Speaker 1: So, like many of you, I used to suffer from insomnia.
Speaker 1: No matter what I did, I just couldn't get a
Speaker 1: perfect night's sleep. Well, then I met Mike Lindel, the
Speaker 1: inventor of my Pillow. He got me fitted from my
Speaker 1: very own my pillow, and it's changed my life. I
Speaker 1: fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now you
Speaker 1: can to just go to my Pillow dot com or
Speaker 1: call eight hundred four six seven nineteen sixty two use
Speaker 1: the promo code Sewn to take advantage of Mike's two
Speaker 1: for one offer. Now my pillow was made right here
Speaker 1: in the USA, has a sixty day unconditional money back
Speaker 1: guarantee end day ten year warranty. And by the way,
Speaker 1: you can even wash it and dry it. Just go
Speaker 1: to my pillow dot com or call eight hundred four
Speaker 1: or six seven nineteen sixty two promo code Shawn to
Speaker 1: get Mike's special too for one offer. Let not your
Speaker 1: heart be troubled. You are listening to the Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: Radio Show podcast and as we roll along eight one show,
Speaker 1: I had to do something. I had to tweet out
Speaker 1: something from my buddy Bow. Make sure it went through
Speaker 1: properly on my Twitter account, because if I made a mistake,
Speaker 1: it's going to be the end of the world end
Speaker 1: that I did something horrible. I think I messed it up.
Speaker 1: Can you fix it for me? Do you mind? Glad
Speaker 1: you are with us? All right? The left is gone
Speaker 1: Ape Sugar, they just got nuts and uh, the sore
Speaker 1: loser left. So it's not gonna work with a recount
Speaker 1: that failed miserably. Oh, I gotta tell you. Oh, Julian
Speaker 1: Assange is on the program today. He's been saying no
Speaker 1: the Russians. Will somebody call Lindsey Graham's office tell him
Speaker 1: the idiot to listen to the second hour of the
Speaker 1: program today when Julian Assange is on because he might
Speaker 1: learn something. Did the tweak go out the right way?
Speaker 1: Did you check it out? Is it all good? Is
Speaker 1: everything okay? Did I do something stupid? You haven't even
Speaker 1: checked yet? Great? Very quick? You sipping your coffee in
Speaker 1: there with Irish whiskey, and I know what's going on
Speaker 1: at Christmas party in there. I see what's happening. I
Speaker 1: see the party never ended, and that you know you
Speaker 1: just hung all. You know, that's the best way you
Speaker 1: can cope today. I get what's going on. I see
Speaker 1: it anyway, So he got sore in lub So we
Speaker 1: have Juliana's on sore losers celebrities. Now they go from
Speaker 1: Russian hackey. Now let's just try and influence the election.
Speaker 1: The electors led by Member Martin Sheen, Republican members of
Speaker 1: the Electoral College, this message is for you. As you know,
Speaker 1: our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the
Speaker 1: American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to
Speaker 1: ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is
Speaker 1: to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications. An
Speaker 1: eminent degree, someone who is highly qualified for the job.
Speaker 1: The Electoral College was created specifically to prevent an unfit
Speaker 1: candidate from becoming president. There are five hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: eight members of the Electoral College. You and just thirty
Speaker 1: six other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference by
Speaker 1: voting your conscience on December nineteenth, and thereby shaping the
Speaker 1: future of our nation. I'm not asking you to vote
Speaker 1: for Hilly Counton. I'm not asking you to vote for
Speaker 1: hill every Clinton. I'm not asking to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: As you know the Constitution gives electors the right to
Speaker 1: vote for any eligible person, any eligible person, no matter
Speaker 1: which party they belong to, but it should certainly be
Speaker 1: someone you consider especially competent, especially competent to serve as
Speaker 1: President of the United States of America. By voting your conscience,
Speaker 1: you and other brave Republican electors can give the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for
Speaker 1: the presidency. I stand with you. I stand with you.
