Speaker 1: That was just why people love and fight so hard
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. Earlier today, glad you with us eight
Speaker 1: hundred and nine for one, Shawn, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, so the president, the
Speaker 1: Vice president of there. The body language is priceless, it
Speaker 1: really is. And I'll play parts of it here. Maybe
Speaker 1: we'll play more of it later. But just amazing exchange
Speaker 1: with Pelosi and Schumer. Now, I remember, we've got the
Speaker 1: old Democrats, and at some point in the program I'll
Speaker 1: replay for you the Democrats in the Obama years sounded
Speaker 1: just like Donald Trump on the border, on illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: on the wall, on everything, and that it means all
Speaker 1: of them, including Hillary, including Obama, including Schumer, including Pelosi,
Speaker 1: they were all in the same spot. By the way,
Speaker 1: there's just breaking in the Washington Post. It just doesn't
Speaker 1: get any better than this. Moments after returning to Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill after an oval office stand with President Trump, House
Speaker 1: Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi questioned Trump's manhood. I'm not making
Speaker 1: this up in the Washington Post. I swear no where
Speaker 1: did I get it? Hang on? Maybe not the Washington Post. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's Washington Post manhood and said the border wall is
Speaker 1: a matter of masculine pride. Wow, it's like a manhood
Speaker 1: thing for him, as if manhood could ever be associated
Speaker 1: with him. This wall thing, she said, Well, this wall thing.
Speaker 1: You know, you would think that maybe she would recognize
Speaker 1: that there were many angel moms and dads out there
Speaker 1: like Kate Steinley, I believe was in San Francisco and
Speaker 1: what happens sometimes when illegal immigrants. But of course she
Speaker 1: lives in a sanctuary state, in a sanctuary city. And
Speaker 1: she made the remarks in a Democratic Caucus committee meeting
Speaker 1: where she was recounted, which were recounted by an aide
Speaker 1: president and not authorized to comment. She told the colleagues
Speaker 1: that she was trying to be a mom in the
Speaker 1: room while Trump and Chucky Schumer bickered about coming about
Speaker 1: the coming funding a showdown on the wall. But she
Speaker 1: had described Trump's admission during the seventeen minute on camera
Speaker 1: battle that he would be proud to shut the government
Speaker 1: down as a political triumph. You know, there's a myth
Speaker 1: that somehow these government shutdowns hurt Republicans. They don't remember
Speaker 1: they said that when Ted Cruz had the nerve to
Speaker 1: dare to go up and do a real filibuster for
Speaker 1: like twenty four hours and were they blaming him for
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen ended up being a great year for Republicans
Speaker 1: as it relates to the Senate. Let me just play
Speaker 1: a couple of the key moments just to give you
Speaker 1: a flavor of what this was like in the Oval
Speaker 1: office today, and we'll get to the heart of where
Speaker 1: this is all headed and why this is good. Okay,
Speaker 1: let us have our conversation now that you need would
Speaker 1: the press again, But the fact is, is that legislating
Speaker 1: and which is what we do? You begin to make
Speaker 1: it to your point to state your case. That's what
Speaker 1: the House would publicans do if they had the votes.
Speaker 1: But there are no votes in the House majority of
Speaker 1: votes for a wall, no matter where exactly right, you don't.
Speaker 1: If I needed the votes for the wall in the House,
Speaker 1: I would have them in one session. That would be done.
Speaker 1: They'll do it. It doesn't help because we need ten
Speaker 1: Democrats and the put put it on into Okay, let
Speaker 1: me ask you this just and we're doing this in
Speaker 1: a very friendly manner. It doesn't help for me to
Speaker 1: take a vote in the House where I will win
Speaker 1: easily with the Republicans when it doesn't help to take
Speaker 1: that vote because I'm not going to get the vote
Speaker 1: of the Senate. I need ten senators. That's the problem.
Speaker 1: You have the White House, the Senate. I have the
Speaker 1: White House. The White House is done, and the House
Speaker 1: would give me the vote if I wanted it, but
Speaker 1: I can't because I need Nancy. I need ten votes
Speaker 1: from Chuck or let me say something. Let me get
Speaker 1: say White done. The fact you do not have the
Speaker 1: votes in the House, Nancy, I do. And we need
Speaker 1: border security, Nancy, Nancy, we need border securities very severe.
Speaker 1: We need border security injected and says, yeah, here's what
Speaker 1: I want to say. We have a lot of disagreements here.
Speaker 1: The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of
Speaker 1: pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much the
Speaker 1: wall is built, how much of the wall is built,
Speaker 1: and how much is there. But that's not the point here.
Speaker 1: We have a disagreement about the wall, Washington, whether it's
Speaker 1: effective or or not. On board of security, but on
Speaker 1: the wall. We do not want to shut down the government.
Speaker 1: You have called twenty times to shut down the government.
Speaker 1: Who say I want to shut down the government, We don't.
Speaker 1: We want to come to an agreement. If we can't
Speaker 1: come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass
Speaker 1: the House and Senate right now, and we'll not shut
Speaker 1: down the government. And that's what we're urging you to do.
Speaker 1: Not threatened to shut down the government because you let
Speaker 1: me just finish for them, because you can't catch it
Speaker 1: way you shut it down. Yet, let me say something
Speaker 1: as the president, you just say my way, or will
Speaker 1: shut down the government. We have a proposal that will
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans will support to do a cr that
Speaker 1: will not shut down the government. We urge you to
Speaker 1: take it. If it's not good border security out it
Speaker 1: is very good. If it's not good order security, I
Speaker 1: will take it's because when you look at these numbers
Speaker 1: of the effectiveness of our border security, and when you
Speaker 1: look at the job that we're doing, what you said
Speaker 1: it is effective. Can I be Can I tell you
Speaker 1: something you just said, without a wall, these are only
Speaker 1: areas where you have the wolf you want to do.
Speaker 1: You have walls, Chuck, it's effective. Well, you don't have walls.
Speaker 1: It is not effective. One thing I think we can
Speaker 1: agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over
Speaker 1: a dispute and you want to shut it down, and
Speaker 1: you're not talking about the last time, Chuck, you shut
Speaker 1: it then no, no, no, and then you any time quickly.
Speaker 1: And I don't want to do what you did twenty
Speaker 1: times you have called for. I will shut down the
Speaker 1: government if I don't get my wall, none of us.
Speaker 1: If you want to know something you said you want
Speaker 1: to put them and said it, I'll take it. Okay, good,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'll say. Yes, if we don't get
Speaker 1: what we want one way or the other, whether it's
Speaker 1: through you, through a military, through anything you want to call,
Speaker 1: I will shut down the governay, absolute enough, And I
Speaker 1: am proud and I'll be disagree. I am proud to
Speaker 1: shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the
Speaker 1: people of this country don't want criminals and people that
Speaker 1: have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country.
Speaker 1: So I will take the mental. I will be the
Speaker 1: one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame
Speaker 1: you for it. The last time you shut it down,
Speaker 1: it didn't work. I will take the mental of shutting
Speaker 1: down and I'm going to shut it down for border.
Speaker 1: But we believe you shouldn't shut it down. These are
Speaker 1: only areas where you have the world want to do.
Speaker 1: You have walls, Chuck, it's effective. Were you don't have walls,
Speaker 1: it is not effective. Yeah, that's calohl to this. We've
Speaker 1: come in here as the first branch of government, Article one,
Speaker 1: the legislative places, but coming in good faith to negotiate
Speaker 1: with you about how we can keep the government open.
Speaker 1: We're gonna keep it open if we have border security.
Speaker 1: If we don't have border security, we're not going to
Speaker 1: keep the doll mean, we haven't had lawyers and it's
Speaker 1: the same border. You're bragging about what has been done.
Speaker 1: But we want to do the same thing we did
Speaker 1: last year this year. That's our proposal. If it's good,
Speaker 1: then it's good now, and it won't shut down the
Speaker 1: check we can build up in private. Let's debate in private.
Speaker 1: This is not going well for me. This has to
Speaker 1: end right now. You know, this is what people want
Speaker 1: in terms of if you're gonna fight, fight for something
Speaker 1: the American people that you promised the American people you do.
Speaker 1: This is what was missing when Trump first gets in
Speaker 1: the office in twenty seventeen. All those Republicans have voted
Speaker 1: sixty five times to appeal and replace. We're nowhere to
Speaker 1: be found. If they would have fought like that, all
Speaker 1: of those people, we would have repealed and replace all
Speaker 1: of it. We only got rid of the individual mandate
Speaker 1: because that was thrown into another supplemental bill of some kind.
Speaker 1: Now it's the same thing with the wall. What the
Speaker 1: President is saying. The polls show absolutely dramatically that the
Speaker 1: American people we you, we the people want border security.
Speaker 1: It's really that simple. There's a January twenty eighteen Havid
Speaker 1: Harris Pole where eighty one percent of those surveys want
Speaker 1: immigration slashed, seventy nine percent want secure borders, seventy nine
Speaker 1: percent want merit based immigration, sixty eight percent want an
Speaker 1: end of the visa lottery, sixty five percent want a
Speaker 1: dock a deal with no amnesty, sixty one percent say
Speaker 1: the current border is inadequate and say no docer relatives,
Speaker 1: and fifty four percent won the wall. It's a winning issue.
Speaker 1: I'll take responsibility. Yeah, I'm going to shut down the government.
Speaker 1: Is this is what's been missing. Like the seven Senators
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen that voted just to repeal Obamacare, the
Speaker 1: same exact bill, same exact language, and they, oh, they
Speaker 1: didn't really mean it in twenty fifteen when it would
Speaker 1: have mattered. In twenty seventeen, they were nowhere to be found.
Speaker 1: It's pretty pathetic, but it's they keep trying to get
Speaker 1: this president to back down on the border wall, and
Speaker 1: he's not gonna do it. He's only asking for five billion,
Speaker 1: he's not asking for all of it. We have three
Speaker 1: and a half i think or four billion already allocated
Speaker 1: to it. And the president and they want to we're
Speaker 1: gonna blame you, and he said, I'll take that. I
Speaker 1: won't blame you. I'll absolutely I'm gonna I'm gonna fund
Speaker 1: the wall, or blame me. Now these government shutdowns, essential
Speaker 1: services all continue. Everyone gets their Social Security check. That's
Speaker 1: hospitals they open, Our Defense department is up and running,
Speaker 1: and intel services. It's you know what happens when government shutdowns.
Speaker 1: You got a bunch of bureaucrats that get a free
Speaker 1: vacation because we always end up giving them back pay
Speaker 1: for whatever time or days they have off. Now they
Speaker 1: can try all they want. Maybe they think that Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell is afraid of a government shutdown, and maybe he is,
Speaker 1: but it is a top priority that the President you know,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason Republicans have felt under Obama now under Trump,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter who's in office, they don't want to get blamed.
Speaker 1: I don't know why Paul Ryan is almost as afraid
Speaker 1: of a showdown and shut down as Mitch McConnell. Maybe
Speaker 1: he just hides it a little better. But the problem
Speaker 1: for Chuck and Nancy is they're not dealing with Paul Ryan.
Speaker 1: They're not dealing with Mitch McConnell. If they were, they'd
Speaker 1: be able to steamroll the GOP within a few minutes.
Speaker 1: You got a president that's saying, no, it's not going
Speaker 1: to continue. We're going to fulfill a promise, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to fight to fulfill the promise. And if that
Speaker 1: means you don't want to fund it, that's fine, but
Speaker 1: there are going to be ramifications and he's holding the line. Now.
Speaker 1: Another good thing that's happened in all of this Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 1: He's saying the exact say, this is the fight we're
Speaker 1: going to have. He needs to dig in, meaning the
Speaker 1: president and a liberal arrogance, take it on and stare
Speaker 1: it down. This is a new and revitalize Lindsey Graham,
Speaker 1: which I'm very happy to see. Now. The President also
Speaker 1: said in his warning congressional democrats, remember he's just sent
Speaker 1: down the military to build and put up the you
Speaker 1: don't call it barbed wire, what is it razor wire
Speaker 1: fences down there, which were very helpful, and the lead
Speaker 1: up to the caravan coming, and we saw what happened
Speaker 1: when some of them tried to bang down one of
Speaker 1: our borders, and bottles and rocks were be impelted at
Speaker 1: at our border troops and ice agents down there. Anyway,
Speaker 1: so the AP reported the President threatened repeatedly today to
Speaker 1: shut down the government if Congress doesn't provide the money. Now,
Speaker 1: notice he kept the press in the room for that exchange.
Speaker 1: Chuck ship, we want to do this in private. Why
Speaker 1: because then they can come out and mischaracterize what happened
Speaker 1: in private. So Trump's comments come as he opened this
Speaker 1: contentious meeting with Schumer and Pelosi, and they both said
Speaker 1: legislation to keep the government open and provide additional border
Speaker 1: security could pass. But Chuck has said, well, I want
Speaker 1: a fence. We don't need a wall a fence. I
Speaker 1: got a chain link fence. I can tell you that
Speaker 1: it doesn't I have deers sometimes running in my backyard.
