Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity radio show podcast. All right, who's anonymous?
Speaker 1: Who is it? We need you know? There's a really dangerous, sick,
Speaker 1: ugly side to all this that nobody in the nobody
Speaker 1: in the media wants to talk about. Oh boy, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: who can't control his temper. You can't go to a
Speaker 1: seven eleven or a dunkin Donuts unless you have a
Speaker 1: slide Indian or dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight
Speaker 1: Indian accent? Am I not not chuckle? You got the
Speaker 1: first sort of a stream Atrican American who is artiiculate
Speaker 1: and bright particulate, right, clean, clean, bic guy clean. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's that's a story book tree letter word jobs. J
Speaker 1: O b s Joe whoopsie Daisy whoops. Well here's the
Speaker 1: latest Uncle Joe. Crazy Uncle Joe. You're a real beep.
Speaker 1: I need to kind of street vernacular for male genitalia.
Speaker 1: Let's put it's such a good guy. I want to
Speaker 1: take the president behind the school yard. I'll take him on,
Speaker 1: I'll fight him. Uh, which is a joke. Uh, tough guy,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, good luck I hope he's running for president. Uh,
Speaker 1: that ought to be fun to watch. We have a
Speaker 1: lot of news today. We have four big stories that
Speaker 1: are now unfolding. There is a grand jury investigation into
Speaker 1: the deep state. All the issues we've been talking about
Speaker 1: confirmed today. Uh, it's all about to hit the fan.
Speaker 1: The President on the verge of releasing documents. That's gonna
Speaker 1: take the whole house of cards and blow it away.
Speaker 1: We've got all of that, We've got the anonymous and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna the danger of anonymous is much deeper than
Speaker 1: anybody is talking about in your news media, and we'll
Speaker 1: blow that out of the water. We have incredible economic news. Yeah,
Speaker 1: forty nine year low job blos claims and other great
Speaker 1: data that will share in the course of the program.
Speaker 1: A little rocket man fire and fury my buttons bigger
Speaker 1: than your button. Looks like Kim Jong un is now
Speaker 1: again responded to President Trump strength because he pulled the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from a meeting that they
Speaker 1: were gonna have. And now a little rocket man says
Speaker 1: he wants to d nuclearize the Korean peninsula during President
Speaker 1: Trump's first term. Oh excuse me if you listen. You
Speaker 1: know this is this is part of the lie that
Speaker 1: was in this anonymous piece, which really you know, you
Speaker 1: look at that I am part of the resistance inside
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Well, the person Mr Gutlass, Mrs Gutlass,
Speaker 1: whoever it happens to be, says, take foreign policy, President
Speaker 1: Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators like Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin of Russia, North Korea's leader Kim Jong un o.
Speaker 1: K let's just take that one statement. Because this person
Speaker 1: that's not elected, that is not held accountable, that has
Speaker 1: no respect for the the democratic constitutional republic that we are,
Speaker 1: and things that they are smarter than you, the American people,
Speaker 1: that they're gonna take it upon themselves to be the
Speaker 1: resistance or if you look at some of the other
Speaker 1: terms against downright scary from my perspective on all of this.
Speaker 1: Um that now quote they're talking about in the Washington Times,
Speaker 1: sleeper cells have awoken inside the country. Sleeper cells what
Speaker 1: people that are active in trying to undermine uh an
Speaker 1: American president that was duly elected. Um, this is really scary.
Speaker 1: And there's lines in here that makes me wonder whether
Speaker 1: or not the Secret Service is gonna get involved in this,
Speaker 1: because I think they really do need to get involved
Speaker 1: in this. If you look at the quotes, you know,
Speaker 1: for example, after dismissing the use of the twenty five Amendment,
Speaker 1: the anonymous author goes on to say, what what is
Speaker 1: the line one way or another? So we will do
Speaker 1: what we can to steer the administration in the right
Speaker 1: direction until one way or another it's over one way
Speaker 1: or another? What does that mean one way or another?
Speaker 1: What does the other way mean? Uh, you're talking about elections.
Speaker 1: Are you talking about a threat to the president of
Speaker 1: the United States? Because I would think that the Secret
Speaker 1: Service now needs to get involved. What is one way
Speaker 1: or another? We'll remove him one way or another. Well,
Speaker 1: let's say somebody said it about me. We'll get him
Speaker 1: out one way or another. Let's say it about you
Speaker 1: know God. You know we've I've always said during the
Speaker 1: Obama here's nobody remembers. Nobody wants to remember. We've got
Speaker 1: to protect our president. Jason has a thousand tapes of
Speaker 1: me saying in a thousand different times, protect the president
Speaker 1: of the United States. Whether you agree, whether you disagree,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. It's we the people, the people choose. I'm
Speaker 1: part of the resistance. Let's see one way or another.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm one of the resistance anyway. So
Speaker 1: the guy goes on or the woman goes on, whoever.
Speaker 1: It happens to be a preference for autocrats and dictators.
Speaker 1: The person that has put the toughest sanctions on Russia
Speaker 1: was not Barack Hussein Obama. It was Donald Trump. And literally,
Speaker 1: you know, the Russian economy is collapsing. Little Rocketman is
Speaker 1: back at the table because his economy is collapsing. The
Speaker 1: Iranian economy is in tatters now because the president has
Speaker 1: pulled out of that ridiculous deal that John carry is.
Speaker 1: You know that bragging about is the greatest things in
Speaker 1: slice bread. The Iran nuclear agree, I say this straight
Speaker 1: worldly is the strongest, most intrusive, most accountable nuclear agreement
Speaker 1: that we have anywhere on the planet. This administration is involved.
Speaker 1: I think I think the administration has made a terrible mistake.
Speaker 1: I think it's me. Yeah, okay, we'll drop a hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion dollars on the tarmac to a Ranium mullows.
Speaker 1: The chant death to America, Death to Israel, Burn our flag,
Speaker 1: burn the American flag. That's a really brilliant idea. Now
Speaker 1: as it relates to North Korea, what have we had
Speaker 1: so far since December? We're in the fall ex September.
Speaker 1: Remember we were having all those rockets being fired over
Speaker 1: Japan and Guam was threatened, the entire region was threatened.
Speaker 1: He talked about fire and fury and his button that
Speaker 1: he's gonna press and we're gonna get a nuclear weapon
Speaker 1: landing on the continental United States or somewhere else in
Speaker 1: the world. None of that is happening anymore. Well, that
Speaker 1: would mean that the president, because he was strong with
Speaker 1: Kim Jong we've gotten hostages returned. The remains of Americans
Speaker 1: that have been lying in North Korea since nineteen fifty
Speaker 1: three have been returned. You got Kim Jong un today
Speaker 1: talking about, oh we can we can now talk about
Speaker 1: de nuclearization of the entire Korean peninsula. One of his
Speaker 1: you know, launchpad areas or testing facilities has been taken down. Uh.
Speaker 1: And to me, well, that's all a good sign. Then
Speaker 1: we've got this person that's the literally is making the case.
Speaker 1: Although he was elected a Republican, the president shows little
Speaker 1: affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives. I've been a
Speaker 1: conservative my whole life on radio. I know some people
Speaker 1: at one point or liberals and they become libertarians, then
Speaker 1: they become conservatives, then they've become liberals, and then they
Speaker 1: go with the wind. I've stayed consistent. You know the
Speaker 1: things let's see, is Donald Trump a conservative, conservative justices
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court and conservative justices, originalist. He's proven
Speaker 1: that he is a conservative. The biggest tax cut in history.
Speaker 1: That's a conservative principle. Ending burdensome regulation, that's a conservative principle.
Speaker 1: Security on our boards, that's a conservative principle. Opening anwar
Speaker 1: that is something we conservatives have wanted forever. Building the pipelines,
Speaker 1: that's a conservative principle. Energy, all of the above, coal, fracking, drilling,
Speaker 1: all of it, even looking into new technology. That's a
Speaker 1: conservative principle. So you know, all of this garbage. This
Speaker 1: is written by an anti trumper, somebody that thinks that
Speaker 1: they are above the rest of the country. And there's
Speaker 1: a danger to this. What if this person, now it
Speaker 1: can be any number of people, hundreds of people. What
Speaker 1: if this person here's the president talking about a potential
Speaker 1: military action against the American foe is he gonna or
Speaker 1: here is she gonna undermine that or what if he
Speaker 1: they hear the president talking about sensitive intelligence information? Are
Speaker 1: we gonna put sources and methods in jeopardy? What if this?
Speaker 1: What if this person is being paid? What if this
Speaker 1: person doesn't even exist? You know, if you look at
Speaker 1: the New York Times and I know bookies are having
Speaker 1: a good time with us, They're they're putting on odds
Speaker 1: on anonymous White House officials. Anonymous White House officials could
Speaker 1: be anywhere. Washington Post refers to it as sleeper cells
Speaker 1: have awoken. What don't we refer we talk about sleeper cells? Well,
Speaker 1: terrorist sleeper cells. What does that mean? Sleeper cells? The
Speaker 1: resistance opposite? Why are you working in a white If
Speaker 1: you have the honor of working for this president and
Speaker 1: you want to serve your country, You're there to serve
Speaker 1: the country, not your own agenda. Not unelected, not unaccountable
Speaker 1: bureaucrats that feel that they are above This is like
Speaker 1: an unelected cabal. If there are a lot of sleeper cells,
Speaker 1: as they call them in the Washington Post, well, what
Speaker 1: does that mean that they're gonna awaken and take over
Speaker 1: the government and they're gonna have a coup? I mean
Speaker 1: it's insanity. What if this happened during Obama's term? Some
Speaker 1: conservatives stood up and said, wrote a letter to the
Speaker 1: think the New York Times would have printed it. I
Speaker 1: doubt it. And by the way, this is not The
Speaker 1: New York Times has caught been caught making up stories
Speaker 1: many times over the past years. But maybe it's only
Speaker 1: a ten percent chance. It's probably somebody that could be
Speaker 1: one of six seven people that fits under that title anyway,
Speaker 1: But you know, the New York Times has their m O.
Speaker 1: They've been caught making up stories many times over the years,
Speaker 1: and it's not insignificant stuff like the resistant fantasy that
Speaker 1: they're publishing. Does the name Jason Blair ring a bell
Speaker 1: to any of you? Two thousand three young New York
Speaker 1: Times writers so impressed the papers, then editor how Old Rains.
Speaker 1: Rains kept Blair on the payroll, even after he warned
Speaker 1: Blair that he was making crap up. Any of Blair's
Speaker 1: fraudulent reports ended up and The New York Times fromt
Speaker 1: page after an internal investigation. The New York Times reported
Speaker 1: on Blair's journalistic misdeeds in an unprecedented seven thousand word
Speaker 1: front page story in May of two thousand and three
Speaker 1: Times reporter who resigned leaves long trail of deception. New
Speaker 1: York Times has been wrong story called the affair the
Speaker 1: low point in their newspapers history. But anyway, they found
Speaker 1: an internal investigation, thirty six of seventy three national stories
Speaker 1: filed with the paper over a six month period marred
Speaker 1: with errors, false state lines, evidence of plagiarism. Executive director
Speaker 1: how Rains faulted for continuing a published player after the
Speaker 1: papers metro editor sent him a memo origining him to
Speaker 1: stop Jason from writing for The Times right now, but
Speaker 1: he didn't stop. Is anybody gonna believe a newspaper that
Speaker 1: continue to publish news after they discovered that he was
Speaker 1: printing false news? Fake news? You know a lot of
Speaker 1: people have talked about you know, people's memories are short here.
Speaker 1: I know your book. He's having a great time. Who's it?
Speaker 1: Who is it? Who is it? You understand though, that
Speaker 1: if it's national security issues, issues of war and peace,
Speaker 1: intelligence issues, sources and methods issues. Uh, this is a
Speaker 1: clear and present danger to the United States. And if
Speaker 1: The Washington Post is right, sleeper cells have awakened in
Speaker 1: the United States and they're all little spies within the
Speaker 1: Trump administration and make him look bad. We've got a
Speaker 1: big problem. No nation can govern under these circumstances. Now,
Speaker 1: I just want to just just stand and think for
Speaker 1: a minute. What does the president have to deal with
Speaker 1: every day national security issues, peace and prosperity, free world.
