believe that there's evidence out
Speaker 1: there that might prove that that in fact, Russia Trump
Speaker 1: collusion and that it was never any collusion as it
Speaker 1: relates to the leaks that came out just before the
Speaker 1: d n Z convention, Sarah Carter, and that there's nobody
Speaker 1: that's showing any interest in getting to the bottom of
Speaker 1: of that question, which I think would tell us that
Speaker 1: we might have been lied to for eleven months. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's really disappointing. In fact, it's kind of
Speaker 1: chilling when you think about it, because that's the answer
Speaker 1: that we're all seeking. That's the answer that's supposedly they're
Speaker 1: all seeking. So you think they would leave no stone unturned, right,
Speaker 1: they would look through everything. Uh, it's I think that
Speaker 1: there are reporters out there like John and I that
Speaker 1: want to get to the truth and want to expose
Speaker 1: that truth to the public so that people know and
Speaker 1: understand what really happened or whatever the answer be, whether
Speaker 1: that be people within the d n C, whether that
Speaker 1: be the A One brothers, whether that be Russia, or
Speaker 1: a combination of all three of them. And I hope
Speaker 1: we do get those answers, and I hope we can
Speaker 1: deliver that to the American people. I mean, that's the
Speaker 1: leaf that they deserve. I mean, considering that this entire
Speaker 1: presidency has been up in turmoil because of that one
Speaker 1: particular question, the one that they the Special Counsel apparently
Speaker 1: does not want to answer. What about the the unmasking
Speaker 1: surveillance and and those scandals John Solomon, Are we going
Speaker 1: to hear more about them? Will we hear more about
Speaker 1: uranium one? What is on the horizon? Absolutely? I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of things that we're going to learn
Speaker 1: about this fall. I think the House Intelligence and Senate
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee has developed some new evidence on unmasking and
Speaker 1: who is behind it, and also how the process worked,
Speaker 1: and maybe several steps were short steps in that process
Speaker 1: so that the normal ways that the name was unmasked
Speaker 1: was short circuited when it came to Trump or political figures.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna learn more about that. I think
Speaker 1: we're committed. I'm I'm up on the clock. Do you
Speaker 1: think crimes were committed? Both of you? Real quick? I
Speaker 1: don't know what I do. Okay, here we go. We'll
Speaker 1: continue information download Sean Hannity and the breaking news you
Speaker 1: might have missed today that Shahn's insider information. Hannity is
Speaker 1: on right now. You cannot wear spats school, cannot use
Speaker 1: the pot cup. Please stop, please go back at least
Speaker 1: for this. I don't care what you do in other classes,
Speaker 1: but I might not sooth. Both of them have to
Speaker 1: like flip their shirts inside out because it says Trump
Speaker 1: on the top. They gotta flip their shirts inside out
Speaker 1: because I just got Trump on it and it's supported
Speaker 1: by me. Again, I'm not saying about Trump. Why can't
Speaker 1: a kid in school have a T shirt that has
Speaker 1: the name of the president or what's so offensive about
Speaker 1: any T shirt or hat that says make America great again?
Speaker 1: Just like you can't wear a Swats sticker to school,
Speaker 1: you can't wear make America Great Again like that to
Speaker 1: teach us. I don't care what you do in other classes,
Speaker 1: you know, but for this class you can't do it.
Speaker 1: And then of course the teacher pretty stupidly is answering
Speaker 1: the question about the whole thing. I mean, it's hard
Speaker 1: to believe this is the day and age we live in.
Speaker 1: And anyway, the issue came from Cherokee County School District,
Speaker 1: a math teacher at River Ridge High School, you know, erroneously,
Speaker 1: Now we find out telling to students they can't wear
Speaker 1: their shirts with campaign slogans, they're not permitted in class.
Speaker 1: And joining US, he's been highlighting a lot of what's
Speaker 1: going on in the classroom. Charlie Kirk is back with US.
Speaker 1: Founder executive director of Turning Point USA, and it's an
Speaker 1: advocacy group for young conservatives. You know, every time you
Speaker 1: guys get involved, and every time they get exposed, it
Speaker 1: ends up you guys keep on winning. And uh, what
Speaker 1: happened in this case, that's exactly right. Well, we got
Speaker 1: the school district to initially issue an apology. Something tells
Speaker 1: me gives me a lot more activity around this teacher
Speaker 1: and the policies in the local school district. But just
Speaker 1: so that your listeners appreciate what happened here in the
Speaker 1: audio they just heard. I mean, here is a public
Speaker 1: school teacher in Georgia, which you know, some would think
Speaker 1: is a pretty you know, patriotic part of the country,
Speaker 1: where she just shamelessly says that wearing Make America Great
Speaker 1: Again is neo Nazi comparable to wearing a slatstiku. She
Speaker 1: doesn't really even think anything of it for saying it.
Speaker 1: And in the actual video, which thankfully one of our
Speaker 1: students helped record, she makes the students actually get up
Speaker 1: out of class and turn their shirts around and Sean,
Speaker 1: you've you pointed this out, you know for so long.
Speaker 1: This is the in tolerance of the left, is they're
Speaker 1: doing everything they possibly can to silence conservative young and old,
Speaker 1: but especially the conservatives in our school system. They are
Speaker 1: seamlessly calling us racists and biggests and now Nazis and it,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what our young conservative you know
Speaker 1: movement has to experience every single day. And you see
Speaker 1: the wonderful. But I think the reason for the apology
Speaker 1: goes way beyond whether or not they care. I think
Speaker 1: it mostly has to do with, uh, there's a video
Speaker 1: of this. Uh, we're gonna get sued. Uh we better
Speaker 1: act quickly. But does she get to keep her job
Speaker 1: because obviously she is. There's something really off with a
Speaker 1: teacher that is that politically driven that she would even
Speaker 1: make a comparison of a swastick or and a Trump
Speaker 1: T shirt being on a student. And so she's got
Speaker 1: some agenda here and she's trying to literally proselytize, as
Speaker 1: I always say, a captive audience, because these kids have
Speaker 1: to go to those classes, they can't get out of them.
Speaker 1: It didn't break any code or violation whatsoever in terms
Speaker 1: of the kid being able to wear what they want
Speaker 1: to wear. And it's not even incendiary, so that's right.