Speaker 1: They leap over it like it's nothing. I mean, people
Speaker 1: just cut through a wire fence, simple and easily. And
Speaker 1: the purpose is to keep people safe on both sides
Speaker 1: of the border, to protect American laws and American sovereignty,
Speaker 1: and to stop what we now know that sixty seven
Speaker 1: percent of people that are in this country illegally, that
Speaker 1: they are on American assistance at a greater rate, sixty
Speaker 1: seven percent greater rate than the American people. We know
Speaker 1: now a study that came out weeks ago, seventy thousand
Speaker 1: dollars per illegal immigrant in this country. We the taxpayers,
Speaker 1: we foot the bill that's for the educational system, the
Speaker 1: healthcare system, the criminal justice system. And then of course,
Speaker 1: on top of it, you have people that we noticed
Speaker 1: in the caravan. We identified between us in Mexico, six
Speaker 1: hundred criminals that we're trying to get across the border.
Speaker 1: If you have an open border, they can get in.
Speaker 1: Anything like the caravan would ever cease to happen if
Speaker 1: you had the border wall properly built all the way
Speaker 1: across the southern border. So I like this, this is
Speaker 1: what you know. Everyone says, well, the president fights too
Speaker 1: much on Twitter okay, but when he's fighting to keep
Speaker 1: the promises he made, it's worth it because this needs,
Speaker 1: this fight needs to happen. And let me tell you,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi going back to our caucus and talking about
Speaker 1: his manhood shows that they are just they are out
Speaker 1: of their league in terms of negotiating and dealing with
Speaker 1: the President. And they can throw all the subpoena cannons
Speaker 1: they want at them, it's not going to matter. And
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, just like campaign finance,
Speaker 1: no that's not a problem either. Hey guys, remember when
Speaker 1: you need gifts that you need to bring a smile
Speaker 1: to somebody's face. One eight hundred flowers dot com. They
Speaker 1: have to be your go to, whether it's a birthday,
Speaker 1: an anniversary that slipped your mind, or maybe you just
Speaker 1: want to get ahead and deliver something just because you
Speaker 1: want them to know you're thinking about them. One eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com. They have the deals, the bouquets
Speaker 1: that are guaranteed to show people you love them. And
Speaker 1: right now, when you order twelve peppermint roses for twenty
Speaker 1: nine ninety nine, well, one eight hundred flowers will give
Speaker 1: you an extra half dozen roses and a vase absolutely free. Now,
Speaker 1: that's up to forty percent off the original price. Permitt
Speaker 1: roses from one eight hundred flowers dot com are picked
Speaker 1: at their peak and they're shipped overnight to ensure maximum freshness.
Speaker 1: Now to order twelve peppermint roses for twenty nine ninety
Speaker 1: nine plus another half dozen roses and a free base,
Speaker 1: just go to one eight hundred flowers dot com slash Hannity.
Speaker 1: That's one eight hundred flowers dot com slash Hannity. But
Speaker 1: you gotta hurry. This offer ends on Friday. You know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to start monitoring a little more. The
Speaker 1: rising Democratic star Acasio Cortez apparently called war hero General
Speaker 1: John Kelly a coward. Um. She just you know, the
Speaker 1: things she's saying on a daily basis are just nuts.
Speaker 1: You know that General Kelly lost his son fighting for
Speaker 1: his country. And where's the apology. I'm sure that's forthcoming
Speaker 1: any minute now, all right, eight hundred nine point on.
Speaker 1: This is this is the showdown, This is is what
Speaker 1: this We ought to be thankful for these moments that
Speaker 1: finally and I know, you know, everyone talks to me about, well,
Speaker 1: the president's style and he's he's combative and he fights,
Speaker 1: and you know why does he always say these things
Speaker 1: on Twitter? Because that's his nature. But when the president
Speaker 1: fights and gets the reductions in the bureaucracy that lead
Speaker 1: to the good news that we gave you yesterday, that
Speaker 1: we're energy independent and now exporting more energy than we
Speaker 1: have in seventy years. We have NATO now countries now
Speaker 1: stepping up to pay their fair share. We have four
Speaker 1: and a half million new jobs, four hundred thousand manufacturing jobs,
Speaker 1: three and a half million people off the food stamp roles,
Speaker 1: and you know, another four million out of poverty, first
Speaker 1: time in seventy five years. The US is not dependent
Speaker 1: on foreign oil. I mean, I mean, that's what you
Speaker 1: want in a president. By the way, just as Kavanaugh, well,
Speaker 1: that was not a good first ruling on his part.
Speaker 1: Their early decision involving abortionity decided with the liberal left
Speaker 1: of the court and declining to hear a case that
Speaker 1: could have allowed states to defund planned parenthood in state
Speaker 1: medicaid programs. And I think Clarence Thomas was not happy,
Speaker 1: and you know it was very strong in his descent,
Speaker 1: saying why are we punting? We'll continue smoking is not
Speaker 1: about politics, it's about people. There are thirty four million
Speaker 1: Americans that smoke. For me, Jewel was a game changer
Speaker 1: because you switch to Jewel, It's simple, it's satisfying, and
Speaker 1: no more smell. I watched people all the time they
Speaker 1: run outside and the freezing coal could be grabbing their cigarette. Well,
Speaker 1: with Jewel, you'll take a quick puff and you're good.
Speaker 1: That's it now. Jewel is designed which smokers in mind.
Speaker 1: From its form to technology. It's easy to use, no buttons,
Speaker 1: no switches, and the goal of Jewel is to impact
Speaker 1: the lives of adults smokers by providing a satisfying alternative.
Speaker 1: Switched to Jewel, you'll wish you a on it. A
Speaker 1: long time ago. To discover the smoking alternative that is
Speaker 1: nothing like any e sig vape you have ever tried.
Speaker 1: Go to this website Juul jewel dot com slash switch America.
Speaker 1: That's Juul dot com slash switch America. Warning this product
Speaker 1: contains nicotine and nicotine is an addictive chemical. Juul dot
Speaker 1: com slash switch America. We need border security. That's what
Speaker 1: we're gonna be talking about. Vorter security. If we don't
Speaker 1: have vorter security, we'll shut down the government. This country
Speaker 1: needs border security. The wall is a part of voter security.
Speaker 1: Let's have a talk. We're gonna get the wall built.
Speaker 1: And we've done a lot of wall already. Bigger part
Speaker 1: of border security is the wall. It's a big section.
Speaker 1: It's a big part of it. Everything that you need,
Speaker 1: it's a big part of it. We need to have
Speaker 1: effective border security. We need a wall in certain parts. No,
Speaker 1: not in all parts, but in certain parts of a
Speaker 1: two thousand mile border. We need a wall. How much
Speaker 1: money we are doing it? Much under budget? We're actually
Speaker 1: way under budget the areas that we've renovated, in areas
Speaker 1: that we've built. I would say if we got if
Speaker 1: we got five billion dollars, we could do a tremendous
Speaker 1: chunkle wall. Guests, well, we're gonna see, We're gonna see. Look,
Speaker 1: we have to have the wall. This isn't a question.
Speaker 1: This is a national emergency. Drugs are pouring into our country.
Speaker 1: People with tremendous medical difficulty and medical problems hop pouring
Speaker 1: in and in many in many cases that it's contagious.
Speaker 1: They're pouring into our country. We have to have water security.
Speaker 1: We have to have a wall as part of water security.
Speaker 1: And that was the President allowing the press to stay
Speaker 1: in this meeting with Chuck Schumer and with Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Chuck Schum Please please can we speak about this privately?
Speaker 1: Pretty please? Um? And they're just you're gonna shut down
Speaker 1: the government? What? How is a government shutdown? Why is this?
Speaker 1: There always been an inordinate fear when every key part
Speaker 1: of government stays up and running and is funded and
Speaker 1: you just throw continuing resolutions at it and the military
Speaker 1: and checks to seniors and nobody gets hurt. If anything.
Speaker 1: The people that get free vacations, paid vacations ought to
Speaker 1: be happy about it. But I'm not saying they don't
Speaker 1: do important work. But I'm saying it never is the
Speaker 1: great threat that people make it out to be. This
Speaker 1: is about having been down that this is the opportunity
Speaker 1: we have. This is the moment. And if you want,
Speaker 1: if you ever want to be a politician, let me
Speaker 1: tell you. My advice to you is, if you make promises,
Speaker 1: keep them. If you promise to serve the people where
Speaker 1: you live in your state and your district, then serve them,
Speaker 1: not yourself. Asking people now, every time you watch what
Speaker 1: they're calling the canons of subpoenas that they're going to
Speaker 1: throw at the Trump administration every day, and Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: and Gerald Nadler and everybody in company. It's not a
Speaker 1: winning strategy because than not serving the American people, they're
Speaker 1: serving their own political power grab agenda. Period. And as
Speaker 1: you listen, as we start the new year next year,
Speaker 1: we're going to follow these people like they've never been followed. There.
Speaker 1: Every word, they're every comment, We will have every insane
Speaker 1: thing they say. Nancy Pelosi leaves this meeting with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and says this is a manhood issue for him.
Speaker 1: This wall, it's nut. They're nuts. I've been down there
Speaker 1: at thirteen times. I've seen people arrested, seen a gang
Speaker 1: member arrested. I've also watched the spending, the drug warehouses,
Speaker 1: seen the tunnels, seen the vulnerability. You know, sixty seven
Speaker 1: percent of people now higher percentage of people illegal immigrants,
Speaker 1: that need government services, welfare, etc. And we're paying all
Speaker 1: of this. I don't think it's too much to ask
Speaker 1: that people respect our laws, our sovereignty, and they go
Speaker 1: through the process legally. That's all we're asking. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's that much to ask for. And I also
Speaker 1: think On the political side of this, I mentioned the
Speaker 1: poll before. It's a winning political issue. The Harvard Harris poll,
Speaker 1: eighty one percent want immigration slashed, a seventy nine percent
Speaker 1: want secure borders, seventy nine percent want merit based immigration.
Speaker 1: Part of that means we vet the people and they
Speaker 1: have to show they have the ability to take care
Speaker 1: of themselves. While here sixty eight percent want to end
Speaker 1: the visa lottery, sixty five percent want to dock a
Speaker 1: deal with no amnesty, and sixty one percent say the
Speaker 1: current border is inadequate and it is, and sixty percent
Speaker 1: say no to docer relatives, and fifty four percent want
Speaker 1: the wall. So the president, in true Trumpian form, is
Speaker 1: standing by his words and that's what we want. And
Speaker 1: he's saying, look, Chuck, too bad, this is what we need.
Speaker 1: I am the commander in chief, Nancy Plosi. One point,
Speaker 1: where the first branch of government where the legislative branch
Speaker 1: of government. Right, he's the president and he's the executive
Speaker 1: branch of government, and he's also the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: Is part of his duties, and to stop human trafficking
Speaker 1: and drug trafficking along our southern borders is a good idea.
Speaker 1: And it's costing every illegal immigrant according to a study
Speaker 1: from a couple of weeks ago, seventy grand per illegal immigrant. Well,
Speaker 1: we have plenty of Americans that need help here. First,
Speaker 1: not against having a big door in an open legal
Speaker 1: immigration system, but it's got to be legal certain things anyway.
Speaker 1: So the President also is saying repeatedly that hey, listen,
Speaker 1: if I have to, I'll have the military build it. Now.
Speaker 1: It's going to be interesting as we watch that to
Speaker 1: watch Democrats arguing they're going to claim the military is
Speaker 1: no business protecting America from thousands of illegal immigrants that
Speaker 1: are invading our borders. Democrat Bernie Thompson, they up becoming
Speaker 1: a Homeland Security chairman, said using the military to build
Speaker 1: the wall just doesn't make any sense. I can think
Speaker 1: of a lot more important things we could do with
Speaker 1: the military than build a fence. We're not building a fence,
Speaker 1: we're building a wall. On the other hand, you got
Speaker 1: key Republicans Republican chairman of the Senate Arm Services Committee
Speaker 1: Appropriations committees both saying today that they would consider the
Speaker 1: president's newest suggestion that in fact, the Pentagon build the
Speaker 1: southern border wall. And if that's what it comes down
Speaker 1: to Richard Shelby, Senator Appropriations Committee chair, who would oversee
Speaker 1: the Pentagon spending on a border wall, said, the President
Speaker 1: has got a lot of leeway on all of this
Speaker 1: because under the Constitution, he has the right and the
Speaker 1: duty to defend the nation and protect the borders and
Speaker 1: everything that goes with it. Jim Inhoff, Senate Arm Services
Speaker 1: Committee said he spoke with the President last week about
Speaker 1: his bill that raises what he says is enough revenue
Speaker 1: to pay for the wall. Directing the military to build
Speaker 1: the wall, possibly out of military construction funds, could also
Speaker 1: be an option if if they push, If the push
Speaker 1: by Inhoff and other defense appropriators, you know, works for
Speaker 1: seven hundred and fifty billion dollar defense budget plan that
Speaker 1: is coming next year. That's a big amount of money,
Speaker 1: and certainly we have other areas that need fixing, but
Speaker 1: this is priority number one. This is gonna be fun
Speaker 1: to watch. I'll tell you that. We'll get back to
Speaker 1: this later in the program today. You know what's amazing
Speaker 1: something to watch. There are hundreds of Congressmen that paid
Speaker 1: apparently millions of dollars in taxpayer funded hush money to
Speaker 1: those that are claiming some type of sexual harassment or worse.