Speaker 1: If you're surrounded by snakes and backstabbers and people that
Speaker 1: are quote the resistance or sleeper cells, as the Washington
Speaker 1: Post says, um, and you've got enemies that are taping
Speaker 1: you inside of the White House, it is it is
Speaker 1: dangerous for the whole country. Hannity, you wouldn't feel this
Speaker 1: way if it was Barack Obama. Yeah, I would feel
Speaker 1: that way. Actually, just like when Barack Obama was president
Speaker 1: and said we've got to protect our president. Mr Speaker,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have strong feelings about this. We've now learned
Speaker 1: that this guy that broke into the White House, not
Speaker 1: only did he get in the door, but he knocked
Speaker 1: down a Secret Service agent, went into three different rooms
Speaker 1: of the White House and passed the stairs that would
Speaker 1: have gone right up to the residents of of the
Speaker 1: Obama's That is extraordinarily chilling to me. I mean, what
Speaker 1: you're talking about protecting the president of the United States
Speaker 1: of America. And it's just there's no room for error.
Speaker 1: You've got to protect our president that that represents the
Speaker 1: free world. So they've got a very difficult job. They've
Speaker 1: got to almost be perfect, and any time any incident happens.
Speaker 1: Uh lately it's becoming pretty high profile. And if we're
Speaker 1: not protecting our president, we're not protecting our leaders. We've
Speaker 1: got a big problem. The rest of the world is
Speaker 1: watching this. Oh I said that when Obama was president.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm pretty consistent on this. Whoop. See Daisy,
Speaker 1: how many times do you you you said you put
Speaker 1: a montage? He's got about a hundred. He's telling me,
Speaker 1: you protect your president, you protect your politicians, And this
Speaker 1: is just a really scary time that they're unelected, unaccountable
Speaker 1: people that have the honor and privilege and pleasure. And obviously,
Speaker 1: by the way, when they say and suggest he's not
Speaker 1: a conservative, they're lying. He is a conservative on judges,
Speaker 1: he's a conservative on healthcare, conservative on taxes, a conservative
Speaker 1: on repealing regulations, a conservative on energy, independence and immigration,
Speaker 1: conservative on even foreign policy issues. He doesn't support dictators.
Speaker 1: He's making the world safer. Are we alienating what are
Speaker 1: our friends by saying stop ripping us off with bad
Speaker 1: trade deals and negotiating better deals, that's good for the
Speaker 1: American people. It's like, it's good to say to NATO,
Speaker 1: stop making Putin rich and billion dollar deals with Putin
Speaker 1: for your energy supply and letting NATO pay their fair
Speaker 1: share when we're paying seventy plus cents of the bill.
Speaker 1: There's nothing bad about any of that, one way or another.
Speaker 1: Interesting alright to the top of the hour. Alright, so
Speaker 1: he had well, I think that John Cornyn, the Senator
Speaker 1: from Texas, had it right when uh, well he had
Speaker 1: the theatrics of Corey Booker during the cav A hearing
Speaker 1: is earlier today, and he's threatening to release documents that
Speaker 1: he says that they're hiding from the American people. And
Speaker 1: Corey Booker said running for president is not an excuse
Speaker 1: for violating the rules of the Senate. And he said, well,
Speaker 1: you can come after me. I know, I'll count me
Speaker 1: in on all of this little problem with Corey Booker
Speaker 1: and the Senate refusing to release the documents. Uh, they
Speaker 1: already released them. But anyway, why getting the way of
Speaker 1: great you know, a great, let me run for president
Speaker 1: and make my main name no known moment here it is.
Speaker 1: But if somebody's gon land those charges, I hope that
Speaker 1: they will follow through me and Senator Durban, Senator Coons,
Speaker 1: Senator white House, come get us. We're breaking the rules.
Speaker 1: Senator Corono, Senator Blueenthall, now Senator Feinstein Coste. I hope
Speaker 1: that they will bring charges against us, and I'm ready
Speaker 1: to accept the full responsive ability what I have done,
Speaker 1: consequences for what I am done, and I stand by
Speaker 1: the public's right to have access to this document and
Speaker 1: know this. Nominees views on issues are so profoundly important,
Speaker 1: like racing, the law, torture and other issues. Mr Chairman
Speaker 1: mayor may making you um may read the shouldn't rule
Speaker 1: that he goes on to read the rules which obviously
Speaker 1: come after me. Well, it turns out running for president
Speaker 1: is not an excuse for violating the rules of the
Speaker 1: sentence of one. It's bitsy teeny weeny little problem in
Speaker 1: all of this. Now. Booker, by the way, who we
Speaker 1: know has aspirations to be president like Camil Harris and
Speaker 1: some other people, is crazy. Uncle Joe called the guy
Speaker 1: a a you're a beep earlier today. WHOOPSI day, is
Speaker 1: he crazy? Uncle Joe is slipping away one? You know
Speaker 1: you can't go to a dunkan No, it's or uh
Speaker 1: seven eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent and
Speaker 1: talking about him by his clean he's articulate. Wow, unbelievable. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it turns out book presidential hopeful or at least an email.
Speaker 1: This is about the closest I'll probably ever have in
Speaker 1: my life to an I'm Spartacus moment. Sadly turns out
Speaker 1: the major problem for Mr Spartacus turns out that they
Speaker 1: cleared the documents already. They already been cleared, and this
Speaker 1: is all a bunch of nothing about nothing. Yeah, according
Speaker 1: to Bill Burk, who's the George W. Bush Records representatives
Speaker 1: that led the review of the kavan Or hearings and records,
Speaker 1: which they did in an expedited fashion, And we were
Speaker 1: surprised to learn about Mr Booker's actions this morning because
Speaker 1: we had already told him he could use the documents publicly,
Speaker 1: so we already knew this was a show for nothing.
Speaker 1: In fact, we have said yes every request made by
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats to make documents public. All of this drama
Speaker 1: this morning, apparent Lee for nothing except that he wants
Speaker 1: to run for president. There you go. It's all about
Speaker 1: how do I look, How do I look? How do
Speaker 1: I look? How do I sound? What do I appear
Speaker 1: to be? Strong? Tough? I'll take on that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: guy any day of the week. Um, we have a
Speaker 1: lot of deep state news, and this is now a
Speaker 1: really this is now getting to the We're about to
Speaker 1: have a major, major, massive breakthrough on the deep state.
Speaker 1: Let me put it that way. According to my sources. Well, Hannity,
Speaker 1: you say you're not a journalist, I'm not a journalist
Speaker 1: is defined by those idiots a bias liberal and the
Speaker 1: rest of the media. I'm a talk show host. Let
Speaker 1: me put it this way. So a journalist says they
Speaker 1: do news fair and balanced than objective. That's what they
Speaker 1: do news. If you're a talk show host, you kind
Speaker 1: of like the whole newspaper. Like we'll talk about Colin Kaepernick.
Speaker 1: We do some sports, we do news, we do local news,
Speaker 1: national news, regional news, international news. We do news. Now
Speaker 1: we do journalism. Sometimes we're just straight up all right,
Speaker 1: let me tell you what's happening today. This is what
Speaker 1: is in the news today, and we do opinion where
Speaker 1: the opinion page, where the news page. We even do
Speaker 1: investigative journalism. We've broken more stories on the deep State
Speaker 1: and the biggest abuse of power scandal in American history.
Speaker 1: And the rest of the media, you know, they're out
Speaker 1: there with their usual you know, oh, stormy, Stormy, Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: Woodward Woodword, Michael Wolve, Michael Wolf, Michael Wolf, and Peach
Speaker 1: and Peach and peach um and s hole less, hoole less,
Speaker 1: hole less, hole less, and now we won't do it
Speaker 1: right now because we've got two months to get to
Speaker 1: So they're they're basically that. So they do they think
Speaker 1: they do journalism, but they're liars. They're really just opinion
Speaker 1: people posing as journalists and a bunch of sheep that
Speaker 1: weregurgitate the same nonsense. What we do on this program
Speaker 1: is we were like the entire newspaper, same on Hannity.
Speaker 1: We do journalism, We do news, we do straight news,
Speaker 1: we do opinion page news, we do controversial debates and subjects.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we do sports, and sometimes we even do gossip.
Speaker 1: We're the whole newspaper. So in that sense, I'm a
Speaker 1: talk show host, and that means, yeah, journalism is part
Speaker 1: of my job. Opinion page journalism is part of my job. Sports,
Speaker 1: sometimes calling Kaepernick it's part of my job. Sometimes we
Speaker 1: give opinion or just straight news. Sometimes we do investigative
Speaker 1: reporting a lot more than they do. That's all part
Speaker 1: of being a talk show host. That's what the definition is.
Speaker 1: We do it all. Fortunately, they can't do anything right.
Speaker 1: We'd like to think that we do their job better
Speaker 1: than they do on that part of our job. So
Speaker 1: let tell you what's happening. Even the Washington Post now
Speaker 1: jumping on the Hannity bandwagon, the Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, everybody's bandwagon they have now for months. We
Speaker 1: discovered today according to the Washington Post, there is a
Speaker 1: grand jury that has been summoned withnesses have been summoned.
Speaker 1: The headline is prosecutors use grand jury as investigation of
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe intensifies. Joe Degenneva last night said that Rod
Speaker 1: Rosenstein was under investigation. It appears that everybody that signed
Speaker 1: the fraudulent fiser warrants plural original application, three subsequent applications, Well,
Speaker 1: that would be Comey, that would be Sally Yates, that
Speaker 1: would be Rod Rosenstein. That would be Andrew McCabe. They're
Speaker 1: all under investigation. Now you see, finally, maybe maybe we'll
Speaker 1: actually get to the truth. We're really going to get
Speaker 1: to the truth. That would also include Hillary Clinton. John
Speaker 1: Solomon is about to break a story tonight. Now we
Speaker 1: have been telling you all about the connections and the relationship.
Speaker 1: How after Bruce, after Christopher Steele was fired, he was
Speaker 1: fired for lying and leaking. Well, then Christopher Steel the
Speaker 1: conduit for him to the FBI then became Bruce Or
Speaker 1: seventy contacts, handwritten letters, text emails, meetings, they had them all.
Speaker 1: And now we know that that if you take it
Speaker 1: from the beginning, the Steel Or connection leads right to
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller's special counsel. Remember we learned we saw in
Speaker 1: the last couple of weeks the text message exchange, handwritten
Speaker 1: message exchange between Or and Steel. Oh are you passing
Speaker 1: it on? If you passed it on to your friends
Speaker 1: at the sc SC is special counsel. Now we know
Speaker 1: that Or and Steele Or funneling information to Andrew Weissman,
Speaker 1: who of course is Robert Mueller's pit poll. And where
Speaker 1: did all this information their funneling come from? So Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: let's go all the way back. First, they exonerate, they
Speaker 1: don't investigate. So she gets a pass to stay the
Speaker 1: preferred presidential candidate Struck and Paige and call me. They
Speaker 1: all hate Trump. Christopher Steele is on record hating Trump,
Speaker 1: so she gets a free pass that would have put
Speaker 1: all of us in jail. She continues her campaign. Hillary
Speaker 1: her campaign, and then the d n C they funnel
Speaker 1: money through a law firm Perkins Couheie. Well, that means
Speaker 1: that probably a campaign finance violation. Perkins Cooeye then hires
Speaker 1: the op research firm Fusion GPS. Russour's wife brusso Or,
Speaker 1: the fourth highest rankie member of the d o J
Speaker 1: works for Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS hires a fire foreign national,
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele x by m I six. I thought foreign
Speaker 1: nationals weren't supposed to impact American Allied actions. They did.