Speaker 1: And yeah, they're not sorry that this happened. They're they're
Speaker 1: sorry they got caught, and they're sorry that there's a video,
Speaker 1: and they're sorry they got exposed, and they're trying everything
Speaker 1: they can to cover this up. And you bring up
Speaker 1: a great point, which is, look, this teacher, unfortunately is
Speaker 1: nothing out of the ordinary. There are millions of people
Speaker 1: that are teaching the next generation that that hold these
Speaker 1: values in these sentiments. It's just luckily we got this
Speaker 1: on video. I mean, I hear these stories every single
Speaker 1: day from the front lines of math teachers. By the way,
Speaker 1: this is a math teacher. What this has to do
Speaker 1: with mathematics class? I can't figure out the math teachers
Speaker 1: and language arts teachers making conservatives stand up in class
Speaker 1: and shaming them and ostracizing them for having a viewpoint
Speaker 1: that they don't hold and they don't share. And the
Speaker 1: school district is really scrambling. There's a couple of candidates
Speaker 1: running for in Georgia that are openly calling for her termination.
Speaker 1: But it does beg the question is what kind of
Speaker 1: people are teaching America's youth. I mean, is this a
Speaker 1: value system that you know, educators hold, and what's what
Speaker 1: is actually gonna be done? To hold these these people accountable. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's a great job. I'm glad that these
Speaker 1: kids know to go to you, and I know that
Speaker 1: they have places to go to expose all of this.
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk always good to talk to you, sir. Thank
Speaker 1: you for being with us. We appreciate it. One Sewn
Speaker 1: told free telephone number. You want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. All right, let's get to our phones. Donna,
Speaker 1: and Frederick Maryland wants to weigh in on this. Donna,
Speaker 1: how are you glad you called? Hi? Sean. It's a
Speaker 1: pleasure to speak with you. And I want to say
Speaker 1: your guests was amazing. My jobs happened to be one
Speaker 1: of those kids on the front lines fighting for conservatism,
Speaker 1: and he was isolated and be rated in classes. And
Speaker 1: he's long since moved on. He's in college. But you know,
Speaker 1: it says a lot about what we need to do
Speaker 1: to fix this UM education in America, what needs to
Speaker 1: do about not having government involved in the education process
Speaker 1: and letting people take their communities back. But that being said,
Speaker 1: the other UM story that's amazing today is uh A. G.
Speaker 1: Sessions his Americans First policy. I think it's amazing. UM
Speaker 1: you know, DACA obviously cannot defend itself in court, and
Speaker 1: we don't have to contend with no more Obama buses
Speaker 1: and lawlessness and people that don't belong in here taking
Speaker 1: from those who do belong here. And um, I think
Speaker 1: it's really an amazing thing to finally see some lawfulness
Speaker 1: coming back. Listen, the President even gave an additional six
Speaker 1: months for Congress to get their act together. And you know,
Speaker 1: when you go back over history, and we've got the
Speaker 1: history of Obama saying so many times he did not
Speaker 1: have the authority to through executive fiat just sign something
Speaker 1: and take away and change the law or not enforce
Speaker 1: the laws of the land. DACA was never the law
Speaker 1: of the land. It was executive fiat. And so for
Speaker 1: seven months you had General Kelly was in charge of
Speaker 1: the borders, and General Kelly, you know, said hey, get
Speaker 1: your act together in Congress. If you don't like it
Speaker 1: changed the law, Well, now the president wants funding. And
Speaker 1: this gets to the heart of what Congress needs to
Speaker 1: do in these next you know, three months and two weeks,
Speaker 1: and that's get their job done. And one of the
Speaker 1: things they need to get done if they want DOCCA.
Speaker 1: So bad. Fine, but I don't think they're getting DACA
Speaker 1: without funding the wall. And I think a lot of Republicans,
Speaker 1: you know, backed off on this. I mean I had
Speaker 1: multiple interviews with Paul Ryan. He said it was the
Speaker 1: use of executive amnesty DACA was plainly unconstitutional. Many other
Speaker 1: Republicans said it as well. And so at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I just think these guys have got
Speaker 1: to stay by their word. Obama himself said he didn't
Speaker 1: have the authority to do it anyway. Good call, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Back to our busy phones as we say hi to
Speaker 1: Lee's in Oklahoma. Lee, Hi, how are you welcome to
Speaker 1: the program? Hey? Thanks for having me. No, I'm doing
Speaker 1: pretty good. Uh, what's going to watch you on TV?
Speaker 1: And listener? Well, I worked in the media, and they
Speaker 1: wanted to just make a comment on the media bias.
Speaker 1: What do you do in media? I run the sound
Speaker 1: tech package, okay for a particular organization or you don't
Speaker 1: want it to say, Well, I'm freelanced, so okay, I'm
Speaker 1: an infinite contractor. And that's what I wanted to comment on,
Speaker 1: is everybody and is down on the media and how
Speaker 1: bias it is. But what you don't realize is what
Speaker 1: a lot of people see on TV one. It's usually
Speaker 1: independent contractors like me and a lot of the photographers,
Speaker 1: and uh, a lot of what we see and what
Speaker 1: we shoot it discussed us because we'll shoot, you know,
Speaker 1: hours worth of role video and then it gets edited
Speaker 1: by a couple of producers down to just a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes of what they want you to see, not
Speaker 1: necessarily what and how often do you watch your work
Speaker 1: get distorted? In other words, when they finally take out
Speaker 1: it's sort of like edited fake news. And I used
Speaker 1: Ted Copple as an example. I did a fifty some
Speaker 1: odd minute interview with Ted compell he and he broke
Speaker 1: it down to seventy seconds and he just made himself
Speaker 1: look as good as possible as I was being respectful
Speaker 1: for him to him and he didn't run. And I said, well,
Speaker 1: you've got CBS News dot com put the whole interview up.
Speaker 1: Let people see it. And they never wanted to do
Speaker 1: that because it was so distorted. And so you know,
Speaker 1: all these outlets, you know, think they're playing these games.
Speaker 1: All of them do oh yeah, now we see it.
Speaker 1: We see it all the time. You know, we'll spend
Speaker 1: we were, we were in Louisiana last year for all
Speaker 1: the flooding in South Texas, and uh, you know, we'll
Speaker 1: shoot video all day and interviews with city officials, and
Speaker 1: you know, then you've got correspondence that their goal is
Speaker 1: to try and make somebody cry because that makes better news,
Speaker 1: you know. And then at the end of the day
Speaker 1: you see about three minutes out of maybe six hours
Speaker 1: worth of stuff that you did all day. Yeah, it's true,
Speaker 1: you know, let me, let's go back and listen. It
Speaker 1: is beyond deceptive this many ways. Number One, the story
Speaker 1: selection itself is indication of bias. If they'll never talk
Speaker 1: about the Ukraine election interference and will only talk about
Speaker 1: Russia election interference. The fact that the media has ignored
Speaker 1: Julian Assang and him saying he's got evidence that, in fact,
Speaker 1: it never came from Russia. You know, Law Enforcement, Congress
Speaker 1: and the American people would love to hear that because
Speaker 1: it would change the narrative totally. But there's nobody in
Speaker 1: the media that has proposed that I know, of going
Speaker 1: to the Embassy of Ecuador in London and asking Julian
Speaker 1: Assans these questions or what the evidence is he says
Speaker 1: he has it, and he said it numerous times. You know,
Speaker 1: but go back in time, listen, you know, on the
Speaker 1: issue specifically about Dhaka. Listen to how Obama said so
Speaker 1: many times, we cannot allow people to pour into the
Speaker 1: United States undetected, unchecked, and I don't have the authority
Speaker 1: through executive FIAT to do these things. Here's what he said.