Speaker 1: You know, with all the talk, I wonder how many
Speaker 1: of these are Democrats. Now. The problem is, you know,
Speaker 1: everyone's making arguments that's somehow a non disclosure agreement that
Speaker 1: the President might have gone into with somebody twelve years ago.
Speaker 1: And these agreements are far more common than you ever think.
Speaker 1: You know, people will say, all right, well it's worth
Speaker 1: this much if I litigate it and I got whatever,
Speaker 1: I don't need the headache. Let's just we'll come to
Speaker 1: a deal whatever happens. So sometimes it's done for those reasons,
Speaker 1: sometimes for legitimate reasons, and it's hard to know the difference.
Speaker 1: But that's an individual making an agreement on their own
Speaker 1: using their own money. Very different if you work for
Speaker 1: the government. For example, if the House wants to really
Speaker 1: push this issue of a campaign finance violation, I said, well,
Speaker 1: let them push it as hard as they want to
Speaker 1: push it. Because if you go back to November twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: it was The New York Post that broke the story,
Speaker 1: telling the story of Representative Jackie Spire that millions of
Speaker 1: dollars had been doled out to allege victims of harassment
Speaker 1: from congressional members over the past decade. Many of these
Speaker 1: members still working there, and she testified the current members
Speaker 1: of Congress who are known sex harassers, and that fifteen
Speaker 1: million dollars in taxpayer hush money has been made to accusers.
Speaker 1: So as you hear the sanctimony over, well, we couldn't
Speaker 1: get them on Russia. There's no Russian collusion at all.
Speaker 1: And their hopes and dreams what they would get out
Speaker 1: of Muller's filings last Friday didn't come to fruition. Then
Speaker 1: they all settled on a well, we think he broke
Speaker 1: a campaign finance law and I'm watching this unfold here. Well,
Speaker 1: if that's the case, then well then I think we
Speaker 1: have a pretty strong case about campaign finance violations as
Speaker 1: it relates to oh maybe Hillary Clinton. And that case
Speaker 1: was made in a piece by Mark Penn because the
Speaker 1: Steel dossier was at least partially paid for by the
Speaker 1: DNC Committee law firm. Remember they funneled money the Clinton campaign,
Speaker 1: and Donna Brazil claimed that Hillary was in charge of
Speaker 1: the DNC money. Remember how Mark Penn points out in
Speaker 1: The Hill Today that Hillary's payments to Christopher Steele were
Speaker 1: first funneled through her campaign lawyer and laundered, remember was
Speaker 1: sent to Perkins Cooey apparently not even what's that James
Speaker 1: call me, didn't know who Perkins cooee was. And I
Speaker 1: don't believe that either, as he was saying, I don't
Speaker 1: remember two hundred and fifty times, but then laundered through
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS to hire a foreign national to come up
Speaker 1: with the phony Russian lies that they used to influence
Speaker 1: the American people consciously in the election of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: How Robert Muller and the Pitbull, Andrew Weisman and Company
Speaker 1: and Genie Ray are not focused on that as a miracle.
Speaker 1: Steele DOCA was paid in part by the Democratic National Committee.
Speaker 1: They used to cut out on the FEC forms by
Speaker 1: saying it was a legal expense. It's settled law, as
Speaker 1: Mark Penn points out that the ultimate recipient, not some intermediary,
Speaker 1: must be disclosed in cases along with the proper use category,
Speaker 1: so it was not a legal cutout. Yet to complaint
Speaker 1: against the DNC and Hillary's campaign is, you know, slowly
Speaker 1: working its way through the FEC in the law firm.
Speaker 1: They've not been rated by prosecutors. We don't see anyone
Speaker 1: making pleading guilty to felonies here. Muller prosecutors are looking
Speaker 1: the other way on uranium one, and that's you know,
Speaker 1: giving putin twenty percent of America's uranium, the foundational material
Speaker 1: for nuclear weapons. We had a spy in there telling
Speaker 1: Robert Muller himself about bribery, extortion, money laundering, and kickbacks,
Speaker 1: and Muller's prosecutors look the other way on what a
Speaker 1: campaign finance violation. You don't think this is going to
Speaker 1: come up for Hillary and that they're going to get
Speaker 1: away with this. It was a great post today by
Speaker 1: the great one, Mark Levin on his Facebook page. You
Speaker 1: know some stuff we already know. Sitting president campaign diided
Speaker 1: that's official DOJ policy since seventy three. Neither the Special Counsel,
Speaker 1: nor the SDNY Southern District of New York, or the
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein can defy a forty five
Speaker 1: year old policy, so it's not an issue for the president,
Speaker 1: you know. He points out also that you know, the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York they're not experts in campaign
Speaker 1: finance violations, and either is the Clinton appointed judge district judge.
Speaker 1: They rarely handle these cases now they've known him for
Speaker 1: doing great work in the Southern District of New York,
Speaker 1: especially on terrorism cases, in the Blind Shade case, and
Speaker 1: so many others, and a lot of great lawyers, Andy McCarthy,
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani, John Sale, who's going to join us later.
Speaker 1: They've all come out of there. But the media and
Speaker 1: others intentionally refuse to actually look at what the real
Speaker 1: rules and context are. And they would have you once
Speaker 1: they didn't get anything Russia out of the Friday filings.
Speaker 1: This is what they ran to, regurgitating what prosecutors have
Speaker 1: merely filed in their own self serving briefs. Now, he
Speaker 1: points out that the actual campaign rules and contexts do
Speaker 1: not include nondisclosure agreements or infinite other contracts or payments
Speaker 1: or arrangements acts of a private nature as campaign contributions.
Speaker 1: In other words, especially twelve years ago, this is normal
Speaker 1: human behavior. People have a right to end or into
Speaker 1: agreements for whatever reasons they choose to do it. Private
Speaker 1: payments can be made in any manner, any amount, and
Speaker 1: again their private payments involving private parties, so there's no
Speaker 1: reporting requirement because they're not campaign payments made with or
Speaker 1: without campaign funds top of the fact that the president
Speaker 1: can donate as much as he wants to his campaign
Speaker 1: even if it was but it's not. And the Southern
Speaker 1: District's inclusion in these charges in the Cone plea deal,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a pr attack against the president by
Speaker 1: an office coordinating with Muller, obviously aligned with Comy, and
Speaker 1: they knew the CONE would plead. But it's why did
Speaker 1: they believe that version of what Michael Khne said when
Speaker 1: he said a very had a very different version when
Speaker 1: he said he did it on his own with his
Speaker 1: own money early on and was paid back. You know,
Speaker 1: So I don't think that this would work in any
Speaker 1: court anyway. But you know, as Mark points out here,
Speaker 1: they knew the left wing media politicians would use that
Speaker 1: to just pivot away from Russia. That was all part
Speaker 1: of the strategy. By the way, no due process, no
Speaker 1: presumption of innocence. They knew they couldn't charge a sitting
Speaker 1: president that's never been brought up either. Thus they convict
Speaker 1: the president, scream impeachment as loud and as often as
Speaker 1: they can, and it really has no chance of going anywhere,
Speaker 1: and it's awful political purposes. By the way, when have
Speaker 1: you ever seen judges or people to release materials that
Speaker 1: are redacted the way we saw. That's another question. And
Speaker 1: as for impeachment, Mark points out the NDA's involving holy
Speaker 1: private matters occurring before the president was even a candidate,
Speaker 1: unrelated to his office cannot legitimately trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
Speaker 1: In other words, they could not be more irrelevant. And
Speaker 1: the history of the clause and its high crimes and
Speaker 1: misdemeanor language mayke it clear that the office of the
Speaker 1: President's duties are not affected in any conceivable way by
Speaker 1: earlier private contacts. Now, Gerald Nadler and Nancy Pelosi and
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff can say whatever they want. Doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: they say, you know they'll mark wrights and his peace.
Speaker 1: He's more than thrilled to be an executioner in this
Speaker 1: French revolution. Reducts the Constitution be damned. Meanwhile, he and
Speaker 1: others wave around the Constitution as if they're defending it
Speaker 1: against the tyrant, but in fact it's them, no not,
Speaker 1: it's meaning in any way all right. Eight hundred ninety
Speaker 1: four one Sean Tolfree telephone number. You want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program, Jim Jordan. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: all these things when we get back who entered the
Speaker 1: United States without our permission. Our illegal aliens, and illegal
Speaker 1: aliens should not be treated the same as people who
Speaker 1: entered the US legally. President's decision to end DACA was
Speaker 1: heartless and it was brainless. When we use phrases like
Speaker 1: undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people
Speaker 1: that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: Hundreds hundreds of thousands of families will be ripped apart.
Speaker 1: If you don't think it's illegal, you're not going to
Speaker 1: say it. I think it is illegal and wrong. Ends
Speaker 1: of thousands of American businesses will lose hard working employees.
Speaker 1: And the argument them as the president, is Americans don't
Speaker 1: want to do the work. Wait, just can't find American
Speaker 1: workers to do the work because the president that is
Speaker 1: a cruck In many instances, it's just not true. In
Speaker 1: my view, From's decision to end the DOCCER program or
Speaker 1: some eight hundred thousand young people, is the cruelest and
Speaker 1: most ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country.
Speaker 1: I cannot think of one single act which is uglier
Speaker 1: and more cruel. We've got to do several things, and
Speaker 1: I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants. People have
Speaker 1: to stop employing illegal immigrants. Come up to Westchester, go
Speaker 1: to Suffolk in Nassau County, stand in the street corners
Speaker 1: in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to 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, Idio,
Speaker 1: this is not a problem that the people who are
Speaker 1: coming into the country are solely responsible for. They coming
Speaker 1: if we didn't put them to work. My proposal will
Speaker 1: keep families together, and it will include a path to
Speaker 1: citizen check. Those who enter the country illegally and those
Speaker 1: who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they
Speaker 1: are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
Speaker 1: We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United
Speaker 1: States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people
Speaker 1: who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.
Speaker 1: Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship.
Speaker 1: Flipping the flopping, the flailing that goes on on the
Speaker 1: issue of immigration, and of course the beatdown that the
Speaker 1: President had with Pelosi and Schumer today and he's not
Speaker 1: given up, and it's clear. And the other good news
Speaker 1: is he has the support of even people like Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham said, no, he's got to hold out. This is
Speaker 1: a fight worth fighting. And you know, the President also
Speaker 1: taking major steps today to reign in and the abuse
Speaker 1: of our welfare system by non citizens who utilize federal
Speaker 1: subsidies in far greater numbers than their US born counterpart
Speaker 1: I mean, sixty seven percent of illegal immigrants, according to
Speaker 1: a recent study that came out. And the President now
Speaker 1: also threatening that if he has to, he'll use the
Speaker 1: military to get the wall built that way, and that
Speaker 1: exchange goes back and forth. He says, look, get it done.
Speaker 1: I'll have the military do it. And if I have
Speaker 1: to shut down the government. It's a myth that Republicans
Speaker 1: get hurt by government shutdowns. They were afraid to do
Speaker 1: it when Obama was president. Now they're afraid to do
Speaker 1: it when a Republicans president. They're just afraid. You know,
Speaker 1: three thousand people on a single day got caught jumping
Speaker 1: in the border recently. And there's nothing that they're proposing,
Speaker 1: meaning Nancy or Chuck that is going to fix that anyway.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan, Freedom Caucus member with us. By the way,
Speaker 1: our two Sean Hannity Show eight hundred nine for one,
Speaker 1: Sean are told free telephone number. What do you think
Speaker 1: of the President's exchange with Pelosi and Schumer today, Sean?
Speaker 1: I loved it. I mean, this is this is why
Speaker 1: the American people elected this guy president because he is
Speaker 1: standing firm and going to This is not about shutdown.