Speaker 1: Then Steele goes and puts together these phony dossier full
Speaker 1: of Russian lies and nothing but salacious rumors about Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: most of now which have been debunked. That information is
Speaker 1: used to lie to you, the American people, before you
Speaker 1: go vote. That's called propaganda. That's called misinformation, that's called distortion,
Speaker 1: that's called outright lying in order to impact the presidential election,
Speaker 1: and they're using Russian lies to do it. Then it
Speaker 1: gets worse because the bulk of information for the fives applications,
Speaker 1: there were four of them, the original application, the last
Speaker 1: subsequent application signed by Rod Rosenstein himself, Mr. Conflict, all
Speaker 1: of them use the bulk of information being the Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: Oh all four. Then it turns out that not only
Speaker 1: did they use it to spy in a Trump campaign associate, well,
Speaker 1: then all that information is now being funneled over to
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel Robert Mueller through their conduit Bruce or
Speaker 1: Now this is getting worse every day. So it's good
Speaker 1: that there's a grand jury investigating what is the biggest
Speaker 1: abuse of power scandal in American history. Here's where it's
Speaker 1: now all gonna get very interesting. The President now may,
Speaker 1: in fact, he classify the fies the documents that Congress
Speaker 1: has been requesting. Now, amongst such things that would include
Speaker 1: the missing pages and all the footnotes pages ten to twelve,
Speaker 1: pages seventeen to thirty four. I know the exact pages
Speaker 1: we're looking for. All the footnotes there are twelve specific
Speaker 1: bruce or three oh two's that would have been written
Speaker 1: about Christopher Steele. Apparently there's exculpatory information in them. And
Speaker 1: of course we have the so called Gang of Eight documents.
Speaker 1: That's the same binder of information that was brief to
Speaker 1: Congress this summer as a result of the subpoena, but
Speaker 1: they didn't release it. They don't want to release it.
Speaker 1: Where's or Booker when we need him? Maybe he'll fight
Speaker 1: to have him released. And then of course we've got
Speaker 1: this other bucket of information that probably includes things like, oh,
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence as it relates to Carter Page that was
Speaker 1: purposefully withheld, or what they did to Papadopoulos that nobody
Speaker 1: knew in the Trump campaign. That's only a small part
Speaker 1: of it. And the fies a chord of proving the
Speaker 1: FBI's applications buy on the Trump campaign. They didn't all
Speaker 1: the single hearing, and there's no indication that any verification
Speaker 1: of the information that was was was a fiction novel
Speaker 1: that even Christopher Steel himself can't even stand by his
Speaker 1: own dossier. The FBI was paying him for part of
Speaker 1: this dossier work, as was Hillary Clinton, as was the
Speaker 1: d N c that's whose finances Hillary Clinton was in
Speaker 1: fact funding and controlling. So all this, he says, under
Speaker 1: the threat of perjury, I don't know. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: throw intelligence. What the hell I know? I can't say
Speaker 1: that I know that this is true. Well, then still
Speaker 1: the Steel hating you know, Steele, who hates Trump, is
Speaker 1: now back during his information to the Special Council, guy
Speaker 1: that lied and leaked. There's no evidence to back up
Speaker 1: any of this phony dossier, and he doesn't even stand
Speaker 1: by his own dossier. Judicial Watch has a report new
Speaker 1: FBI records revealed that Struck authored the initial draft of
Speaker 1: the call me letter. Whoopsie Daisy. That's because they took
Speaker 1: it out of the hands of the real FBI agents,
Speaker 1: the guys that we love and trust, the field agents
Speaker 1: that would have done their job. The first indication that
Speaker 1: things were going awry is when you take it out
Speaker 1: of the field office and you put it right in
Speaker 1: the hands of the upper echelon at the FBI and
Speaker 1: the d o J. That was a big deal. And
Speaker 1: of course I'm not so sure this story is true
Speaker 1: that the Bruce Or and Christopher Steele try to get
Speaker 1: that Russian oligarch, you know, to give us dirt on
Speaker 1: Trump or give them dirt on Trump. And that's Ole
Speaker 1: Derris potska uh that never turned out to be. You know,
Speaker 1: that's a big deal. Now. The question is now that
Speaker 1: it's right in the wheelhouse of Robert Mueller. And you've
Speaker 1: got a connection that that we now know Steal was
Speaker 1: feeding information of Bruce or who was feeding it too? Oh,
Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman. Is that the reason why all of a
Speaker 1: sudden that Robert Mueller may accept written answers from Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: Does he want to land the airplane and get this
Speaker 1: over with because it's looking really bad after the headline
Speaker 1: d o j's Bruce or kept Mueller deputy in the
Speaker 1: loop about the anti Trump dosier. That's Andrew Weiseman. You know,
Speaker 1: he's the guy that lost nine zero in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: He's the guy that got tens of thousands of Americans
Speaker 1: in the Enron case to lose their jar jobs at
Speaker 1: Anderson Accounting. He's the guy that put four innocent Meryal
Speaker 1: executives in jail for a year that was overturned by
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit. He's the guy that's leading a charge
Speaker 1: in all this Russian collusion about I'm sorry, loan applications
Speaker 1: from years gone by, tax returns from year has gone by.
Speaker 1: The big victory of Mueller comes from Andrew Weissman. How
Speaker 1: did this guy and Genie Ray, who was the lawyer
Speaker 1: for the Clinton Foundation get on Mueller's team. It's disgustingly corrupt.
Speaker 1: But I'm told that if this information comes out, these
Speaker 1: three O two's are released, this this gang of eight
Speaker 1: material is released, and yeah, the FISA warrants unredacted or
Speaker 1: released twenty plus pages, ten to twelve seventy thirty four.
Speaker 1: How do you know that, Hannity? Because I do journalism.
Speaker 1: I have sources, and my sources tell me information. That's
Speaker 1: what I do. That's my job. I know the media
Speaker 1: they're they're probably breathing about, you know, every day. It's something. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's an Obama supporter justice. If we can accuse somebody
Speaker 1: of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
Speaker 1: We need to prepare to prove our case in court,
Speaker 1: and we have to fix our signature to the charging document.
Speaker 1: That's something that not everybody appreciates. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: talk about pies applications, and many people that I see
Speaker 1: talking about it seemed not to recognize what a FIES application.
Speaker 1: FIES application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
Speaker 1: In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need
Speaker 1: an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer
Speaker 1: who swears that the information in the affidavit is true
Speaker 1: and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's the way we operate. And if it's wrong
Speaker 1: sometimes it is. If you find out there's anything incorrect
Speaker 1: in there, that person is going to face consequences. That
Speaker 1: person is gonna face consequences. Rob Rosenstein five months ago. Uh,
Speaker 1: gladual with us hour to Sean Hannity Show. Right down
Speaker 1: our toll free number. It's eight nine one, Shawn, if
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of the program. We
Speaker 1: have three big issues that are developing as it relates
Speaker 1: to Deep State Gate, Sarah Carter rightly pointing out that
Speaker 1: the President may declassify some twenty documents pages of documents,
Speaker 1: but also much more potentially could be released. That is
Speaker 1: the three O two's, the Group of eight details and
Speaker 1: and much more. We'll get to the details on that
Speaker 1: in a second. We have a breaking article even The
Speaker 1: Washington Post has to get in on the Hannity train,
Speaker 1: albeit eighteen months late, but they're pointing out the prosecutors
Speaker 1: are using our grand jury as we speak, as an
Speaker 1: investigation into Andrew McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official.
Speaker 1: This is under James Comey is now intensifying here and
Speaker 1: apparently a grand jury has been summoned and they've summoned
Speaker 1: witnesses and the cases ongoing. And obviously I think that
Speaker 1: the issue of who signed fies A warrants that were
Speaker 1: never corroborated or verified and glaring omissions that dealt with politics. Uh,
Speaker 1: we're in each of the four fights A warrants. Interesting
Speaker 1: that Rod Rosenstein says, oh, you need a career law enforcement,
Speaker 1: you know, to the best of his knowledge, this has
Speaker 1: to be true. Well, the problem is that dossier was
Speaker 1: never true. Even Steele himself wouldn't stand by his own dossier.
Speaker 1: And we've got the mystery that is unfolding, which is okay,
Speaker 1: leading from Hillary Clinton right into the office of Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Robert Mueller. And it goes this way. It's Hillary
Speaker 1: and the d n C funneling money through a law firm.
Speaker 1: Law firm then transferring the money over to Fusion GPS
Speaker 1: and OP research firm could be a campaign violation. But
Speaker 1: putting that aside, they go out and hire Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: foreign spy. He uses all his dubious sources, puts together
Speaker 1: this series of of of papers, if you will refer
Speaker 1: to as the dossier, then of course there are twelve
Speaker 1: separate bruce or three oh two's. I believe most of
Speaker 1: them dealing with Christopher Steele, if I'm not mistaken. Also,
Speaker 1: what we we we call or qualify as the Gang
Speaker 1: of Eight documents, that's the same binder information that was
Speaker 1: used to brief Congress this summer as a result of
Speaker 1: the subpoena of its subpoena, And of course then we've
Speaker 1: got other apparently operational plans and exculpatory information that also exists.
Speaker 1: Tell me what I'm missing. You're not missing a thing, Sean,
Speaker 1: And I think that that what what we don't know
Speaker 1: is what's going to be most explosive in those documents.
Speaker 1: Remember a few people have seen those documents. They are
Speaker 1: highly classified. They are not allowed to speak about it.
Speaker 1: But what we do know, what I know as journalists
Speaker 1: snooping around in Washington here with everything going on, is
Speaker 1: that these documents will be vital, that there will be
Speaker 1: information in them beyond what we already know that will
Speaker 1: be explosive and shocking, and that there was a fraud
Speaker 1: perpetuated on the court, on the highly secretive court that
Speaker 1: David Show knows so much about in he can talk
Speaker 1: on the legal side of that, but that there was
Speaker 1: a fraud perpetrated on the court, and that they withheld
Speaker 1: evidence from the court, exculpatory evidence. We've heard Devin Nouna
Speaker 1: say this to you on his show, The Chairman, and
Speaker 1: we know his committee has been fighting the stuth and nail.
Speaker 1: And now we look at Rosenstein's memo, right that the
Speaker 1: fight of the Rosenstein fights, that that was the last
Speaker 1: fight of renewal on Carter page. And here we have,
Speaker 1: you know, the Deputy Attorney General signing loss on a
Speaker 1: FIFO warrant on an American citizen. And he should have known,
Speaker 1: based on all of the previous renewals what was going
Speaker 1: on here, but he signed off on it anyways. And
Speaker 1: this is a guy that's supposed to be overseeing the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel and Robert Mueller and you said right on today,
Speaker 1: McCabe then newses out. We've been talking about it for months.
Speaker 1: That is a grand jury investigation into this, and I'm
Speaker 1: telling you it's much deeper than Jess McCabe lying. This
Speaker 1: is a grand jury investigation into everything that has been
Speaker 1: going on, and that's what the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz
Speaker 1: is looking at. I know that he has been convened
Speaker 1: this grand jury, but we can definitely look at Prosecutor
Speaker 1: Huber for this, John Huber and others. Remember Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: said the Attorney General said that they would be looking
Speaker 1: into this, and this is what Michael Horowitz made, this
Speaker 1: criminal referral to the Department of Justice. We know there's
Speaker 1: a lot of other cases that they said they would
Speaker 1: be bringing for us to the d o J. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of criminal referrals. I remember when
Speaker 1: Congressman to Sciantists had made a number of referrals to
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. But this is the first time
Speaker 1: that we see that a grand jury that they are investigating.
Speaker 1: And Cabe is a central player all of this, and
Speaker 1: so is Andrew Weissman, who is on Robert Mueller's Special counsel,
Speaker 1: who was in communication with Bruce or consistently through two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen before he ever joined the Special Counsel.
