Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Shawan Hannity radio show podcast A right glad you
Speaker 1: with us one Shawn Tolfrey telephone number if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of this six dravaganza. Where is this?
Speaker 1: According to the latest zagby Pole, a landslide majority of
Speaker 1: people on the left now say that they are ashamed
Speaker 1: of America. Wow, fifty of all voters say they're proud
Speaker 1: of the United States, while the third say they're ashamed
Speaker 1: and not sure how they feel. All right, whopping of
Speaker 1: liberals say they're ashamed of America. We'll just thirty we're
Speaker 1: proud of America. Three quarters of Republicans are proud of
Speaker 1: the United States. Only six percent of shame of Democrats. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm sure this is all tied to Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: hating Trump and Trump obsession, etcetera, etcetera. That's what I'm
Speaker 1: thinking it's all about. And and I get it, I
Speaker 1: understand it. Of those people just cannot get over the fact,
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of them, even on the
Speaker 1: Republican side, they just can't get over the fact that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump won. They can't um a lot of news today.
Speaker 1: I want to get into this. Some great, great good
Speaker 1: columns out there that we're gonna be delving into here,
Speaker 1: not the least of which is you know, I've read
Speaker 1: this on the air yesterday, and the more I've had
Speaker 1: time to think about it, the more I realized just
Speaker 1: how profound this is. So you have Senator Chuck Rassley
Speaker 1: and Senator Lindsey Graham questioning and sending a list of questions.
Speaker 1: I read them yesterday, I won't do it today for
Speaker 1: the former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding what they
Speaker 1: are flagging as an unusual email that she sent to herself,
Speaker 1: and it was sent on Trump's inauguration day, just just
Speaker 1: literally minutes before she departed the White House for the
Speaker 1: last time. And we have Grassley's the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Graham,
Speaker 1: who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.
Speaker 1: They release a statement and the letter they wrote to
Speaker 1: Rice outlining the concerns of their email her email as
Speaker 1: it relates to the Senators or the Senate's probe in
Speaker 1: Russian interference. Now. They both say they received the email
Speaker 1: in question as a result of a request from to
Speaker 1: the National Archives for records of meetings between Obama and
Speaker 1: then FBI Director James Comey, And the email that Rice
Speaker 1: sent to herself was January. Now Donald J. Trump was
Speaker 1: sworn into office just afternoon. She sent this to herself
Speaker 1: at twelve fifteen, and it seems to document a meeting
Speaker 1: that she had just attended with then President Obama, FBI
Speaker 1: Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates two weeks before,
Speaker 1: on January five. So they're talking about a January fifth meeting.
Speaker 1: And Rice's note reads as follows on January five, follow
Speaker 1: again this, but she's writing it eleven fifteen day years later,
Speaker 1: just as she's leaving the White House for the last time.
Speaker 1: On January five, following a briefing by I C leadership
Speaker 1: on Russian hacking during the presidential election, Obama had a
Speaker 1: brief follow on conversation with the FBI Director Jim Comey,
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Sally Aids in the Oval office. Vice
Speaker 1: President Biden and I were also president. That meeting reportedly
Speaker 1: included a discussion of the Steel dossier and the FBI's
Speaker 1: investigation of its claims, and President Obama began the conversation
Speaker 1: by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect
Speaker 1: of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law
Speaker 1: enforcement communities by the book. Why would she say that now?
Speaker 1: The President stress that he is not asking about initiating
Speaker 1: or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated
Speaker 1: that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it
Speaker 1: normally would by the book. From a national security perspective, however,
Speaker 1: Obama said he wants to be sure as we engage
Speaker 1: with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if
Speaker 1: there is any reason that we cannot share information fully
Speaker 1: as it relates to Russia. A portion of the email
Speaker 1: remains classified. The correspondence continues reading the President asked come
Speaker 1: to inform him if anything changes in the next few
Speaker 1: weeks that should affect how we should share classified information
Speaker 1: with the incoming team. Remember, they made those rules changes
Speaker 1: just as they were going out the door. I wonder
Speaker 1: if that's impacting this in any ways, thought to self,
Speaker 1: and maybe I'll send myself an email and grass Lee
Speaker 1: and Graham said in their statement that they found it
Speaker 1: odd that Rice felt it was necessary to send to herself. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is odd. That is the quintessential c y a
Speaker 1: such an unusual email purporting a document of conversation with
Speaker 1: them President Obama and his interactions with the be I
Speaker 1: regarding the Trump Russia investigation in her final hours as
Speaker 1: a member of the Obama administration. Now, grass Lee and
Speaker 1: Graham suggests that despite Rice's claim that Obama had told
Speaker 1: call me to proceed quote by the book, a lot
Speaker 1: of questions now have arisen about the conduct of FBI officials,
Speaker 1: the d o J, the State Department in the course
Speaker 1: of the investigation. Why would she feel the need to
Speaker 1: do this? And grass Lee and Graham sent, right, So
Speaker 1: a list of questions. It's gonna be interesting to see
Speaker 1: where that goes. And it's gonna be interesting to see
Speaker 1: if anything else has written about what happened on January five?
Speaker 1: Is it getting very is it getting more odd and
Speaker 1: more strange by the moment? I gotta tell you, um
Speaker 1: now we have Now this is another interesting point. This
Speaker 1: is in the political So two weeks before he leaves office,
Speaker 1: Obama's telling senior members of the administration that he wanted
Speaker 1: to keep then President elect Trump's transition team in the
Speaker 1: dark about details of the FBI's Russia Gate investigation. That
Speaker 1: kind of contradicts what Rice is writing herself that that
Speaker 1: he didn't want to get involved in anything involving law
Speaker 1: enforcement with this anyway that would maximize the bureau's ability
Speaker 1: to gather evidence that could lead to the prosecution of
Speaker 1: top Trump Bates, and even Trump himself. You're beginning to
Speaker 1: think of trappis set here, don't you. Anyway? Former President
Speaker 1: Obama suggested in January that information related to a federal
Speaker 1: probe of Russia election interference might have to be withheld
Speaker 1: from AIDS to then President elect Donald Trump. According to
Speaker 1: an internal White House email released Monday by these two
Speaker 1: GOP senators, and the warning Obama delivered was on January five.
Speaker 1: This is the conversation that Rice is now chronicling on
Speaker 1: the moment before she leaves office. She must feel very
Speaker 1: sensitive about it, and the President stressed he's not asking
Speaker 1: about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.
Speaker 1: From a national security perspective, Obama said he wants to
Speaker 1: be sure as they engage with the incoming team, we
Speaker 1: are mindful to ascertain if there's any reason that we
Speaker 1: cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. That's
Speaker 1: kind of unclear what the officials might have said in response,
Speaker 1: the grass Lee Graham are saying here that part of
Speaker 1: this is classified. But the passage after that states that
Speaker 1: Obama asked Comey to let him know if anything changes,
Speaker 1: Well he not the president. Well why would Comey tell
Speaker 1: him after he left office? Now, in this press release
Speaker 1: last week, remember we learned that the FBI love birds
Speaker 1: Peter Struck in Lisa Page had prepp then FBI Director
Speaker 1: Comey on details of the Russia Gate investigation, with Struck
Speaker 1: telling Page that the president quote wants to know everything
Speaker 1: we're doing. And yesterday we found out that comes last
Speaker 1: briefing with Obama aluded this, you know, notorious Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: Golden Showers dossier, and that revelation was included. But this
Speaker 1: letter sent by grass Lee and Graham to Susan Rice,
Speaker 1: I don't know. This is something here that I can't
Speaker 1: put my hand on yet put my finger on, but
Speaker 1: I'm looking. It's all happening in a very very just
Speaker 1: little bits and pieces. Some of you have complained. My
Speaker 1: good friend Michael Myers will write me occasion when do
Speaker 1: we get to the end zone? When did we find
Speaker 1: I said, well, you're appeeling layers of an onion. It
Speaker 1: doesn't happen overnight. Now, this raises serious questions about what
Speaker 1: happened at that January five meeting and who knew what,
Speaker 1: when and where, and what did they know and when
Speaker 1: did they know? It was watching some of the testimony
Speaker 1: today by the FBI director and and the CIA director
Speaker 1: and a bunch of others before the Senate Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: and Christopher Ray is going to test testify before them
Speaker 1: as the growing conflicts between the White House. But they're
Speaker 1: going into close session, and they kept saying over and
Speaker 1: over again, that's probably something we'll speak of later. We'll
Speaker 1: probably talk about that later. We'll probably talk more later,
Speaker 1: which is a little bit frustrating if you actually want
Speaker 1: answers now Byron York is gonna join us today, and
Speaker 1: he points out that sources for Comey's Flynn exoneration where
Speaker 1: Peter King and Trey Goudy, So we now can corroborate
Speaker 1: his bombshell report that it will explain later in the
Speaker 1: program that they disgraced FBI Director James Comey told Congress
Speaker 1: behind closed doors that he didn't think General Flynn had lied,
Speaker 1: and that others in the FBI didn't think he lied. Well,
Speaker 1: then it raises the question, why would General Flynn ever
Speaker 1: plead guilty to lying to the FBI, which is a crime.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the most fascinating thing. Why would they?
Speaker 1: Whyever would he do that? Is this a case where
Speaker 1: there was a threat of prosecution of his family? You know,
Speaker 1: they've had to had to be your reason if they
Speaker 1: didn't think that he had lied there. I want to
Speaker 1: find out what that's all about. There's a great piece
Speaker 1: by Rowan Scarborough today in the Washington Times and it's
Speaker 1: the dossier's ten core collusion accusations remaining unverified twenty months later.
Speaker 1: You know, we forget about you know what's in the
Speaker 1: dossier for crying out loud. We just know that it's
Speaker 1: unverified and sallacious and full of lies. And he actually
Speaker 1: took the time to go through all of this, and
Speaker 1: he you know, when you look at the whole dossier
Speaker 1: and how that became the predicate for a warrant and
Speaker 1: the foundation for a warrant. And they didn't tell the
Speaker 1: FISA Court judge that it was bought and paid for
Speaker 1: by the opposition political campaign. They didn't tell the FISA
Speaker 1: Court judge that it was not verified you know, for
Speaker 1: the ongoing special counsel into the Trump Russia election coordination,
Speaker 1: it's helpful to separate what counts, because I don't think
Speaker 1: without any dossier ever have a Robert Mueller here. But
Speaker 1: it was funded by Hillary in the d n C.
Speaker 1: And they sent it through the same law firm. And
Speaker 1: it's bad enough that they were going to use those lies, unverified,
Speaker 1: salacious lies in part from the Russian government, according to
Speaker 1: the Grassy Graham memo that came out last week. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the dossier I think takes on even more importance. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So they identified ten cores collusion accusations that the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign launched an extensive conspiracy with the Kremlin to interfere
Speaker 1: with the presidential election. To date, no public verification verification
Speaker 1: that Trump, for decades developer of tall buildings, maintained an
Speaker 1: eight year relationship of give and take with Russian intelligence
Speaker 1: to date, no public verification that Trump and senior campaign
Speaker 1: aids actively supported the Russian hacking of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: computers to steal and release stolen emails. No public verification
Speaker 1: that Carter Page and campaign manager Paul Manaphor personally conspired
Speaker 1: with Moscow to hack the Democratic Computers when the hacking
Speaker 1: began in Tift. Neither man was associated with the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: Both deny the charge. Page testified under oath that he
Speaker 1: had never met or spoken with Manaphort, so we have
Speaker 1: no public verification on that Darsier part or that page
Speaker 1: in Annapolis, grad energy investor and former resident of Moscow
Speaker 1: traveled to that city in early July to deliver a
Speaker 1: speech at the university. Dasier says he met with two
Speaker 1: top Kremlin Kremlin operatives that's discussed bribes and working to
Speaker 1: lift economic sanctions. Page testified under oath he had never
Speaker 1: met or spoken with either of them, and he filed
Speaker 1: libel suits. Anyway, bottom line is there's no verification of
Speaker 1: any of it. But that's what was paid for, and
Speaker 1: that was what was used as the basis for a
Speaker 1: fiser warrant and never thought in my lifetime, I just
Speaker 1: really roll along. Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred nine four one, Shawn,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the problem.
Speaker 1: A lot of people are asking, all right, let me go.