Speaker 1: I stand with you. I stand with you in support
Speaker 1: and solidarity with Conservatives, Independents, and liberals and all citizens
Speaker 1: of the United States. The American people trust that your
Speaker 1: voice speaks for us all, and that you you will
Speaker 1: make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you
Speaker 1: by Alexander Hamilton's himself. What is evident is that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump lacks more than the qualifications should be president. He
Speaker 1: lacks the necessary stability and clearly the respect for the
Speaker 1: constitution of our great nation. You have position, the authority
Speaker 1: and the opportunity to go down in the books as
Speaker 1: an American hero who changed the course of history. And
Speaker 1: you have my respect. You have my respect. You have
Speaker 1: my respect for your patriotism and service to the American people,
Speaker 1: unite for America. All right, that is just the beginning. Now,
Speaker 1: my first observation is, all of a sudden, the Constitution
Speaker 1: actually means something to the radical left, you know. And
Speaker 1: when they mentioned Hamilton, I'm thinking, oh, I know what
Speaker 1: that is. They went and saw the play in Broadway
Speaker 1: or somewhere else. So now they think it, actually it's
Speaker 1: really good, cool to to to quote him. I thought
Speaker 1: it was. I thought this was an outdated racist document
Speaker 1: put together by a bunch of racists. Oh, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, the Constitution matters and let's all work together. Conservatives. Oh,
Speaker 1: the same people that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic? Is homophobic?
Speaker 1: You want to work with them? Or is it that
Speaker 1: you just want to manipulate them anyway you can. You know,
Speaker 1: by the way, what some of these people, there's way
Speaker 1: too many injections. I don't know what these people out
Speaker 1: in Hollywood do with these doctors. Oh my gosh. Anyway,
Speaker 1: if the election gets thrown to the House, they can
Speaker 1: only choose among the top three vote getters. So who
Speaker 1: do you think is gonna win? And if Elector changes
Speaker 1: his vote, well he'll have the respect of Martin Sheen
Speaker 1: and uh that's about it, and maybe some of the
Speaker 1: hardcore Hollywood left that don't like them anyway. So you
Speaker 1: got the sore loser, big celebrities, star studded video ps A,
Speaker 1: Debra Messing, Martin Sheen, and a bunch of people. Moby,
Speaker 1: I don't even know who half for these people are.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary, say several
Speaker 1: of the stars. By voting your conscience, you and other
Speaker 1: brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the
Speaker 1: option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency. The
Speaker 1: video ends with them telling electors they should they would
Speaker 1: earn their respect by performing this service to the American people. Now,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't earn the respect of anybody they would. What
Speaker 1: they're trying here is a coup deta. Basically, they want
Speaker 1: to overthrow the will of the people and they want
Speaker 1: to wrap their arms around the Constitution. Meanwhile, they stood
Speaker 1: idly by the last eight years as we have a
Speaker 1: president that stomped on the Constitution and the rule of
Speaker 1: law ruled by executive FIAT unconstitutional executive orders that had
Speaker 1: no respect for the Constitution. We didn't hear a peep
Speaker 1: out of these people. So this is now the long
Speaker 1: shot bid to block Trump headed to the Electoral College
Speaker 1: on Monday. It's not gonna happen. But the sad part
Speaker 1: of this is, as we've been chronicling here on this program,
Speaker 1: we have electors all around the country being harassed, you know,
Speaker 1: barrage of emails, phone calls, threats, even death threats in
Speaker 1: an attempt to block Trump from being voted in his
Speaker 1: president by the Electoral College on Monday. The bullying is
Speaker 1: so overwhelming that in one case, this woman literally the
Speaker 1: tech devices. You know, they're now having such difficulty they
Speaker 1: can't even walk out of their own house. You know.
Speaker 1: Grandmother woke up Wednesday morning emails demanding she not carry
Speaker 1: out her legal duty to vote for the president elect.
Speaker 1: And they just keep coming and coming and coming. They say.
Speaker 1: Her answer is, in her case, she's doing a mass delete.