Speaker 1: So there's gonna be a lot of questions here. They're
Speaker 1: gonna be I believe, a lot of answers in the
Speaker 1: near future. But the most important thing that President Trump,
Speaker 1: and hopefully he does, as sources have been saying, declassifies
Speaker 1: this information. He needs to declassify the face information that's
Speaker 1: being requested. We need the brute or three O twos,
Speaker 1: and we certainly need um the Gang of Eight binder,
Speaker 1: the document that a few people were able to review
Speaker 1: with the Gang of Eight. Remember they kept out the
Speaker 1: Congressional investigators from that meeting. They did not want them
Speaker 1: looking at it. And what I was told is during
Speaker 1: that meeting they never even bothered to open up that
Speaker 1: binder because everybody was fighting back and forth. So, um,
Speaker 1: those are the three main chunks of documents that they're
Speaker 1: going to need. Unbelievable. Uh, let me bring in David
Speaker 1: Shown and get your If a grand jury is convened,
Speaker 1: well you know the old saying, you can then die
Speaker 1: to ham sandwich. But there seems to be a lot
Speaker 1: of meat on the bone here. And if that grand
Speaker 1: jury is in fact convened. And I got to imagine
Speaker 1: now that the Washington Post is, you know, nearly two
Speaker 1: years late to catch up with the Hannity Show, but
Speaker 1: they they now see the severity I think, and I
Speaker 1: try and play catch up right in Indica, Ham Sandwich,
Speaker 1: but you have to want to. You know, there's been
Speaker 1: a referral now on from the RG and then through
Speaker 1: Mr Sessions to two different U S Attorneys from two
Speaker 1: different districts, plus the U. S Attorney in the district
Speaker 1: District of Columbia. We've asked the question on the show,
Speaker 1: what's happening with those referrals? Why haven't we seen anything,
Speaker 1: any action in and now we are. Sarah Carter's report
Speaker 1: on all of these subjects, but especially on this decent
Speaker 1: classification issue, is fascinating and vitally important. Let me say this, um,
Speaker 1: you know, I have in front of me two letters
Speaker 1: from Judge Collier, the presiding judge of the FISA Court,
Speaker 1: dated two team one to Congressman good Lad, one to
Speaker 1: Congressman NOONEZ. They're copied to Congressman n Adler, ship Mr Sessions,
Speaker 1: Mrs be And here's what the fires of Court says.
Speaker 1: The aiding Judge and his declassification issue. Because by the way,
Speaker 1: you have all of these so called scholars and pundits
Speaker 1: and people passing the journalist saying, oh, the president can't
Speaker 1: do this, he doesn't have the authority. Well, he has
Speaker 1: the authority. And what Judge Collier says is the size.
Speaker 1: The Court does not object to any decision of the
Speaker 1: executive Branch to release any size materials to Congress. She
Speaker 1: also writes the executive Branch has great interests in national
Speaker 1: security and to maintain the intention of any ongoing law
Speaker 1: enforcement investigations. Therefore, Justice Department has the right to release
Speaker 1: the documents, but the authority rest in the executive This
Speaker 1: is what Article two is about. You know, last point
Speaker 1: of the president has the ability and the power to
Speaker 1: unredact all this information. And let me just shift to Sarah.
Speaker 1: If he does that, Sarah, you know my sources say,
Speaker 1: and I hate when I hear this from Washington because
Speaker 1: they always disappoint they always overplay their hand a bit.
Speaker 1: But I'm told over and all where it will be
Speaker 1: devastating an exculpatory to the president, and the whole house
Speaker 1: of cards can come tumbling down. Now I believe that
Speaker 1: is absolutely true. And why do I believe this, Sean,
Speaker 1: because this was such a gross violation already, the information
Speaker 1: that we have already shows such a gross violation and
Speaker 1: fraud perpetrated on the court. It's a growth violation of
Speaker 1: our constitutional rights. I mean, this was this was spying
Speaker 1: on an American, not just an American. They spied on
Speaker 1: this American because they were connected to the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: That means they were collecting not just the information on
Speaker 1: Carter Page. It's not like they're just listening to him.
Speaker 1: They're listening to everybody that Carter Page is speaking to.
Speaker 1: And guess what they're listening to everybody those people's conversations
Speaker 1: with other people. So it's secondary and tertiary conversations. This
Speaker 1: is why this is so important. You know, we are
Speaker 1: there has to be a reason, There has to be
Speaker 1: reasonable evidence that could lead the government to spy on you,
Speaker 1: to listen into your private phone conversations. Um, we have
Speaker 1: to ask ourselves how many more people did this happen to?
Speaker 1: This is just what we know about. We just know
Speaker 1: about Carter Page. This is one of many. Because remember
Speaker 1: we forget that all of this started with us, Sean,
Speaker 1: way back when when we were uncovering story after story
Speaker 1: on the unmaskings of Americans, and like Samantha Power unmasking
Speaker 1: let's see almost at a rate of one a day,
Speaker 1: and increase on the masking of Americans. Oh, in the
Speaker 1: election year, you mean that, that mean exactly? That's what
Speaker 1: I mean exactly, Sean. And because we've been so inuentated
Speaker 1: with so much news, and because we're just so swamped
Speaker 1: with all of this breaking news and new layers of
Speaker 1: the onion, we forget where we started. Where, what has
Speaker 1: happened with that investigation? What have they been doing to
Speaker 1: find out? Why I was? Why was the UN ambassadors? Then?
Speaker 1: Why was Misspowers? I'm asking over three people towards the
Speaker 1: end of her tenure. Let me bring David back in. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's all. These are all issues that we're gonna return
Speaker 1: to at some point. But you're right, there's been so
Speaker 1: much breaking news and so many other new aspects of
Speaker 1: this to follow. I didn't mean to interrupt you, David,
Speaker 1: but I just wanted to get to how serious this
Speaker 1: information would be if the President doesn't unredax this information,
Speaker 1: which he apparently might do. He said it now. Uh,
Speaker 1: In at least two instances that I know, of right,
Speaker 1: and Sarah's reporting this is simtilating, frankly, what I'm looking for.
Speaker 1: Next to his interview with Senator Corey Booker demanding that
Speaker 1: these things be declassified and published on the internet because
Speaker 1: after all, he's in favorite you mean, the Little Grandstanding
Speaker 1: episode today and it had turned out, it had turned out,
Speaker 1: by the way, that that had been released, the very
Speaker 1: thing that he was saying wasn't released that he was
Speaker 1: willing to go to jail over. Yeah, that was already
Speaker 1: that was already released publicly, Thank you very much. Here's
Speaker 1: what's Here's what's so troubling to me. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I carry every place I go a copy of the
Speaker 1: Constitution with me. I even uploaded the most recent version
Speaker 1: because I think it's changed somehow. There seems to now
Speaker 1: be for all of these scholars and journalists and a
Speaker 1: mother investigation exception the articles authority, article to vest authority
Speaker 1: and the executive branch and spells it out the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice is part of an executive branch. All of
Speaker 1: a sudden, since the Muther investigations are going on, it
Speaker 1: seems that the executive doesn't have the authority anymore to
Speaker 1: determine who's going to be the head of the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have the authority. Now we're told maybe to
Speaker 1: declassify documents that the five the Court felt has said
Speaker 1: the executive branch has the greatest interest in and has
Speaker 1: the authority to release. So I haven't been able to
Speaker 1: find the Mueller exception in my copy of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and I really would challenge some of these folks to
Speaker 1: tell me where it is. No, I think it's a
Speaker 1: great point. All right, quick break, we'll come back more
Speaker 1: with Sarah Carter and David shown on the other side
Speaker 1: than Andy McCarthy at the bottom of this next half hour.
Speaker 1: As we continue with Sarah Carter and David Shone, what
Speaker 1: do you make you know? In the middle of all
Speaker 1: of this with the President, we now have Mueller saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we might just accept the idea that we can get
Speaker 1: written answers, and it's only on the Russia, not on obstruction.
Speaker 1: Why do I believe now that Bruce or which we
Speaker 1: now know has been the conduit the back channel to
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, and that Christopher Steele is talking about passing
Speaker 1: on and apparently has successfully passed on information to Andrew Weissman,
Speaker 1: who is Mueller's pitbull and number one at the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel's office. And there's even handwritten notes that mentioned this
Speaker 1: at this point, Now that the phony Clinton bought and
Speaker 1: paid for Russian lies are directly being fed from a
Speaker 1: guy that lied and a guy that won't even stand
Speaker 1: by his dossier. Is Robert Mueller feeling the heat of
Speaker 1: hiring people like Weisseman and Jeannie Ray Sarah Carter? Oh yes,
Speaker 1: Oh yes, he's feeling the heat. And he's worried about
Speaker 1: his legacy. And look, he's got a couple of chinks
Speaker 1: in his belt, but they're not really that worthy. They
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with Russian collusion or Russian involvement
Speaker 1: with the Trump campaign. Do you think he wants to
Speaker 1: end this? Okay? I think he wants to wrap If
Speaker 1: he's a smart man, he wants to wrap this up quickly.
Speaker 1: He knows he's not gonna find is he gonna Is
Speaker 1: he gonna write a roadmap to impeachment for Democrats for
Speaker 1: if they win the House in sixty one days. I
Speaker 1: don't know if he'll be able to do that. I
Speaker 1: don't know if he'll be able to do that. Remember,
Speaker 1: because it's going to be challenged in the courts whether
Speaker 1: or not. You know, there's certain things that may prohibit
Speaker 1: him from doing that. But I think what's happened here
Speaker 1: is that he's seeing the forest through the trees now
Speaker 1: and we've got all of this information coming out on
Speaker 1: Bruce Or And how can he even go after the
Speaker 1: president on obstruction when Rod Rosenstein himself, who's the deputy
Speaker 1: A g was the one that wrote the letter originally
Speaker 1: asking the President to fire Comy. I gotta run only
Speaker 1: because amount of time. We'll have a lot more and
Speaker 1: John Solomon has more on the Steel Or and yeah,
Speaker 1: special counsel Mueller office connection that is gonna blow this
Speaker 1: wide open. But if the President does, in fact under
Speaker 1: dack all those information, it's gonna be a game changer,
Speaker 1: There's no doubt about it. Sarah, thank you, David Shown,
Speaker 1: thank you. Eight hundred nine for one, Shawn or toll
Speaker 1: free telephone number. We'll take a quick break. We'll come
Speaker 1: back Andy McCarthy at the bottom of this half hour
Speaker 1: and much more straight ahead alright, twenty five to the
Speaker 1: top of the hour. Or toll free telephone number is
Speaker 1: eight nine one Shawn. If you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. A lot of breaking news as
Speaker 1: it relates to the deep state. It's getting deeper and
Speaker 1: deeper now, and it looks like many of the indictments
Speaker 1: that we've been wondering if and when they're possibly coming
Speaker 1: of some of these deep state actors. Was Washington Post
Speaker 1: report finally they're getting on the Hannity train. They're only
Speaker 1: eighteen months late, but reports the headline as prosecutors use
Speaker 1: grand jury as investigation of Andrew McCabe in ten sufies.
Speaker 1: Many of us have been wondering, well, how is it
Speaker 1: possible that we know crimes and frauds were committed against
Speaker 1: the FISA court and judges. How is it possible that
Speaker 1: nobody gets indicted for that. There's FBI protocol involved, there's
Speaker 1: the FISAL law itself that is involved. And I don't
Speaker 1: know anybody that gets away with committing a fraud upon
Speaker 1: a court. Now, if you really take it, it starts
Speaker 1: with Hillary and the d n C paying a law firm, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, it could be a campaign finance violation.
Speaker 1: If we're if we're worried about people putting out false
Speaker 1: statements on loan applications from years gone, by then, you
Speaker 1: would think that this would then be a big issue.
Speaker 1: Item seven and eight in the Cone Pleague deal, you know,
Speaker 1: dealt with campaign finance issues. But Hillary Clinton and d
Speaker 1: n C money goes to a law firm, goes down
Speaker 1: as a law expense, but then gets funnel to an
Speaker 1: odd research firm. They hire a foreign national And I
Speaker 1: thought foreign nationals weren't opposed to impact our elections. But
Speaker 1: in fact, Christopher Steele that gets Russian phony sources solaceous
Speaker 1: details about Donald Trump. Not only was it used uh
Speaker 1: to to perpetuate lies and distortions and misinformation against the
Speaker 1: American people in the lead up to an election to
Speaker 1: impact how people vote, but then it was used as
Speaker 1: the bulk of information presented to the Feiser Court judge,
Speaker 1: and not only its original application, but three subsequent applications.