Speaker 1: This is about doing what we set doing what we
Speaker 1: told the voters we were going to do. And one
Speaker 1: the central promises made the twenty sixteen campaign is that
Speaker 1: we were going to build a border security wall. We
Speaker 1: were going to get control of the border, and the
Speaker 1: President is standing film for that. We took a position
Speaker 1: as the Freedom Caucus last night that we will only
Speaker 1: think about supporting this this fix spending bill if, in fact,
Speaker 1: we do what the President said today. So I thought
Speaker 1: it was great, and I think the American people think
Speaker 1: the same thing. Well, look, as you know, he pointed
Speaker 1: out that you know, everywhere the wall is, it's one
Speaker 1: hundred percent certainty we stop all the illegal immigration. Also,
Speaker 1: it's good we saw a potential catastrophe building with the caravan,
Speaker 1: and as much as if what happened at the southern
Speaker 1: border of Mexico and it was attempted up here had
Speaker 1: happened up here and we didn't have the means to
Speaker 1: stop them, then at that point it becomes unlimited illegal
Speaker 1: immigration into the country. And also, you know, it was
Speaker 1: bad enough to watch rocks and bottles being thrown at
Speaker 1: our ice guys and the border patrol people, but it
Speaker 1: was happening right before our eyes. Yeah, the President is
Speaker 1: so this is common sense, and the President is standing
Speaker 1: strong for common sense reform here. Build a wall and
Speaker 1: reform our asylum wall, stop the catch and release, change
Speaker 1: our asylum law. And if you do those two things,
Speaker 1: this caravan phenomena that we've watched the last several weeks,
Speaker 1: that's how you deal with it. That's how you send
Speaker 1: the right message. That's how you have orderly legal immigration,
Speaker 1: not what we've been seeing the last several weeks with
Speaker 1: this caravan and the attempts to try to get over
Speaker 1: the wall, under the wall, through the fence, all the
Speaker 1: things you're trying to do. So again, I love what
Speaker 1: the President did. He stood for him there, and I
Speaker 1: think this is where we got to be stand firm
Speaker 1: for doing what we told the American people we were
Speaker 1: going to do, more importantly, what they elected us to do.
Speaker 1: Any insight is to what's going on with Mark Meadows.
Speaker 1: I keep reading his name all over the place as
Speaker 1: a potential candidate, but chief of staff, which I'm sure
Speaker 1: you would probably like, because then it's a coup for
Speaker 1: you and you'd be probably back in the driver's seat.
Speaker 1: Well as chairman. You are the chairman, right, but you
Speaker 1: lost your chairmanship. You're the honorary member. You know, you're
Speaker 1: the only group that's into freedom. You're the only people
Speaker 1: I try honestly you, I won't tell you. One person
Speaker 1: that is impressing me more and more is Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham said, no, this is a fight we're gonna have,
Speaker 1: and the President's gonna win, and he's right. We have
Speaker 1: to win it because if not, this never goes away.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting to watch the Democrats. There's nothing that
Speaker 1: apparently that the president would offer them that they would
Speaker 1: take because they so desperately want to just say no
Speaker 1: to him and not be seen as as making any
Speaker 1: deals with this president. So that means no progress at
Speaker 1: all for the country. If follow up on that, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what the presidents for there against it. You
Speaker 1: played the montage there at the front end where it
Speaker 1: shows all the things they said before. Now therefore the
Speaker 1: borderless hemisphere, as their candidates for president said in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: there for abolishing eyes. So they've changed him that. If
Speaker 1: you to your first question, Mark Meadows would be a
Speaker 1: tremendous chiefest step. I hate to lose him on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill because he's my best friend up there, but he
Speaker 1: would be great for the president if that's who the
Speaker 1: president chooses. I think the country and the president and
Speaker 1: you know, our intim nation is well served if if
Speaker 1: that's who he picks. But on this immigration issue with Lindsay,
Speaker 1: Senator Graham is exactly right. Stand firm, mister President, Stand firm.
Speaker 1: Let's get this done now. We've got a few weeks
Speaker 1: left where we have the majorities in both houses. Let's
Speaker 1: make it happen. Well, I think Mitch McConnell saying that
Speaker 1: he's going to go forward. How do you feel about
Speaker 1: the prison reform bill? I interviewed Jared Kushner last night.
Speaker 1: The one thing that it bothered me is one part
Speaker 1: that Tom Cotton had been pointing out. There can't be
Speaker 1: any possibility that any violent felons are released as part
Speaker 1: of that deal. But on the other hand, do you
Speaker 1: remember Alice Marie Johnson, the woman when she was had
Speaker 1: her sentence commuted by the president. Yeah, she comes out
Speaker 1: of prison, twenty plus years in prison, one time offender.
Speaker 1: It was a drug it was a drug deal. And
Speaker 1: she got out and she said something that I thought
Speaker 1: was amazing. She said, first, thank you to the President,
Speaker 1: thanks to the country, and then she went on and said,
Speaker 1: I'm never gonna let you down. Thank you for giving
Speaker 1: me a second chance. And then I got a chance
Speaker 1: to interview her, and she's as lovely or more lovely
Speaker 1: in person. Yeah. Yeah, we have to find those people
Speaker 1: that deserve that second chance and maybe even transform the
Speaker 1: use of the pardon power of the president. I'd love
Speaker 1: to see that exactly. We're all in need of God's grace.
Speaker 1: If you do something wrong, you're gonna have to serve
Speaker 1: your time. But while you're in prison, let's let's get
Speaker 1: you the training, the help that you need so that
Speaker 1: when you do get out, you can you can go
Speaker 1: on with your life and get that second chance, and
Speaker 1: I know Jared has been working hard on this. We
Speaker 1: think this is the kind of legislation that makes sense.
Speaker 1: There was some concern to stend of the cotton race.
Speaker 1: I think those are being addressed. We had Mikely at
Speaker 1: our Freedom Caucus meeting last night. Mike's been a strong
Speaker 1: proponent of this legislation. So again, I think Jodan and
Speaker 1: the team done a lot of good work, and let's
Speaker 1: see if we can get this thing done. And I
Speaker 1: think we can. All right, So let's imagine at first,
Speaker 1: I was a little concern and I heard Nadler and
Speaker 1: some others saying we're going to end the deep State
Speaker 1: investigation almost immediately. There's no points. So we all knew
Speaker 1: that was going to happen. However, yeah, we now we
Speaker 1: had the testimony of you were you in the testimony
Speaker 1: when Comey gave it last week? Yeah? Okay, And James
Speaker 1: Comy literally said he said in that meeting, Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, he said, I don't remember some two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty times. Put that aside. He never vetted the dossier.
Speaker 1: We already knew it. But now he's on record saying
Speaker 1: they never vetted the dossier. But he put his signature
Speaker 1: to it, right, and Sally Yates did and Rob Rosenstein
Speaker 1: did right. Yeah, well, I think it's even worse, Shan.
Speaker 1: He didn't know anything about Christopher Steele. So it's one
Speaker 1: thing to take his work. You don't know anything about
Speaker 1: the work product. The guy who wrote the work product
Speaker 1: that you took to the court to get the warrant.
Speaker 1: He never talked to Christopher Steele, didn't know Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: was meeting with Bruce or top Justice Department official, didn't
Speaker 1: know that Bruce was asking Chris Steel's information to the FBI,
Speaker 1: didn't know that they had terminated that Christopher Steele, didn't
Speaker 1: know that Christopher Steel continue to give information to the
Speaker 1: FBI after he was terminated. Didn't know any of that,
Speaker 1: and yet takes his work product to the FIS the
Speaker 1: court to get the warrant to spot the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: That's literally That was the biggest takeaway I had is
Speaker 1: you didn't know squat about the key guy whose work
Speaker 1: product was the basis for the whole darn thing. Have
Speaker 1: you heard about this email chain that John Solomon was
Speaker 1: reporting about? Now, there there were three buckets that the
Speaker 1: President has talked about that he would unredact and release
Speaker 1: to the American people. Bucket one would be the applications.
Speaker 1: Both the Nunez and Grassy Graham memos say that the
Speaker 1: bulk of information came from the dossier that we now
Speaker 1: know they never vetted. On top of that, Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: has since you know, distance his own self from that
Speaker 1: by saying, oh, I have no idea if any of
Speaker 1: it's true when he was threatened with perjury and an
Speaker 1: interrogatory in Great Britain. So but then we want the
Speaker 1: three O two's gang of Ape. But there's also this
Speaker 1: email letter chain. Comey is on it, and what can
Speaker 1: you tell us about it? I asked him about it.
Speaker 1: He didn't know it. That was another one in his
Speaker 1: two hundred and forty five I don't know. So I
Speaker 1: did ask him about an email chain relative to the
Speaker 1: fact that Christopher Steele this is This was in mister
Speaker 1: Solomon's reporting, and I went basically from mister Solomon's reporting
Speaker 1: that mister Steele had met with reporters in September twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen prior to again his dossier being taken to the
Speaker 1: FISA court as the basis for the for the Carter
Speaker 1: Page FISA so asking about that, he didn't know anything
Speaker 1: about it. I specifically asking, so you didn't know anything
Speaker 1: about Christopher Stile, possibly meaning with Michael Isikoff, with Yah
Speaker 1: who News. He didn't know anything about that either. I
Speaker 1: do think we need to come back to that and
Speaker 1: export deeper, because it was basically two questions, is all
Speaker 1: at that I got a chance to ask him about
Speaker 1: I think we need to dig a little deeper into that.
Speaker 1: But he didn't know anything. And that's what he told
Speaker 1: us in the in the deposition last week. So we
Speaker 1: have the sentencing memos. You know, this is what we
Speaker 1: what the whole Muller investigation has become. Lying to the FBI,
Speaker 1: lying to a law enforcement about taxi medallion's lan applications
Speaker 1: not paying your taxes, which is really stupid. If you
Speaker 1: don't pay them, you got to pay your taxes, because
Speaker 1: that's the easiest way they're going to throw anybody in jail.
Speaker 1: And you know, so we have all of this hysteria
Speaker 1: by the media and the left, and they're all thrown
Speaker 1: around the world impeachment. By the way, these are the
Speaker 1: people that have been hating on the president from day
Speaker 1: one and even before he got elected. The reality is
Speaker 1: you can't. You can indict a sitting president. That's the
Speaker 1: oj policy period. Neither the Special Counsel, nor the SDNY
Speaker 1: nor Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein can defy that policy. Not
Speaker 1: only that, there is no campaign finance violation here for
Speaker 1: a multitude of reasons, which I went into earlier today. Right, No, Right,
Speaker 1: I mean this is all about you know, Cohen did
Speaker 1: a lot of things you shouldn't have done, a mister Manaford,
Speaker 1: but didn't register right as a lobbyist. It's all that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. But where's the relationship to what the
Speaker 1: underlying mission of the Special Council was? Where is where
Speaker 1: is the any type of collusion or coordination or conspiracy
Speaker 1: between the Trump campaign and Russia? To date, not one
Speaker 1: bit of evidence in any of that to say that
Speaker 1: there was any type of coordination. So I always just
Speaker 1: come back to the basics. That's what mister Mueller is
Speaker 1: supposed to be looking at. We've not seen any of that,
Speaker 1: and yet Jerry Nadal and Adam Shift they already got
Speaker 1: the president going to prison, which is right, Listen. I'm
Speaker 1: just hoping that the new Attorney general is we'll believe
Speaker 1: an equal justice under the law, an equal application of
Speaker 1: our laws. And if that's the case, and we really
Speaker 1: are worried about Russian interference, then I think the Uranium
Speaker 1: one deal shows a lot of stupidity, bad decisions, corruption
Speaker 1: and put an influence. And I think the same thing
Speaker 1: with the dossier that was disseminated to the American people
Speaker 1: to make Americans vote against Donald Trump. I'd like that
Speaker 1: to be dealt with as well. But stay right there
Speaker 1: more with our good friend, Representative Jim Jordan, House Freedom
Speaker 1: Caucus Member, Right as we continue with Jim Jordan, House
Speaker 1: Freedom Caucus Member, congressman from Ohio. All right, so it's
Speaker 1: a little different. I mean it's a good thing. I
Speaker 1: will say that the president works so hard to save
Speaker 1: the Senate because it doesn't matter what nance Pelosi does
Speaker 1: in the end or what the House Democrats do, as
Speaker 1: extreme as they are, but it makes your job harder.
Speaker 1: And if they're coming with a cannon of subpoenas as
Speaker 1: they are telegraphing, Yeah, how do you and the minority
Speaker 1: fight that you focus on the truth? I mean that's all.
Speaker 1: That's what you've been focused on, Sean, and does such
Speaker 1: a good job with what we've been focused on Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: Matt Gates and a bunch of us in the House.
Speaker 1: You focus on the truth, and that's that's got to
Speaker 1: be our job. So look, we have an obligation, constitutional
Speaker 1: duty to provide oversight of the federal government, particularly the
Speaker 1: Oversight Committee, where Elijah Coming already had sixty four subpoenas
Speaker 1: he wanted to send this Congress. So we assume those
Speaker 1: are coming the next time, but we focus on the truth.
Speaker 1: They're going to drive how they want to, and they're
Speaker 1: going to do what they want and subpoenas and hearings
Speaker 1: and bring people in and all the things they do.