Speaker 1: This is a great question. Arnold and Georgia. Arnold, how
Speaker 1: are you welcome to the program. I'm glad you called listen.
Speaker 1: Uh my theory, Well, this is what happened to me.
Speaker 1: The government can keep you going as long as they
Speaker 1: want to until you're completely broke, whether you're guilty or not.
Speaker 1: And I've been in that position. I know you're talking about.
Speaker 1: They have endless streams of money, have an endless supply
Speaker 1: of money, and they can always postpone your court date. Listen.
Speaker 1: I know people that have been literally sent into bankruptcy
Speaker 1: because of lawsuits, legal actions against them, whatever I mean.
Speaker 1: And and it does raise actually a fair question. Is
Speaker 1: there a two tier justice system between those that can
Speaker 1: afford the expensive lawyers and those that can Well, there
Speaker 1: definitely is. I had come into bankruptcy thinking, if you're
Speaker 1: if I'm not guilty, I have nothing to lose and
Speaker 1: everything will come back. But it doesn't work that way. Well,
Speaker 1: I've seen this happen in numerous instances what you're describing.
Speaker 1: And so in other words, all right, you mean I'll
Speaker 1: get I'll get away with this, is it, I'll make
Speaker 1: it go away? Yeah, people do that all the time.
Speaker 1: You know, if people get sued all the time and
Speaker 1: they give in the lawsuits that way, how much? All right,
Speaker 1: it's a grand versus you know, a half a million dollars,
Speaker 1: you know, ten years later and all the aggravation that
Speaker 1: goes with it. My case, it was a it was
Speaker 1: a case of losing part of my life, you know,
Speaker 1: being sent away. What did you do? No matter what?
Speaker 1: So you didn't have the money for the attorneys, you know,
Speaker 1: I didn't. I had some money for the attorneys, and
Speaker 1: I got some from my parents also, and I was
Speaker 1: highly played, you know, agent for as far as the
Speaker 1: government work. But there's just nothing that you can do
Speaker 1: about it. M hmm. And it was the same as
Speaker 1: General Flynn. Um. I don't know what the reasons are
Speaker 1: I have. I'm not sure if I suspect something else
Speaker 1: is behind the General Flint thing. They don't. If it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily General Flynn that they wanted, it could be
Speaker 1: someone else that like in my case, they wanted someone else,
Speaker 1: And I wasn't gonna say anything about it. I mean,
Speaker 1: even though they weren't guilty either, you don't want to
Speaker 1: involve them because it's just you don't just be going
Speaker 1: around in circles. Yeah, uh, I don't look, assuming you're innocent.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you had to deal with all that. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it is. But I will tell you this,
Speaker 1: We've had a year worth of a media that's hysterical
Speaker 1: and unhinged and conspiracy theories one after another and no
Speaker 1: evidence at all. But we have evidence in the issues
Speaker 1: we've been covering, and a lot of it will continue.
Speaker 1: On the other side. Information download Sean Hannity and the
Speaker 1: breaking news you might have missed today. That's Sean's Insider Information.
Speaker 1: Hannity is on right now, alright now, till the top
Speaker 1: of the Sean if you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. There's a lot of news out There's
Speaker 1: so much like happening all at one time. It's pretty amazing. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I as I read the news every damn
Speaker 1: wondering at what point is this all like information overload
Speaker 1: for people? And then it gets to be too much
Speaker 1: and people can't understand that there's different things going on.
Speaker 1: For example, Um, you've got a bombshell email here with
Speaker 1: Susan Rice suggesting Comy may have misled Congress about meetings
Speaker 1: with Obama on and Russian hacking. That's to every other
Speaker 1: detail that we've given you. Then you got comey the
Speaker 1: FBI agents didn't think Flynn lied. Then yeah. Now we
Speaker 1: started asking, well, why did Flynn agree to a plea
Speaker 1: deal that said that he lied to the FBI. Then
Speaker 1: we're not even talking about I think the main crux
Speaker 1: of that, which is, all right, he was supposedly talking
Speaker 1: to his soon to be counterpart because he was going
Speaker 1: to be the n s A director and that would
Speaker 1: be a normal process for any incoming person in that position.
Speaker 1: And then of course the intelligence community they did nothing
Speaker 1: wrong by picking up Russia is a hostile state against
Speaker 1: the United States, so they picked up the phone call.
Speaker 1: But then the normal practices of minimization of an American
Speaker 1: that they weren't practiced in that particular case, they didn't minimize.
Speaker 1: They didn't and they unmasked Michael Flynn, and then they
Speaker 1: leaked for intelligence. Then they had a full transcript of
Speaker 1: everything that was said, and they go in and they
Speaker 1: interview him. Well, that's like a perjury trap with illegally
Speaker 1: obtained information, and I don't I don't know why Michael Flynn.
Speaker 1: General Flynn went along with that, and I suspect they said, well,
Speaker 1: we'll probably go after you and your family and your
Speaker 1: businesses for the last twenty years and and either take
Speaker 1: this deal it's the best deal you're gonna get her.
Speaker 1: Forget it. And that happens too, Susan Rice memo implicating Obama.
Speaker 1: He said, to do it by the book. That is
Speaker 1: the strangest email. Note to self, we did nothing wrong.
Speaker 1: Note to self, we are following by the book. That's
Speaker 1: pretty odd. It's one of the more bizarre things i've
Speaker 1: i've actually ever heard. Now we have Joe Degenneva is
Speaker 1: out there. He's talking about the FISA memo. He said,
Speaker 1: we're gonna see the Democratic memo. It's gonna be heavily
Speaker 1: edited by the FBI and the Department of Justice and
Speaker 1: the c i A. And he said the most important
Speaker 1: part of the story is that Odd Rosenstein and Christopher
Speaker 1: Ray wrote a letter to the White House Council Don
Speaker 1: McGann that they could not agree to the publication of
Speaker 1: the Shift memo because it contained national security and law
Speaker 1: enforcement concerns. Now, if you listen to the media, they're
Speaker 1: telling you, oh, no, President Trump is the one that
Speaker 1: said no to this. No, it actually wasn't President Trump.
Speaker 1: It was the FBI and the Department of Justice saying
Speaker 1: no to releasing the memo. And the most important part
Speaker 1: of that letter is when it says law enforcement concerns, well,
Speaker 1: that means that there's a criminal investigation under day underway,
Speaker 1: and release of some information in the memo by Schiff,
Speaker 1: you know, in some capacity, would impact some investigation. I
Speaker 1: wonder who they're investigating. The answer is pretty clear, because
Speaker 1: they're investigating the people at the FBI and the d
Speaker 1: o J who provided false information to the fis accord
Speaker 1: over a number of years. Here four separate times every
Speaker 1: ninety days, you gotta redo this more, this warrant, four
Speaker 1: separate times. We got a story out today BuzzFeed. If
Speaker 1: you remember as apparently working with others, remember they released
Speaker 1: the the dossier contents great pieces I mentioned in the
Speaker 1: last half hour by Rowan Scarborough. None of it verified zip,
Speaker 1: none of it. But apparently there's been six months a
Speaker 1: secret mission to corroborate various claims in the Trump Russia
Speaker 1: dossier that was assembled by Christopher Steele. So that's that's
Speaker 1: gonna be interesting to watch others now try and corroborate.
Speaker 1: I wander that I think they're still looking for videos
Speaker 1: of hookers in the rich Carlton in Moscow urinating on
Speaker 1: a bed. Uh Cody Sheer there's a report on Breitbart
Speaker 1: Today is scouring Europe for the fabled Trump Pepe tape.
Speaker 1: I didn't make that up, it says Cody Sheriff. Shadowy
Speaker 1: former tabloid journalists long been closely associate it with various
Speaker 1: Clinton scandals, traveling across Europe for more than six months
Speaker 1: in an effort to secure purported evidence of compromising material
Speaker 1: possessed by the Russians related to President Donald Trump. I
Speaker 1: guess the next thing we're gonna have is photos shopped,
Speaker 1: you know, pictures of Donald Trump. Ah, see there it is.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the tax returns. We've found them anyway,
Speaker 1: so apparently they're still looking for them. And then, of
Speaker 1: course we have the issue of Sid Blumenthal. What was
Speaker 1: his what was his role in all of this? You
Speaker 1: know now that we have wanted admission that a Clinton associate,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Wiener is an op ed that he published last
Speaker 1: week in the Washington Post top State Department officials served
Speaker 1: under former President Obama administration, publicly confirming he passed on
Speaker 1: information from Clinton operatives to the British by Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: that was put in the dossier that got the what
Speaker 1: Visor warrant Anyway, he's a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Speaker 1: State for International law enforcement, he wrote. He wrote that
Speaker 1: he had a friendly relationship with Steele, and then he
Speaker 1: goes on to say that, you know, Steal's dossier had
Speaker 1: all this information and so many sensational claims. But anyway,
Speaker 1: more importantly, Fox News reports that former Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's twenty sixteen campaign and the d n C
Speaker 1: retained Fusion GPS through that d C law firms Perkins
Speaker 1: uh Cooy's I think it's what it's called. They paid
Speaker 1: this law firm upwards of maybe twelve million dollars. It's
Speaker 1: unclear exactly how much money went to the dossier. And anyway,
Speaker 1: Wayner writes in this op ed in the Post that
Speaker 1: he served in the State Department in the nineties before
Speaker 1: leaving for private practice. He met Steele. They became friends
Speaker 1: in two thousand and nine, and in when Weiner returned
Speaker 1: to the State Department, he wrote that he began passing
Speaker 1: on more than a hundred of Steels reports or passing
Speaker 1: them on with Russian experts at the State Department over
Speaker 1: two year span. Pretty interesting. And then he also said
Speaker 1: he met with Steele in the summer seen to review
Speaker 1: the information contained in the Trump dossier so he could
Speaker 1: alert the State Department, and then he prepared a two
Speaker 1: page summary after reviewing the dossier, and then he shared
Speaker 1: it with Victoria's new landers, a State Department diplomat, and
Speaker 1: she directed him to share it with then Secretary of
Speaker 1: State John Kerry. And it gets more disturbing because around
Speaker 1: the same time, Winer said he connected with his old
Speaker 1: friend Sydney Vicious Bluementhal. It was a long time you
Speaker 1: know Clinton operative, and he wrote that he and Bluementhal
Speaker 1: discussed Steele's report, and the Clinton operative gave him notes
Speaker 1: from a journalist he didn't know, and Winner was referring
Speaker 1: to Cody Shearer, the long time Clinton ally who was
Speaker 1: never a journalist, but rather someone deeply connected to doing
Speaker 1: Clinton's dirty war behind the scenes. Weekly sit Standard described
Speaker 1: him as one of Hillary Clinton's sketchiest supporters that was
Speaker 1: in the Conservative Tribute. Anyway, sheers second dossier contain many
Speaker 1: of the exact same claims as Steals dossier, so it
Speaker 1: wasn't a supposed so that basically it's all coming from
Speaker 1: the same sources. Some of this information was funneled to
Speaker 1: steal by Clinton operatives. He just throws it in there.
Speaker 1: What does he care if he verifies that or not.
Speaker 1: He's getting paid a lot of money. But what we're seeing,
Speaker 1: as Monica Crowley wrote yesterday in The Hill, is a
Speaker 1: federal abusive Obama Obama's watch, and I think when we
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of it, is unprecedented. And then
Speaker 1: add Susan Rice and that component to it, and this
Speaker 1: bizarre email to self, We're great, We're doing it by
Speaker 1: the book self, just unbelievable. Tell you. The biggest outrage
Speaker 1: of the week, though, all these media outlets that literally
Speaker 1: trying to romantics is North Korea. Well, I get to
Speaker 1: bother you at some point. I don't know what it
Speaker 1: is about the left and how they just they just
Speaker 1: think that if we're just nicer to them, they're gonna
Speaker 1: be nicer to us. I've never understood that. So you
Speaker 1: have the opening ceremony in South Korea on Friday night.
Speaker 1: The media echo chamber goes into full gear, heaping praise
Speaker 1: on Kim Jong UN's sister athletes from the North and
Speaker 1: South Korea marching on the same team, waving reunification flags.