Speaker 1: We also have a story that is breaking from John
Speaker 1: Solomon tonight that Bruce or trying to influence the investigation.
Speaker 1: It actually began in August before the election in two
Speaker 1: while his wife Nellie was working at Fusion GPS on
Speaker 1: the research on Donald Trump. Or get this, met Steele
Speaker 1: then met with McCabe page and Struck and by the way,
Speaker 1: that might be the insurance policy that we were all wondering,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? Will stop him? We have That's
Speaker 1: when the insurance policy kicks in. And also the FBI
Speaker 1: pivoted from Papadopoulos switched their focus to Steal because of
Speaker 1: information that Or had. We know seventy contacts with steal
Speaker 1: an Ore and then we've learned that that steal an
Speaker 1: Or in part of their contacts are saying, well, did
Speaker 1: you get the information to the sc yes sees, the
Speaker 1: special counsel And the answer to that question is yes,
Speaker 1: they did to Robert Mueller's pit bull, Andrew Weiseman. And
Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman was getting Steel information. The problem with Steal's
Speaker 1: information is in an interrogatory in a court case in
Speaker 1: Great Britain, under a threat of perjury, Christopher Steel didn't
Speaker 1: stand by his own dossier. I don't know if it's true.
Speaker 1: This is just raw intelligence, maybe fifty fifty Well, that
Speaker 1: was the information used to secure FISA warrants and to propaganda.
Speaker 1: Is the American people in a lead up to an
Speaker 1: election anyway? What does this all mean? There's only one
Speaker 1: guy that can sort this out legally for US. Fox
Speaker 1: News contributor also a columnist. He's been phenomenal on all
Speaker 1: of these deep state issues for National Review. He also
Speaker 1: uh is uh well prestigious attorney in his own right,
Speaker 1: working for the Southern District of New York for somewhat
Speaker 1: twenty years, and he worked on the World Trade Center
Speaker 1: bombing case, the First Trade Center bombing, and then of
Speaker 1: course the Blind Shade case and other cases involving terrorism.
Speaker 1: And uh former assistant U S Attorney from the Southern
Speaker 1: District of New York, Andy McCarthy is with us. How
Speaker 1: are you. I'm doing great, shown except that, uh, when
Speaker 1: you so nicely summarize my Southern District experience, it reminds
Speaker 1: me that this year is the anniversary of the World
Speaker 1: Trade Center bombing. So no, Dave, this was the first
Speaker 1: Trade Center bombing and you've got convictions in that case.
Speaker 1: Sure did you know that? I mean, this is when
Speaker 1: the work of real prosecutors and FBI officials. We can't
Speaker 1: thank them enough, you know, Andy, I gotta tell I
Speaker 1: don't like being on the side of having to talk
Speaker 1: about um a few bad apples in the FBI and
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. That's not who I am, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm my dad was a family corp probation guy.
Speaker 1: My mom was a prison guard for twenty five years.
Speaker 1: My family was all cops and fironmen and everything else. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I Suan, I agree with you about that. But I
Speaker 1: really think that those of us who really care about
Speaker 1: law enforcement, uh, just like those of us who care
Speaker 1: about anything else. If you if you really care about something,
Speaker 1: the best disinfected for and is is to you know,
Speaker 1: identify what went wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Speaker 1: And that's what we're trying to do here. And it's
Speaker 1: not the rank and file. I mean if you look at,
Speaker 1: for example, the Clinton email investigation, it was taken out
Speaker 1: of the field offices of the f BEHIND, which is
Speaker 1: highly unusual to turn out. Yeah, that's that's going to
Speaker 1: turn out to be. I think when the history of
Speaker 1: this is finally written, UM, one of the big things
Speaker 1: that should have been a blazing red signal that something
Speaker 1: was wrong here is that the FBI and the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: but the FBI in particular, always wants investigations handled at
Speaker 1: the field office level throughout the country rather than Washington,
Speaker 1: precisely to give the investigators some insulation from the political
Speaker 1: environment of Washington, and these investigations were run out of headquarters,
Speaker 1: which is highly highly unusual, into my mind, highly inappropriate,
Speaker 1: because headquarters is supposed to exist so that it can
Speaker 1: kind of oversee and be removed and objective about investigations.
Speaker 1: When you're conducting an investigation, you can't have that mindset.
Speaker 1: But you've never heard in all your years that you
Speaker 1: serve the Southern District of New York, which is probably
Speaker 1: the most prestigious U. S. Attorney's office in the country.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that to flatter you. It's just
Speaker 1: a fact. They're great at what they do. Um. And
Speaker 1: they have done really big, big important cases that have
Speaker 1: kept this country safe. So I have great respect for
Speaker 1: the people that work there, really used to work there. Um.
Speaker 1: But my question to you is, have you ever heard
Speaker 1: of an investigation an exoneration letter written months before they
Speaker 1: even talked to the main people involved in the case. Sean,
Speaker 1: we don't do exoneration letters in the Justice Department. You
Speaker 1: can even start with that regular Well, no, listen, I
Speaker 1: mean it's this is an important thing because you when
Speaker 1: you close an investigation, first of all, investigations is supposed
Speaker 1: to be done under the radar to begin with um.
Speaker 1: But when you close an investigation, you don't issue a
Speaker 1: letter ordinarily or make a public statement that an investigation
Speaker 1: has been closed, because a lot of times the reason
Speaker 1: you're close an investigation is you end up thinking, well,
Speaker 1: the guy probably did it, but we don't have enough
Speaker 1: evidence to prove it in court, which means if you
Speaker 1: get one other piece of evidence, so one other witnesses
Speaker 1: comes forward, all of a sudden you have a case
Speaker 1: where the day before you didn't have a case, and
Speaker 1: then you're rolling again. So there's no reason to come
Speaker 1: out and make a statement if you don't. You know,
Speaker 1: the government should only speak in court when it's formally
Speaker 1: ready to file charges and when somebody who gets charged
Speaker 1: has all the due process rights that the system gives you.
Speaker 1: Other than that, the government's supposed to keep its big
Speaker 1: old mouth shut. But in all but based on all objectivity,
Speaker 1: if I did the things that Hillary did, as it
Speaker 1: relates to the email server itself, what we found on
Speaker 1: the email server that we know that we've found classified
Speaker 1: top secret information, and then I went about the effort
Speaker 1: of the leading subpoena emails and or having age do it,
Speaker 1: and then of course bleach bit and then busting up devices.
Speaker 1: I don't think I'd get away with it, Andy, even
Speaker 1: if I hired you in Dershowitz and Levine and every
Speaker 1: other great attorney Greg Jarrett to help me. No, you wouldn't.
Speaker 1: In fact, before you ever got to the classified information Sewan,
Speaker 1: which is kind of a complicated charge, although I think
Speaker 1: it's a slam dunk charge on her. The fact that
Speaker 1: these documents were destroyed and the fact that that was
Speaker 1: done when a satina was issued, you wouldn't even get
Speaker 1: out of the blocks on that. Do you remember when
Speaker 1: I said, do you remember when I said, hypothetically when
Speaker 1: it was a news article that Robert Muller wanted the
Speaker 1: phones and devices of everybody that had testified. And I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: if if I said, if I ever said to them
Speaker 1: to do everything she did, if I said, it's not
Speaker 1: gonna work out well. But if I said it, and
Speaker 1: the media went nuts saying Hannity is telling people to
Speaker 1: obstruct justice, and I'm like, just the opposite. I was saying,
Speaker 1: don't do it, but as if you do, it's not
Speaker 1: gonna work out well. And I actually use those words. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're they're much interested, much more interested in something that
Speaker 1: they can twist into obstruction to justice than the actual
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice them right in the face. All right,
Speaker 1: Quick break more with Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor, columnists
Speaker 1: n Rrow and former assistant U S. Attorney for the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York. Right and McCarthy with us
Speaker 1: former U S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: Fox News contributor n R O H Editor and columnist.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this, Um, then we have the
Speaker 1: issue of PISA. If you look at the people that
Speaker 1: signed off on the FISA applications and that, as far
Speaker 1: as we know, the last one, meaning the third renewal,
Speaker 1: but the fourth one issued would be Rod rosen Stein,
Speaker 1: then you have Sally Yates signing off, and we believe
Speaker 1: James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Um, we now know that
Speaker 1: the information, not only that they presented, the bulk of
Speaker 1: the information to obtain the warrant was the Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: He doesn't stand by his own dossier. We know that
Speaker 1: there's certain omissions that they didn't things they didn't tell
Speaker 1: the court. I would argue lie by omission that Hillary
Speaker 1: had bought and paid for it. That was a fact
Speaker 1: that they had known and and all of the questions
Speaker 1: surrounding it. They knew it was circular reporting as it
Speaker 1: relates to Michael Izakov's article, because he was fed the
Speaker 1: information from Steele. Steele was also fired and let go.
Speaker 1: And I don't think they still they still vouch for
Speaker 1: the guy. They had paid him eleven months. Um are
Speaker 1: those people in legal jeopardy? Well, they're potentially in legal jeopardy,
Speaker 1: But you know, it's important to recognize that there's a
Speaker 1: difference between flatly lying to a court, which is certainly
Speaker 1: a felony, and then either omitting to provide information that
Speaker 1: should have been provided, or asserting information that hasn't been
Speaker 1: verified but that you don't You can't say is false,
Speaker 1: but you really can't say it's true either. Those are
Speaker 1: in the nature shawn of of abusive power that could
Speaker 1: be prosecutable. But I think, more importantly should be a
Speaker 1: basis for removing people from there. Would they have to
Speaker 1: show that some effort was made to verify independently and
Speaker 1: corroborate independently. Let me play words from Rob Rosenstein back
Speaker 1: in May. The way we operate in the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice if we're can accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have
Speaker 1: to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses. We need to
Speaker 1: prepare to prove our case in court, and we have
Speaker 1: to fix our signature to the charging document. That's something
Speaker 1: that not everybody appreciates. There's a lot of talk about
Speaker 1: FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about
Speaker 1: it seemed not to recognize what a FIES application. FIES
Speaker 1: application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
Speaker 1: In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need
Speaker 1: an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer
Speaker 1: who swears that the information in the affidavit is true
Speaker 1: and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's the way we operate. And if it's wrong
Speaker 1: sometimes it is. If you find out there's anything incorrect
Speaker 1: in there, that person is going to face consequences. It's wrong,
Speaker 1: Those people are gonna face consequences. Uh. If the information
Speaker 1: we you know, we're swearing the information is true and correct.
Speaker 1: Don't we need to know now? Wouldn't there be and uh,
Speaker 1: some type of record of any effort that was made
Speaker 1: to verify or corroborate the Steal dossier. And if there
Speaker 1: was no effort made whatsoever, and this was a guy
Speaker 1: they fired for lying and disseminating information of the media,
Speaker 1: wouldn't that then therefore be a reckless disregard for their
Speaker 1: job and more importantly, that they committed a fraud on
Speaker 1: the court, perhaps even knowingly. Well Sean, I think the
Speaker 1: record that we have is actually worse than that. The
Speaker 1: record we have, according to mccage's testimony to the House Committee,
Speaker 1: the Devin Noon ass Committee, is that they did make
Speaker 1: extensive efforts to corroborate and they weren't able to corroborate it.
Speaker 1: So they want sheerly on uh Steal's own reputation with
Speaker 1: them under circumstances. Where As you've outlined, Steel himself didn't
Speaker 1: claim that this stuff was true. He said it was
Speaker 1: raw intelligence that needed to be investigated and verified. Now,
Speaker 1: as far as Rosenstein is concerned, I think that the
Speaker 1: clip that you played number one, he's he's right when
Speaker 1: he says that there's consequences. They may not be consequences
Speaker 1: in the nature of an indictment. They could be administrative
Speaker 1: consequences up to being fired requirement. But but Rosenstein's remarks
Speaker 1: there are very self serving, Sean, because what what he
Speaker 1: knows is that he signed off on the last warrant.