Speaker 1: We all agree on the need to better secure the
Speaker 1: border and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: You know, we are a generous and welcoming people here
Speaker 1: in the United States, but those who enter the country
Speaker 1: illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law. Uh,
Speaker 1: and they are showing disregard for those who are following
Speaker 1: the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into
Speaker 1: the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line
Speaker 1: of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to
Speaker 1: become immigrants. When we get back, I'll play on the
Speaker 1: other side. He Obama himself before he did something he
Speaker 1: himself admits was unlawful and unconstitutional, And that goes to
Speaker 1: the whole heart of the issue of Taco, which I've
Speaker 1: been discussing earlier in the program Tonight all immigrants right now,
Speaker 1: we have a power actually drawn and that's why we're doing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem that I have, Jose, and I've said
Speaker 1: this consistently. Um, my job in the executive branch is
Speaker 1: supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Uh.
Speaker 1: Congress has said here's the law when it comes to
Speaker 1: those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of money for enforcement. It's something that I've struggled with
Speaker 1: throughout my presidency. The problem is that, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm the President United States. I'm not uh, the Emperor
Speaker 1: of the United States. My job is to execute laws
Speaker 1: that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed
Speaker 1: what I considered to be a broken immigration system. And
Speaker 1: what that means is is that we have certain obligations
Speaker 1: to enforce the laws that are in place, even if
Speaker 1: we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. Now,
Speaker 1: what you need to know when I'm speaking as President
Speaker 1: United States and I come to this community is that
Speaker 1: if in fact I could solve all these problems without
Speaker 1: passing laws and Congress, then I would do something. But
Speaker 1: We're also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition,
Speaker 1: and so the easy way out is to try to
Speaker 1: yell and pretend like I can do something by violating
Speaker 1: our laws. And what I'm proposing is the harder path,
Speaker 1: which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the
Speaker 1: same goal that you want to achieve. But it won't
Speaker 1: be as easy as just shouting. It requires us lobby
Speaker 1: and getting it done. But if we start broadening that,
Speaker 1: then essentially I would be ignoring uh, the law in
Speaker 1: a way that I think would be very difficult to
Speaker 1: defend legally. So that's not an option. And I do
Speaker 1: get a little worried that uh, you know, advocates of
Speaker 1: immigration reform uh start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, somehow there's an out here. If Congress doesn't act, well,
Speaker 1: we'll just have the president's sign something and and that
Speaker 1: will take care of them. We won't have to worry
Speaker 1: about it. What I've said is is that there's a
Speaker 1: path to get this done, and that's through Congress, and
Speaker 1: right we've kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much
Speaker 1: as we can, and that's why making sure that we
Speaker 1: get comprehensive immigration reform done is so important. It is
Speaker 1: gonna require work. It is not simply a matter of
Speaker 1: us just saying we're going to violate the law. That's
Speaker 1: not our tradition. So that's Obama really admitting everything we've
Speaker 1: been saying. Number one's temporary. Number two, it's not the law.
Speaker 1: It's only their interpretation, if you will, and you cannot
Speaker 1: widely interpret a law to actually not enforce the law,
Speaker 1: and that's what they were trying to do here now.
Speaker 1: Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to comment on this earlier today,
Speaker 1: and she rightly pointed out it's not a law, and
Speaker 1: it was never designed to be permanent, or or that
Speaker 1: they could receive benefits that other citizens that only citizens received.
Speaker 1: Listen to this. We expect people who live in this
Speaker 1: country to play by the rules. We expect that those
Speaker 1: who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna offer the following deal. If you've been in
Speaker 1: America for more than five years, if you have children
Speaker 1: who are American citizens or legal residents, if you register,
Speaker 1: pass a criminal background check, and you're willing to pay
Speaker 1: your fair share of taxes, you'll be able to apply
Speaker 1: to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation.
Speaker 1: You can come out of the shadows and get right
Speaker 1: with the law. That's what this deal is. Now, let's
Speaker 1: be clear about what it is. This deal does not
Speaker 1: apply to anyone who has come to this country recently,
Speaker 1: does not apply to anyone who might come to America
Speaker 1: illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship or
Speaker 1: the right to stay here permanently or offer the same
Speaker 1: benefits that citizens receive. Only Congress can do that, all right,
Speaker 1: They here Obama himself saying that, So now the President
Speaker 1: gave six months to Congress. After seven or eight months,
Speaker 1: now that they could have fixed it to get their
Speaker 1: act together. New King New Gangridge will weigh in on
Speaker 1: this next and much more our final hour free roles
Speaker 1: straight ahead. If the President follows through on his threat
Speaker 1: for executive amnesty, what do you have in terms of
Speaker 1: tools at your disposal to stop him from doing that? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, it's unconstitutional, So we're already going through
Speaker 1: the court system on other unconstitutional ejecutive orders that he
Speaker 1: has he has worked on, and we would add this
Speaker 1: to the pile. So I have little doubt that he'll
Speaker 1: do well well well, I don't know the answer to
Speaker 1: that question. We'll find out. But if he does do that,
Speaker 1: it's non constitutional. It's going around Congress. If you want
Speaker 1: to change the law, then go to Congress and work
Speaker 1: with Congress and change the law. You can't, youn lot
Speaker 1: only write a law as the executive all right. That
Speaker 1: was Paul Ryan on with me in fourteen, and you
Speaker 1: know he said now that the president should not end DACA.
Speaker 1: The Congress should try and fix it, which is what
Speaker 1: basically the President is allowing them to do today. And
Speaker 1: that is if Congress wants to do their job. They've
Speaker 1: had eight months to deal with dhaka uh. The Speaker
Speaker 1: believes it's not constitutional. As he just pointed out, the
Speaker 1: president did it anyway, nothing was We're done to stop it.
Speaker 1: And joining us on this and so many other issues
Speaker 1: today is the former Speaker of the House, author of
Speaker 1: the best selling books what is it now twelve weeks
Speaker 1: on the best seller list Understanding Trump? New ging Ridge.