Speaker 1: So much for serving your country and and going on
Speaker 1: behalf of those people that voted in in your state
Speaker 1: and performing the duty and making the commitment and following
Speaker 1: up on the commitment you made to the people. And
Speaker 1: then you've got everybody right up to their eyeballs, and
Speaker 1: this including Clinton and Obama supporters, you know, you've got
Speaker 1: the Center for American Progress. Their their focus like a
Speaker 1: laser beam on this so called nonprofit John Podesta lead.
Speaker 1: And they're providing Democrats with the centralized resource to oppose
Speaker 1: the president's moves, starting with his cabinet positions. Listen, they're
Speaker 1: gonna try. And I've witnessed this before. I was there
Speaker 1: when New King Ridge was elected in ninety four. I
Speaker 1: followed his speakership closely and by Christmas after the November election,
Speaker 1: he was the ging rich that stole Christmas. He was
Speaker 1: the guy that broke tiny Tim's crutch. He was the
Speaker 1: guy that was going to take food and water out
Speaker 1: of the mouths of grandmothers. All of these arguments and
Speaker 1: now being made. Why do you think I was mocking
Speaker 1: those that said there's gonna be a war on old
Speaker 1: people beginning in January? You know, So you got all
Speaker 1: the electors being harassed. Then you've got people like Keith Oberman.
Speaker 1: Imagine when Obama was elected in Oh wait, if I
Speaker 1: tweeted out, you treacherous Russian whore at real Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: the White House and all of us have been after
Speaker 1: you for for this for months and we will get you. Really,
Speaker 1: what does that mean, is that a threat? You treacherous,
Speaker 1: you treacherous Russian whore at real? Donald Trump, the White
Speaker 1: House and all of us have been after you for
Speaker 1: this for months and we will get you. Well, what
Speaker 1: does that mean? And that's, by the way, some of
Speaker 1: the more mild things that he says. Michael Moore, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is gonna get us killed, he said, as he
Speaker 1: posted an essay on his personal Facebook page criticizing the
Speaker 1: president elect. Most of us would agree the job. And
Speaker 1: then he starts talking about, well, he's not getting his
Speaker 1: presidential daily briefing, which, by the way, he says, he
Speaker 1: just doesn't want the repetitive briefing. He said, he wants
Speaker 1: all new information to come to him on a daily basis.
Speaker 1: He also has a vice president elect who's doing that
Speaker 1: duty every day as well. It's not like it's not happening,
Speaker 1: he says. He gets it when I need it, as
Speaker 1: long as it's not repetitive. In other words, if it's
Speaker 1: the same briefing every day, he's saying, I'm letting Mike
Speaker 1: Penns handle it and update me if anything is important.
Speaker 1: I mean, so anyway, it's um. You know, they don't care.
Speaker 1: They're just angry then you've got On Wednesday, yesterday, the
Speaker 1: President elect added three more high profile c e o s,
Speaker 1: you know, Pepsi CEO and Uber CEO and Tesla CBO
Speaker 1: to this big meeting they had with all these other people. Facebook,
Speaker 1: by the way, is gonna label news fake news, real news?
Speaker 1: Who gets to decide certain For example, is it news
Speaker 1: if CNN slips the questions to Hillary before a debate?
Speaker 1: Is it news if CNN is asking the d n
Speaker 1: C for questions for Donald Trump? Is it news if
Speaker 1: the New York Times or Political writes something and then
Speaker 1: they allow the Democrats an opportunity to edit it before
Speaker 1: they send it out publicly. Or is that base sickly
Speaker 1: just to wink it a nod in a corrupt system
Speaker 1: that they've designed with each other. Anyway, when the PEPSI
Speaker 1: CEO you know, got to the board and got to
Speaker 1: discuss some things, she started saying, my employees were all
Speaker 1: crying after Trump won. It sounds like Martha Radits you
Speaker 1: got a California professor in hiding after he told their
Speaker 1: students that Donald Trump's election was an act of terrorism.
Speaker 1: An act of terrorism. Amy Schumer, the comedian yes, relation
Speaker 1: to Chucky Schumer calls on women to march and protest
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump, just like Michael Moore's calling for disruption
Speaker 1: at the inauguration. Anyway, she said January, I'll be there.
Speaker 1: She said, who's coming with me? What's the march for?