Speaker 1: And what I think he's trying to say there is,
Speaker 1: if I did that, I relied on a career agent,
Speaker 1: and that's why you want to forgive me for signing
Speaker 1: off on this thing that turns out not to have
Speaker 1: been verified. What usually happens in a court case is
Speaker 1: that a defendant can get the warrant suppressed, can get
Speaker 1: all the evidence suppressed. It doesn't mean the agent ends
Speaker 1: up going to jail over that, but the agent could
Speaker 1: get fired over it. Well, it's gonna be interesting to see.
Speaker 1: I think if I with purposefully withheld exculpatory or important
Speaker 1: information to a judge, I don't know, Andy, I think
Speaker 1: that I have. I live in a life. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like, well, what do we learn from the Michael
Speaker 1: cole manaphort cases. Pay of taxes? I've always told my
Speaker 1: my accountants pay more. Uh, don't lie on loan applications
Speaker 1: is never gonna work out. Well, you know certain things
Speaker 1: you don't do in life. One of them is you
Speaker 1: don't lie to a judge or withhold information from a judge,
Speaker 1: but I've got to run. You've been tremendous on all
Speaker 1: of this, are good friend, Andy McCarthy, thanks for being
Speaker 1: with us. All Right, News round Up, Information Overload Hour.
Speaker 1: You know, I've explained many times on both radio and
Speaker 1: TV that the media in this country, there they are
Speaker 1: the willing accomplices, basically the propaganda arm of all things Liberals, socialist, demo,
Speaker 1: cradit Party, And it doesn't matter. They wake up every
Speaker 1: morning with a hatred, a contempt for the president. I
Speaker 1: use the analogy They're like a bunch of drug addicts
Speaker 1: and their drug is Trump hate, and they feed off
Speaker 1: Trump hate. And every day we go from crisis to
Speaker 1: crisis to crisis, the crisis, the crisis, the crisis, the crisis,
Speaker 1: and they fixate like the sheep that they are. And literally,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter if it's Rush or Rush or Russia,
Speaker 1: Stormy Stormy Stormy. Uh, it doesn't matter if it's Michael Wolf,
Speaker 1: Michael Wolf, Bob Woodword, Bob Bob Woodward, Bob Woodword, Bob Woodward,
Speaker 1: Mr Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous New York Times. They just
Speaker 1: they cannot control themselves. Just listen, it's anonymous. Then in
Speaker 1: a stunning new op ed in the New York Times.
Speaker 1: Now this op ed in the New York Times, written anonymously,
Speaker 1: It's an anonymous op ed. An anonymous person. The senior
Speaker 1: official has written an anonymous op ed. It's anonymous op ed,
Speaker 1: an unprecedented op ed from an unnamed current Trump administration official.
Speaker 1: An anonymous op ed who wrote this anonymously. It's anonymous
Speaker 1: and anonymous anonymous op ed. Bob Woodward's explosive new book,
Speaker 1: Fear Undeniably Gripping the White House all talking to Bob Woodword.
Speaker 1: This book from Bob Woodward. According to Woodwords reporting, Bob
Speaker 1: wood would word would worry, Bob Woodword wood Word, Woodword,
Speaker 1: Bob would work. Bob Woodword is really a full court
Speaker 1: press to try to push back against Bob Woodwords book,
Speaker 1: the Bob Woodword Book, Bob would Word, Bob Woodwork, Bob Woodword,
Speaker 1: Bob Woodwork. Then we read it in the Bob Woodword Book,
Speaker 1: a dizzy twenty four hours in the Russia Investigation, Russia
Speaker 1: ran Russia, Russian, Russians, Rushi, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russians,
Speaker 1: Russian government. So Donald Trump has turned the Oval Office.
Speaker 1: Hope Bowler's built this country a hundred and ten years ago.
Speaker 1: Comments whole countries who hold cold cold hol house? Do
Speaker 1: you think these countries are? Every hour that passes, we
Speaker 1: get more from Michael Wolfe. I read this book and
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about it. This book Fire and Ferry,
Speaker 1: Michael Wolfe, author, Michael wolf Michael Wolfe, Michael Wolfe his
Speaker 1: new book Wolf Michael Wolfe. The Stormy Saga takes a
Speaker 1: dramatic turn. Stormy Daniels, storm st Me Daniels, Stormy Daniel,
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels, Stormy Daniel, Stormy Daniel, Story Daniels. He said,
Speaker 1: she said, between the Presider and almar Rosa Rosa ma
Speaker 1: Amrosa Amarosas amar Rosa Rosa, Omar Rossa, Managalt Newman, Amarosa
Speaker 1: Rosa Rosa Managualt Newman. The likely of impeachment. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's high necessarily, but it certainly went up. Is
Speaker 1: itself an impeachable offense? Consider something as serious as impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, dempeachment, impeachment, impeachment,
Speaker 1: peachman and peach, peachment, impeachment, impeachment and peachrompeachment. All right,
Speaker 1: Joining us now to disgust, we have Jonathan Gillum, author
Speaker 1: of the newly released book Sheep No More, That's the
Speaker 1: media sheep still Uh, and Daniel mcglacula, an attorney and
Speaker 1: constitutional expert. How are you welcome both to the program? Uh?
Speaker 1: You never hear the litany of success of the president. Ever,
Speaker 1: You never hear a single thing like, for example, we
Speaker 1: have news out today, Oh, a forty nine year record
Speaker 1: low in terms of applications for unemployment. Why would we
Speaker 1: ever want to talk about something like that, a jobless
Speaker 1: claims forty nine year low? Why would we ever want
Speaker 1: to discuss something as important as that when we can
Speaker 1: obsess about anonymous? Anonymous? Anonymous? Oh? And basically it's somebody
Speaker 1: that is trying to cowardly undercut the president, which puts
Speaker 1: uh the presidency in jeopardy. Uh. What if this person
Speaker 1: is hearing the president talk about war or intelligence or
Speaker 1: plans for war, and that this person is openly trying
Speaker 1: to undermine the duly elected president because they think they
Speaker 1: know better than the American people, and they think they'll
Speaker 1: take it upon themselves to be president on their own
Speaker 1: without any accountability. To the electorate that put the real
Speaker 1: president in office. Danielle. Hey, Sean, how are you doing? Hey, Jonathan.
Speaker 1: You know, I do agree with you that this anonymous
Speaker 1: New York Times our head is somewhat cowardly. Maybe for
Speaker 1: different reasons than you, But if you have a problem
Speaker 1: with the president, and I think you should put your
Speaker 1: name to it, and you should be willing to rest
Speaker 1: your job. I think it leads um people who are
Speaker 1: possibly trying to do their best under the circumstances, open
Speaker 1: to attack UM. And I think people are not going
Speaker 1: to believe this person necessarily as it relates to economic news. Yes,
Speaker 1: jobless claims Louis have been. It's incredible good news, but
Speaker 1: I think that we need to be able to walk
Speaker 1: into goun. At the same time, I think the Kavanar
Speaker 1: hearings are taking up a lot of the airwaves. Um
Speaker 1: that I do agree that a lot of these economic
Speaker 1: successes and maybe not played off as much as they
Speaker 1: should be. On the other hand, no, they're never They're
Speaker 1: never talked about because the media like the sheep that
Speaker 1: they are forget about cheap no more. They live in
Speaker 1: this bubble and they literally need they wake up in
Speaker 1: the morning they open their eyes, how can I hate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump today? And if they can't get a tweet
Speaker 1: or if they can't latch onto something from one of
Speaker 1: their other colleagues, because they all sort of circulate in
Speaker 1: the same circles and they just regurgitate what everyone else says. Uh,
Speaker 1: then they just they sort of break out in the
Speaker 1: sweats and they're like addicts and they need a fix,
Speaker 1: and they're praying and hoping that Donald Trump says or
Speaker 1: does something that they can hate, you know, with the
Speaker 1: intensity that I've never seen before in the history of
Speaker 1: politics in my thirty years of covering this. Uh, my
Speaker 1: good friend Jonathan, you know, Sean, it's um, there's a
Speaker 1: good side to this, and I'll tell you what the
Speaker 1: what the upside is is that these people I've been
Speaker 1: saying this ever since the election, these people are exposing
Speaker 1: themselves and they're exposing their relationships and they're exposing their agenda.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, whether we're talking about the
Speaker 1: way seeing and in runs things Jake Tapper out there,
Speaker 1: um full of opinions on Twitter and things like that,
Speaker 1: when he's you know, putting himself up there as this
Speaker 1: reporter who's a fact based driven reporter people like that.
Speaker 1: Whether we're talking about the Colin Kaepernick ad with Nike,
Speaker 1: I think what we see in these people is that
Speaker 1: they have in the case of Nike, they budgeted for
Speaker 1: these commercials and for the loss, and the case of
Speaker 1: seeing Inn, they they have. They don't really care what
Speaker 1: you and I think anymore. What they're doing is they're
Speaker 1: going all out with their message with with this quote
Speaker 1: unquote resistance and an organized fashion. And that's what people
Speaker 1: need to realize. They're organized and they are pushing forward
Speaker 1: on their agenda and right now their agenda is to
Speaker 1: continue what Obama was doing, which was moving their socialistic,
Speaker 1: communistic ideology forward, and Trump stepped in the middle of that.
Speaker 1: If they did a show there was nothing but about
Speaker 1: what Trump has done, right, people would be blown away
Speaker 1: by this. On the left, they'll never do that. And
Speaker 1: so what you see is an organized push that's going forward.
Speaker 1: And the upside, like I said, is that they're all exposed.
Speaker 1: You know they're not. But here's the thing. They will
Speaker 1: obsessively cover quote anonymous, which it could be hundreds of people.
Speaker 1: There's there's no telling who this might be. But yet
Speaker 1: they don't cover us jobless claims fall to a forty
Speaker 1: nine year low last week. We have the FED in Atlanta.
Speaker 1: They're forecasting right now four point seven percent GDP growth
Speaker 1: for the third quarter. Trump scoring a major budget breakthrough,
Speaker 1: and literally they're gonna write pass spending bills and and
Speaker 1: broken the federal budget log jam which was decades worth,
Speaker 1: the growing deficits. And they're actually gonna do the spending
Speaker 1: bills the way they're legally supposed to, and that's department
Speaker 1: by department rather than one big, massive packets. That's a
Speaker 1: big deal by any objective analysis. Then I can give
Speaker 1: you the list of accomplished. It's four million fewer Americans
Speaker 1: on food stamps, four million new jobs, created, the greatest
Speaker 1: growth in manufacturing jobs in thirty years in America. We
Speaker 1: have consumer confidence all time high. Everything's happening that's good
Speaker 1: for the country. You never hear about any of it
Speaker 1: from your side, your friends, your Democratic buddies. Daniel, You
Speaker 1: know what, there's also plenty that's not good that needs
Speaker 1: to be talked to. That we have children in cages
Speaker 1: in the southern border. Right, Okay, excuse me, let me
Speaker 1: let me correct the record. Because the person that stopped
Speaker 1: the practice that went on during the Obama years would
Speaker 1: be Donald J. Trump. So if you're going to talk
Speaker 1: about the separation of family issues, let's talk about under
Speaker 1: Obama and George W. Bush, because it happened under them too.
Speaker 1: And when then one it was brought to the attention
Speaker 1: of the president, the president fixed the problem something nobody
Speaker 1: else before him did. You could say, you could say
Speaker 1: thank you, President Trump. Go ahead. As of today, the
Speaker 1: Trump organized as the Trump Excusing Organization, listened to me.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration decided it was going to a nor
Speaker 1: a n court order and it was going to hold
Speaker 1: women and children and basically in prison indefinitely until their
Speaker 1: asylum planes are held. It's good a families are now
Speaker 1: being kicked together, but they're still about five kids who
Speaker 1: are either Okay, let me repeat, I didn't hear you
Speaker 1: once during the the person that's stepped up and honestly,
Speaker 1: what he did was kind of unconstitutional, if you want
Speaker 1: to know the truth, because he's defying what his federal law.