Speaker 1: Our job is to Could you imagine if anybody deleted
Speaker 1: the emails when they were subpoenaed by Gerald Nadler or
Speaker 1: any other committee chair of the Democrats and then used
Speaker 1: acid wash, bleach bit to clean the hard drive and
Speaker 1: bust up their devices. I wonder what they'd say. Then, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I wonder if they suppeened me and I did all
Speaker 1: those things, what do you think would happen? You'd in
Speaker 1: big trouble. This is the double standard that drives people crazy.
Speaker 1: And you've talked about it, but it's so true. One
Speaker 1: set of rules for us regular folk, but a difference
Speaker 1: set If your name is Lynch Learner Page struck, you
Speaker 1: get a different set of rules. You know. One of
Speaker 1: the things I was struck with two and I actually
Speaker 1: asked this question that mister Kobe, think about go to
Speaker 1: the basis. Remember it was the same people who ran
Speaker 1: the Clinton investigation who then took over and launched and
Speaker 1: ran the Russian investigation. And I think you go right
Speaker 1: back to the beginning. Think of the names they gave
Speaker 1: each of those investigations. One was called the Midyear Exam.
Speaker 1: That's sort of like you had to get through this,
Speaker 1: we had to go kind of make it look like
Speaker 1: we were doing it, but the fix was in and
Speaker 1: they were going to make sure Clinton was exonerated. And
Speaker 1: then the other one was called Crossfire Hurricane, which I
Speaker 1: think when you step back and think about the names
Speaker 1: and what those names imply, that sort of right from
Speaker 1: the get go shows you there were some extremes against
Speaker 1: President Trump right for the geta of sixteen, right from
Speaker 1: the get go. All right, Jim Jordan, thank you eight hundred.
Speaker 1: You know I'm gonna play you know, why don't we
Speaker 1: play this exchange in full when we get back Then
Speaker 1: We'll take some calls on it, because I've been referring
Speaker 1: to it now since the first hour. Eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: for one, Sean is our number. You want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. Later on, John Sale, we'll
Speaker 1: look at the prosecutorial head. The president is in trouble
Speaker 1: over campaign finance. Forget Russia collusion, it's campaign finance. Now
Speaker 1: the answers, No will explain and more coming up straight ahead, Hannity. Oh,
Speaker 1: we got a great show tonight, nine Eastern, all right,
Speaker 1: twenty five to the top of the hour. UM, I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you missed it earlier today. I
Speaker 1: think it's worth It's like a ten minute exchange here
Speaker 1: with the President, Pelosi and Schumer in the Oval Office
Speaker 1: and dealing with government funding, government shutdown possibility, and funding
Speaker 1: the wall. Lindsey Graham's back in the president. Republicans were
Speaker 1: back in the president. They say, no, we did, we
Speaker 1: made a promise. This is what people want them to do.
Speaker 1: Let's fight, stand up and fight because it's the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. And so here's that exchange, which I
Speaker 1: just thought the President just nailed them multiple times and
Speaker 1: it was great. Listen to this. We may not have
Speaker 1: an agreement today, we probably won't, but we have an
Speaker 1: agreement on other things that are really good. Nancy, would
Speaker 1: you like to say something, well, thank you, mister President,
Speaker 1: for an opportunity to meet with you so that we
Speaker 1: can work together in a bipartisan way to meet the
Speaker 1: needs of the American people. I think American people recognize
Speaker 1: that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is
Speaker 1: not worth anything, and that you should not have a
Speaker 1: Trump shutdown. You have the Trump down, you have the
Speaker 1: White House going to you have the Senate, you have
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives, you have the votes you should pass.
Speaker 1: We don't vote because in the Senate we need sixty yards.
Speaker 1: But in the half, we don't have to bring it
Speaker 1: up right now. But I can't excuse me, but I
Speaker 1: can't get it passed in the House. If it's not
Speaker 1: going to pass in the Senate, I don't want to
Speaker 1: waste them. The fact is you can get it started
Speaker 1: that way. The House. We could get passed very easily. Okay,
Speaker 1: we do it, but the problem is the Senate, because
Speaker 1: we need ten Democrats to vote that they want the point.
Speaker 1: It's because the point is is that their equities to
Speaker 1: be weighed, and we're here to have a conversation your
Speaker 1: careful way. So I don't think we should have the
Speaker 1: debate in front of the press on this. But the
Speaker 1: fact is, the Senate, the House Republicans could bring up
Speaker 1: this bill if they had the votes immediately and set
Speaker 1: the tone for what you want. If we thought we
Speaker 1: were going to get it passed in the Senate, Nancy,
Speaker 1: we would do it immediately, would get it passed very
Speaker 1: easily in the House. Well, we would get it, Nancy,
Speaker 1: I'd have it passed in two seconds. It doesn't matter though,
Speaker 1: because we can't get it passed in the Senate because
Speaker 1: we need ten Democrat votes. Again, let us have our conversation,
Speaker 1: then we'll meet with the press again. But the fact is,
Speaker 1: is that legislating, and which is what we do. You
Speaker 1: begin to make your points, to state your case. That's
Speaker 1: what the House Republicans could do if they had the votes.
Speaker 1: But there aren't votes in the House majority of votes
Speaker 1: for a wall no matter where. You're exactly right. If
Speaker 1: I needed the votes for the wall in the House,
Speaker 1: I would have them in one session, would be done.
Speaker 1: Do it. It doesn't help because we need ten Democrats
Speaker 1: and the Senate put it on an Okay, let me
Speaker 1: ask you this just and we're doing this in a
Speaker 1: very friendly manner. It doesn't help for me to take
Speaker 1: a vote in the House where I will win easily
Speaker 1: with the Republicans when it doesn't help to take that
Speaker 1: vote because I'm not going to get the vote of
Speaker 1: the Senate. I need ten senators. That's the problem. You
Speaker 1: have the White House, the Senate. I have the White House.
Speaker 1: The White House is done, and the House would give
Speaker 1: me the vote if I wanted it, but I can't
Speaker 1: because I need Nancy. I need ten votes from chub Or.
Speaker 1: Let me say something here. Let me say white The
Speaker 1: fact is you do not have the votes in the House, Nancy.
Speaker 1: I do. And we need border security, Nancy, Nancy. We
Speaker 1: need border securities, very simple question. We need border security.
Speaker 1: People are pouring into our country in ruting terrorists. We
Speaker 1: have terror We caught ten terrorists over the last very
Speaker 1: short period of time. Ten. These are very serious people.
Speaker 1: Our border agents, all of our law enforcement has been
Speaker 1: incredible what they've done. But we caught ten terrorists. These
Speaker 1: are people that we're looking to do harm. We need
Speaker 1: the wall. We need more appoint than anything. We need
Speaker 1: border security, of which the wall is just a peace
Speaker 1: but it's important. Ject did you want to say, sah,
Speaker 1: Here's what I want to say. We have a lot
Speaker 1: of disagreements here. The Washington Post today gave you a
Speaker 1: whole lot of pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate
Speaker 1: how much the wall is, how much of the wall
Speaker 1: is built, and how much is there. But that's not
Speaker 1: the point here. We have a disagreement about the wall, Washington,
Speaker 1: whether it's effective or not on boorder security, but on
Speaker 1: the wall. We do not want to shut down the government.
Speaker 1: You have called twenty times to shut down the government.
Speaker 1: Who say I want to shut down the government. We don't.
Speaker 1: We want to come to an agreement. If we can't
Speaker 1: come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass
Speaker 1: the House and Senate right now, and we'll not shut
Speaker 1: down the government. And that's what we're urging you to do.
Speaker 1: Not to shut down the government because you let me
Speaker 1: just finish from them, because you can't catch you shut
Speaker 1: it down. Let me say something, mister president, you just
Speaker 1: say my way, or will shut down the government. We
Speaker 1: have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to
Speaker 1: do a cr that will not shut down the government.
Speaker 1: We urge you to take it. If it's not good
Speaker 1: border security out it is very good. And if it's
Speaker 1: not good border security, I will take it's because when
Speaker 1: you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our
Speaker 1: border security, and when you look at the job that
Speaker 1: we're doing, we just said it is effective. Can I
Speaker 1: be Can I tell you something you just said without
Speaker 1: a wall, these are only areas where you have the
Speaker 1: we want to do. You have walls, Chuck, it's effective, Well,
Speaker 1: you don't have rules, it is not effective. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: calohl to this. We've come in here as the first
Speaker 1: branch of government, Article one, the legislative branch. We're coming
Speaker 1: in in good faith to negotiate with you about how
Speaker 1: we can keep the government open. We're going to keep
Speaker 1: it open if we have border security. If we don't
Speaker 1: have border security, we're not going to keep it on.
Speaker 1: We haven't had bader and it's the same border you're
Speaker 1: bragging about what has been done. But we want to
Speaker 1: do the same thing we did last year this year.
Speaker 1: That's our proposal. If it's good, then it's good now,
Speaker 1: and it won't shut down the gol Huck. We can
Speaker 1: build up a much bigger. Let's debate in private. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's debate in private. Devoid frankly the fast and we
Speaker 1: can we need border security. I think we all agree
Speaker 1: that we need water SECAs good we do. Say we
Speaker 1: get a law. Thank you everybody. President, you save border
Speaker 1: security at the wall. Can you have border security with alcohol?
Speaker 1: You need you need the wall. The wall is a
Speaker 1: part of water security. What it means to have border security.
Speaker 1: We need border security. The wall is a part of
Speaker 1: border security. You can't have very good border security without
Speaker 1: the wall. No, not true, because that is a political promise.
Speaker 1: Border security is a way to effectively on our respond
Speaker 1: The experts say you can do border security without a wall,
Speaker 1: which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem. It totally
Speaker 1: solves the problem with and it's very important. This is
Speaker 1: spiraled downwards when we came at a place to say,
Speaker 1: how do we meet the needs of American people who
Speaker 1: have needs? The economy has its people are losing their jobs,
Speaker 1: the markets in a mood. Our members are already we
Speaker 1: have the lowest unemployment that we've had in fifty years. See,
Speaker 1: people of the Republican Party have lost are losing their
Speaker 1: offices now because of the transition. The people are not
Speaker 1: at the memory gained in the Senate. Nancy, we've gained
Speaker 1: in the Senate. Excuse me, did we win the Senate?
Speaker 1: Because we're won the Senate. When the President braggs that
Speaker 1: he won North Dakota and Indiana, he's in real trouble.
Speaker 1: When I did, let me say it did North Dakota
Speaker 1: and in most unfortunate And we came in here in
Speaker 1: good faith and we're entering into this kind of a
Speaker 1: discussion in the public. But it's not bad advancing no
Speaker 1: and no cold transparency. I know it's not transparent. Se well,
Speaker 1: we're not stipulating to a set of facts. And when
Speaker 1: we wanted to have a debate with you about saying,
Speaker 1: we confront them. Use that's you know what we need
Speaker 1: border security. That's what we're going to be talking about
Speaker 1: border security. If we don't have borter security, we'll shut
Speaker 1: down the government. This country needs border security. The wall
Speaker 1: is a part of borter security. Let's have a tall
Speaker 1: We're going to get the wall built. And we've done
Speaker 1: a lot of wall already. Bigger part of border security
Speaker 1: of the wall, it's a big section. It's a big
Speaker 1: part of it everything that you need, it's a big
Speaker 1: part of it. We need to have effective border security.
Speaker 1: We need a wall in certain parts, No, not in
Speaker 1: all parts, but in certain parts of a two thousand
Speaker 1: mile border. We need a wall. How much money we
Speaker 1: are doing it? Much under budget? We're actually way under budget.
Speaker 1: Or the areas that we've renovated, in areas that we've built,
Speaker 1: I would say if we got if we got five
Speaker 1: billion dollars, we could do a tremendous chunkal walls. Well,
Speaker 1: we're going to see, We're going to see. Look, we
Speaker 1: have to have the wall. This isn't a question. This
Speaker 1: is a national emergency. Drugs are pouring into our country.
Speaker 1: People with tremendous medical difficulty and medical problems are pouring in,
Speaker 1: and many in many cases that it's contagious. They're pouring
Speaker 1: into our country. We have to have border security. We
Speaker 1: have to have a wall as part of border security.
Speaker 1: And I don't think we really disagree so much. I
Speaker 1: also know that you know, Nancy is in a situation
Speaker 1: where it's not easy for her to talk right now,
Speaker 1: and I understand that, and I fully understand that we're
Speaker 1: going to have a good discussion and we're going to
Speaker 1: see what happens. We have to have border secret to
Speaker 1: the president, Please don't characterize the strength that I bring
Speaker 1: for this need as a leader of the House Democrats
Speaker 1: who just want a big elections have consequences. He just
Speaker 1: says that's right, and that's why the country is doing
Speaker 1: so well. But the president is representing them as his
Speaker 1: cards over there are not fact. We have to have
Speaker 1: an evident, stase conversation about what does work, what money
Speaker 1: has been spent in, how affects that it is? This
Speaker 1: isn't it that this is about the security of that
Speaker 1: country to take an oath to decay and defend. And
Speaker 1: we don't want to have that mix character by anyone.