Speaker 1: Nothing's happened yet, although by the one I expect that
Speaker 1: a lot of executive orders will have been repealed. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, vanity are angry white Trump voters wanted submissive
Speaker 1: Russian women. Oh, let's insult Melania Trump again. Let's go
Speaker 1: after her. You got forty six more electors signing on
Speaker 1: to a letter demanding the putin Trump intelligence briefing. Not
Speaker 1: that it matters, but even Loretto Lens says there's no
Speaker 1: evidence that Russia interfered with the U S election, none whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Never mind that Ed Klein is reporting that the FBI
Speaker 1: director James Comey told Trump the Russians did not influence
Speaker 1: the election. Politico ended up having to fire a reporter
Speaker 1: after an obscene tweet about Donald and Ivanka Trump. I
Speaker 1: mean it just you can't believe half this stuff. Two
Speaker 1: thirds of Americans say Russian hacking made no difference, didn't
Speaker 1: make a difference, and it did not make a difference,
Speaker 1: not one. Lindsey Graham is lying to the American people.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence whatsoever, none, that the Russians were involved
Speaker 1: in this in any way, shape, matter of form. One
Speaker 1: of the reasons we're having Julian Assan John Julian told
Speaker 1: me in prior interviews the Russians were not involved. And
Speaker 1: if you want to get things a little bit more interesting,
Speaker 1: there was a story in the Daily Mail that talks
Speaker 1: about the ex British Ambassador to you Uzbekistan, an associate
Speaker 1: of Assange, who told the Daily Mail that he flew
Speaker 1: to Washington, d c. To pick up the emails in
Speaker 1: the case of Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. He claims
Speaker 1: he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded area near
Speaker 1: American University with one of the email sources and the
Speaker 1: leakers motivation was discussed at the corruption in the Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field
Speaker 1: against Bernie Sanders, and that the source had legal access
Speaker 1: to the information and that the documents came from inside leaks,
Speaker 1: not from anybody hacking anywhere. Whoopsie Daisy, Well, he can't
Speaker 1: have that. That doesn't go with our narrative. In any
Speaker 1: way shape, matter of form. You know. Well, sorry, but
Speaker 1: where does the truth? Now? Let me tell you this,
Speaker 1: and it is true. The Daily Call Up points out
Speaker 1: that the FBI and Justice Department still going after the
Speaker 1: Clinton email server. But let me just say this, if
Speaker 1: we have no new information. The only reason they're elevating
Speaker 1: this story because it's the same information we had before
Speaker 1: the election. We're only doing it for one reason. While
Speaker 1: the recount didn't work, now we're gonna try simultaneous path.
Speaker 1: We're gonna delegitimize Trump by claiming the Russians hacked and
Speaker 1: there's no evidence to back it up. As the Director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence has said, as the FBI director has said,
Speaker 1: let's not listen to them, Let's listen to the c
Speaker 1: i A political side of the c i A. The
Speaker 1: same people that told us a spontaneous demonstration occurred in Benghazi,
Speaker 1: and a bunch of spontaneous demonstrators just decided in the
Speaker 1: moment they didn't plan it, that not terrorists, that they
Speaker 1: were gonna pop out of their pockets mortars and RPGs
Speaker 1: and fire it at the compound. Because that's what the
Speaker 1: CIA concluded, and that's the false talking point narrative they advanced,
Speaker 1: and they did it to help Hillary Clinton advance her lie.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying CIA operatives are all this way, but
Speaker 1: certainly there are some people in Langley that did that.
Speaker 1: I don't know who they are, but they never spent
Speaker 1: any time talking to the people on the ground of Benghazi.