Speaker 1: How are you, sir? I'm doing well. How are you
Speaker 1: very good? I actually had time off like you for once,
Speaker 1: and I actually know how it feels to be on
Speaker 1: vacation for a couple of days. It's kind of fun,
Speaker 1: isn't it. I like work too much, and I actually
Speaker 1: worked during my vacations. Because you should put a big,
Speaker 1: fat branded l on my back that says loser. I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, you need to actually slow down, and
Speaker 1: then when you slow down, you need to actually slow
Speaker 1: down to slow down. Well, I slowed down, but then
Speaker 1: I up my physical activities, which is why I could
Speaker 1: barely walk today. But that's a different issue. We did
Speaker 1: the same in clost night. I ended up golfing nine
Speaker 1: out of ten days. Oh what's your best score? My
Speaker 1: best score was about about und Oh my gosh, you're terrible.
Speaker 1: I am I'm not a golf I'm a hacker. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I'm not, I'm not hacker. But I'm lucky with my
Speaker 1: brother in law is such a good golfer that when
Speaker 1: I play with him, he had just me every shot.
Speaker 1: And that works better like my own personal coach out
Speaker 1: there with me. I know we have mutual friends who
Speaker 1: played with you who say you're tough. Well, not only that,
Speaker 1: if you put a dollar in the cup, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: hit the putt. If you don't put a dollar, and
Speaker 1: I'll never make it fresher works for me. Um. Well, look,
Speaker 1: we've known from the beginning. Obama played it. Just before
Speaker 1: the break. Obama himself recognized he didn't have the authority
Speaker 1: under the constitution to do what he did on DOCCA.
Speaker 1: He did it anyway. Congress was furious at the time.
Speaker 1: It's now in the position it's in, and the President,
Speaker 1: i think, was being pretty nice to Congress, saying, all right,
Speaker 1: I'll give you six months, fix it, do whatever it was.
Speaker 1: I thought it was a very very effective solution to
Speaker 1: a hard problem. The President knew all of his senior
Speaker 1: lawyers had told him it's unconstitutional. He campaign the being unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: The Vice president, as governor of Indiana, instructed the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of Indiana to join the lawsuits. Thing was unconstitutional. Well,
Speaker 1: you couldn't turn around and suddenly said we didn't mean it.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you do have six and ninety
Speaker 1: thousand people who would be affected overnight if you just
Speaker 1: you know, jerk the rugout. And and the big constitutionality
Speaker 1: is that Congress didn't approve it. No nobody disagrees that
Speaker 1: if Congress were actually to pass an appropriate law, and
Speaker 1: the President were to sign it, then it would all
Speaker 1: be fine in terms of legality. You'd argue without the policy,
Speaker 1: but it would certainly be legal at that point. So
Speaker 1: I thought the President by saying look, he actually gave
Speaker 1: him more time than I thought he would. I mean,
Speaker 1: I would have been comfortable to given him three months. Uh,
Speaker 1: six months is more than generous. They already be able
Speaker 1: to get the job done both. I mean Orn Hatch,
Speaker 1: who's very senior on the Judiciary Committee, has said he's
Speaker 1: got everything again to pass it. Um. I think you're
Speaker 1: gonna be burdening them. I mean, I think you're setting
Speaker 1: your expectations too high, because Mitch McConnell thought eight months
Speaker 1: to keep their seven and a half year pledge on
Speaker 1: healthcare was just beyond you know, anybody's realistic expectations. So
Speaker 1: maybe you're putting too much pressure on these poor people.
Speaker 1: This is a lot tinier bill. You know, Lindsey Grahm
Speaker 1: has already got a bill in I've I've had some
Speaker 1: friends drafting a bill I'm going to send over that's
Speaker 1: very clean, very narrow. Um. Because I think this is
Speaker 1: one of those deals where their job and the same thing,
Speaker 1: by the way, is true. The tax bill. Their job
Speaker 1: is to get it done. Perfection later doesn't work. Um,
Speaker 1: They've got to meet the six month deadline. The ideally
Speaker 1: should meet at this fall before they adjourned for the
Speaker 1: end of the year. Uh. And they should take care
Speaker 1: of the Dreamers and then set up the right kind
Speaker 1: of stand there's the right kind of program. Shouldn't the
Speaker 1: President get funding of the wall as part of this? Well,
Speaker 1: I think I think there are five or six things
Speaker 1: that are to be packaged that that could be part
Speaker 1: of I wouldn't use it as a bargaining ship because
Speaker 1: I think there's something really insensitive about using the lives
Speaker 1: of human beings, you know, like, you know, it's either
Speaker 1: the right thing or it's not the right thing. If
Speaker 1: it's the right thing, let's get it done. The right
Speaker 1: thing to protect America's borders, and the Congress ought to
Speaker 1: pass that uh. And I think the President has already
Speaker 1: indicated he's gonna be very tough uh and getting that done.
Speaker 1: And I think that he I think he will get
Speaker 1: it done. Actually, Um, you know, it's ironic. Most of
Speaker 1: what he's doing in immigration is very popular. I mean,
Speaker 1: people people get the idea you shouldn't have these these
Speaker 1: uh sanctuary cities where the politicians side with the criminals.
Speaker 1: They get the idea, you ought to have a focus
Speaker 1: on MS third team, uh, the Self Salvadorian gang, which
Speaker 1: is so deadly and so dangerous. They get the idea
Speaker 1: that there ought to be a cage law enforced that
Speaker 1: anybody who comes back in after they've been deported faces
Speaker 1: really severe penalties. So there's a broad coalition building here
Speaker 1: that in most of these cases I just cited is
Speaker 1: in the seventy range. And that poses a real problem
Speaker 1: for the Democrats because in these areas they are just
Speaker 1: isolating themselves more and more from the average American. All Right,
Speaker 1: So I would argue, now moving forward with Congress back
Speaker 1: in session, and they really didn't accomplish a whole lot,
Speaker 1: especially in the Senate, in terms of advancing legislation that
Speaker 1: the President can sign, and I mean on the big
Speaker 1: agenda items. And now we have a debt ceiling vote coming,
Speaker 1: and then we have certainly a vote on the President's
Speaker 1: economic plan, and I don't think it's that complicated. I
Speaker 1: think if they took the rate seven brackets to three
Speaker 1: and a fifteen or sixteen percent corporate tax rate and
Speaker 1: middle class tax cuts and repatriated money, and and make
Speaker 1: sure we're energy and dependent to create millions of high
Speaker 1: paying career jobs. I think on the economy, that's a
Speaker 1: pretty easy do and it sounds like everything that every
Speaker 1: Republican would ever want. Why do I expect they're gonna
Speaker 1: screw that up to well? I think because you're a
Speaker 1: little bit pessimistic, and I think, or am I realistic?