Speaker 1: I agree with it, and we are no. No, I
Speaker 1: agree with it. So let us have a conversation. But
Speaker 1: we don't have to contradict in public to statistics that
Speaker 1: you put forth, but instead can have a conversation about
Speaker 1: what will really work and what the American people deserve
Speaker 1: from us at this uncertain time in their lives. One
Speaker 1: thing I think we can agree on is we shouldn't
Speaker 1: shut down the government over a dispute. And you want
Speaker 1: to shut it down. I'm talking about the last time, Chuck,
Speaker 1: you shut it there, no, no, no, and then you
Speaker 1: any time quickly. And I don't want to do what
Speaker 1: you did twenty times shut we've called for. I will
Speaker 1: shut down the government if I don't get my will,
Speaker 1: none of us. If you want to know something, you said, okay,
Speaker 1: you want to put them on set, I'll take it. Okay, good,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'll say. Yes, if we don't get
Speaker 1: what we want one way or the other, whether it's
Speaker 1: through you, through a military, through anything you want to call,
Speaker 1: I will shut down the absolutely. And I am proud
Speaker 1: and I'll just agree. I am proud to shut down
Speaker 1: the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of
Speaker 1: this country don't want criminals and people that have lots
Speaker 1: of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I
Speaker 1: will take the mental. I will be the one to
Speaker 1: shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it.
Speaker 1: The last time you shut it down, it didn't work.
Speaker 1: I will take the mental of shutting down, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to shut it down for border but we believe
Speaker 1: you shouldn't shut it down. Thank you very much, everybody.
Speaker 1: A lot of friends of mine wanted a lot of
Speaker 1: people that Chuck and Nancy know very well wanted. I
Speaker 1: think people you'd like. We have a lot of people
Speaker 1: that want the job chief of steps. So we'll be
Speaker 1: seeing what happens very soon. We're no rush. Why we're
Speaker 1: no rush? Why? No rush? Why? Because we have a
Speaker 1: wonderful chief of staff right now. Just we are in
Speaker 1: no rush. Over a period of a week or two
Speaker 1: or maybe less, will announce who it's going to be.
Speaker 1: But we have a lot of people that want the position.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. All right, So that was from
Speaker 1: earlier today. That was the President with Nancy Pelosi Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer in the Oval office. I'll take a quick break here,
Speaker 1: we'll come back. We'll continue eight hundred nine Poll one.
Speaker 1: Shaun is on number. We'll get to your calls when
Speaker 1: we get back. John sam formerly of the Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York Prosecutor, is going to analyze this ridiculous
Speaker 1: notion that campaign finance is the big Muller find here,
Speaker 1: because it's not, and it's ridiculous and anyone that tells
Speaker 1: you it is doesn't know what they're talking about. A right,
Speaker 1: as we continue, let's get to our busy phones here.
Speaker 1: Michael is in Pittsburgh, PA. Mike, Hi, how are you
Speaker 1: glad you called sir fucor Sean on Good Afternoon. The
Speaker 1: only problem I think I have is the fact that
Speaker 1: the representatives created a slush fund from our money and
Speaker 1: they went ahead and paid off women who accused them
Speaker 1: supposedly of sexually harassing them. And I don't know who
Speaker 1: these women are. Was it someone's cousin, was it their sister.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have no way to trace you know
Speaker 1: how much hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars of
Speaker 1: our money, and we don't know who they were. We
Speaker 1: don't know what happened, but we knew that was mister Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: We know it was mister Trump, President Trump. I would
Speaker 1: like a little uh, you know, a little openness about Yeah,
Speaker 1: here's what well, this is what I know. And this
Speaker 1: was printed. This goes back a year now, and I
Speaker 1: remember first seeing it in the New York Post. You know,
Speaker 1: like Democratic Control House members they want to impeach President
Speaker 1: Trump for nondisclosure agreement payments or whatever. You know, a
Speaker 1: lot of times they're made just to make things go
Speaker 1: away and it's cheaper. Other times it's true and accurate,
Speaker 1: and they pay a lot of money But the difference
Speaker 1: here is, and I think you're raising a point. I
Speaker 1: think we have a right to know because I think
Speaker 1: there's going to be a lot of explaining to do
Speaker 1: Republicans and Democrats if they're spending millions of our tax
Speaker 1: dollars to silence women who accused them of everything from
Speaker 1: sexual harassment to worse, and that would include a whole
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats who stand accused. Now, say what you
Speaker 1: will the president's issues, believe them or not. We're twelve
Speaker 1: years ago and the president, which we know, would use
Speaker 1: his own money, but not the case of Congress. You know,
Speaker 1: we had a congresswoman who testified the current members of
Speaker 1: Congress are known sexual harassers and that fifteen million dollars
Speaker 1: of taxpayer money has been paid to hush accusers. Okay,
Speaker 1: and Representative Jackie Spire told you a news outlet the
Speaker 1: millions have been doled out, and even CNN reported according
Speaker 1: to Congressional Office of Compliance, there were two hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty eight settlements. Okay, we're footing the bill for that. Now,
Speaker 1: if you want to pay somebody off and have your
Speaker 1: own nondisclosure agreement, have at it, but don't make me
Speaker 1: pay for it. I'm not paying for it. At least
Speaker 1: I'm gonna at least we should have the knowledge of
Speaker 1: what went on. Right, Yeah, I think the hash too
Speaker 1: hash with the hashtag me too, or they bring back
Speaker 1: the girls, that's all gonna be fake and it's all
Speaker 1: gonna be for not if they don't really push push
Speaker 1: it here. I mean, they really need to go after
Speaker 1: these people, whether the Republic. I'll bring this up tonight.
Speaker 1: You're raising a good point. All right, Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for the call, eight hundred and nine for one,
Speaker 1: Seawan told free telephone number. All Right, Former SDN Y
Speaker 1: proscly Southern District New York Prosecutor John Sale will join us.
Speaker 1: We'll get his analysis on this whole campaign finance non issue,
Speaker 1: but we'll they get his take on it straight ahead
Speaker 1: as we continue. Coming up next our final news round
Speaker 1: up and Information Overload hour. If it is proven that
Speaker 1: the President directed or coordinated with Cohen to commit these felonies,
Speaker 1: are those impeachable offenses? Well, they would be impeachable offenses.
Speaker 1: Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is
Speaker 1: a different question, but certainly they'd be impeachable offenses. This president,
Speaker 1: in my estimation has done everything possible to certainly be
Speaker 1: eligible for impeachment, and so I really do think that
Speaker 1: it should be started. I think what this totality of
Speaker 1: today's filings show that the House is going to have
Speaker 1: little choice the way this is going other than to
Speaker 1: start impeachment proceedings. This is a man who came in
Speaker 1: and said, I'm bigger than the House. I've been in
Speaker 1: checks and balances, I'm beginning the judicial community. I'm bigger
Speaker 1: than the free press. And he's going to pay for
Speaker 1: that the rest of his life. When immigrants procure their
Speaker 1: citizenship by fraud, we strip them of their citizenship. When
Speaker 1: a president procures his presidency by fraud, should we consider
Speaker 1: doing the same. That can be a criminal case if
Speaker 1: they can prove willfulness there. I also think it potentially
Speaker 1: grounds for impeachment. I think the American people would support impeachment.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump will be must be impeached. He's got to
Speaker 1: know his future looks like it's behind bars. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is a criminal enterprise. It certainly looks like they are
Speaker 1: the kind of offenses that would call for impeachment hearings.
Speaker 1: You have this memorable phrase of individual number one. You
Speaker 1: know it's going to go down I think in the
Speaker 1: history books along with some of those memorable Watergate phrases.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with Congressman Adam Schiff, who is going
Speaker 1: to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, that
Speaker 1: President Trump could be indicted and possibly faced jail time
Speaker 1: after he leaves off. Yes, these are felonies that we're
Speaker 1: talking about. As it relates to impeachment, Anderson, the Constitution
Speaker 1: could not be any clearer. Impeachment is the appropriate remedy
Speaker 1: for bribery, for treason, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It
Speaker 1: speaks for itself. If the President orchestrated and ordered Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen to break the law, to act in a criminal manner,
Speaker 1: and did so knowingly, as Jerry Nadler, the incoming chairman
Speaker 1: of the House Judiciary Committee, said, that would be an
Speaker 1: appeachurable offense. Potentially again, if knowledge was there, all right, dudes,
Speaker 1: round up information overload and yeah, that is your left
Speaker 1: wing media and their overreaction and their stupidity and their
Speaker 1: ignorance all on full display here. You know, it's amazing
Speaker 1: the collectively they were waiting for these sentencing recommendations on
Speaker 1: Cone and Manaford, and the end of the cooperation deal
Speaker 1: that Manaford had with the Special Council, thinking that there's
Speaker 1: a smoking gun so on Russia. But of course there
Speaker 1: was nothing. For Michael Kohne, we're talking about taxi medallions,
Speaker 1: financial issues, tax issues, loan applications and from Manaphort pretty
Speaker 1: much the same thing, nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Speaker 1: So first that raises the question why might we even
Speaker 1: be here right then on the Michael khone, then they
Speaker 1: found nothing on Russia, and then like we gotta get something. Well,
Speaker 1: Michael Kohane said, and he did this at the direction
Speaker 1: of the president. Problem with Michael is that's not the
Speaker 1: only version of that story that he's given. He said
Speaker 1: actually that he did it on his own without any
Speaker 1: input for the president. When the president found out, he
Speaker 1: paid him back, So that turns into a whole different thing.
Speaker 1: I go back to Levine's peace earlier that I mentioned
Speaker 1: that he put up on Facebook. When you look at
Speaker 1: actual campaign rules and the wording in the context, they
Speaker 1: don't include nondisclosure agreements NDAs or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements,
Speaker 1: acts of a private nature as campaign contributions. In other words,
Speaker 1: it's normal human behavior that was never intended ever, nor
Speaker 1: is it mentioned to be regulated or reported. So the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York, which I have a lot
Speaker 1: of respect for, in this case I believe, is way
Speaker 1: off of course. And whatever private payments might have been
Speaker 1: made in any amount out by anybody, their private payments
Speaker 1: involving private matters. And to underscore, there's no reporting requirement
Speaker 1: because they're not campaign payments made with or without with
Speaker 1: or without campaign funes. So the inclusion of this and
Speaker 1: their desire to only believe the version of events that
Speaker 1: fits their narrative doesn't really work in a court of law.
Speaker 1: And as a practical matter, you know, how do you
Speaker 1: get to pick and choose which version of somebody's story
Speaker 1: that you want. That he's not a cooperating witness in
Speaker 1: this particular case, And but you know, this is what
Speaker 1: the left wing does. This is what they've been now
Speaker 1: calling for for two years. And as for impeachment, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's nothing dumber that I've heard in my life. A
Speaker 1: nondisclosure agreement is a nondisclosure agreement involving private matters that
Speaker 1: people agree to. They don't have to agree to it,
Speaker 1: but they choose to agree to it, and unrelated to
Speaker 1: anything that ever had to do with his office or
Speaker 1: obtaining his office. And how, you know, how we get
Speaker 1: to this point is just showing you how desperate and
Speaker 1: political things have become in this atmosphere of destroyed Trump anyway.
Speaker 1: John Sale is a former federal prosecutor. He served in
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York as an assistant special
Speaker 1: Watergate prosecutor as well. And Sale has particular understanding of
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York, probably the most prestigious
Speaker 1: I guess in the country. Is that a fair statement,
Speaker 1: John Sale? I think it is, even though I've been
Speaker 1: in other US attorney's office as I think it is.
Speaker 1: You know, I think it's. I mean the cases that
Speaker 1: have and you worked with Andy. I think on the
Speaker 1: blind Shake case, didn't you. You work with Rudy over
Speaker 1: the years as well well. I worked with Rudy over
Speaker 1: the years. The judge in the blind See case is
Speaker 1: my good friend Michael Mukasey, Right. I mean, the names
Speaker 1: that come out of here are who's who in terms
Speaker 1: of legal minds and political uh political powerhouse people so
Speaker 1: and have in the Southern District of New York had
Speaker 1: taken on some of the biggest hardest cases, especially with
Speaker 1: terrorism and other issues. What is your reaction to all
Speaker 1: of this. Do you think there's any validity to this
Speaker 1: campaign finance argument? Well, I think that that's pretty easy
Speaker 1: one for staters. When Michael Kohen first entered his plea,
Speaker 1: he pled too. As you pointed up before, he Matt
Speaker 1: is involving his own misdeeds, false tax returns, false applications
Speaker 1: to loans, having nothing in the world to do with
Speaker 1: the president, And they threw in a couple of soil
Speaker 1: called campaign violations, and he gratuitously added, oh, and it
Speaker 1: was directed by obviously he was referring to the president.