Speaker 1: More history just a few seats away. Kim Jong UN's
Speaker 1: sister right there behind the Vice president. She's on hand
Speaker 1: for the Olympics as well. In a historic moment, South
Speaker 1: Korean President Moon Jay inn shook the hand of Kim
Speaker 1: Yo jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong
Speaker 1: The sister of Kim Jong un, shook hands warmly with
Speaker 1: the South Korean president and the v I P box
Speaker 1: at the Olympic opening ceremonies. But North Korea is stealing
Speaker 1: much of the limelights. Kim John and sister landed at
Speaker 1: Incheon Airport earlier since day three days at the world's
Speaker 1: media running after the sister of North Korea leader Kim jongn.
Speaker 1: And still we know very little about the woman who
Speaker 1: has stolen the headlines at the piong Chang went to Olympics.
Speaker 1: How about we know this, you know, to the Avanka
Speaker 1: Trump of North Korea as they were describing her and
Speaker 1: all these other accolades thrown her way. I'm stunned by
Speaker 1: what happened. See and then was the worst of all
Speaker 1: of them, Kim Jong UN's sisters stealing the show at
Speaker 1: the Winter Olympics. She didn't say anything. New York Times
Speaker 1: even acknowledged that without a word, only flashing smiles. Kim
Speaker 1: Jong UN's sister outflank Vice President Mike Pence in diplomacy
Speaker 1: the Avanka Trump, the Washington Post says, of North Korea,
Speaker 1: and it goes on from there. Um, did anyone in
Speaker 1: the media point out that she's the minister of propaganda
Speaker 1: of one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern history.
Speaker 1: I guess they they have to know it. I assume
Speaker 1: they know something about what's going on over there, because
Speaker 1: it's not that hard to find out if you do
Speaker 1: a little research. Then they go after the vice president
Speaker 1: because he didn't shake her hand. Okay, the woman they're
Speaker 1: applauding is the official director of propaganda. This is a
Speaker 1: government that has murdered around four hundred thousand political prisoners
Speaker 1: and what many have called concentration camps that have been
Speaker 1: in existence since between eighty and a hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: thousand people are still imprisoned in those camps, and that
Speaker 1: includes men, women, and children. UN report over two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people from around the world. They've just simply disappeared
Speaker 1: in North Korea. But she has a nice smile, And
Speaker 1: don't forget the three Americans are currently being held hostage
Speaker 1: in the rogue state. We forget that part, or that
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un and his regime are also responsible for
Speaker 1: the recent death of Erican otto warm Beer. He was imprisoned,
Speaker 1: he was sentenced to hard labor why for allegedly stealing
Speaker 1: a poster. And on top of that, if you look
Speaker 1: at North Korea while they're firing their missiles over Japan
Speaker 1: and threatening the continental United States. In Guam, well they're
Speaker 1: currently starving the people. Roughly thirty percent of the population
Speaker 1: is starving in that state. Oh while the little despot
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un lives a life of luxury and his
Speaker 1: sister enjoys a prime seat at the opening games of
Speaker 1: this year's at Winter Olympics. Anyway, in the mainstream media
Speaker 1: praising them, it's pretty disgraceful. And this is where I
Speaker 1: get into this whole issue about I don't understand the
Speaker 1: mindset of the left in this country. I don't understand
Speaker 1: anybody that could actually make an argument that it was
Speaker 1: a good idea to give this this guy's father three
Speaker 1: billion dollars and energy and we just got a promise
Speaker 1: that he's never gonna build nuclear weapons. Will verify all
Speaker 1: of this and didn't verification never happens, And here we
Speaker 1: are years later, and he's got nukes. Now he's building
Speaker 1: intercontinental ballistic missiles, and now he's talking about taking out
Speaker 1: American cities. And then he's firing and test firing missiles
Speaker 1: over Japan and near Guam. And then but everybody wants
Speaker 1: to suck up to a sister. And then one point
Speaker 1: seven billion dollars in cash by Obama to iron the
Speaker 1: same Malas who have been chanting death to America, burning
Speaker 1: American and Israeli flags and death to Israel. It's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: You know, if if you're finding out, who would ever
Speaker 1: think it's a good idea. Look, well, if we give
Speaker 1: you one point seven billion dollars, you've gotta promise us
Speaker 1: that you're not gonna build nuclear weapons. We can't tolerate
Speaker 1: a nuclear arm durant. But there's a mindset that thinks
Speaker 1: that I think I assume they think that that's gonna work.
Speaker 1: Now E really believe So I assume that that Neville
Speaker 1: Chamberlain believed that he really had peace in his time
Speaker 1: through the prism of history looked pretty stupid, but I
Speaker 1: guess at the time he thought that. Yeah, I really
Speaker 1: have negotiated a piece for our people. Didn't work out
Speaker 1: that way. I did not like the new Churchill movie,
Speaker 1: by the way, for a lot of reasons. I did
Speaker 1: watch it, and I've read a lot about Winston Churchill.
Speaker 1: Love him as a historical figure. The biggest problem is
Speaker 1: that they want to portray him in the worst possible light.
Speaker 1: All Right, Jay Seculo, at the top of the hour,
Speaker 1: we'll get the latest with him. Also, we'll be checking
Speaker 1: in with Byron York. You know, even Trump hater Peter
Speaker 1: Struck didn't think that General Flynn lied. Unbelievable there is
Speaker 1: if anybody's out there can't see through the media obsession
Speaker 1: with some issues. I mean, just watch some of your
Speaker 1: local cable shows. It is so bad out there in
Speaker 1: terms of what they don't report, what they should report,
Speaker 1: what they stay away from reporting, how wrong they report,
Speaker 1: and how conspiratorial they are, and what an extension they
Speaker 1: are of all things liberal. You just can see it
Speaker 1: like it's I don't know, plain is the nose on
Speaker 1: your face? It's so obvious. Alright, gotta take a break.
Speaker 1: We'll check in with Ja Sekulo later on. We will
Speaker 1: have much more on the news of the day, and
Speaker 1: we'll get a lot of your calls in nine for
Speaker 1: one Shawn, a toll free telephone number. About hours before
Speaker 1: the president elect was sworn in his president, Susan Rice,
Speaker 1: the outgoing National Security Advisor, sends an email to herself
Speaker 1: documenting President Obama's concern and guidance regarding Russian interference in
Speaker 1: the presidential election, the Steele dossier, according to Graham and Grassley,
Speaker 1: and information with the Trump's incoming team from a meeting
Speaker 1: that took place on January seventeen. Now, the January fifth
Speaker 1: date's interesting because the very next day and James Comey
Speaker 1: was there. The very next day, James Comy meets with
Speaker 1: the President elect and talks about the Stele dossier, among
Speaker 1: other things, and the Dave of four, Susan Rice writes,
Speaker 1: the email is the renewal date for the FIES warrant
Speaker 1: against Carter Page. Here's the problem, the problem, and nobody
Speaker 1: knows what this was. I mean, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, the only person that knows what she was
Speaker 1: doing on this is Susan Rice. So she's gonna have
Speaker 1: to give an account for that. But folks, I mean,
Speaker 1: look at the facts. You always tell law students get
Speaker 1: familiar with the facts, understand the timelines, and there are
Speaker 1: multiple intersecting timelines on this where they come into the intersection.
Speaker 1: Whether it's the FISA warrant, whether it is the interview,
Speaker 1: whether it's this meaning, whether it's then the meeting with
Speaker 1: uh uh the President elect and James call me, whether
Speaker 1: it's the change of the Executive Order and how they
Speaker 1: distribute intelligence information. I want to get all this would
Speaker 1: be a fascinating study, and say November through February of
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, seventeen, what took place. I want to know
Speaker 1: what happened. I want to know what happened. Hour to
Speaker 1: Shawn Hannity Show eight nine one, Shawn is told pretty
Speaker 1: telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: That was Jay sekil Why don't you explain this a
Speaker 1: more detail exactly what you're saying. So, Sean, here's the
Speaker 1: thing I think that's important for people to understand. So
Speaker 1: this meeting takes place on January five, right, so they
Speaker 1: already had the first series of FIZ and warrants. Understand though,
Speaker 1: the two of the five signatures on those FIS and
Speaker 1: warrant applications are at this meeting, So that includes the course,
Speaker 1: it includes James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
Speaker 1: So they have this meeting on January five to brief
Speaker 1: the president on the Russian investigation, and the President and
Speaker 1: Susan Wrights in this email that she does two and
Speaker 1: a half weeks after that event, says, the president, you know,
Speaker 1: want to make sure the law was being fought, but
Speaker 1: also was concerned about what we should or should not
Speaker 1: share with the incoming administration. But remember this, on January five,
Speaker 1: they have this this meeting with President Obama, James Comey,
Speaker 1: Sally Yates, Vice President Biden, and UH and UH Susan Rice.
Speaker 1: The very next day, James Comy flies up to New
Speaker 1: York meets with Donald Trump, the President elect, and reviews
Speaker 1: with him intelligence matters and briefs him on the Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: So what grass Lee and Graham have asked for, which
Speaker 1: makes sense here, is why in the world would you literally,
Speaker 1: as the new president is being sworn in and the
Speaker 1: inaugural festivities are well underway, parade done, at the you're
Speaker 1: getting ready for the swearing in, why in the world
Speaker 1: would you do this memo in the last moment of
Speaker 1: the last day as your last act, and there's only
Speaker 1: one reason you're covering for something that either somebody was
Speaker 1: at the meeting they were concerned with leak I don't know,
Speaker 1: James Comby's leaked, or they were somebody saw them at
Speaker 1: this meeting, or they were trying to cover their tracks.
Speaker 1: We don't know. I don't know. But it's just if
Speaker 1: you look at the way the facts lay out, including
Speaker 1: the fact that this memo comes the day after the fires,
Speaker 1: a warrant was renewed by the Fives accord. So this
Speaker 1: just raises a whole I mean, I think what grass
Speaker 1: Lee and Grandma said is right. It's odd and and
Speaker 1: and pretty much. Yeah, and you like odd and unusual
Speaker 1: as the words they It's just to see what it says,
Speaker 1: y a. But it makes absolutely no sense. Is she
Speaker 1: doing this at the behest of Obama? Does this now
Speaker 1: bring Obama into it? In other words, what did he
Speaker 1: know about the fires and what did he know about
Speaker 1: all of this with with the dossier, etcetera. Well, look
Speaker 1: what she says in the email. That part of it's redacted,
Speaker 1: of course, so we don't know all of it, but
Speaker 1: it said President Obama began the conversation by stressing his
Speaker 1: continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue
Speaker 1: is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Quote
Speaker 1: by the book, the President stress that he's not asking
Speaker 1: about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,
Speaker 1: reiterated that our law enforcement team and he should proceed
Speaker 1: as it normally would buy the book, and then the
Speaker 1: President said that he wants to be sure that as
Speaker 1: we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to
Speaker 1: ascertain if there's any reason that we cannot share information
Speaker 1: fully as it relates to Russia. In other words, are
Speaker 1: we not going to tell the incoming administration information we
Speaker 1: have about Russia? That's what he said there. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what she's saying that the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Then President Obama said, that tells your whole story. This
Speaker 1: is the incoming president of the United States, and heater
Speaker 1: withhold information from him. Yep, he's the president elect. Where
Speaker 1: do you think, how do we get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of what it actually means? I mean, does this now
Speaker 1: open up an area of investigation into you know, other
Speaker 1: emails that were sent back and forth text messages. Do
Speaker 1: we now have to wait another year to get information
Speaker 1: from Susan Rice and and others that might have been
Speaker 1: involved in did Comy lie when Comy said that, you
Speaker 1: know it only met with the president on X occasions,
Speaker 1: not mentioning this one. You know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: Comy did or did not do. This is what I
Speaker 1: do know that Congress has asked Susan Rice a series
Speaker 1: of questions that they want an answer to. I think
Speaker 1: the date it's February. They want a response in writing
Speaker 1: to these series of questions. Because, as as Grassley and
Speaker 1: Graham said, this is unusual, to say the least, odd
Speaker 1: and we do know. And again I think it's worth
Speaker 1: stressing Sean, two of the five participants were people that
Speaker 1: signed off on the five the warrants, which is an
Speaker 1: unusual in and of itself, considering that they were the
Speaker 1: FBI director and then the deputy attorneys are in the
Speaker 1: United States. But there they were, and they're in the
Speaker 1: Oval Office for this meeting. And why is it that
Speaker 1: Susan Rice waited over two weeks to put this in
Speaker 1: writing to memorialize this, So you're right, it is it
Speaker 1: is a sense. It's to cover their tracks. I don't
Speaker 1: know exactly what the tracks they're trying to cover are,
Speaker 1: and I think that's where Congress, through its oversight, needs
Speaker 1: to move and move swiftly, and it just looks like
Speaker 1: they are. I want to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: the two memos that came out, the New Nest Memo
Speaker 1: then the Grassly Grand Memo, and the Grassly Grand Memo
Speaker 1: that was the unredacted version, which I think was very,
Speaker 1: very revealing because at the end of the day, I
Speaker 1: won't I won't bore the audience with given the full
Speaker 1: history here, but James Comey and Peter Struck writing the
Speaker 1: exoneration of Hillary on the email server scandaled months before
Speaker 1: they interview her and seventeen other key people. That that,
Speaker 1: to me is pretty unbelievable. I've never heard of an
Speaker 1: investigation working that way. This is after, of course she
Speaker 1: pretty much dole or the primary against Bernie was rigged,
Speaker 1: all right. So she's funneling money through her campaign through
Speaker 1: a law firm as the d n C that Donno
Speaker 1: Brazil says she was controlling the money of meeting Hillary
Speaker 1: through the same law firm. They pay for a Russian
Speaker 1: dossier full of salacious information and We're even told in
Speaker 1: the Grassly grand memo that it's Russian government information, but
Speaker 1: put that aside. All right, so it's bad enough, she's
Speaker 1: gonna pay for information. Nobody verified it. Fusion GPS didn't
Speaker 1: verify it, the Clinton campaign didn't verify it. Nobody apparently
Speaker 1: verified it. But then it gets worse. Then the Grassly
Speaker 1: Graham memo goes on to say that the bulk of
Speaker 1: evidence presented to acquire or the FISA warrant against Carter
Speaker 1: Page was the dossier. Nobody had verified the dossier. And
Speaker 1: then we find out the unverified dossier. By the way,
Speaker 1: even James Comey said to Donald Trump, this is in October,
Speaker 1: they're issuing the warrant, but he said in January it
Speaker 1: was still unverified and salacious, right, So that's that's three
Speaker 1: months earlier. Now, Um, he's apparently part of a group
Speaker 1: presenting it to a FIS a court to get a warrant,
Speaker 1: and the only thing we get is a footnote that
Speaker 1: says maybe political in nature, when everybody knew Clinton bought
Speaker 1: and paid for it. You know, well, I thought with Michaelissenoffs,
Speaker 1: it was also interesting that they based his statement. The
Speaker 1: press account was also in the in the application evidently,
Speaker 1: and he so I just based that off the Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: So it was it was evidence verifying its own evidence.