Speaker 1: We might be, although I must say I thought Secretary Manuchin,
Speaker 1: the Sect of the Treasury, was very good this weekend
Speaker 1: in describing the bill, describing the way in which economic
Speaker 1: growth would score it. I mean, one of the points
Speaker 1: I've been making is the Congressional Budget Office baseline is
Speaker 1: down and around slightly less than two percent real growth.
Speaker 1: You get the economy up to three percent real growth,
Speaker 1: you create trillions of dollars in government revenue. That allows
Speaker 1: you to have a tax cut that's dramatically bigger than
Speaker 1: anybody dreamed of. And I think the administration has curly
Speaker 1: moving in the right direction. I do believe that there
Speaker 1: is going to be a drive in September to get
Speaker 1: the bill out of the Ways and Means Committee and
Speaker 1: through the House, and that the Senate by the time
Speaker 1: they finish a continuing resolution by September, the Senate will
Speaker 1: pivot and I think they will take it up the
Speaker 1: first two weeks in October, and I'm very hopeful, almost
Speaker 1: say optimistic. I'm very hopeful that we will actually see
Speaker 1: a bill signed by the President by Thanksgiving, and that
Speaker 1: would be just a huge boost to the economy and
Speaker 1: a huge boost to the Republican prospects in two thousand eighteen.
Speaker 1: But on these two issues, getting the economy that the
Speaker 1: President wants on track to create jobs and increased revenues
Speaker 1: and economic growth, I think it's so important. Um. But
Speaker 1: also they kind of failed. There was a colossal feill
Speaker 1: on on healthcare. I think Republicans need to focus on
Speaker 1: getting their jobs done here. And I also think building
Speaker 1: that border wall is going to be imperative because they
Speaker 1: promised this and if they don't have three miles of
Speaker 1: it built, I think people will be angry. I think
Speaker 1: that's right, and I think I think the President Trump
Speaker 1: knows that and he's going to focus on it. And
Speaker 1: my guess is you're going to see that get be
Speaker 1: part of the package before the end of the year.
Speaker 1: That there will be some some legislation that comes together
Speaker 1: that includes the wall. Uh. I think that there's no
Speaker 1: question the people I talked to in the White House,
Speaker 1: I'll understand that this is literally unchallengeable. It has to happen,
Speaker 1: and they are trying to communicate to the Hill. Look,
Speaker 1: you tell me what you want, and I'll tell you
Speaker 1: how how many miles of the wall it's going to
Speaker 1: take to get it. You know, I guess I've never
Speaker 1: seen such incompetence, and I know you have cut them
Speaker 1: a little more slack, although you're becoming as impatient I
Speaker 1: think now as I am. I'm drifting your way. I'm
Speaker 1: drifting your way. I'm out, I'm out on a sail ball,
Speaker 1: drifting my way. I mean, if the winds are blowing
Speaker 1: a little quicker, and they're blowing quick everywhere, now, um,
Speaker 1: maybe they'll maybe they'll get some emergency, which I wish
Speaker 1: they would have on top of that. At this point,
Speaker 1: after North Korea has done all that they've done, firing
Speaker 1: a missile over a Japanese island, and now we have
Speaker 1: shown them that we can take their missiles out of
Speaker 1: the sky, and the pledge by Kim Jong to keep
Speaker 1: doing this, it seems to me, the next logical step
Speaker 1: for the United States is when he launches another missile
Speaker 1: that we probably ought to be prepared to take that
Speaker 1: sucker out of the sky. Good idea or bad idea,
Speaker 1: and it's a necessary idea. I think we should actually
Speaker 1: dramatically enhance our anti missile capabilities and we should communicate
Speaker 1: publicly that only when when missiles have been inspected will
Speaker 1: they be allowed to fly, and that any effort to
Speaker 1: fire and on a missile without inspection, we'll kill the missile,
Speaker 1: starting with killing it on the launch pad. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you think about how these missiles work, the slowest
Speaker 1: and easiest point to kill it is the first hundred
Speaker 1: thousand feet because it's going straight up. And so what
Speaker 1: you want to do is develop a combination of laser
Speaker 1: weapons and hypersonic weapons uh and set up a doctrine
Speaker 1: that then be very clear about it. Uh. No, we
Speaker 1: don't trust you. No, we're not going to take any
Speaker 1: risk that you're gonna take out in American City. We're
Speaker 1: not going to take a risk. You can use an
Speaker 1: electromagnetic pulse attack on Tokyo or Unsoul, and so we're
Speaker 1: just serving notice that you know, we're not going to
Speaker 1: start a pre emptiople or we're not going to try
Speaker 1: to knock off your regime. But unless you agree to
Speaker 1: have us inspect each missile before it is fired, we're
Speaker 1: just going to kill him and put him in a box.
Speaker 1: We have the technology of the idea. I don't think
Speaker 1: we have any choice, and then it gets into bad
Speaker 1: choices upon bad choices, because what I don't want to
Speaker 1: do is either rely on on on some kind of
Speaker 1: um real approach. You know, if if all we do
Speaker 1: is talk loud, will be like the presidents who have failed.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, I don't want to focus. I
Speaker 1: don't want us to talk ourselves into a box where
Speaker 1: we decide that we have to have full blown war
Speaker 1: because as you and I have talked about before, there
Speaker 1: are there are so many thousand artillery pieces and missiles
Speaker 1: aimed directly at Soul. There's no good option. And and
Speaker 1: then if he but if a war is gonna start,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be Kim Jong un that starts it. There's
Speaker 1: a part of me the beliefs he probably does want it,
Speaker 1: which is dangerous for everybody because the net result of
Speaker 1: that is there's no good options. All right, Stay right, there. Uh,
Speaker 1: number one best selling author Understanding Trump. New King riches
Speaker 1: with us will get to more of his insightful comments
Speaker 1: when we get back as right as we continue with
Speaker 1: number one New York Times bestselling author, former Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House New King Ridge's book Understanding Trump. So while
Speaker 1: I was away, we discovered that James Comey in fact,
Speaker 1: had written, long before he ever interviewed Hillary Clinton or
Speaker 1: seventeen other key witnesses, the exoneration of Hillary. And to me,
Speaker 1: it just screams of political fix being in. And to
Speaker 1: me it also would mandate in my mind that the
Speaker 1: Attorney General Jeff Sessions reopened the case about Hillary and emails,
Speaker 1: and and now maybe we can get some truth and
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of this. Well. I was certainly
Speaker 1: pretty startling, I thought to discover. Is Andy McCarthy said
Speaker 1: in the column this week, it's clear that the person
Speaker 1: who exonerated Hillary is Barack Obama. And he's exactly what
Speaker 1: Obama said in April of two thousand and sixteen. And
Speaker 1: then he so shows you exactly what Comy said in
Speaker 1: that July press event. And it's like Comy's reading off
Speaker 1: of Obama's notes. Uh, And it's just it's unbelievable, and
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree with you more. I did notice with
Speaker 1: some encouragement, that the Senate leadership has sent a very
Speaker 1: strong letter to Justice asking for a series of information
Speaker 1: that pushes this thing that reopens the whole case. And
Speaker 1: I think that's frankly very encouraging. Well, I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of things that ought to be reopened here.