Speaker 1: But he did it because it was the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. Because Congress can't get off their lazy asses
Speaker 1: and go do their job. So we're gonna be blunt
Speaker 1: and honest let's tell the whole truth. But it was
Speaker 1: an interesting diversion away from all of the success economically
Speaker 1: and otherwise of the president for you to do this.
Speaker 1: As we continue with Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin, let
Speaker 1: me go to this Colin Kaepernick ad that is gonna
Speaker 1: be running during some NFL games. I guess this weekend,
Speaker 1: and uh, actually whenever they're whenever they're gonna be running them,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna be watching because Saturday is my football day. Now.
Speaker 1: I'm just not interested in a more sick and tired
Speaker 1: of all of it. But anyway, Colin Kaepernick, the face
Speaker 1: of Nike, just do it. Thirty years in. I don't
Speaker 1: believe you have to be like anybody to be somebody.
Speaker 1: If you're born or refugee, don't let it stop you
Speaker 1: from playing sock for the national season at age sixteen.
Speaker 1: Don't become the best basketball player on the planet. Be
Speaker 1: bigger than basketball. Believe in something, even if it means
Speaker 1: sacrificing everything. Let me ask you, Danielle, So there's a
Speaker 1: guy that had socks depicting police officers as pigs. Would
Speaker 1: you pick him to be the face of your company?
Speaker 1: The representative of your company. I'll say this that I
Speaker 1: didn't say do. I ask you if it's controversial. I asked,
Speaker 1: if you owned a company like Nike, would you pick
Speaker 1: Colin Kaepernick, who wears cops socks depicted as pigs, as
Speaker 1: your as as your representative? Yes? Or no? Maybe I would,
Speaker 1: because you know what, wearing socks one time does not
Speaker 1: make a man president some terrible things about women. Why
Speaker 1: do you have to turn everything into Trump? Nike's paying
Speaker 1: calling Kaepernick? By the way, do you know what calling
Speaker 1: Kaepernick's record was the last two years in his NFL career.
Speaker 1: I'm not three and sixteen. He went one and eleven.
Speaker 1: Now do you think that sounds like a good NFL
Speaker 1: quarterback with that type of record? Well, you know we're
Speaker 1: going to find out, because he just want to motion
Speaker 1: to the Smiths and we're gonna get all the discovery
Speaker 1: to figure out with the NFL. I didn't ask you,
Speaker 1: does that sound like a quarterback if you're an NFL owner,
Speaker 1: that you want on your team? Okay, Well, if you
Speaker 1: wouldn't want him on you, if you wouldn't want him
Speaker 1: on your team, maybe the owners decided they don't want
Speaker 1: him on his team. What do you think Jonathan to
Speaker 1: find out? Uh? Yeah, I think the record speaks for itself.
Speaker 1: You know. Here, let me just say this real quick.
Speaker 1: You know again, when I when you ask me a question,
Speaker 1: I try to answer that question. I don't try to
Speaker 1: bring it just back to a politician and blame them
Speaker 1: for every single thing in the world. I wish, Daniel,
Speaker 1: I'd love to see you do that. Answer the question.
Speaker 1: And there's the people on the left and people that
Speaker 1: play these political games answer the question. Because what you're
Speaker 1: seeing is when remember CNN was doing that commercial for
Speaker 1: a while about this is uh an apple, it's not
Speaker 1: a banana, so on and so forth. Seun, here's the
Speaker 1: real life. It's not whether an apple is a banana.
Speaker 1: It's whether or not an apple is a red juicy apple,
Speaker 1: a red delicious apple, or a fuji apple. What they're
Speaker 1: doing is they're lying to you about the type of apple.
Speaker 1: That's that is how they confuse the people. There are
Speaker 1: things going on and they they skew the facts, or
Speaker 1: they have anonymous people come on, or they have Colin
Speaker 1: Kaepernet come up here and do things. When he's wearing
Speaker 1: Shaykavera shirts, who is a communist sucks that depict cops
Speaker 1: his pigs. When you look at the totality of the
Speaker 1: circumstances of all the things that these people are doing,
Speaker 1: it's misinformation, it's lies, and it's all organized. Can I
Speaker 1: respond because this is really important to me, and I
Speaker 1: don't want you to think that I'm always trying to
Speaker 1: turn this on his head. The reason I give you
Speaker 1: another example is because I'm trying to understand where you're
Speaker 1: really coming from. So I understand, Jonathon that Katherine wore
Speaker 1: some socks that you don't like, any wars and clothing
Speaker 1: that you don't like. This is about giving the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt to people that you would otherwise support.
Speaker 1: There's plenty of things. And the reason I talk about
Speaker 1: the president is there are plenty of things that well
Speaker 1: meaning people I asked you about. Do you support Castro
Speaker 1: and you turn it into Donald Trump? You can't help yourself.
Speaker 1: You're like, you're like a Trump drug addict. You can't
Speaker 1: help it. Would you want what do you think about
Speaker 1: people that wear T shirts that honor murdering dictator thugs?
Speaker 1: Would you ever wear what do you think about people
Speaker 1: that do wear them? I think it's stupid. But I
Speaker 1: think there's Morticlo asked, if you think it's stupid, why
Speaker 1: would somebody honor a murdering, thug dictator. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Ask him, but there's more to him. You're the one
Speaker 1: that's defending him, and you're defending Nike's decision. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I don't support Boycott's Nike can do what they want,
Speaker 1: and I can buy Adidas a rebuk. I mean, I
Speaker 1: can do what I want, and I'm gonna watch college
Speaker 1: football and not pro football. But that's my choice. I
Speaker 1: don't urge anyone. Everyone makes up their own mind. You
Speaker 1: have a choice in life. I'm pro choice. I choose
Speaker 1: to watch college football. What do you choose to watch?
Speaker 1: Jonathan Well? I want to ask Daniel something. You know,
Speaker 1: she was in court as a defense attorney and her
Speaker 1: client walked in wearing a bright red Uh I love
Speaker 1: communist China or I love Kim john Un and she's
Speaker 1: trying to defend him in some kind of um, some
Speaker 1: kind of thing that has to do with import export stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think that a jury or a
Speaker 1: judge would not look upon that person and say that
Speaker 1: shirt directly reflects the person that he is and the
Speaker 1: values that he holds. Wouldn't you think that if they
Speaker 1: walked in and I was worrying? So this is we're
Speaker 1: we're actually an agreement. Of course I would say that.
Speaker 1: Of course I think it's stupid to do that, but
Speaker 1: we have to think about and that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: We got to end it there. Thank you both, A
Speaker 1: D nine one Sean, you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program at the bottom of this hour, Peter Schweitzer,
Speaker 1: way do you hear how creepy you know? Places like
Speaker 1: Google and Facebook are that's next? Google and Facebook. They
Speaker 1: don't sell you anything. They sell you. These are all
Speaker 1: free services, but obviously they're not. Your interaction with the
Speaker 1: misgoverned so that it will generate revenue. You give Google
Speaker 1: a lot of information. You're searching for the most private
Speaker 1: stuff on Google and things that your wife, my the
Speaker 1: spouse might not want you to know about. Facebook constantly
Speaker 1: manipulates their users. They do it by the things that
Speaker 1: they insert into the news fees, and they do it
Speaker 1: by the types of hosts they allow their users to see.
Speaker 1: They can suppress certain types of results diced on what
Speaker 1: they think you should be seeing, by on what your
Speaker 1: followers earth is. I think it's what Google and Facebook
Speaker 1: are doing on regular basis by suppressing stories, by steering
Speaker 1: us towards other stories rather than the story we're actually seeking.
Speaker 1: That's the real manipulation that's going on. I was a
Speaker 1: designed ethicistic Google, where I studied how do you ethically
Speaker 1: fear people's stocks? It will always favor one online music
Speaker 1: service over another, and one candidate over another. Google and
Speaker 1: Facebook has the power to undermine democracy without us knowing
Speaker 1: that democracy has been undermine. There's what I call the
Speaker 1: creepy line. And the Google policy about a lot of
Speaker 1: these things is to get right up for the creepy line,
Speaker 1: but not cross it. Google crosses the creepy line every day,
Speaker 1: all right. That's the trailer for by the Way to
Speaker 1: the Top of the Hour for a brand new documentary.
Speaker 1: It's called the creepy line. Now. That was a actual
Speaker 1: statement that was made by Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google,
Speaker 1: was quoted in the New York Times back in in March.
Speaker 1: I mean that is creepy that we go up to
Speaker 1: the creepy line. And you know, with all the hearings
Speaker 1: that have been taking place, most Americans have no idea
Speaker 1: how How does Google make their money? How does Facebook
Speaker 1: make their money? These think, Oh I get a free
Speaker 1: Gmail account, Oh I get to I get a free
Speaker 1: Internet search. I just bring up Google. I don't pay
Speaker 1: anything for it. I don't pay a penny for it. Um,
Speaker 1: yeah you do. How much do you pay? How do
Speaker 1: you pay? How much privacy are you giving up in
Speaker 1: exchange for the opportunity to Google search anything that you
Speaker 1: want and have at the tip of your fingers any
Speaker 1: information you want anyway. The title for this documentary comes
Speaker 1: from the speech by Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, said
Speaker 1: the company's policy was get to get right up to
Speaker 1: the creepy line and not cross it. Well, how do
Speaker 1: you determine a creepy line? You know? You say, well, pornography,
Speaker 1: I know when I see it is the creepy line.
Speaker 1: Something you know when you see it? Anyway? It interviews
Speaker 1: in this documentary documentary several high profile figures, including a
Speaker 1: Canadian clinical psychologist by the name of Jordan Peterson, who
Speaker 1: explained how these tech giants really hold great power that
Speaker 1: threatened the fabric of society. Uh, these services that they
Speaker 1: say are free are obviously not, because your interaction with
Speaker 1: all of these services is governed so it will generate revenue. Um. Anyway,
Speaker 1: joining us now is Peter Schweitzer and Peter of course
Speaker 1: with the Government Accountability Institute. Good to see my friend.
Speaker 1: Now you're moving into the movie business again. Great to
Speaker 1: be here with you, Sean. Thanks for having all right.
Speaker 1: Let's because a lot of people I think, like myself.
Speaker 1: I go to Google. I Google this, I google that.
Speaker 1: I'm in the middle of my show. Somebody asked me
Speaker 1: what it's so, and so say back in I can
Speaker 1: google it and I'll find it great service. I like it,
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Um. I mostly now let my social me
Speaker 1: to you, be guided by my team, and I don't
Speaker 1: have late night Twitter rans and fights like I used
Speaker 1: to because it takes too much time and effort. It's
Speaker 1: gotten too ugly, frankly, and where it used to be fun,
Speaker 1: it's not. But let's walk through how deep they get
Speaker 1: into our lives in the process of giving us something
Speaker 1: quote for free. That's a great question, Sean. And the
Speaker 1: bottom line is Google, this large corporation run by these individuals,
Speaker 1: knows far more about you than the most intimate person
Speaker 1: in your life, your parents, your spouse, uh, your boyfriend
Speaker 1: or girlfriend. They know everything because they know if you're
Speaker 1: searching for medical information, if you're you know, searching for
Speaker 1: do they put the name with the person or they do?
Speaker 1: They do? They know who the person is. They know
Speaker 1: based on the print of so they know, Sean Hannity correct.
Speaker 1: Although the problem is I have my staff using my
Speaker 1: accounts all the time, right right, So, but but whoever's
Speaker 1: connected with the IP address? So if sweet baby James
Speaker 1: is looking for creepy things on the internet, they're gonna
Speaker 1: I guess if he's doing it in my name on
Speaker 1: my account, that makes me look bad. That's right, They're
Speaker 1: gonna figure you, Sean, That's exactly how that has been
Speaker 1: with me for twenty seven years. And I know he
Speaker 1: looks for creepy things on the internet. So yeah, but
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the this is the problem. These
Speaker 1: companies know these things. Um And you know, some people
Speaker 1: in the younger generations say, I don't care about privacy.