Speaker 1: I mean it was the same. They were using the
Speaker 1: same information to verify the same information. So with circular
Speaker 1: in nature. I mean, I think if I was the
Speaker 1: FIES a judge, I wouldn't be too happy about any
Speaker 1: of this. And when you look at the what has
Speaker 1: taken place here, I think that and I think this
Speaker 1: is where where the questions line is. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any question that absent the Steele dossier, there would
Speaker 1: have been no FIES and warrant even sought. That's according
Speaker 1: to UH on the Nunas memo. That's according to what
Speaker 1: UH is going to be was in the transcripts from
Speaker 1: the testament one from Ron Rosenstein. Now here's what's interesting.
Speaker 1: You have the the atom Ship memo, the Democratic response memo,
Speaker 1: which has gone back to the UH Senate House Democrats
Speaker 1: to work with the FBI to get it redacted the
Speaker 1: way it UH so it won't give up sources and
Speaker 1: methods and there and and Ship was very quick to
Speaker 1: say they'll do that. I think they were trying to
Speaker 1: kind of one step away or two steps out to
Speaker 1: step the president. I think he outstepped them by just
Speaker 1: sending it back. They were hoping he would send it back,
Speaker 1: either not send it back or send it back redacted. Um,
Speaker 1: and I think what he did instead, which I think
Speaker 1: was the smarter and more appropriate roses here, it is
Speaker 1: back to you. You get this cleared with the FBI
Speaker 1: and work it out, and you saw a very mild
Speaker 1: atom ship in response to that, A very mild atom
Speaker 1: ship in response to that. But look, I don't think
Speaker 1: there's gonna be anything. I mean I haven't I haven't
Speaker 1: seen it, so I don't know, but I will tell
Speaker 1: you this. I am working right now. I'm putting together
Speaker 1: a complete timeline of everything Sean that took place. And
Speaker 1: it's not over that long a period of time. It's
Speaker 1: probably gonna be four months. And I think when you
Speaker 1: see it in a timeline, it's gonna be breath taking.
Speaker 1: Our audience is following this closely. Yeah, so you've got
Speaker 1: in the summer of we know they're attempting to get
Speaker 1: FIES warrants and they're not successful, right, we mean, they
Speaker 1: make at least two attempts, they don't get FIES warrants,
Speaker 1: and that's very rarely where they don't get them. But
Speaker 1: they didn't get them here. They come back in with
Speaker 1: the dossier, they get the fives and warrant on the dossier.
Speaker 1: Then they have the interviews. You had the interviews with
Speaker 1: General Flynn with the FBI. That's all taking place in
Speaker 1: this period of time. Now we have the meeting, right
Speaker 1: do you have a meeting on January five that we
Speaker 1: now know about with two of the five signatures on
Speaker 1: the fives warrant they're briefing the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: President Obama. The next day, what happens President uh, the
Speaker 1: president elect, it's briefed by In this particular case, James
Speaker 1: called me the FBI director and the dossiers brought up
Speaker 1: and he said it's unverified and silastious, and you're not
Speaker 1: under investigation. Then the FBI comes back in and interviews uh,
Speaker 1: General Flynn again. And and there's evidence now that FBI
Speaker 1: did not think he was not telling the truth. They
Speaker 1: just think he he was confused. That's what that's according
Speaker 1: to James called his own testimony. So this is all
Speaker 1: happening within months. I mean, you've got all of this
Speaker 1: happening month. Then don't forget the executive order that was
Speaker 1: changed the year before, right at the end of the term.
Speaker 1: See that all of these end of the term stuff
Speaker 1: happening and there's really no great explanation for any of it.
Speaker 1: Then how do we get to the point where a
Speaker 1: special counsel is appointed in this whole thing? And and
Speaker 1: where are we in in that whole mess? Well, there's
Speaker 1: a you know, here's how it works. So the Attorney
Speaker 1: General is supposed to make an evaluation whether this investigation
Speaker 1: can be done internally or needs a special counsel. I
Speaker 1: said when you add, now, if you want to continue
Speaker 1: the timeline out and during that same summer of you
Speaker 1: also had the Fusion GPS matter with the Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: You had the number four at the Justice Department, Bruce
Speaker 1: Or's wife working for Fusion GPS assigned specifically to the
Speaker 1: Russian dossier to work with Steele. He is meeting with them.
Speaker 1: By the way, uh Wars meeting with Steele, Steele becomes
Speaker 1: the basis of his His dossier becomes the basis of
Speaker 1: the of the warrant. Then he leaks it to the press.
Speaker 1: The FBI says they pull back their formal relationship with him,
Speaker 1: although Bruce wore still meeting and talking with him, whose
Speaker 1: wife is working for Fusion GPS. So this is a
Speaker 1: shell game they played here, they moved, They just kind
Speaker 1: of moving the It's almost like remember the game whack Up.
Speaker 1: You hit the mold and hit one, and what it
Speaker 1: is you You kind of hit one here and boom,
Speaker 1: another one comes up. So I think what you have
Speaker 1: to do, what I'm gonna do is put together a
Speaker 1: full timeline on this to get an understanding. All right,
Speaker 1: So you gotta make this timeline out. Um, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: mind putting it on TV. Number one, number two, I
Speaker 1: think it is an important time. But the number three,
Speaker 1: how dangerous is it? You know? Two things have happened here.
Speaker 1: We spent over a year with no evidence of Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion, and every media outlet breathlessly hysterically reporting this
Speaker 1: again and again and again and again. Okay, then we've
Speaker 1: got instances where Hillary did pay for Russian lies about
Speaker 1: an opposition candidate. And then it gets worse because that
Speaker 1: was used as the bulk of information to acquire a
Speaker 1: fiz of warrant against the opposition party candidate against one
Speaker 1: of his members and then that was used to also
Speaker 1: spying an incoming administration. Now, to me, when you put
Speaker 1: all this together and then you add in there the
Speaker 1: you know, struck and and page texts, and the fact
Speaker 1: that Andrew McCabe is involved, and then the exoneration before investigation,
Speaker 1: it seems like everything was fixed just for this. How
Speaker 1: do you ever straighten out that if we can't have
Speaker 1: elections in this country where bought and paid for Russian
Speaker 1: lines don't raise enough eyebrows for people were in trouble. Well, look,
Speaker 1: I mean you hit the kind of the nail on
Speaker 1: the head there, and and the fact of the matter
Speaker 1: is nobody knows, none of us know the full nature
Speaker 1: and scope of what's going on here. I mean, there
Speaker 1: are individuals that now and they may, by the way,
Speaker 1: some of these government officials may not know the ins
Speaker 1: and outs of everything that's involved here. But I think
Speaker 1: what has to happen now is you look at this
Speaker 1: and try to piece together what is taking place, what
Speaker 1: is transpiring. You ask yourself what was the initial impetus,
Speaker 1: the cause for all of this, and then how did
Speaker 1: it play out over time? You know, we're leaving out
Speaker 1: the leaking by James Comey of the conversation you have
Speaker 1: with the President of the United States. That's why I'm
Speaker 1: saying all of this has to now be I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be meaning about this as soon as we're done laid
Speaker 1: out in a comprehensive timeline. I mean, just a comprehensive
Speaker 1: timeline to get a real understanding it exactly what was
Speaker 1: at play during these critical periods. None of us know
Speaker 1: for sure. We have hunches, ideas, but none of us
Speaker 1: know for sure. And and look the fact that we
Speaker 1: may never know, but it's got enough concerned that you
Speaker 1: got Senator Grassley and Senator Graham, neither one of which
Speaker 1: are conspiratorial, that are concerned about this. Well, I think
Speaker 1: the fact that these committees now are releasing this information, Uh,
Speaker 1: do we know for sure sources and methods were in
Speaker 1: the Democratic memo? That what that the FBI sent back?
Speaker 1: It had to be, right, Yeah, that's what that's the assumption,
Speaker 1: and that there was concern oversources and methods, and that's
Speaker 1: the basis upon which that the White House Counsel and
Speaker 1: reviewing the documents would Will that be one reason to
Speaker 1: send it back? I haven't seen it, so I don't know,
Speaker 1: but that's you know I'm hearing the same things you're hearing,
Speaker 1: and that was a concern, and Adam Ship did not
Speaker 1: seem to deny that when asked on I think it
Speaker 1: was ABC this Week or one of the programs, maybe
Speaker 1: Space the Nation. Uh, he said, no, we're gonna we'll
Speaker 1: we'll work with him to get it resolved. Say he
Speaker 1: did not fight that push back on that fact. You
Speaker 1: don't hear much about that right now at all. Realized
Speaker 1: they've got to do it all right, Jay secular, We
Speaker 1: appreciate your time as always. Eight hundred nine for one, Shawn,
Speaker 1: toll free telephone number you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. Also coming up Byron York. He had
Speaker 1: a great piece about how James Comey told Congress FBI
Speaker 1: agents didn't think Michael Flynn lied. Well, then why would
Speaker 1: he ever admit to that? Why did we get to
Speaker 1: that point? David Brody has written a book about the
Speaker 1: faith of Donald Trump. Will hit that today. We have
Speaker 1: a great handedy tonight at nine on the Fox News Channel.
Speaker 1: We'll continue let's hit our busy phones here. Eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine for one Seawan is our toll free telephone number.
Speaker 1: You want to be a part of the program, right,
Speaker 1: Jennifer's and Louise Yanna, Jennifer High, how are you glad
Speaker 1: you called? What's going on? Hey? Sean? First, I wanted
Speaker 1: to tell you thank you for all you do for
Speaker 1: truth and for my president. Thank you's our president. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's not just yours, you know, I know, I know. Um.