Speaker 1: These are fascinating times we're living in. So was it
Speaker 1: a handoff in the woods near American University or was
Speaker 1: it Vladimir Putin? And why would Obama change from saying
Speaker 1: you can't influence our elections to well, we've got to
Speaker 1: investigate and John Podesta and all their big money people
Speaker 1: and now doing it to d legitimized Trump. As I
Speaker 1: witnessed in ninety four with New Gingrich, the destruction of
Speaker 1: New began on day one, the same thing is happening
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump. They want to destroy him and make
Speaker 1: him fail, and that means not fulfill the promises he
Speaker 1: made the campaign trail. Now, I assume that I know
Speaker 1: the media establishments already against them. The Democratic establishment is
Speaker 1: against him, and in short order, my prediction is this
Speaker 1: that Republican establishment they'll turn on them too, because they're
Speaker 1: not gonna like any drain the swamp or term limit legislation,
Speaker 1: or taking away power from them to spend the money
Speaker 1: that they've been spending like drunken sailors with no offense
Speaker 1: to drunken sailors in the last ten years. You didn't
Speaker 1: need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from
Speaker 1: malicious Russian cyber activity. The president elect didn't call it
Speaker 1: into question. He called on Russia to hack his opponent.
Speaker 1: He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton, So he
Speaker 1: certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this
Speaker 1: activity was coming down on the less several weeks of
Speaker 1: the election, we're focused on a discussion of emails that
Speaker 1: had been hacked and leaked by the Russians. These were
Speaker 1: emails from the d n C and John Podesta, uh,
Speaker 1: not from the RNC and Steve Bannon. It was the
Speaker 1: president elect who, over the course of the campaign indicated
Speaker 1: that he thought that President Putin was a strong leader.
Speaker 1: It was the president elect who indicated the potential that
Speaker 1: he would withdraw from some of our critically important NATO commitments. Now,
Speaker 1: what's also true, and this goes to something that we
Speaker 1: discussed in the in the briefing on Monday, there's ample
Speaker 1: evidence that was known long before the election, and even
Speaker 1: in most cases long before October, about the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: in Russia, everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on
Speaker 1: Russia to hack his opponent. It might be an indication
Speaker 1: that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever
Speaker 1: facts or sources he was he had available to him,
Speaker 1: that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a
Speaker 1: negative impact on his opponent's campaign. That's why he was
Speaker 1: encouraging them to keep doing it. All right, that's Josh
Speaker 1: Ernest now until the top of the hour of the
Speaker 1: proper agandha's for Barack Obama at the White House podium.
Speaker 1: So again today he is saying Trump has inside knowledge
Speaker 1: of hacking, in spite of no evidence. He is saying
Speaker 1: that Trump was involved basically in the hacking, that he
Speaker 1: encouraged it. Ernest, my my buddy Rowan Scarborough wrote me and
Speaker 1: and he said, Josh Jarness would not be doing this
Speaker 1: without Obama's seal of approval. And he's right. So you
Speaker 1: have an outgoing president and I told you this a
Speaker 1: long time ago. He's not He will not have the
Speaker 1: class of a George W. Bush. He will not be
Speaker 1: able to help himself. His rigid, radical ideology will drive
Speaker 1: him to be a constant critic of the incoming President Trump.
Speaker 1: That's why I did the whole They're not your friends monologue.
Speaker 1: They're not, and neither is Ryan, and neither is McConnell.
Speaker 1: And you just did not gonna be your friends. I
Speaker 1: only like you while you're popular. As soon as you're
Speaker 1: a little less popular, then they're gonna dump you overboard
Speaker 1: as quickly as possible and try and destroy you. So
Speaker 1: this is what's happening now. This is where it gets
Speaker 1: even more interesting. The former chairman of the House Homeland
Speaker 1: Security Committee, our old friend Peter King of Long Island,
Speaker 1: is accusing the CIA of quote conducting a disinformation campaign
Speaker 1: against Trump, slamming the intelligence community Wednesday for forcing the
Speaker 1: cancelation of the planned House Intelligence Committee briefing on alleged
Speaker 1: Russian interference in the U. S. Election. I'll tell you why.
Speaker 1: I think they canceled it. And I think it's pretty
Speaker 1: obvious because they know that every Congressman is gonna say, well,
Speaker 1: we knew all of this, there's nothing new here. Why
Speaker 1: did you change the conclusion on the same information that
Speaker 1: you had before the election. So they don't want to
Speaker 1: be embarrassed and exposed as having a political arm within
Speaker 1: the CIA, within our intelligence community. I want to be
Speaker 1: perfectly clear here. I love our intelligence community. We need intelligence.