Speaker 1: It appears by every account. I want to ask you
Speaker 1: this question. So I've interviewed Julian Assans five times. He's
Speaker 1: the one guy that knows where the information on the
Speaker 1: emails came from. And he's the one guy that knows
Speaker 1: his sources. Now, keep in mind, like or not, like
Speaker 1: Julian Assange and Wiki leaks, they've never been proven wrong
Speaker 1: in over eleven years. So my question is now that
Speaker 1: he's saying to Dana Roharbacher and said to me it's
Speaker 1: not Russia in terms of the d n C email hack,
Speaker 1: of the Podesta hacked, my question is, wasn't Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: have an obligation to find out where the truth is
Speaker 1: in this and find out whether or not it might
Speaker 1: have been Bernie's Bernie's Sanders supporters that were disgruntled. Well,
Speaker 1: of course, and I think he has an obligation to
Speaker 1: uh follow the information wherever it leads, uh, including trying
Speaker 1: to find a way to interview a SAMs. I mean, um,
Speaker 1: you know, it is interesting and I have no idea
Speaker 1: where this is going, but it is interesting how much
Speaker 1: quieter the news media has gotten about Mueller and about
Speaker 1: the whole notion of this this heroic figure who was
Speaker 1: going to do everything right, etcetera. Somehow that's gotten just
Speaker 1: much much quieter than it was just a few weeks ago. Well,
Speaker 1: it's gotten quiet We've gone from issue to issue. Remember
Speaker 1: it was Russia, Russia, Russia, the President's going to start
Speaker 1: a nuclear war, then the President's a racist, and then
Speaker 1: milanis shoes because they had nothing else to pick on
Speaker 1: as it relates to Hurricane Harvey, because the federal government,
Speaker 1: the state government, and beside the Houston mayor everybody kind
Speaker 1: of did a great job on Hurricane Harvey. Well it
Speaker 1: was I have to confess, it was a little bizarre
Speaker 1: to watch the shoes issue, particularly since she had taken
Speaker 1: sneakers and came out of the airplane when she got
Speaker 1: to Houston dressed exactly appropriately for what she was doing.
Speaker 1: I mean, you almost had to think to yourself, these
Speaker 1: people are so petty that that it's it's almost embarrassing.
Speaker 1: And how how do they go home in the evening
Speaker 1: and actually think that what they're doing makes any sense? Well,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you one thing. With all the media chat
Speaker 1: or all the deep state, all the Democrats against the
Speaker 1: president and weak Republicans, they really are hurting the American
Speaker 1: people that did vote for a positive change in the country.
Speaker 1: It is it is preventing a lot of good work
Speaker 1: from being done. And at some point, I think the
Speaker 1: American people are going to see this in a boomerang's back.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that? Absolutely? And there have been some
Speaker 1: some very interesting articles, uh as you know, one of
Speaker 1: the most interesting reporters who has covered western Pennsylvania for
Speaker 1: years and years now working in New York is Selena Zito,
Speaker 1: and she wrote a great article to there about going
Speaker 1: back to this one town and the people there are
Speaker 1: more pro Trump than they were during the campaign. And
Speaker 1: then their view of it is that all this noise
Speaker 1: is the opposition to the change that they want. So
Speaker 1: it's not that weekends their grip with with with Trumpet's
Speaker 1: actually reinforced their belief that he must be doing the
Speaker 1: right thing because looks how mad all these people are.
Speaker 1: Well said, all right, Mr speaker, good to talk to
Speaker 1: you again. And uh, I only got a little smidge
Speaker 1: in a little taste of what your life is kind
Speaker 1: of like when you're not working. Just let's say, I'm
Speaker 1: not that I'm jealous or anything. I'm happy doing what
Speaker 1: I'm doing. But I'm just saying it's it's pretty amazing. Well,
Speaker 1: it can be good, Oh, it can be great. All right, sir,
Speaker 1: thank you. When we come back wide open telephones on
Speaker 1: this Tuesday, post Labor Day edition, we're back Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: Show to Hannity tonight ten Eastern Fox News Quick Break,
Speaker 1: right back. We'll continue alright to the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: One Shaw and you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program, following our top stories here, James Comey, Well,
Speaker 1: he had already decided Hillary was innocent before he even
Speaker 1: search for evidence. We're gonna get to that. What to
Speaker 1: do with North Korea, that's big. Republicans need to get
Speaker 1: all their work done. And yeah, we have Hurricane Harvey. Now,
Speaker 1: Hurricane Irma headed right to Florida as a cat five
Speaker 1: potential as we speak. So obviously a lot going on today.
Speaker 1: Let me go back to the DACA issue, though, because
Speaker 1: nobody in the media will ever follow up and follow through.
Speaker 1: I want to play for you three things. One, I
Speaker 1: want to play Obama saying he never had the legal authority,
Speaker 1: the constitutional authority to change unilaterally by executive fiat DHAKA.
Speaker 1: And then I want to play Paul Ryan acknowledging same
Speaker 1: in other words, that this is the president may not
Speaker 1: like the law. If you don't like the law, you
Speaker 1: can't just you know, right it away, which is what
Speaker 1: Obama did and what Obama said he couldn't do. And
Speaker 1: Paul ryanning knowledges that. And then you've got the flipping
Speaker 1: and flopping and flanning of Hillary Clinton on the issue,
Speaker 1: which you know, it's almost breathtaking as you just listen
Speaker 1: to interview after interview, the contortions that she would go
Speaker 1: through as it relates to illegal immigration. She admits that
Speaker 1: taking jobs from Americans, she didn't want driver's licenses for
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. Um she said, She's adamantly against the illegal
Speaker 1: immigration and against people employing illegal immigrants. You know, so
Speaker 1: just listen to this over the years nobody else is
Speaker 1: gonna remind you of this. Then we'll get to your calls. Here.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem that I have, Jose, and I've said
Speaker 1: this consistently. Um, my job in the executive branch is
Speaker 1: supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Uh.