Speaker 1: My question is what can we do collectively as a
Speaker 1: people to get these people like or struck page off
Speaker 1: our dime out of my government. I can't believe they're
Speaker 1: still there. I mean, knowing what we know now, they
Speaker 1: should all have been fired. Now there's a beginning of
Speaker 1: a purging going on between people fired, being fired, resigning, moved,
Speaker 1: and demoted. And I think it's only the beginning of
Speaker 1: those things. I think there's gonna be a lot more
Speaker 1: of that. Right, they gotta go, they gotta go absolutely
Speaker 1: offensive that they're offensive that I pay these people salaries.
Speaker 1: You know, the fact is that if they have, if
Speaker 1: you work for the FBI, you're not You're supposed to
Speaker 1: be about the law, about equal application under the law.
Speaker 1: You know, they're even talking about not only an insurance policy,
Speaker 1: they're talking about, Oh, we don't want to piss off
Speaker 1: Hillary God forbid, she wins. I mean it's it's just bizarre,
Speaker 1: all right, thank you. It should scare you, it should.
Speaker 1: And I don't see a lot of civil libertarians out
Speaker 1: there and liberals out there saying this is not what
Speaker 1: we want in this country. We don't want, you know,
Speaker 1: Russian propaganda bought and paid for used to get FISA warrants.
Speaker 1: But by the way, we're not going to tell the
Speaker 1: judge any of the pertinent information about the lack of
Speaker 1: the veracity in this document, nor who paid for this document.
Speaker 1: Back to our phones. Thanks, Jennifer, appreciate it. Uh. John
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, John High, how are you glad you called Sean?
Speaker 1: How are you so glad to talk to you? A
Speaker 1: long time listener both of your shows? Yes, sir, what's
Speaker 1: going on? I get a question in your opinion, in
Speaker 1: light of all this new information has come out over
Speaker 1: the past few weeks and months, how do you see
Speaker 1: the smaller investigation ending? Where do you it's gott to
Speaker 1: end at some point? You know, one of the problems
Speaker 1: with special counsels is what we call investigative creep um.
Speaker 1: You know, look at the case Patrick Fitzgerald going after
Speaker 1: you know, in the Valerie plan case. He knew on
Speaker 1: day one who would leaked the information and it was
Speaker 1: Richard Armitage. Now he should have just shut down and said, okay,
Speaker 1: I figured out who, what the who the leaker was,
Speaker 1: and it was Richard Armitage. And then they break it
Speaker 1: all the way down into you know, putting Scooter Libby
Speaker 1: the squeeze on him day in and day out. Give
Speaker 1: us information about the Vice President Cheney at the time,
Speaker 1: and you'll go free, and then we'll go after Dick Cheney.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's an enormous amount of power. It's politicizing
Speaker 1: political or criminalizing political differences. And they seem to have
Speaker 1: an ending, you know, ability to move into areas that
Speaker 1: they never would design to go into. And that's the
Speaker 1: danger of special counsels and what that said, I think
Speaker 1: we need one to investigate the investigators and into this
Speaker 1: particular case. I do believe laws were broken. I do
Speaker 1: believe that crimes were committed here, and I think those
Speaker 1: people involved in them, you know, should pay the price.
Speaker 1: Do believe Jeff Sessions is doing the diligence? You know,
Speaker 1: it's hard. Look, I don't think you should have ever
Speaker 1: recused himself number one, And I think none of this
Speaker 1: happens had Jeff Sessions not recused himself. That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, Um, he moves too slowly and it seems
Speaker 1: to be lacking urgency. I know he's moved into the
Speaker 1: Iranian one issue and into some other issues. But I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, Um, you know, I I don't see
Speaker 1: enough happening, And if I was him, I would appoint
Speaker 1: the special counsel now to investigate the investigators. It also
Speaker 1: takes him out of it, and I think there's probably
Speaker 1: you know, it sounds, you know, like I'm contradicting myself.
Speaker 1: I don't want more special counsels, but things are so
Speaker 1: bad here. I don't think there's any other way to
Speaker 1: get to the truth on this. It's gonna be very
Speaker 1: interesting when we get the Inspector General's report in just
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks. That's gonna, I think, open up
Speaker 1: a lot of people's eyes. But I don't think it's
Speaker 1: ending soon. But I think it's ending. Remember we heard
Speaker 1: it might end by Thanksgiving, by Christmas, by the New Year,
Speaker 1: by the end of February. Um, maybe they're wrapping it up,
Speaker 1: you know, the big fight now. I guess it is
Speaker 1: over you know whether or not Mueller gets to question
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, and I would say the answer should be
Speaker 1: an emphatic absolute no. I don't think you should have that. Um,
Speaker 1: Henry is in Oklahoma next Henry High. How are you
Speaker 1: glad you called? And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. Well, hello,
Speaker 1: Mr Hannity. I just wanted to say thank you for
Speaker 1: point me in the right direction with Enjoy. I've been
Speaker 1: using Enjoy for about you made the Enjoy switch. I
Speaker 1: did you know It's It's amazing how many people are
Speaker 1: telling me. And if you go to enjoy dot com
Speaker 1: slash Hannity you can do it. Look, a lot of people,
Speaker 1: whether you smoke, cigarette, cigars, whatever you happen to do,
Speaker 1: people just like to do that and to do it
Speaker 1: in a way a you don't smell be Um. They
Speaker 1: have a team of people to help you. If you're
Speaker 1: a smoker, quit smoking and uh. In my personal opinion, UM,
Speaker 1: I think it's better than than what other people have
Speaker 1: been using in the past. And for people that do smoke,
Speaker 1: I recommend My personal suggestion is and you can check
Speaker 1: with your own doctor and your own self, but I
Speaker 1: think it's a far better product for you well, I
Speaker 1: truly enjoy it. Um, no pun intended. I truly enjoy it. Yes,
Speaker 1: I got it. Yeah, man, enjoy the switch. Um alright,
Speaker 1: my friend just wanted to say thank you and let
Speaker 1: your other listeners know. You know, I've smoked for forty
Speaker 1: plush years and I just put them down almost immediately.
Speaker 1: So look, I saw the impact that had on my parents.
Speaker 1: I wish this product or a product like it existed
Speaker 1: at the time. I really do. Um. Let's go to Cannon, Kentucky. Ken, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you glad you called? Hi? Sean? Uh? First
Speaker 1: of all, I just like to say from our area
Speaker 1: that since that area, we have a saying for you
Speaker 1: that you are a great American. Well, that means you're
Speaker 1: listening to my buddy Sean Hannity's Bill Huntingham, you're a
Speaker 1: great American. I want a full report Donald J. Trump
Speaker 1: is now saving the country and why these liberals want
Speaker 1: to get him out of office. I don't know. Pretty good,
Speaker 1: you are correct what I want to say, though, as
Speaker 1: a retired law enforcement officer and I proffered many affidavits
Speaker 1: for search warrants to see this happening through the Fiser
Speaker 1: Corps like it is when you proffer or construct, or
Speaker 1: you're any part of anything that would offer a fake
Speaker 1: bossier to the Fiser court and commit a fraud upon
Speaker 1: that court, you lose what I call credibility. If we
Speaker 1: were to ever do that, we would go from a
Speaker 1: police uniform to a different kind of uniform, and it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be a police uniform, it would be a prison uniform.
Speaker 1: And that's why I find it hard to believe that
Speaker 1: these people are still in existence with the FBI in
Speaker 1: the d O jaylike they are. I can't I claim
Speaker 1: it hard to believe. Well, listen, I I find it
Speaker 1: hard to believe. And it's really sad that this type
Speaker 1: of thing could happen. You know, our founders and framers
Speaker 1: they often talked about the size, the scope, the influence
Speaker 1: of government, and in this capacity, is that the power
Speaker 1: would corrupt them. And when you have a group of
Speaker 1: people at the very top that seemingly feel they know
Speaker 1: what's past and they're not going to apply the law
Speaker 1: equally to Hillary, They're gonna give her a pass and
Speaker 1: they're gonna put the fix in and then they're gonna
Speaker 1: go to a FISA chord after they've been denied at
Speaker 1: least once, maybe two times, and try and get a
Speaker 1: warrant so they can get a sneak peek into what's
Speaker 1: going on in an opposition party's campaign. That's problematic. And
Speaker 1: to use the other candidates information, not tell the court
Speaker 1: about it, not verify the salacious information, and that's bad enough,
Speaker 1: and do it all because they want to impact an election.
Speaker 1: That's what this can is down to. That's why this
Speaker 1: is so big. Watergate, Yeah, that was about impacting an
Speaker 1: election by stealing your opponents research, okay, a third rate
Speaker 1: burglary and then covering it up. This is far more sophisticated,
Speaker 1: far more dangerous, because you're using the powerful tools of intelligence,
Speaker 1: the powerful tools within the FBI and the d o
Speaker 1: j IS as the mechanism to pull this off. Even
Speaker 1: one one final comment here, Sean is what I find
Speaker 1: hard to believe, even beyond that, every night I watch
Speaker 1: you on television and I see all the events that
Speaker 1: have taken place through the d n C and Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: And I mean, anybody can look up the definition online
Speaker 1: or wherever their Webster's dictionary of organized crime. If that
Speaker 1: is an organized crime. I've never seen organized crime. And
Speaker 1: to think that the mafia was the largest organization in
Speaker 1: this country that represented organized crime. That would be like
Speaker 1: shrouds boy. Compared to the DNC and all the weaponizing
Speaker 1: they've done within the agencies of our federal government is
Speaker 1: a scary thought. It's very scary. A lot of going
Speaker 1: on here that's very scary. I appreciate the call. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for being with us. All right, let's go
Speaker 1: to UH Lady sim in Calabasas, California. How are you?
Speaker 1: I wonderful? Hello, my hiro Sean? What's going on? How
Speaker 1: are you? What an honor for me to speak with you?
Speaker 1: I m once. I'm from a South Korea, immigrants South
Speaker 1: Korean and my very own eye. What's going on? The
Speaker 1: papaganda against UH South and the America, this evil regime
Speaker 1: and using this Olympics to papaganda, massy papaganda holding It's
Speaker 1: a messy papaganda. Let me tell you something, Sean. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna thank two American finest arm impulses sacrifice for keeping
Speaker 1: freedom my motherland South Korea for seven decades. You will
Speaker 1: stand by to us. We appreciate so much with South Korean,
Speaker 1: appreciate so much. We will never forget you. Not only
Speaker 1: that Mr President Trump, Vice President Mike Sense stood up
Speaker 1: for this evil dictator monster and North Korean Kim Johan
Speaker 1: and three roodiums, and and I am so glad you
Speaker 1: are elected as our president. Thank you so much. You
Speaker 1: are to you guys are doing commending jobs and saving
Speaker 1: our USA and South Korea and freedom loving world, the
Speaker 1: countries all over the world. Thank you so much. All right, well,
Speaker 1: that's very nice to you. Listen, we all are blessed
Speaker 1: by America. And I've always said that if America doesn't
Speaker 1: stand for liberty and freedom and human rights, then who's
Speaker 1: going to You know, there's a lot of criticisms of
Speaker 1: this country, but I can't think of a world without
Speaker 1: the United States and the moral compass we have. And
Speaker 1: that is the country that has accumulated all this power
Speaker 1: and sacrificed so much of it for others. And no
Speaker 1: country has accumulated that power and abused it less and
Speaker 1: used it for as much good as we have. And
Speaker 1: that is the American legacy and dream. No we're not perfect.
Speaker 1: I'll be the first to say, no, we're not a
Speaker 1: perfect country, but we have been a country that has
Speaker 1: used it for good. Unfortunately, now we have some cleaning
Speaker 1: up inside to do first destroy? Are you aware of
Speaker 1: a gentleman by the name of Oleg Deripaska. I've heard
Speaker 1: the name. Fair to call him a Putin linked Russian oligarch. Well,
Speaker 1: I'll leave that characterization to others, uh, and certainly not
Speaker 1: in this setting. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Juiciary Committee,
Speaker 1: last week sent a letter to a London based lawyer
Speaker 1: who is a law who represents Mr derri Posca and
Speaker 1: asked if Christopher Steele was employed either directly or indirectly
Speaker 1: by Oleg dear appost at the time he was writing
Speaker 1: the so called Steele dossier. Um, do you know if
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele worked for olegda Posca? That's not something I
Speaker 1: can answer. Could we discuss it in the classified setting?