Speaker 1: A lot of brave people work for the CIA, A
Speaker 1: lot of people are putting their lives on the line
Speaker 1: for their country. But there is a political arm within
Speaker 1: the CIA that was on display during Benghazi. As I've
Speaker 1: been telling you. He said all we've heard from the
Speaker 1: intelligence community over the last several months, as they could
Speaker 1: not say there was any attempt to undermine Hillary and
Speaker 1: helped Trump. King told Fox News anyway, says it violates
Speaker 1: every protocol. It's almost as if people in the intelligence
Speaker 1: community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president
Speaker 1: elect of the United States. It's absolutely disgraceful. And if
Speaker 1: they're not doing it, then it must be someone in
Speaker 1: the House or the Senate who's leaking false information and
Speaker 1: there should be a full investigation into this. This is
Speaker 1: all true, and now we know that James called me.
Speaker 1: The FBI director said Russia had no him put into this,
Speaker 1: which is why we're going to interview Julian Assang at
Speaker 1: the top of the hour. Very smart man Julian Assang
Speaker 1: whether you like him, just like him. I know he's
Speaker 1: contra virsial. I've said a number of times he's done
Speaker 1: America a favor. He's pointed out, we have no cyber
Speaker 1: security as a government as a people number one and
Speaker 1: number two, how corrupt your government is deep to its
Speaker 1: fundamental core anyway, So apparently, also the Washington Examiner points
Speaker 1: out this whole, this whole stonewalling of Congress. You know
Speaker 1: why is this happening because now the House Intelligence Agency,
Speaker 1: their committee chairman rebuking the intelligence agencies today and yesterday
Speaker 1: for their refusal to grant a briefing request on cyber
Speaker 1: attacks during the U s presidential election. Well, why would
Speaker 1: that be One, because they might be laughed out of
Speaker 1: the room. Two, they might be exposed as politicizing intelligence
Speaker 1: to help Hillary and the Democrats undermine Donald Trump. The
Speaker 1: incoming president, Devin Nuvit Nunez of California, said it's unacceptable
Speaker 1: for the intelligence community directors that they would not fulfill
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committees request to be brief tomorrow and
Speaker 1: the cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign. The
Speaker 1: legislative branches constitutionally vested with oversight responsibility of executive branch agencies,
Speaker 1: which are obligated to comply with our requests. The Committee
Speaker 1: is vigorously looking into reports of cyber attacks during the
Speaker 1: election campaign, and in particular, we want to clarify press
Speaker 1: reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it
Speaker 1: is not shared with us. That was it the White
Speaker 1: House that altered the assessment of the information that we
Speaker 1: all had before the election, that the FBI contradicts, that
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence contradicts. The Committee is deeply
Speaker 1: concerned that the intransience in sharing intelligence with Congress can
Speaker 1: now enable the manipulation of intelligence from political purposes. That's
Speaker 1: exactly what's happening, exactly, it's so transparent. We've got some
Speaker 1: other news here. The reversal of this horrible Iranian deal
Speaker 1: apparently has already begun. The Obama administration's disastrous deal is
Speaker 1: being relegated now, just like Obamacare to the ash heap
Speaker 1: of history. It's like executive amnesty will be relegated. Similarly,
Speaker 1: Congress passed new sanctions on Iran last month by a
Speaker 1: veto proof margin. Today their implementation begins. All over the
Speaker 1: objections of our appeaser in chief Barack Obama. Iran is
Speaker 1: making threats and they're doing some saber rattling and trying
Speaker 1: to cancel the nuclear that if they cancel the nuclear deal,
Speaker 1: if new they will they will cancel it. If new
Speaker 1: sanctions are past they make good on that threat. Well
Speaker 1: that's a guarantee that will. You know that what I
Speaker 1: predicted what happen is gonna happen. They'll get nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: So stupid. They already have the money, the ransom money. Unbelievable. Uh. Anyway,
Speaker 1: let's get to our phones here. Some of you have
Speaker 1: been very patient. Tom and California. Tom, Hi, how are
Speaker 1: you were? Glad you all? Hey, Sean, real real quick.