Speaker 1: But here's the issue. It's not just that they have
Speaker 1: the information, it's that they can use that information and
Speaker 1: weaponize it against you. Uh. And this has already been done.
Speaker 1: You see people that have been banned, that have been blocked,
Speaker 1: you've seen instances where information about people has been leaked
Speaker 1: based on their search history. So you're vulnerable. And the
Speaker 1: question is are you going to trust this large corporation
Speaker 1: that not only has the interest of all corporations, which
Speaker 1: is making money, which is great. They have an agenda.
Speaker 1: They have an agenda that's very clear and specific. It's
Speaker 1: embedded into the company, and that agenda really runs contray
Speaker 1: ary to a lot of the beliefs and ideas that
Speaker 1: most Americans have. For example, Jack at Jacket Twitter, he
Speaker 1: actually sat down to an interview with us. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: talked a lot about about privacy and shadow banning and
Speaker 1: and some of the other practices. He was very honest
Speaker 1: in this sense by admitting they have not perfected any
Speaker 1: of this by any stretch, and so much of what
Speaker 1: they do, for example, on Twitter, is these algorithms that
Speaker 1: they put together. Um, but you're saying it runs deeper
Speaker 1: than that. So somebody works at Google and hate Sean Hannity, Right,
Speaker 1: They could get into my Gmail account. Yes, absolutely, I
Speaker 1: could see every email I've ever sent or received. Yes,
Speaker 1: I am somebody who has used Gmail for years. I'm
Speaker 1: going to stop using I am I have stopped using Gmail.
Speaker 1: Because here's gonna use I'm going to use the the
Speaker 1: email that's associated with my organization. Uh, you can use
Speaker 1: something like you know, go old school and use a
Speaker 1: O L. You can use other entities you don't want
Speaker 1: to use. You think all of those things are safe
Speaker 1: as a O well safe as yes, yes, Apple. Apple,
Speaker 1: for example, does not monetize the use of your information.
Speaker 1: Google's entire business model is based on collecting all this
Speaker 1: information about Sean Hannity and then either selling it to
Speaker 1: advertisers or using it in a way that they can monetize. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, what if you set up a fake Gmail account?
Speaker 1: You can you can set up a fake Gmail account
Speaker 1: and it's really depends what I p address it's associated with.
Speaker 1: If you go on your laptop or you go on
Speaker 1: your iPhone and you act and figure it out, they
Speaker 1: figure out who that is absolutely yeah, So what are
Speaker 1: those safer places than for people to do email and
Speaker 1: so on and so forth? You know, because most people
Speaker 1: I don't think are like me. All of my every
Speaker 1: one of my accounts is open to everybody that works
Speaker 1: for me. And in other words, it could be any
Speaker 1: person that is writing or texting on my behalf that's it.
Speaker 1: I mean that, And and I literally have given up
Speaker 1: private accounts, I've given up phone numbers, I've given up everything.
Speaker 1: This is a man who trusts his staff, by the way.
Speaker 1: That's that's that's what I'm saying. That's good, that's well,
Speaker 1: I'll find out. But with my staff, who did it?
Speaker 1: All right? But but the key thing to keep in
Speaker 1: mind with Gmail, for example, is Gmail not only knows
Speaker 1: all the emails you've sent, all the emails you've received.
Speaker 1: Let's say you wrote a rant in an email and
Speaker 1: you decided I'm not going to send it, and it's
Speaker 1: just as a draft. They've read that. They know what's
Speaker 1: in that draft. What do you mean they've read it?
Speaker 1: How many They scanned them? They scanned them. They electronically
Speaker 1: scanned them. So, for example, if you I mean, I'll
Speaker 1: pick a commercial example, if I were to send you
Speaker 1: an email and say, Sean, I'm thinking about buying a Toyota,
Speaker 1: Google knows that and will sell to Toda Toyota um
Speaker 1: advertising space based on the fact that they now know
Speaker 1: that I'm looking for a Toyota. All right, that's past
Speaker 1: the creepy line. Yes it is, it is, But is
Speaker 1: it actual people or is it just a program that
Speaker 1: they use. It's it's an algorithm, it's machines. It's machines
Speaker 1: that are scanning in their for certain keywords, but also
Speaker 1: human beings can intervene. So we talked about Jordan Peterson,
Speaker 1: this professor at the University of Toronto, you know, very
Speaker 1: famous now with a lot of things that he's done
Speaker 1: on YouTube. UM. In his particular case, he took a
Speaker 1: stand against a law in Canada that was going to
Speaker 1: force you to use the preferred gender um identifier for
Speaker 1: a person that they wanted, and he objected to this
Speaker 1: law on First Amendment grounds. Um. You know, very calm,
Speaker 1: cerebral guy. He took that position. The next day, Sean,
Speaker 1: he was locked out of his Gmail and his YouTube
Speaker 1: accounts were shut off. And what he was basically told was, yes,
Speaker 1: a machine did it, but then a person sort of
Speaker 1: backed up that decision. So based on his political beliefs,
Speaker 1: they shut him out of his Gmail account and shut
Speaker 1: him out of YouTube. He ended up getting it restored
Speaker 1: because he had friends in the media and he created this.
Speaker 1: But the point is there are employees at YouTube and
Speaker 1: elsewhere that can make arbitrary decisions. I don't like, uh,
Speaker 1: you know it isn't Eric Schmidt mean, I guess it's
Speaker 1: part of the user agreement that nobody ever reads. Right, right,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. They have the right to to censor
Speaker 1: all all the two they share this information with the government,
Speaker 1: they can, yes, absolutely, And who are the companies? I
Speaker 1: think it's best for people to know what are the
Speaker 1: safer companies for people to deal with, because you know, look,
Speaker 1: I just got a copy of of The Creepy Line,
Speaker 1: and I know it's a documentary. Where are people are
Speaker 1: able to see this? But um, so it's gonna be
Speaker 1: released September seventeen. That's going to be available on iTunes
Speaker 1: and elsewhere you can you can purchase that. We're doing
Speaker 1: a screening in New York and d C as well.
Speaker 1: Um and we expect there's gonna be a lot of
Speaker 1: interest in Washington on this. But look, if you want
Speaker 1: to do search, use something like duck duck go. Do
Speaker 1: not use Google, Um, do not use never heard of
Speaker 1: duck duck go. What does duck duck go? Duck duck go?
Speaker 1: And I have no financial interest in this? Doug is
Speaker 1: that like Yahoo? Is that? Like? Well, see, here's the problem.
Speaker 1: Yahoo uses Google, so it's search, so you're you're not
Speaker 1: getting away from them by doing it. So the best
Speaker 1: one is duck duck. That they don't practice these that's right.
Speaker 1: How do they make their that's one example. Um, they
Speaker 1: do it. You'll see ads on the side, but it's
Speaker 1: not based on forward, it's not based on that's taking
Speaker 1: your information and selling it, that's right. What about email?
Speaker 1: So email? Um, Apple products are very good. Apple does
Speaker 1: not monetize so anything in Apple. I don't think Apple
Speaker 1: has a email address. Well, you can with with certain
Speaker 1: eye Cloud for example, and other entities and Nightcloud account. Yes,
Speaker 1: you could do it through an eye Cloud account. They
Speaker 1: save that information forever. Apple. Apple does not. Apple does
Speaker 1: not monetize emails, and they delete that information after a
Speaker 1: while because Apple is primarily they're selling products, right, they're
Speaker 1: selling cloud services and products. What about you mentioned a
Speaker 1: O L. Why are they safe? Well, A O L
Speaker 1: is safe because again they don't have the same business
Speaker 1: model that Google does. Google basically says we're gonna give
Speaker 1: you your information. No, they don't scan the information. They
Speaker 1: have the best safety technology. For example, it's so hard
Speaker 1: the FBI couldn't even break into if Apple if you want, yes,
Speaker 1: that's right. But if you want to go the hyper
Speaker 1: encryption rate, there's an email service called proton Mainte yeah,
Speaker 1: which is very very good out of Switzerland. But the
Speaker 1: bottom line is people need to be aware of this,
Speaker 1: and people need to be aware. It's not just a
Speaker 1: privacy issue. They will know your political profile, of your beliefs,
Speaker 1: and they will filter information to you to steer you
Speaker 1: in the direction that you may not be inclined. What
Speaker 1: about these encryption services, um, what do you call them?
Speaker 1: Signal and all that stuff. Those those are very good
Speaker 1: ways to communicate as well. And that information is not
Speaker 1: is not retained now proton Mail, when you say it's
Speaker 1: not retained, they don't retain it at all. That's wrong,
Speaker 1: that's right. What about Snapchat? Snapchat, same thing that basically disappears. Um,
Speaker 1: which one do you use? I'm just I use I
Speaker 1: use Signal, and I use proton mail. And then the
Speaker 1: server that we use for the Government Accountability Institute, we
Speaker 1: do not use Google technology there people that The bottom
Speaker 1: line is, Look, Google makes it attractive because it's low
Speaker 1: cost or free, uh, and it's very very useful, but
Speaker 1: people have to use uh, duc duct go is that.
Speaker 1: Uh is it well in that particular case, I mean,
Speaker 1: you get the same services as good. Yeah, it's the
Speaker 1: search is not quite as good. I mean that's the problem.
Speaker 1: I mean, Google is the big monster here. So but
Speaker 1: my point is it gonna make my staff do it
Speaker 1: and then it's gonna show up on their account. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean my point is, if you're gonna do a
Speaker 1: sensitive search on subjects that you don't want Google to
Speaker 1: know about, do it on something else. You can do
Speaker 1: it on Firefox, but of course Firefox sometimes uses Google,
Speaker 1: but use Firefox or duc duco. Do not use Google
Speaker 1: for sensitive searches because they will maintain that information on you.
Speaker 1: All right. So the documentary it's called The Creepy Line,
Speaker 1: and you gotta see it. Uh, And of course were's
Speaker 1: the best place to get the trailer. We'll put it
Speaker 1: up on Hannity dot com. Yeah, the Creepy Line Dodges
Speaker 1: brought to you by Google, um, apparently unbeknownst to me.
Speaker 1: And honestly, I think it's an opportunity to people, for
Speaker 1: people to understand just how intrusive this all is. That's
Speaker 1: exactly right, all right. Peter Schweitzer, Government Accountability Institute thank
Speaker 1: you for being with us. Thanks all right, one, Sean, Uh,
Speaker 1: take a quick break. We'll come back an incredible Hannity tonight,
Speaker 1: Breaking news all over the place. John Solomon will be
Speaker 1: breaking a story. Sarah Carter's Breaking News tonight nine eastern
Speaker 1: on Fox Search. Warrant you need an affidavit signed by
Speaker 1: a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the
Speaker 1: information in the affidavit is true and correct to the
Speaker 1: best of his knowledge and belief. Uh. And that's the
Speaker 1: way we operate. And if it's wrong sometimes it is.
Speaker 1: If you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that
Speaker 1: person is going to face consequences. Right. That's Rod Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a lot more on all of this
Speaker 1: new breaking developments, this house of cards about to literally
Speaker 1: fold as the President contemplating releasing all these important documents.
Speaker 1: We'll have the latest on Hannity tonight nine Eastern on
Speaker 1: the Fox News Channel. We'll load it up tonight, Greg Sarah,
Speaker 1: John Solomon with his breaking news report. We'll get to tonight,
Speaker 1: Mark Pan New Gingrich, Dr Gorka, David Shone. So you
Speaker 1: d v R Hannity. Oh, and the President has a
Speaker 1: rally I think it's going on during our hour. We'll
Speaker 1: be watching that closely as well, nine Eastern Hannity on Fox,
Speaker 1: and we'll see at nine back here tomorrow. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being with us.