Speaker 1: There might be more we could say there. Next is Russia,
Speaker 1: where President Putin will continue to rely on assertive foreign
Speaker 1: policies to shape outcomes beyond Russia's borders. Putin will resort
Speaker 1: to more author terian tactics to main control amid challenges
Speaker 1: to his rule. With respect to Russian influence efforts. Let
Speaker 1: me be clear, the Russians utilized this tool because it's
Speaker 1: relatively cheap, it's low risk, it offers what they perceive
Speaker 1: as plausible deniability, and has proven to be effective at
Speaker 1: sewing division. We expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media,
Speaker 1: false flag personas, sympathetic spokesman, and other means to influence
Speaker 1: to try to build on its wide range of operations
Speaker 1: and has ascerbate social and political fissures in the United States.
Speaker 1: There should be no doubt that Russia perceived that its
Speaker 1: past efforts has as successful and used the two thousand
Speaker 1: and eighteen u S midterm elections as a potential target
Speaker 1: for Russian influence operations. An op ed by a number
Speaker 1: of former intelligence analysts called the Nunas memo and its
Speaker 1: release quote one of the worst cases of politicization of
Speaker 1: intelligence and modern American history. And quote you said you
Speaker 1: had concerns about that memo. I know you can't get
Speaker 1: into the um greaty details of that, but can you, um,
Speaker 1: can you say in your view whether or not one
Speaker 1: of those concerns is that it may have uh selectively
Speaker 1: cherry pay information without presenting the entire fact pattern that
Speaker 1: led up to that vice of warrant application. Well, center,
Speaker 1: I would just repeat what we said at the time,
Speaker 1: which is that we had then and continue to have now,
Speaker 1: grave concerns about the accuracy of the memorandum because of omissions.
Speaker 1: We provided thousands of documents that were very sensitive and
Speaker 1: lots and lots of briefings. Uh, and it's very hard
Speaker 1: for anybody to distill all that down to three and
Speaker 1: a half pages. Al Right, So that's the FBI Director
Speaker 1: of Christopher Ray writing, you know, he's not answering Tom
Speaker 1: Cotton's question, and that is whether or not Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: was employed by Russians while writing the Bony Russian dossier.
Speaker 1: And then of course Ray testifying that you know, he
Speaker 1: has grave concerns about the Newness vis A memo. But
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that's because they don't want any memo out
Speaker 1: there because they're the ones being investigated by the House
Speaker 1: Intel Committee. All Right, when we come back, great piece
Speaker 1: by Byron York is out how comy and even stru
Speaker 1: told Congress the FBI didn't think that Michael Flynn lied,
Speaker 1: then why was he charged with that? All Right, we'll
Speaker 1: take a quick break, we'll come back. News Round Up
Speaker 1: Information Overload is next coming up next, our final News
Speaker 1: round Up and Information Overload, Our UM. And I'm a
Speaker 1: big believer in the idea that the FBI speaks through
Speaker 1: its work, through its cases, through the victims. UH, it
Speaker 1: protects UH. And I encourage our folks not to get
Speaker 1: too hung up on what I consider to be the
Speaker 1: noise on TV and the social media. So you haven't
Speaker 1: seen any evidence of some sort of inherent political bias
Speaker 1: and the agency. No. That was Christopher Ray earlier today
Speaker 1: and testifying about these not seeing any bias at the FBI,
Speaker 1: which I don't believe he even believes that. But what
Speaker 1: is he gonna do? Yeah, I see a ton of
Speaker 1: bias at the FBI. Let me just come here before
Speaker 1: the committee and and and tell everything that I believe
Speaker 1: is wrong. Somebody that I think has been on the
Speaker 1: on the outside that's been doing amazing work on all
Speaker 1: of this is Byron Yorkie joins us now he's with
Speaker 1: the Washington Examinery that he has a great column out
Speaker 1: and it's Comey told Congress that FBI agents did not
Speaker 1: think that Michael Flynn lied. Well, then that raises the
Speaker 1: question about General Michael Flynn, who quote admitted to lying
Speaker 1: to the FBI when they came to his office in
Speaker 1: January of seventeen. Why did the General Flynn go along
Speaker 1: with that and be if they thought he didn't lie,
Speaker 1: why would they make him agree to that? Uh, Byron York,
Speaker 1: welcome a board. How are you hey? So thanks for
Speaker 1: having me? All right? So, if Comey and the other
Speaker 1: agents didn't believe he lied, why would Michael Flynn agree
Speaker 1: to take that plea? Well, I think something changed. I
Speaker 1: mean the timeline here is that, you know, you have
Speaker 1: to think back to January February and how crazed everybody
Speaker 1: was about Russia and Flynn and talking with the Russian
Speaker 1: ambassador and all of that stuff, talking about sanctions, and basically,
Speaker 1: the FBI goes to interview Flynn on January, the fourth
Speaker 1: day of the Trump administration, and asked him about these
Speaker 1: conversations that he Flynn has had with the Russian ambassador
Speaker 1: during the during the transition, which, by the way, was
Speaker 1: a perfectly proper thing for an incoming national security In
Speaker 1: other words, he's talking to his counterpart or he's soon
Speaker 1: to be counterpart, exactly exactly, and he was getting called.
Speaker 1: Flenn was getting calls from hundreds of people around the
Speaker 1: representatives of foreign governments around the country. If Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: had won, her incoming national security advisor would have been
Speaker 1: getting calls from hundreds of representatives of foreign governments around
Speaker 1: the world. So um, anyway that the FBI comes up, well,
Speaker 1: but the Justice Department really comes up with this theory
Speaker 1: that maybe that these conversations that Flynn has had, these
Speaker 1: entirely normal conversations, violate the Logan Act. I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: told your listeners about the Logan Act. That's that two
Speaker 1: hundred year old law that has never ever been successfully prosecuted.
Speaker 1: Perhaps he violated that, or maybe maybe that Flynn might
Speaker 1: be susceptible to blackmail. So they went and questioned Flynn.
Speaker 1: Not clear, wasn't they made their intentions clear before they
Speaker 1: actually questioned him or not he met them without a lawyer. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: when Congress inquired wanted to know what was going on
Speaker 1: in early March, James Comy goes to Capitol Hill talks
Speaker 1: to lawmakers. They say, well, what about Michael Flynn. Tomy says, well,
Speaker 1: the FBI agents who interviewed him do not think he lied,
Speaker 1: and one of them was Peter Struck. One of them
Speaker 1: was indeed Peter Struck. So you go from there. That's
Speaker 1: in March of last year. Go from there to December
Speaker 1: one of last year, when Flynn pleads guilty to doing
Speaker 1: just that tow line in that particular interview with the FBI,
Speaker 1: And the question is what changed? And I have to
Speaker 1: tell you I don't really know the answer. I don't
Speaker 1: lay out the answer in the story because I don't know,
Speaker 1: but but I do know. I have a theory. Now,
Speaker 1: it's only a theory. You want to hear it. My
Speaker 1: theory is I'll be happy to hear. Okay, I think
Speaker 1: and this again, I'm telling everybody, this is a theory.
Speaker 1: Now if the surveillance, lack of minimization, unmasking, and we
Speaker 1: know he was unmasked, and then the leaking of raw
Speaker 1: intelligence which we know took place of General Flynn. When
Speaker 1: that meeting took place, I believe it was the twenty
Speaker 1: four of January or somewhere right after he became National
Speaker 1: Security Advisor, correct January. Okay, so at that point they
Speaker 1: already knew everything that he had said in the transition
Speaker 1: to his Russian counterpart. The I're asking him about a
Speaker 1: conversation of which they had a recording and a transcript
Speaker 1: which they had read. And I doubt they told him
Speaker 1: that he had a recording or they had a recording
Speaker 1: or a transcript of it. Well, Flynn is a former
Speaker 1: director of the Descent Intelligence Agency, and as such, everyone
Speaker 1: that I've talked to believe that when certainly would have
Speaker 1: known that this is the kind of conversation that would
Speaker 1: have been wire tapped. In other words, the US intelligence
Speaker 1: would have been wire tapping the Russian ambassador. So my
Speaker 1: theory goes like this that they he either misremembered, which
Speaker 1: is very possible. I mean, if you asked me who
Speaker 1: was on my show last Friday, I'd have to sit
Speaker 1: here for a while and think. But if he asked
Speaker 1: me about Reagan's economic statistics in nineteen I can rattle
Speaker 1: them off in seconds. So I'm not sure what he
Speaker 1: remembered or didn't remember, or if he lied on purpose
Speaker 1: or didn't lie on purpose, or he misremembered or didn't
Speaker 1: But let's put that aside for a second. They should
Speaker 1: not have had that information because when we in fact,
Speaker 1: when there is surveillance as we should have of foreign
Speaker 1: enemies or a hostile regime such as Russia in this
Speaker 1: particular case, who's talking to the soon to be counterpart
Speaker 1: is the Russian ambassador, UM, and they pick up in
Speaker 1: a mirror can on that line. They're supposed to minimize
Speaker 1: that those reports are supposed to be written without identifying
Speaker 1: or amasking the American that was speaking to the Russian ambassador,
Speaker 1: and they would usually, if a proper protocol were followed,
Speaker 1: they would write an American that the ambassador was talking
Speaker 1: to an American and then they wouldn't then that raw
Speaker 1: intelligence would not be leaked either. So I suspect that
Speaker 1: there was some type And we know what happens with
Speaker 1: grand juries, and we know what happens with aggressive prosecutors,
Speaker 1: and here you have a big special counsel set up
Speaker 1: and they want to justify their existence. And I think
Speaker 1: he was probably given a choice either you agree the
Speaker 1: ally to the FBI, or we're gonna go back into
Speaker 1: all of your financial dealings and that includes that of
Speaker 1: your family and your son and others, and that would
Speaker 1: put them in jeopardy. That's my that's my working hypothesis. Well,
Speaker 1: it has been reported that UM that Flynn's son, who
Speaker 1: was in business with him for might for a while
Speaker 1: have been in jeopardy, and that amazingly enough, after Flynn
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty that the sun was no longer um. In
Speaker 1: other words, he fell on his sword for his kid,
Speaker 1: and that's what they came up with. But we also
Speaker 1: have to remember there's a lot that goes on between
Speaker 1: March of last year, when Comy tells this to Congress
Speaker 1: and December one, when, um, when Flynn pleads guilty. First
Speaker 1: of all, the president fired Comy uh. And then as
Speaker 1: a result of that, you have the appointment of Robert Mueller,
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel. Then you have Mueller creating this office
Speaker 1: and hiring a bunch of gun Hope prosecutors, the people
Speaker 1: who would make prosecutors. So the thing that changed his
Speaker 1: Comy's out and the prosecutors in, and the prosecutor that
Speaker 1: has to justify his existence. There's no doubt that these prosecutors,
Speaker 1: the specific ones that call me has hired h Weisseman
Speaker 1: and others have a reputation for kind of take no
Speaker 1: prisoners prosecutions, and um, you know, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: the people who were very supportive of Flynn say that, Look,
Speaker 1: people sometimes plead guilty to get an investigation off their back.
Speaker 1: They've had enough, they've suffered enough, they're broke. Uh, they're
Speaker 1: worried about family members. They do these things like that.
Speaker 1: I've had other people who say no, they had, you know,
Speaker 1: clear information that he lied. So but but if he
Speaker 1: the timeline doesn't work because if you have James Comey
Speaker 1: saying he and his fellow agents didn't think he lied,
Speaker 1: this is before the special prosecutors appointed, then then how
Speaker 1: did we ever get to this point? Did that make sense?
Speaker 1: If it doesn't make sense, No, no, I I totally
Speaker 1: understand what you're saying. We should say that prosecutors acusing
Speaker 1: at the I agents normally do not make the prosecutorial decisions.