Speaker 1: And then his lawyer went on TV and tried to
Speaker 1: sell his cooperation to the Special Council, which is a
Speaker 1: kind of a bizarre way to do it. So now
Speaker 1: he's changed his story for about the eighth time. But
Speaker 1: I'll tell you so's showing something that really is unusual.
Speaker 1: And as I said, I'm proud of my former offer.
Speaker 1: But usually when two prosecutors officers take different positions, they
Speaker 1: don't do it publicly. They'll sit down sometimes with the
Speaker 1: Deaupment of Justice being the referee, and then they take
Speaker 1: a uniform position. So here you see the special counsel
Speaker 1: saying that he was helpful somewhat, and you have the
Speaker 1: Southern District blasting him in a sentencing memo. But to
Speaker 1: get back to your question, I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's only Michael Khan who is saying he was authorized
Speaker 1: by individual number one, which I think it's disingenuous to
Speaker 1: say individual number one because we all know who he's
Speaker 1: referring to. But I don't concede that that happened because
Speaker 1: of his credibility. But if it did happen, and just
Speaker 1: for the sake of argument there, it's a specific intent crime,
Speaker 1: so they would have to prove that individual number one
Speaker 1: knew it was against the law, which they can't prove.
Speaker 1: And it's also an offense which is rarely prosecuted criminally
Speaker 1: and when and it is usually dealt with by a fine.
Speaker 1: So you know, is that impeachable? Well, spitting on the
Speaker 1: sidewalks impeachable if a Congress of votes it is, but
Speaker 1: of course it shouldn't. It's not an impeachable offense in fairness,
Speaker 1: and I'm not I don't join the bandwagon. I watch
Speaker 1: a TV show regularly shown, and I'm a big fan,
Speaker 1: but I don't necessarily agree that Mahler's office is on
Speaker 1: a witch hunt. But I just think they're wrong, and
Speaker 1: I think the fairness you frequently talk about though the
Speaker 1: investigation is tainted. I think you don't have to go
Speaker 1: there to just look at what are they doing regarding
Speaker 1: the president. And I'm not here to defend the president,
Speaker 1: but what they're doing regarding the president is unfair the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel's office, These redacted pleadings, to me, are appalling
Speaker 1: that they've filed publicly. And I called four different, very
Speaker 1: seasoned federal judges in different parts of the country, and
Speaker 1: I asked every one of them, have you ever in
Speaker 1: your twenty some ideas sitting on the bench seeing anything
Speaker 1: like that? And every single one of them said no.
Speaker 1: And here's my problem X or whicheveryone we're talking about
Speaker 1: in public. They file a document that says he provided
Speaker 1: very valuable information regarding and then it's all blank. So
Speaker 1: what does that lead to speculation about it? Is it
Speaker 1: why I'm not going to mention their names, because I'm
Speaker 1: going to then contribute to the problem of destroying their reputations.
Speaker 1: That information should be filed under seal so that nobody's
Speaker 1: speculating and nobody is in them imagination creating evidence about
Speaker 1: the president, about the president's family. And the only thing
Speaker 1: it tells me is that this investigation is probably not
Speaker 1: coming to a close. And I think it should and
Speaker 1: I think they're As I have said before, if a
Speaker 1: special Council does a very thorough investigation and it does
Speaker 1: not incriminate the president, they have not failed. If the
Speaker 1: evidence shows it does, then that's one thing. But we
Speaker 1: have not seen any evidence to incriminate the president. And
Speaker 1: everyone is spy on some of the other networks. Everyone
Speaker 1: is speculating, and that's all it is unless they are right. Well,
Speaker 1: here's some of my problems. Let me tell you where
Speaker 1: my main criticisms are is I think we've lost any
Speaker 1: sense of equal application of our laws, equal justice of
Speaker 1: our laws. Under our laws I look at I can
Speaker 1: compartmentalize and break down each individual case for you, but
Speaker 1: there are a whole lot of people I have listed
Speaker 1: that have been caught lying to either Congress or to
Speaker 1: the FBI and nothing has happened to them. I'm worried
Speaker 1: about a double standard. I'm worried about in the Michael
Speaker 1: Flinn case, the abuse of surveillance. They didn't. They ended
Speaker 1: up unmasking him and leaking raw intelligence against him, which
Speaker 1: is against the law. He wasn't doing anything nefarious except
Speaker 1: talking to a future counterpart. Nobody in the FBI thought
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn had lied when they did the interview with him,
Speaker 1: but yet he signed onto that because he's bankrupt, and
Speaker 1: I would suspect they probably said, well, we're going to
Speaker 1: go after your son, and he probably dove on his sword.
Speaker 1: I think it's a pretty good educated guess. We know
Speaker 1: they were writing an exoneration of Hillary in May with
Speaker 1: Ay had written in the legal standard gross negligence and
Speaker 1: changed it shifted into extreme carelessness. That was in early maya,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Comey said that he wasn't writing it before
Speaker 1: he interviewed her. That was a lie, and Peter Struck
Speaker 1: and James Comy were writing that, and then it ends
Speaker 1: up that I felt like they gave her a pass.
Speaker 1: I think that it's a clear violation having top secret
Speaker 1: classified information on an outside server the way she did,
Speaker 1: and their original assessment was that as many as six
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence agencies hacked into it, and then we have,
Speaker 1: of course, the beginning of the Russians investigations. Comey said
Speaker 1: Friday least a page before that they had nothing after
Speaker 1: nine months of looking at it. So why after nine
Speaker 1: months did they start with a special counsel James Comey
Speaker 1: helped precipitate. And then we get into the issue of,
Speaker 1: you know, the Russian dossier and lying to FISA courts
Speaker 1: for Jim Comey to say they never vetted or verified
Speaker 1: anything in that document that he signed that would spy
Speaker 1: on an American citizen, a Trump campaign official. If we
Speaker 1: really care about Russian influence, I think we would dig
Speaker 1: into that matter as deeply as any matters involving Trump.
Speaker 1: I think the Uranium one deal is even more problematic
Speaker 1: because we ended up handing over twenty percent of America's
Speaker 1: uranium while we had a spy inside of Plutin's network
Speaker 1: in America. We knew they wanted a foothold in the
Speaker 1: uranium industry. Our spy was telling our top FBI official
Speaker 1: at the time, Robert Muller, that there was blackmail, bribery, extortion,
Speaker 1: and kickbacks going on. It still happened, and the people
Speaker 1: involved kickback one hundred and forty five million of the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation. So if we cared about Russian influence, we
Speaker 1: would be also covering those stories, and they're not in
Speaker 1: the particular cases I'm mentioning here. I feel like I
Speaker 1: have real evidence in corroboration where they have none as
Speaker 1: it relates to Trump. So the double standard is glaring
Speaker 1: to me. Well, Shan, you lay out a very plausible case,
Speaker 1: and I think this should be an investigation of all
Speaker 1: of that. And I give all of the people you're
Speaker 1: referring to the presuction of innocence. Oh, I hang on
Speaker 1: one second, Why don't we pick it up there? But
Speaker 1: I want to give you a full chance to respond
Speaker 1: more with John Sale eight hundred nine one Sean. Right,
Speaker 1: as we continue with John Sale, former federal prosecutors served
Speaker 1: in the Southern District of New York and also served
Speaker 1: as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Right, I gave you
Speaker 1: this whole litany of where I believe the double standard is,
Speaker 1: and you were saying, I was saying before you had
Speaker 1: to go to the break, that you lay out a
Speaker 1: very plausible case, and I think it should all be
Speaker 1: investigated by a legitimate, appropriate investigator, probably the depaupuit of justice.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't. I think there's too many special
Speaker 1: counsels around. Having been part of a special prosecution in Watergate,
Speaker 1: you know, I think we all came away thinking that
Speaker 1: there's a problem. You have to do it right, but
Speaker 1: there's really no accountability. That's the danger with a special counsel.
Speaker 1: But switching to the president, if I think that should
Speaker 1: be investigated, and I think every person you mentioned should
Speaker 1: get the presumption of innocence, but where is that presumption
Speaker 1: of innocence for the president? I mean? And you? But
Speaker 1: how can we justify all the time, two years worth
Speaker 1: of investigated work with no evidence and then they're going
Speaker 1: after people, you know with thirty five years of serving
Speaker 1: their country, track records of you know, on a lying
Speaker 1: to the FBI. Doesn't that by the way, doesn't that
Speaker 1: render Doesn't that take away motivation for those of us
Speaker 1: to love the FBI from ever wanting to talk to them.
Speaker 1: If that's the result, well, I think we should respect
Speaker 1: the FBI. I think most do respetomen who I know,
Speaker 1: I know you do, And because I have an active
Speaker 1: law practice in Miami and I deal with the FBI
Speaker 1: all the time, and most of them are one of
Speaker 1: the best chins. But but Sean, it's it's not the FBI.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's uh, just what's going on possibly with
Speaker 1: a few individuals. But again I don't want to prejudge them,
Speaker 1: but I would say other people who are prejudging the
Speaker 1: president and making outrageous statements based upon nothing and that
Speaker 1: based upon redactions. I gotta run John Salem just away behind.
Speaker 1: Thank you, my friend. Eight hundred nine for one, Sean,
Speaker 1: toll free telephone number. There's a voice of sanity in
Speaker 1: this finally quick break right back. We'll continue all right
Speaker 1: twenty five now till the top of the hour. Toll
Speaker 1: free telephone numbers eight hundred and nine for one, Sean.
Speaker 1: If you want to be a part of the program,
Speaker 1: I can't tell you everything I'm doing tomorrow until I
Speaker 1: get on the air tomorrow. But I'm doing something very cool.
Speaker 1: And you know at this time of year, especially knowing
Speaker 1: all of you in this audience, your great love, your passion,
Speaker 1: your understanding of the sacrifice of so many others for us.
Speaker 1: One group we've really gotten to know in recent years
Speaker 1: as Troops Direct. They're an organization gets that gets needed supplies,
Speaker 1: tools to deploy troops. And I'm not saying this. We
Speaker 1: work with a lot of military charities, but they get
Speaker 1: the supplies to the troops that they need and the
Speaker 1: tools they need when they're sent overseas, so they're not underprepared.
Speaker 1: And it's donations from we the people, the American people,
Speaker 1: that keep this nonprofit organization going all year long. And
Speaker 1: you know, look, we go about our daily lives. We
Speaker 1: don't stop every minute, every second of every day and
Speaker 1: think about what sacrifice goes on behind the scenes and
Speaker 1: on the front lines for us. But at this time
Speaker 1: of year, we think about giving, and we think about
Speaker 1: all that we have. And one of the great blessings
Speaker 1: we have are so many men and women that want us,
Speaker 1: serve us and keep us free so that we can
Speaker 1: live in peace. Our brave men and women, and they
Speaker 1: sacrifice a lot to do it. Their family sacrifice a
Speaker 1: lot to let them do it. Anyway, joining us now
Speaker 1: is Aaron Narbomb, who's with us, founder executive director, and
Speaker 1: Jake Jones is with us. Guys, how are you good
Speaker 1: to talk to you again? What's going on? Hie afternoon?
Speaker 1: How are you you know? The only thing I don't
Speaker 1: understand is why for example, we're deploying people without needed helmets,
Speaker 1: body armor, carriers and some fundamental things that the government
Speaker 1: should be providing. We now had a big increase in
Speaker 1: our military budget. Why are they still without some basics? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, Sean and I founded Troops Direct in twenty ten.
Speaker 1: That was the question I asked as well. And I
Speaker 1: thought our troops had everything that they needed when they
Speaker 1: were in harm's way defending our country. And I found
Speaker 1: that that was just not the case because of bureaucracy's
Speaker 1: red tape, the slow logistics sometimes the military that our
Speaker 1: troops need things immediately for their missions and to protect
Speaker 1: their lives and the lives of their brethren in a
Speaker 1: manner that's quicker sometimes in the military supply chain is
Speaker 1: And we have I have Jake Jones who works full
Speaker 1: time for US, who was a recipient of our support,
Speaker 1: and he said, I need to be a part of this.
Speaker 1: And you know that's why we exist, is to support
Speaker 1: our troops immediately, to help them get their jobs done
Speaker 1: and get them back home. But Sean, I'll let Jake
Speaker 1: speak more to it. Jake, why don't you, you know,
Speaker 1: fill us in on all the things that you guys
Speaker 1: are doing and the things that they need, well, it's
Speaker 1: really a myriad of things. Sean. We support anything that
Speaker 1: doesn't go boomer banks for r compliant vendors. So it's
Speaker 1: anything from boots to rifle scopes, laser rangefinders, helmets, body armor,
Speaker 1: advanced medical kits, and these things are in demand every day.