Speaker 1: Congress has said here's the law when it comes to
Speaker 1: those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of money for enforcement. It's something that I've struggled with
Speaker 1: throughout my presidency. The problem is that, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm the President United States. I'm not the emperor of
Speaker 1: the United States. My job is to execute laws that
Speaker 1: are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what
Speaker 1: I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what
Speaker 1: that means is is that we have certain obligations to
Speaker 1: enforce the laws that are in place, even if we
Speaker 1: think that in many cases the results may be tragic. Now,
Speaker 1: what you need to know when I'm speaking as President
Speaker 1: United States and I come to this community is that
Speaker 1: if in fact I could solve all these problems without
Speaker 1: passing laws in Congress, then I would do something. But
Speaker 1: we're also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition.
Speaker 1: And so the easy way out is to try to
Speaker 1: yell and pretend like I can do something by violating
Speaker 1: our laws. And what I'm proposing is the harder path,
Speaker 1: which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the
Speaker 1: same goal that you want to achieve. But it won't
Speaker 1: be as easy as just shouting. It requires a lobby
Speaker 1: and getting it done. But if we start broadening that,
Speaker 1: then essentially I would be ignoring uh, the law in
Speaker 1: a way that I think would be very difficult to
Speaker 1: defend legally. So that's not an option. And I do
Speaker 1: get a little worried that, uh, you know, advocates of
Speaker 1: immigration reform uh start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, somehow there's a an out here. If Congress
Speaker 1: doesn't act, we'll just have the presidents sign something and
Speaker 1: and that will take care of them. We won't have
Speaker 1: to worry about it. What I've said is is that
Speaker 1: there's a path to get this done, and that's through
Speaker 1: Congress that we all agree on the need to better
Speaker 1: secure the border and to punish employers who choose to
Speaker 1: hire illegal immigrants. You know, we are a generous and
Speaker 1: welcoming people here in the United States, but those who
Speaker 1: enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect
Speaker 1: the rule of law. Uh and they are showing disregard
Speaker 1: for the those who are following the law. We simply
Speaker 1: cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked,
Speaker 1: and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently,
Speaker 1: and lawfully to become immigrants. If the President follows through
Speaker 1: on his threat for executive amnesty, what do you have
Speaker 1: in terms of tools at your disposal to stop him
Speaker 1: from doing that. Well, first of all, it's unconstitutional, So
Speaker 1: we're already going through the court system on other unconstitutional
Speaker 1: ejecutive orders that he has he has worked on, and
Speaker 1: we would add this to the pile. Second of all,
Speaker 1: if we can get the power of the purse, we
Speaker 1: will explore every option we can to exercise that power
Speaker 1: of the purse. I have little doubt that he'll do
Speaker 1: well well, well, I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 1: We'll find out. But if he does do that, it's
Speaker 1: non constitutional. It's going around Congress. If you want to
Speaker 1: change the law, then go to Congress and work with
Speaker 1: Congress and change the law. You can't you don't utterly
Speaker 1: write a law as the executive president might be looking
Speaker 1: at back, doctor, Yeah, I mean, I actually don't think
Speaker 1: he should do that. And I believe that this is
Speaker 1: something that Congress has to um fixed. Uh, let me
Speaker 1: back up for a second. President Obama did not have
Speaker 1: the legislative authority to do what he did. You can
Speaker 1: as an executive rite law out of thin air. And so, um,
Speaker 1: that's very very clear. We've made that very clear. Having
Speaker 1: said all of that, there are people who are in limbo.
Speaker 1: These are kids who don't no other country, who were
Speaker 1: brought here um by their parents and and don't know
Speaker 1: another home. And so I really do believe that there
Speaker 1: needs to be a legislative solution. That's one that we're
Speaker 1: working on, um. And I think we want to give
Speaker 1: people peace of mind. And so I've had plenty of
Speaker 1: conversations with the White House about this issue, and I
Speaker 1: think there's a and I think the President as well
Speaker 1: as mentioned that he must to have a humane solution
Speaker 1: to this problem. And I think that's something that we
Speaker 1: in Congress are working on and need to deliver on.
Speaker 1: We've got to do several things, and I am you know,
Speaker 1: adamantly again, illegal immigrants. I made this exception basically on
Speaker 1: humanitarian ground because of the individual stories. But certainly we've
Speaker 1: got to do more at our borders, and people have
Speaker 1: to stop employing illegal immigrants. Come up to Westchester, go
Speaker 1: to Suffolk and Nasau County. Stand in the street corners
Speaker 1: on in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're gonna see loads
Speaker 1: of people waiting to get picked up to go do
Speaker 1: yard work and construction work and domestic work. You know it.
Speaker 1: This is not a problem that the people who were
Speaker 1: coming into the country are solely responsible for the coming
Speaker 1: if we didn't put them to work. Why does it
Speaker 1: make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant
Speaker 1: a driver's license. Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to
Speaker 1: do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of
Speaker 1: this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. Uh. We
Speaker 1: know in New York we have several million at any
Speaker 1: one time who are in New York illegally. They are
Speaker 1: undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility
Speaker 1: of them having an accident that harms themselves or others
Speaker 1: is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So
Speaker 1: what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill
Speaker 1: the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to
Speaker 1: comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned,
Speaker 1: can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action
Speaker 1: on immigration reforms. I just want to make sure what
Speaker 1: I heard. Do you the New York Senator Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: a driver's license? You told the National Hamshurre paper that
Speaker 1: made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?
Speaker 1: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays got you.
Speaker 1: It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor
Speaker 1: supposed to do? The hypocrisy is beyond breathtaking. It's everything
Speaker 1: we've been telling you forever, and yet we stay in
Speaker 1: the same position, and then, oh, you're a racist, you're
Speaker 1: anti gay. Well, the Clinton's were the ones that came
Speaker 1: up with don't ask, don't tell. They just move all
Speaker 1: over the place. All right, let's get to our phones. Uh,
Speaker 1: Sandy is in California? Sandy, Hi, how are you glad
Speaker 1: you called? Welcome to the show? Hi? Sean Um did
Speaker 1: exactly the right thing. What I love is that he's
Speaker 1: following his agenda which we voted for, and that is
Speaker 1: that you're gonna you need to follow the rule of law.
Speaker 1: And Jeff's Sessions did an excellent job and content and delivery,
Speaker 1: you know, getting that message across. I'd suggest anybody who
Speaker 1: didn't hear it needs to hear that because that was
Speaker 1: very well done. Um. He Trump wants to put Americans first.
Speaker 1: The Democrats don't agree with that, and we need to
Speaker 1: always remember that. I just see Trump is always wanting
Speaker 1: to enforce the law, promote the constitution. He wanted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I was arguing this at a
Speaker 1: couple of days off and I can't get away from work.
Speaker 1: I just can't mentally, emotionally, spiritually, I'm I'm just so engaged.