Speaker 1: And we should have a big exception because remember in
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton email case, Well, the Attorney General essentially
Speaker 1: gave James coming the power to make a prosecutorial decisions,
Speaker 1: but normally they don't. So what we had here was
Speaker 1: FBI agents going over to questions uh Flynn. But the
Speaker 1: decisions would be made by the people like Sally Yates
Speaker 1: who came up with this theory of blackmail or the
Speaker 1: logan act or of some sort of criminal exposure. Sally
Speaker 1: ages Is only testified once about this. She testified in
Speaker 1: May of last year before a Senate judiciary Subcommittee, and
Speaker 1: she talked about how she went after this interview with
Speaker 1: Flynn on January. She thinks the news is so critical
Speaker 1: that she started to go over to the White House
Speaker 1: and talk to the Council. Don began, so first he
Speaker 1: hears of it on January. Then tell him about this,
Speaker 1: and Don McGann says to her, and this is according
Speaker 1: to her account, says to her, look, what if Michael
Speaker 1: Flynn lied to the Vice pressent. Let's just say he did.
Speaker 1: What's that to the Justice Department? I mean, what's what's
Speaker 1: the crime there? And that is when Sally Flynn apparently
Speaker 1: goes into her theory about what she called the underlying
Speaker 1: conduct being the Logan Act, possible Logan Act violation and
Speaker 1: this idea which again to her theory that Flynn might
Speaker 1: be vulnerable to blackmail. So she Sally Yates said to
Speaker 1: intervene and have the FBI question UH plan on on
Speaker 1: pain of perjury. So you know, I have to say
Speaker 1: I wrote this story about what Comy told lawmakers. You know,
Speaker 1: I just think that's important information. I don't know what
Speaker 1: might have changed, but I do know that a lot
Speaker 1: of lawmakers view this whole Flenn case as really weird. Well,
Speaker 1: list the things that happened. I'm troubled by it, all right,
Speaker 1: by Ron YORKA, will hang in there. We'll have a
Speaker 1: couple more questions on the other side. Nine one, Shawn's
Speaker 1: a toll free telephone number. And as we continue, by
Speaker 1: Ron york is with us with the Washington Examiner and
Speaker 1: his pieces out Comey told Congress FBI agents didn't think
Speaker 1: Flynn had lied. Look, look where, colleagues, and you can
Speaker 1: tell me anywhere you disagree with me, but this is
Speaker 1: what I think. Where we are, I think you have
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton was protected by call me and struck. I've
Speaker 1: never heard of an exoneration written before an investigation that
Speaker 1: allowed her to stay in the presidential race. I think
Speaker 1: the crimes that were committed were overwhelming and incontrovertible. If
Speaker 1: we're going to follow the law, mishandling classified information, etcetera.
Speaker 1: With the email server scandal, we'll learn a lot more
Speaker 1: with the Inspector General report, and then so she's allowed
Speaker 1: to continue on. She pays for a Russian dossier full
Speaker 1: of salacious lies and misinformation, and now we've learned that
Speaker 1: that was the basis the bulk of the information given
Speaker 1: to a visor court by Callmey and others, and they're
Speaker 1: just trying to justify it. And I think it was
Speaker 1: all designed to impact an election, and then when they
Speaker 1: lost the election, of impact an incoming president in ways
Speaker 1: that we've never seen before. Is there any part of
Speaker 1: that you disagree with? Well, I think there's some of
Speaker 1: the things. I wouldn't go as far as as what
Speaker 1: you say, although they're I mean, clearly there are a
Speaker 1: lot of things are obvious facts. I mean, Christopher Seels
Speaker 1: worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign. But I think, um,
Speaker 1: once we once we straighten out all these all these
Speaker 1: actual facts, and that's going to take a long time,
Speaker 1: I think we have this kind of step back and
Speaker 1: look at the troubling aspect of the FBI inserting itself
Speaker 1: into a presidential election on both sides. And you know,
Speaker 1: basically we had a presidential election in which both candidates
Speaker 1: were under FBI investigation, and I think you've got to
Speaker 1: wonder whether maybe the FBI was has just and well,
Speaker 1: let's go, let's go. Do you doubt that the fix
Speaker 1: was in? What have you ever heard of an investigation
Speaker 1: that exonerates They begin the exoneration letter months before they
Speaker 1: interviewed the principles. No, I haven't. And you know, we've
Speaker 1: seen some of the early drafts. We know that in
Speaker 1: May he was James Comen was circulating drafts of that
Speaker 1: exoneration level letter. Obviously, the interview with Hillary Clinton doesn't
Speaker 1: happen until July second, and he has exonerated on July five. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you've explained it to your listeners many times. But but
Speaker 1: not only did they write the asoneration letter before interviewing Clinton,
Speaker 1: they they did it before uh, interviewing lots of critical people,
Speaker 1: seventeen other people. Yeah, well, let me ask you. This
Speaker 1: community out like candy, and it was astonishing the way
Speaker 1: they did it. So it's bad enough that Hillary pays
Speaker 1: for this phony Russian dossier with salacious lies, but then
Speaker 1: it becomes the bulk of the reason presented before Viser
Speaker 1: court to get this this visor warrant on on carter
Speaker 1: page so they can see what's going on within the
Speaker 1: Trump administration or the Trump campaign rather and later on
Speaker 1: the incoming presidency and the president elect. And they never
Speaker 1: told anybody. In other words, they didn't tell the court
Speaker 1: that it was Hillary Clinton bought and paid for. And
Speaker 1: also it was unverified because in January, when James Comey
Speaker 1: went up to Trump Tower to talk to Trump, he
Speaker 1: said it was unverified installationous. But that's not what they
Speaker 1: were telling the court in October. Yeah, if I could
Speaker 1: add one thing about this, this warrant. You know, you've
Speaker 1: heard some defenders of the FBI say no, no, no,
Speaker 1: they weren't spying on the campaign because they didn't get
Speaker 1: the warrant until after Carter Page had left the campaign.
Speaker 1: But the fact is one of these warrants are very
Speaker 1: powerful things, and they allow the FBI to listen to
Speaker 1: phone conversations going forward after the warrant is issued, but
Speaker 1: also to look at email and text and any other
Speaker 1: thing that leaves the record going backwards as far as
Speaker 1: they've got the records. So carter Page had had emails
Speaker 1: with members of the Trump campaign and say may or
Speaker 1: June of this warrant would allow them to read all
Speaker 1: those And by the way, the warrant also allowed the
Speaker 1: FBI to break into pages house and plant listening devices
Speaker 1: if they chose. Unbelievable, do you do you have the
Speaker 1: same issues that I have with the team that Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller has assembled. All the Democratic donors, people like Andrew
Speaker 1: Weissman and his track record going back to Anderson Accounting
Speaker 1: and Enron and for meryal executives being overturned nine zero
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court, will spending a year in jail
Speaker 1: that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of jobs lost. You have a problem with
Speaker 1: some of these people, Yeah, I I do. I think
Speaker 1: it certainly looks bad. And you you could also have
Speaker 1: mentioned the Wiseman sending this kind of cheerleading note to
Speaker 1: Sally Yates when she refused to enforce the president's executive order,
Speaker 1: which which got her fired quickly, and Wiseman was a
Speaker 1: was a big fan of that. Um, I think it
Speaker 1: would be better. Uh, it just seems like it would
Speaker 1: be obviously better to hire a political prosecutors for this.
Speaker 1: I also think, and I wrote about this at the time,
Speaker 1: haven't seen as much since that Mueller and James Comey
Speaker 1: are good friends, and James Comey is going to be
Speaker 1: if there is, if there is to be a case
Speaker 1: of obstruction of justice against the president, the firing of
Speaker 1: James Comey is going to be the centerpiece of that case,
Speaker 1: the key witness, the star witness will be James Comey,
Speaker 1: who will be a good buddy of the prosecutor. So
Speaker 1: you know, it's just it's not a great situation, all right.
Speaker 1: Byron York, Thank you for being with us. Eight Sean
Speaker 1: a t the top of the hour, Shawn, if you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program. A lot
Speaker 1: has been made about past presidents and their faith and anyway,
Speaker 1: there's a new book out by my friend David Brodie.
Speaker 1: It's really well done and fascinating and interesting, and it's
Speaker 1: called The Faith of Donald J. Trump. And David's the
Speaker 1: chief political correspondent of the CBN Network. And here's the
Speaker 1: President talking at the National Prayer Breakfast. In their selfless deeds,
Speaker 1: they reveal the beauty and goodness of the human soul.
Speaker 1: When catastrophic hurricane struck, first responders and everyday citizens dove
Speaker 1: into rushing waters to save stranded families from danger, and
Speaker 1: they saved them by the thousands. Neighbors open their homes
Speaker 1: to those in need of food, clothes, shelter. Firefighters brave
Speaker 1: blinding smoke and laims to rescue children from devastating wildfires.
Speaker 1: During the horrific shootings, Stranger shielded strangers and police officers
Speaker 1: ran into hail of boats to save the lives of
Speaker 1: their fellow Americans right in Las Vegas. A terrible day,
Speaker 1: a terrible night, but such bravery. Families have adopted babies
Speaker 1: orphaned by the opioid epidemic and given them loving homes.
Speaker 1: Communities and churches have reached out to those struggling with
Speaker 1: addiction and shown them the path to a clean life,
Speaker 1: a good job, and a renewed sense of purpose. And soldiers, sailors,
Speaker 1: coast guardsmen, airmen, and marines have spent long months away
Speaker 1: from home defending our great American flag. So all we
Speaker 1: have to do is open our eyes and look around us,
Speaker 1: and we can see God's hand in the courage of
Speaker 1: our fellow citizens. We see the power of God's love
Speaker 1: at work in our souls, and the power of God's
Speaker 1: will to answer all of our prayers. When Americans are
Speaker 1: able to live by their convictions, to speak openly of
Speaker 1: their faith, and to teach their children what is right,
Speaker 1: our families thrive, our communities flourish, and our nation can
Speaker 1: achieve anything at all. Here with us today is another
Speaker 1: symbol of hope. A very brave nine year old girl
Speaker 1: named Sophia Marie Kampa Peters. Sophia suffers from a rare
Speaker 1: disease that has caused her to have many strokes. At
Speaker 1: one point, the doctors told Sophia that you would not
Speaker 1: be able to walk. Sophia replied, if you're only going
Speaker 1: to talk about what I can't do, then I don't
Speaker 1: want to hear it. Just let me try to walk.
Speaker 1: She tried, and she succeeded, and one of her doctors
Speaker 1: even told her mom, and they're right here in the
Speaker 1: front row where they should be. This little girl has
Speaker 1: God on her side. Thank you, Sophia, Thank you mom,
Speaker 1: great mom. I said, do you love your mom? She said,
Speaker 1: I have a great mom. I love my mom. Right.
Speaker 1: Just two weeks ago, Sophia needed to have a very
Speaker 1: high risk surgery. She decided to ask the whole world
Speaker 1: to pray for her, and she hoped to reach ten
Speaker 1: thousand people. On January, as Sophia went into surgery, she
Speaker 1: far surpassed her goal. Millions and millions of people lifted
Speaker 1: Sophia up in their prayers. Today, we thank God that
Speaker 1: Sophia is with us, and she's recovering, and she's walking
Speaker 1: very well. And I have to say this, Sophia. You
Speaker 1: may only be nine years old, but you are already
Speaker 1: a hero to all of us in this room and
Speaker 1: all over the world. Thank you, Sophia. As long as
Speaker 1: we open our eyes to God's grace and open our
Speaker 1: hearts to God's love, that America will forever be the
Speaker 1: land of the free, the home of the brave, and
Speaker 1: the light unto all nations. All right, David Brody joins
Speaker 1: us now. The Faith of Donald J. Trumpets up on
Speaker 1: Hannity dot com, bookstores everywhere, Amazon dot com. How are you, sir,
Speaker 1: Good sir, Thanks for having me on. I've actually enjoyed
Speaker 1: the times I've been on with you and your network,
Speaker 1: and you guys are actually nice to conservatives. It's rare.
Speaker 1: It's rare. I'm not used to read exactly. Um now,
Speaker 1: unlike say Michael Wolf's book, you actually spoke to the
Speaker 1: president about his faith, about his religious views. And you know,
Speaker 1: somebody said, I was reading the Heritage Foundation at the
Speaker 1: end of seventeen and they were pointing out that this
Speaker 1: president is governing in his first year, governed more conservatively
Speaker 1: than even Ronald Reagan. And everyone's you know, this big argument,
Speaker 1: is he a populist. Is he a nationalist? I'm watching
Speaker 1: a guy governing as a Reagan Conservative. Um, what did
Speaker 1: you learn about his faith that might surprise people? Well,
Speaker 1: there are a few things. And first of all, it
Speaker 1: funny you mentioned Michael Wolfe because I was basically going
Speaker 1: to say, this is the book Michael wolf probably doesn't
Speaker 1: want you to read. It actually has interviews with President
Speaker 1: Trump and Vice President Pence. Actually the interview with the
Speaker 1: President Trump was done in the Oval office too, with
Speaker 1: Mike Pence in the West Wing. Um. Look, there a
Speaker 1: couple of things. First of all, what was really striking
Speaker 1: in this book is he talks about the impact that
Speaker 1: evangelicals have had on him. When and I see evangelicals,
Speaker 1: you're talking about leaders that are around him, not just
Speaker 1: Paula White and some of these other folks we've heard about.