Speaker 1: I mean I spend proximately kinds of thousands of dollars
Speaker 1: monthly in the support that we provide to our service
Speaker 1: members overseas. And it's all done to the patriotic donations
Speaker 1: of just mom and pops from around all around the
Speaker 1: United States that just want to keep America's sons and
Speaker 1: daughters secure. All right, So tell me, you know, so
Speaker 1: how does it work here? You know, you tell stories.
Speaker 1: I know there was a case where a generator that
Speaker 1: was powering us a remote special opts outposts failed and
Speaker 1: replacement parts one or twelve month backwater. Through the military
Speaker 1: supply chain, you were able to acquire and ship those
Speaker 1: needed parts in less than seventy two hours. You know,
Speaker 1: that's my numbing bureaucracy to me, that's the kind of
Speaker 1: thing that drives me crazy. But or when a unit
Speaker 1: was rushed to fight terrorism, in the Middle East, but
Speaker 1: they didn't have the necessary communications equipment. I agree most
Speaker 1: of this help was needed in the Obama years. Are
Speaker 1: you seeing a shift and a change though under the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, considering they now have you know, considerably increased
Speaker 1: the military budget and general matters, we are seeing an
Speaker 1: increase the support through the new Trump administration, whether our
Speaker 1: ability to with rules of engagement or engagement authorities being
Speaker 1: pushed down to the tactical level as opposed to the
Speaker 1: previous administration where it was at the general Walster level.
Speaker 1: But yet you know, the endless terrorists game of lackable
Speaker 1: if you will, that's global. We need to have the
Speaker 1: ability to surge assets at a moment's notice, and that's
Speaker 1: really what we're seeing now is the fluidity of the situation.
Speaker 1: For us to go out and remove terrorists in the battlefield,
Speaker 1: we have to be agile enough to do it, and
Speaker 1: the government doesn't allow them to do that because of
Speaker 1: the contracting requirements. So we can click and shift anything
Speaker 1: in the world, anything globally within ten to fifteen minutes
Speaker 1: if it's in stock, and if it's not, I'll get
Speaker 1: it in stock and get it out the door. Suit
Speaker 1: as possible. And you know, Sean, one thing that the
Speaker 1: public doesn't realize is that we have Americans serving right
Speaker 1: now as this program airs in over one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty countries around the globe, whether it's your special Operations
Speaker 1: teams or it's your regular old infantry service member, and
Speaker 1: they need things sometimes quicker than that airplane from the
Speaker 1: military can get there. And that's why Troops Direct is
Speaker 1: so valuable, because our service members know what they need
Speaker 1: right now to get their job done. And I can
Speaker 1: tell you we've unfortunately seen casualties out there in the
Speaker 1: battle space with the units that we have suppli through
Speaker 1: the years, but those Americans have said that without Troops Direct,
Speaker 1: less missions would be accomplished and more lives would have
Speaker 1: been lost if it wasn't for the support that we
Speaker 1: provide them. And as you know, Sean, we are the
Speaker 1: only ones out there that do what we do for
Speaker 1: our Americans every single you know, people forget too. We
Speaker 1: have Americans deployed, and I know it's hard to believe
Speaker 1: in one hundred and thirty different countries, and this is
Speaker 1: a vital role that you guys have playing. Look, the
Speaker 1: bottom line is I wanted to have you on, explain
Speaker 1: it to our audience and how can they help. We
Speaker 1: have a very generous audience, especially with military matters. You're
Speaker 1: specifically getting them really important things so they can do
Speaker 1: their job. You know, uniforms, helmets, communication equipment, life support here.
Speaker 1: So if somebody wants to help and you get to
Speaker 1: bypass all the bureaucracy, how can they do it? They
Speaker 1: can go to troops direct dot org and make a
Speaker 1: donation today. You know, our overhead is less than two
Speaker 1: percent here, and if you're really say you support the troops,
Speaker 1: this is the way to do it. Yeah, the troops
Speaker 1: like cookies and candy, but the troops need life support systems.
Speaker 1: The troops need replacement uniforms because there's are bloodied and torn.
Speaker 1: They need the communications that have failed while they're in
Speaker 1: the battle space, and we're the ones that they come
Speaker 1: to to get them now. So the best Christmas gift
Speaker 1: we can give our troops is the products they needs
Speaker 1: they can get back home to their families and so well,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make a donation. I don't ask my audience
Speaker 1: to do something that I myself won't do, and I'm
Speaker 1: gladly give to a great cause such as this, we'll
Speaker 1: put it up on Hannity dot com, troops direct dot
Speaker 1: org and there's also all the information you'd ever want
Speaker 1: to check out the good work that they're doing every day.
Speaker 1: And Merry Christmas to you guys, and you know, godspeed
Speaker 1: and what you're doing. And our thoughts and prayers are
Speaker 1: always with these these men and women that so bravely
Speaker 1: sacrifice so much for us to give us the opportunities
Speaker 1: we have every day. Well, Sean, you've been a longtime
Speaker 1: advocate and supporter for us, and you know from the
Speaker 1: helm here are troops Director. I just want to see you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for everything that you do for
Speaker 1: our troops through your advocacy. Well, we appreciate it, and
Speaker 1: we'll put it up on Hannity dot com or just
Speaker 1: remember troops direct dot org. All right, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for being with us. We appreciate it. We Aaron, thank you, Jake,
Speaker 1: thanks you as well. Eight hundred nine four one, Sean
Speaker 1: is on number. Greg is in Ohio. Greg, Hi, how
Speaker 1: are you welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. Hello, Sean,
Speaker 1: just want to say that I've been listening to you
Speaker 1: for a long time since actually since two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: and I keep here and over and over again. How
Speaker 1: you know about this smaller investigation. The way to stop it,
Speaker 1: I think is for whoever's being investigated, whoever has been
Speaker 1: found guilty of anything that he's uncovered, should just go
Speaker 1: and have it all reversed, because it's all through the
Speaker 1: poisonous tree. None of this investigation would have started without
Speaker 1: that dossier, and we know that dossier is false. Listen,
Speaker 1: I the double standards. What is amazing to me. It's
Speaker 1: so funny because Friday there was a you could feel
Speaker 1: it in the air. They thought they had the president.
Speaker 1: Then that they got to the inner writings of the
Speaker 1: sentencing recommendations and the Cone case and the Metaphor case,
Speaker 1: and when you really break it down, they had nothing.
Speaker 1: There's nothing Russia. There's still nothing Russia. I mean, it's amazing.
Speaker 1: And then go to Friday's transcript of Jim Comey, and
Speaker 1: Jim Comey you know, said that, oh, when I was fired,
Speaker 1: we still hadn't found anything about Russia. That's nine months
Speaker 1: after this whole thing began, nearly a year. Lisa Page
Speaker 1: had said the same thing. And what you then have
Speaker 1: is that nassier that Clinton wought for that became the
Speaker 1: basis again unverified. That's that's the other amazing thing. He said, No,
Speaker 1: we never verified it, but he put his name to it.
Speaker 1: And that Russian lying dossier that was paid for ought
Speaker 1: to be as important to the investigation of Muller or
Speaker 1: we need another special counsel to really look into it.
Speaker 1: To that separately, and Uranium one separately. But there's real
Speaker 1: evidence and proof here and all that. The only thing
Speaker 1: they went back on is this whole issue of campaign finance,
Speaker 1: which I outlined earlier in the program today, and I
Speaker 1: go back there is nothing there for them legally at all,
Speaker 1: in spite of what you are hearing. Nothing. So it's
Speaker 1: so these are pretty amazing times that we live in.
Speaker 1: And I'm just convinced that you're gonna fee they're gonna
Speaker 1: rise up and say that we gotta impeachment, impeachment. But
Speaker 1: they've been saying that from two years and it's still
Speaker 1: the same people. You know, if you really listen, just
Speaker 1: gets louder at times and then it lessens. And look,
Speaker 1: Muller's gonna do his thing. He's gonna write his report,
Speaker 1: Julianni will write his report, and there's not going to
Speaker 1: be any crimes you can indict a sitting president in
Speaker 1: any way, and the Trump administration is going to go on.
Speaker 1: But as you're watching all of this unfold and then
Speaker 1: the new investigations in Congress, just to ask yourself, you know,
Speaker 1: how is this all for the benefit of the American people.
Speaker 1: It's going to help the average American? Is going to
Speaker 1: keep us safer as a country? Is it going to
Speaker 1: provide more opportunities for Americans? And the answer is going
Speaker 1: to be a resounding no. And that means that they're
Speaker 1: doing this purely out of a hatred and a power
Speaker 1: play that they have orchestrated. You know, public servants are
Speaker 1: supposed to serve their constituents, the people. We the people.
Speaker 1: That's what was so powerful about the Pelosi, Trump and
Speaker 1: Schumer exchange. It's the President's like, no, my job is
Speaker 1: to keep the American people safe, and they just can't
Speaker 1: deal with that reality. It's been a big issue anyway.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred nine for one, Shaun is on number of
Speaker 1: a big time AJ Houston, Texas. What's going on, baby?
Speaker 1: How are you? What's going on? Oh? Manqui? Happy thanks
Speaker 1: Giving to you guys. Everybody everybody up is Everybody always
Speaker 1: sucking up to Linda. Everybody's always sucking up to Linda
Speaker 1: on a phone call earlier today, they're sucking up to Lenda.
Speaker 1: Then I would not mistake true friendship and affection for
Speaker 1: sucking up. You know, some people just like other people, no,
Speaker 1: because they know that you hold the keys to the
Speaker 1: kingdom and people can get past your kingdom. Is that
Speaker 1: to get to me? What I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: have any kingdom. My kingdom is a he's just like
Speaker 1: me for my New York brashness, you know, especially people
Speaker 1: like Aj. You know he's in Texas. There's no one
Speaker 1: like me that, no one. No one talks like you there,
Speaker 1: right Daj. Nobody talks like that. You know. It's the
Speaker 1: first of all. That's what we love about. That is
Speaker 1: the most important that we love than I'm glad someone
Speaker 1: to the idiot now America, now that we see who
Speaker 1: President Trump is for, all the media have egg on.
Speaker 1: They think this man is for the people, This man
Speaker 1: is for this country. You see what, Nancy, They dirty
Speaker 1: rat and I said it, and I don't get me.
Speaker 1: They done it. Rat. They don't care for America. They
Speaker 1: don't care for our safety. We didn't have these egals.
Speaker 1: Like Trump said, we got people coming in here. They're
Speaker 1: doing bad things to this country, and they won't two
Speaker 1: meeting more or two thousand. I don't. Trump is a man,
Speaker 1: and don't let nobody fool you people. This man up
Speaker 1: there making deals, This man up there cared about the country.
Speaker 1: And if we set back and that the left wing media,
Speaker 1: dick Jake, what this man doing? You right, Sean, They're
Speaker 1: gonna hit him like a bad habit. But guess what,
Speaker 1: they're hitting the wrong man because Trump gonna hit them
Speaker 1: back just as bad. And I thank god we got God.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what America wanted. America wanted a disruptor.
Speaker 1: America wanted a fighter. And it's like, there's no chance
Speaker 1: in hell that you're ever gonna win a better trade
Speaker 1: deal with your European allies China, Mexico, Canada unless you
Speaker 1: say I'm gonna pull out of the other one and
Speaker 1: we're gonna have teriffs if you don't, if the threat
Speaker 1: isn't real, it's empty, and then they're never gonna respond.
Speaker 1: So all of that is getting done, some of it
Speaker 1: already has gotten the same with NATO. Why do we
Speaker 1: have to pay the bulk of NATO, while Angela Merkel
Speaker 1: stupidly is making multi billion dollars deals to make Putin
Speaker 1: and Russia rich again, and their entire commodity is based on,
Speaker 1: you know, the hope that he doesn't turn off to
Speaker 1: spick it in a fit of rage one day. That's
Speaker 1: a pretty dumb idea, John Quick. The Republican Party, they'd
Speaker 1: better know we're watching them, and they better grew us
Speaker 1: set like Trump got. We see them come on TV
Speaker 1: just running the mouth and then get not done. It's
Speaker 1: a joke what they're doing. They better get behind him.
Speaker 1: Are they gonna be gone in twenty twenty one? That's
Speaker 1: run as well. We tired of him coming on TV.
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. We
Speaker 1: stick of it. Get out there and do your job
Speaker 1: what we sent you up there to do it quick,
Speaker 1: full crapp it you good thing. We had a bar
Speaker 1: all right, big time. I think if they hear that rant,
Speaker 1: they're gonna they just got their marching orders. Do your
Speaker 1: job all right, big time. AJ Houston, Texas. That's gonna
Speaker 1: wrap things up with today, Hannity. Tonight we'll have the
Speaker 1: Trump beat down on Pelosi and Chucky Schumer and the
Speaker 1: latest on immigration. Also the absolute stupidity of this campaign finance,
Speaker 1: impeachment hysteria that will never work and they know it.
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Dan Mongino, Solomon Carter, Greg Jarrett, Jesse Jessica
Speaker 1: All coming up tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News
Speaker 1: Channel