Speaker 1: I just can't stop looking at the news. I'm obsessed.
Speaker 1: And I ran into somebody and we started arguing about
Speaker 1: Trump and he's not a conservative and you're no longer
Speaker 1: a concern b And I said, okay, what part of
Speaker 1: his agenda is not conservative? Tell me what it is.
Speaker 1: And he couldn't answer, and then I said, well, let
Speaker 1: me give you my list of what is conservative, because
Speaker 1: I don't know if you remember our Conservative Solution Caucus
Speaker 1: we put it out at the end of we wanted
Speaker 1: Congress to run on it in. And it's basically the
Speaker 1: Trump agenda. And what do we care about we I
Speaker 1: care about the forgotten men and women. I care about people.
Speaker 1: I've lived through this out of work, you know, in poverty,
Speaker 1: on food stamps. I've never been on food stamps or unwelfare,
Speaker 1: but you get my I had no money. And if
Speaker 1: if you do these conservative things, those tax cuts are conservative.
Speaker 1: You know, middle class cuts are conservative. Uh, corporate tax
Speaker 1: cuts and repatriation money goes to build factories and manufacturing centers.
Speaker 1: That helps the forgotten men and women. You know, everybody
Speaker 1: forgets all these people that are suffering, and the media
Speaker 1: doesn't care because they're just too busy trying to take
Speaker 1: the president out, just like the Democrats and just like
Speaker 1: the deep state. But if really care about people. Is
Speaker 1: his energy policies conservative? His Supreme Court appointment was conservative.
Speaker 1: His position on boorders his conservative. His position on vetting
Speaker 1: is conservative. So all these people that say he's a
Speaker 1: populist a nationalist, I'm like, no, He's basically a raaking
Speaker 1: conservative and he's advocating is not one. Look, there are
Speaker 1: positions I probably disagree with him on the one is
Speaker 1: would be you know where his trade policy eventually ends up.
Speaker 1: I'm a free trade person, but I'm also free and
Speaker 1: fair trade person, and you can't be imposing massive tariffs
Speaker 1: on the United States or putting burdens and regulation on
Speaker 1: American businesses that they can't be competitive in your market. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you have a full, complete, unfettered access to our market.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's it's tough. People are uneducated because
Speaker 1: they actually listen to the fake news media. But Sean,
Speaker 1: do you don't you find it interesting that people like
Speaker 1: you were right about the election, and the people that
Speaker 1: are wrong are the same ones that are on TV.
Speaker 1: They're spouting the same thing. In fact, they could hire
Speaker 1: some of us to just spout what so and so
Speaker 1: says every week. They never say anything differently. They never
Speaker 1: want to do what's right for America. And that's what
Speaker 1: I see Trump doing. Trump every single day is working
Speaker 1: to make America's safe and great. And every single day
Speaker 1: the Democrats arete are promoting hate and violence and resistance,
Speaker 1: well not all of them, but certainly resistance, certainly opposition.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, the Democratic Party has won't lift a
Speaker 1: finger to help the president. They won't lift a finger,
Speaker 1: and by doing so, they don't have any agenda items.
Speaker 1: There's pushing and they just adopted a new slogan. Uh
Speaker 1: what a better tomorrow or something like that. Anyway, thank
Speaker 1: you so any Um, Linda and I have had this
Speaker 1: conversation so many times. UM, I do not hesitate to
Speaker 1: go out and do my own work, our own reporting,
Speaker 1: our own research, and more times than not, we can
Speaker 1: point us very specific instances where we were viewed as
Speaker 1: nuts by the mainstream media, only to be proven right.
Speaker 1: You know, the election of Trump is only the latest example,
Speaker 1: but also how bad Obama would be in the vetting
Speaker 1: of Obama and what a rigid ideologue he would turn
Speaker 1: out to be as president based on his background that
Speaker 1: nobody in the media dared to investigate. We did, you know,
Speaker 1: before we took a position on George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin.
Speaker 1: You know, once we got evidence, we we found out
Speaker 1: we were right. They were all wrong. The same in Ferguson,
Speaker 1: the same with Duke Lacrosse, the same with Baltimore, the
Speaker 1: same with the Cambridge police. You know, early in my
Speaker 1: career was Richard Juliet. Look, I'm not patting myself on
Speaker 1: the back. I'm just saying that, I'm I know, I
Speaker 1: don't make my opinions based on what this media reports.
Speaker 1: They lie all the time. You know all these reporters
Speaker 1: that want to interview me lately, Hannity, Huh, why are
Speaker 1: you supporting Trump? Because I support and have always supported
Speaker 1: a tax cutting agenda. I've always said secure the borders first.
Speaker 1: I've always said that America needs education sent back to
Speaker 1: the States. I've always supported identifying radical Islamis as an enemy. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it gets frustrating. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: I feel like we're unique, and we're doing their job,
Speaker 1: and we're we've got a far better track record than
Speaker 1: they do. Nobody's perfect. I'm not saying it I'm perfect,
Speaker 1: But I have absolutely zero confidence in what I read
Speaker 1: in the New York Times in Washington Post. I have
Speaker 1: zero confidence in cable TV but for the channel that
Speaker 1: I work at, and I have zero confidence in the networks,
Speaker 1: And I think they just resent, like hell, the fact
Speaker 1: that that there is even one alternative voice out there,
Speaker 1: which is why they try so hard to silence conservative voices.
Speaker 1: That's why there's a whole cottage industry that has been
Speaker 1: developed to monitor every conservative host on radio and TV,
Speaker 1: and the hopes they say one thing wrong, that they
Speaker 1: can jump on and that they can get somebody fired
Speaker 1: and that they can grab their scalp, and then they
Speaker 1: feel their job is that much more secure, and then
Speaker 1: one monolithic group think opinion exists and permeates the entire country.
Speaker 1: It is the antithesis of what this country is supposed
Speaker 1: to be about, which is rigorous, passionate debate and the
Speaker 1: free in the open exchange of news and information and
Speaker 1: ideas and opinion. Right, Hannity tonight, ten Eastern. Hope you
Speaker 1: will join us. I have a really important opening monologue
Speaker 1: about James Comey, about the Republicans, about Dhaka. We now
Speaker 1: have two hurricanes to deal with, and Republicans better get
Speaker 1: their work done. We have new ging Ridge is gonna
Speaker 1: be on, James Calstrom, j Sekula will be on tonight. Also,
Speaker 1: I'll shoot it out with Jorge Ramos and David Clark
Speaker 1: and Monica Crowley ten Eastern News. You won't get anywhere
Speaker 1: else Fox News. I hope you'll sell your DVR. We're
Speaker 1: back tonight live at ten. See you back here tomorrow,