Speaker 1: Where we're talking specifically about many televangelists, many Pentecostals that
Speaker 1: he has never even experienced before Sean, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, there's this whole world that's opened up to him.
Speaker 1: So he says, the quote in the book is basically
Speaker 1: how this has impacted him greatly. And what we're starting
Speaker 1: to see now is a spiritual voyage, especially in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years, where behind the scenes there are
Speaker 1: a lot of folks that are I want to say,
Speaker 1: witnessing to him. They're really kind of sharing Jesus with
Speaker 1: him in a way that is something that he's not
Speaker 1: used to. Mainline presbyterian Um, the way he grew up
Speaker 1: is not the way necessarily he's getting an experience. Now. Well,
Speaker 1: I was gonna ask you in this context because I
Speaker 1: know people like Darryl Scott and and he put together
Speaker 1: a group of of he's the head of the National
Speaker 1: Diversity Coalition for the President and others, and I know
Speaker 1: that they do talk to him about these things. I
Speaker 1: know Franklin Graham talks to him about these things, and
Speaker 1: I know that he's interested in these things. And it's
Speaker 1: it's interesting when he gets in an environment where he
Speaker 1: can actually talk about it. As we just heard, he
Speaker 1: does show the side of him. You know, for me,
Speaker 1: a certain fundamental aspect of faith is discerning good versus evil.
Speaker 1: And I know we get into this all the time
Speaker 1: with Republican presidents. If Ronald Reagan calls the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: an evil empire, the left goes crazy. Or if George W. Books.
Speaker 1: Bush talks about, you know, Iran and Um and Iraq
Speaker 1: and North Korea as being an access of evil and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump isn't willing to give let's see billions of
Speaker 1: dollars to Mullas and Iran that are talking about blowing
Speaker 1: us up and wiping us off the face of the
Speaker 1: earth or North Korea. You know that that frightens people
Speaker 1: on the left, But there seems to be a more
Speaker 1: fundamental understanding of the evil nature of some of these
Speaker 1: regimes and just how they treat their own people. Well,
Speaker 1: that's right. That's been a big magnet for evangelicals as
Speaker 1: to why they're attracted to Donald Trump. You know, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's the world in in absolutes, and so do we evangelicals.
Speaker 1: And there's a kinship, a doctor phil moment, as I
Speaker 1: like to call it. And I think that's really important.
Speaker 1: And I also think to understand Donald Trump, you have
Speaker 1: to really know him, actually know him, because in private,
Speaker 1: as you know Sean, when the cameras are not rolling,
Speaker 1: evangelical leaders will come to recognize more compassionate side. There's
Speaker 1: a story in the book Sean about a private car ride.
Speaker 1: Mike Pence is telling me the story of the Vice
Speaker 1: president just a few months ago before the book came out,
Speaker 1: telling me the story. It's Mike Pence, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in a car in Louisiana two thousand and sixteen,
Speaker 1: the flooding down there. This was before he was president.
Speaker 1: Trump becomes deeply moved by what Graham's Christian ministries Maritan's First,
Speaker 1: had done for flood victims. So right there on the spot,
Speaker 1: it's just before them in the car, he tells Graham
Speaker 1: he's gonna he needs to give the ministry a hefty
Speaker 1: six figure check, and he says, I got to do something.
Speaker 1: I've just been moved by this so much. And Graham
Speaker 1: politely told Trump to send it to Tony's home church,
Speaker 1: not Home's home church that had been instrumental in the
Speaker 1: recovery efforts. So you know, once again, camera's not rolling
Speaker 1: a different side of Donald Trump. Look, Walter Cronkite to
Speaker 1: to to quote the you know the liberal bastion media, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, Walter Cronkite always talks about in seeking truth,
Speaker 1: you have to get both sides of a story. Well,
Speaker 1: here's the other side of the story that media doesn't
Speaker 1: really want to tell well, I think that's that's an
Speaker 1: interesting way to put it. Look, I also think New
Speaker 1: York is a very different place. And I speak from
Speaker 1: experience because I was born and raised in New York
Speaker 1: on Long Island, and I was raised Catholic, and I
Speaker 1: was an altar boy. And you know, then I go
Speaker 1: on this radio adventure that takes me five years in
Speaker 1: Rhode Island and five years in California, and two years
Speaker 1: in Alabama and four years in Georgia, and then you know,
Speaker 1: fortunately I got back to New York and I was
Speaker 1: hired by the Fox News Channel. But in the time
Speaker 1: that I traveled, I began to see and and this
Speaker 1: is in no way disparaging of of any other part
Speaker 1: of the country or region of the country, but when
Speaker 1: I got to Alabama and Georgia, it was a a
Speaker 1: very different Christianity than the Catholicism that I grew up in,
Speaker 1: and I came to like it, appreciate it, identify with it.
Speaker 1: And I don't think it's that there are play says
Speaker 1: like this in New York, but the differences in Alabama.
Speaker 1: It's every other street there's a church. Yeah. Well, and
Speaker 1: it's interesting you say this because this is pretty much
Speaker 1: what the President told me in the Oval office. He said, look,
Speaker 1: I didn't hang around these people before. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I didn't know any of this. But now they're opening
Speaker 1: my eyes to you know, this whole kind of other
Speaker 1: side of the faith that he didn't know anything about.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's funny because a story in the
Speaker 1: book is a bishop, Wayne Jackson, who was one of
Speaker 1: the folks that prayed at the inauguration. Be's a lifelong Democrat. Uh.
Speaker 1: He Trump goes into Great Great Faith Ministries International in Detroit.
Speaker 1: Trump visited, visits the church, and then it was Wayne
Speaker 1: Jackson telling me that the moment Trump got out of
Speaker 1: the car, this is a quote from Wayne Jackson, the bishop.
Speaker 1: He says, quote, the spirit of the Lord told me
Speaker 1: that he is going to be the next president of
Speaker 1: the United States. So these are the circles that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is running in. Now. A little bit more of
Speaker 1: that prophetic side, a little bit more of that definitely
Speaker 1: that evangelical side that is kind of blown Donald Trump away.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, he respects people of faith,
Speaker 1: the clergy, I mean, he members of time. He's seventy
Speaker 1: one years old. He remembers a time where you you're
Speaker 1: dressed up for church. You didn't come in baggy pants
Speaker 1: and and sneakers. And you know this is a respect
Speaker 1: for clergy that he has. I remember Daryl Scott, you
Speaker 1: mentioned Darryl Scott. He specifically said to me that in
Speaker 1: meetings with clergy, Trump adopts the position of the lesser,
Speaker 1: not of the more powerful. If you are fascinating, that's
Speaker 1: that is pretty interesting to hear from Daryl Scott. Do
Speaker 1: you think that the president is getting more faithful, his
Speaker 1: faith is growing? Do you see that or maybe in
Speaker 1: your conversations with him you've seen it absolutely. And there's
Speaker 1: a few different things that can point to. First of all,
Speaker 1: you know, of course you did that interview with the
Speaker 1: president right off the top in his presidency. I was
Speaker 1: able to do the third interview with him, and during
Speaker 1: that interview he said, I need God even more in
Speaker 1: this job. And just the other day, about two weeks ago,
Speaker 1: at the TV Network anchor luncheon before the State of
Speaker 1: the Union, I was actually there in the room in
Speaker 1: the State Dying room with the President. He's talking about
Speaker 1: how basically, as a businessman, Heart isn't involved, but as president,
Speaker 1: Heart is involved and compassion is involved, so he's getting
Speaker 1: a whole another side of this. And then at the
Speaker 1: National Prayer Breakfast, what did we just see? I mean,
Speaker 1: we had a president who, in his first year at
Speaker 1: the National Prayer break Fast talked about the ratings of
Speaker 1: the Apprentice more uh, he talked about the ratings of
Speaker 1: the Princess, about his accomplishments. But what did he do
Speaker 1: this time around? You know, years time? He didn't talk
Speaker 1: at all about the Apprentice, didn't talk at all about
Speaker 1: his accomplishments. It was more of god less of him.
Speaker 1: And it was a subdued, very poignant speech, and even
Speaker 1: the New York Times enjoyed. And that's saying something. But
Speaker 1: the point is is that we're seeing some movement on
Speaker 1: his on his behalf for sure. You know. I remember
Speaker 1: during the campaign and a lot of evangelicals took a
Speaker 1: lot of heat if they supported Donald Trump for president.
Speaker 1: I mean, okay, he was divorced, and he wasn't a
Speaker 1: perfect person, and he made the tabloids, etcetera. And I
Speaker 1: think it was Jerry Fallwell Jr. I know it was
Speaker 1: Jerry Fallwell Jr. That said, we're looking, we're not electing
Speaker 1: a pastor here if I was electing a pastor, I'd
Speaker 1: be looking for something different. I'm looking for a strong
Speaker 1: press that didn't think can fix the country. Well, that's right,
Speaker 1: and he nailed it right on the head. And look
Speaker 1: in the view of evangelicals, they see a culture that's
Speaker 1: securiorating quickly in the last decade. For sure. They want
Speaker 1: a bold culture warrior to fight for them. And and
Speaker 1: by the way, Sean showing that God does indeed have
Speaker 1: a sense of humor, he gave them Trump, which I
Speaker 1: think is kind of funny. But anyhow, the bottom line
Speaker 1: is it's basically in God's perfection. It's a match made
Speaker 1: in heaven because Trump and evangelicals actually share quite a
Speaker 1: few important cultural points of is of interest. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: there's a disdain for political correctness and all of that
Speaker 1: Judeo Christian values. He remembers Bible reading in school, he
Speaker 1: remembers prayer in school. He patent, he loves pattent in
Speaker 1: the fifties, he remembers America who once was dot dot dot.
Speaker 1: And but on these on these cultural issues, he comes
Speaker 1: down on the side of where evangelicals come down on
Speaker 1: and where I would come down on. Well, that's right,
Speaker 1: and you talk about fruit. Everybody talks about the spiritual fruit, Well,
Speaker 1: where is it in his life or where is it
Speaker 1: in your life or my life? And look, the spiritual
Speaker 1: fruit can be said from a public polo see standpoint.
Speaker 1: He has delivered a plus for evangelicals in the first years.
Speaker 1: A matter of fact, I talked to an evangelical leader
Speaker 1: the other day, I said, so, what's on the to
Speaker 1: do listen to two th eighteen? He said, my goodness,
Speaker 1: we're starting to run out of things. I mean literally
Speaker 1: the president from Jerusalem to the Gorsage to the life issue,
Speaker 1: he's been spot on and evangelicals have loved every minute
Speaker 1: of it. All Right, David Brody, congratulations on a great book.
Speaker 1: It's called The Faith of Donald Trump. And uh it
Speaker 1: is in bookstores everywhere. Hannity dot com, Amazon dot com.
Speaker 1: And we appreciate you being with us. Alright, Sean is
Speaker 1: our toll free telephone number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program, right, Hannity Tonight, nine Eastern on
Speaker 1: the Fox News Channel. Right, So tonight we're gonna have
Speaker 1: what is in the memo that's been or the dossier
Speaker 1: that's ever been verified? Well, the answer is nothing. Absolutely
Speaker 1: positively nothing. And then that raises a questionable why are
Speaker 1: we always talking about this anyway? We have Sebastian Gorka,
Speaker 1: James Calstrom, he's great, ed Henry new king Rich. We
Speaker 1: have Jesse Water Versus, Jessica Tarloff, Dan Bongino, and Francisco
Speaker 1: Hernandez on the immigration battle. That's all coming up. Set
Speaker 1: your DVR nine Eastern Hannity Fox and as always, thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us. We'll see you back here tomorrow.