Speaker 1: Josh Ernest is trying to trying to tie Trump to
Speaker 1: the Russian hacking by a flippant remark that he made
Speaker 1: during the debate about Russia, given the Hillary's emails to
Speaker 1: the press, if we use that logic. A couple of
Speaker 1: weeks before the before the election, Obama was talking to
Speaker 1: some blogger about voting and he he made an off
Speaker 1: the off hand and remark about, uh, illegal voting. It
Speaker 1: was yes, but it was a no, you know, it
Speaker 1: was it was kind of it was kind of a
Speaker 1: flippant remark. But but if if, if we want to
Speaker 1: tie Trump to the Russians, then we have to try
Speaker 1: tie Obama to illegal immigrants voting. Well, I think that's
Speaker 1: a good point. And we know illegal immigrants voter. I
Speaker 1: don't know how many, but this has been chronicled just
Speaker 1: you know, go talk to people like John fund and
Speaker 1: it's just I live in California. I know it. Course
Speaker 1: it's happened. I don't know how many, but if one happens,
Speaker 1: it's one too many. Anyway, let's get to our phones,
Speaker 1: Josh and Kansas. What's up, Josh, John, thanks for taking
Speaker 1: the call. I love your show, love what you do.
Speaker 1: I'll be real brief and quick. I just want to
Speaker 1: talk about the hypocrisy, uh, you know that we live
Speaker 1: in today. Uh you know, the Democrats are so quick
Speaker 1: to talk about how you know, the Russian supposedly influenced
Speaker 1: you know, the election, and that's the only reason Trump
Speaker 1: got uh, you know, nominated, and that's the only reason one. Well,
Speaker 1: they're so quick to forget that they cheated Bernie out
Speaker 1: of a you know, a fair process to be it's
Speaker 1: the Democratic nominee. They're so quick to erase all the
Speaker 1: memories of you know, people having the information that you know,
Speaker 1: they cheated Bernie out of a fair process is crazy. Well,
Speaker 1: it's great that you say that, because this whole Daily
Speaker 1: Mail article about Julian Ossan's friend and associate and the
Speaker 1: guy that works at Wiki Leagues, the former British ambassador
Speaker 1: to Uzbekistan saying that the Wiki League's emails came from
Speaker 1: the Clinton campaign from a disgusted, de amocratic whistleblower for
Speaker 1: the very specific reason that you're talking about, and that
Speaker 1: is that you know that that all this information about
Speaker 1: Podesta's emails were handed off at a Woodedier area near
Speaker 1: American University, and that those the motivation of the leaker
Speaker 1: was discussed at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and
Speaker 1: tilting the primary election playing field against Bernie, and the
Speaker 1: source apparently had legal access to the information that the
Speaker 1: documents came from inside. Yeah, you're right. And by the way,
Speaker 1: did they care about the media clothing with Hillary Josh?
Speaker 1: You know? And it's just so funny because I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just accusations. It's accusations after accusations. You have the
Speaker 1: FBI directors saying as nonsense and they don't care it's
Speaker 1: like they're doing everything they can to be uh, to
Speaker 1: get to the point of, Okay, you know what, he's
Speaker 1: gonna become our president. Let's give him the respect that he,
Speaker 1: you know, deserves. But it's just they don't want to
Speaker 1: do that. And I don't remember when Obama. I was
Speaker 1: so frustrated when Obama got elected. You know, I'm in
Speaker 1: a conservative state, but even even then, so like when
Speaker 1: he got when he got elected, I don't remember it
Speaker 1: being like this. I don't remember when people were crying
Speaker 1: and going in Hillary and saying, oh my goodness, where
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're doomed. I don't remember any of that.
Speaker 1: It's just it's so sticks stickening. You know. My friends,
Speaker 1: people I talked to, they just they cannot come to
Speaker 1: their senses. They're just you know, they want to cry
Speaker 1: about it and make excuses, and it's just it's stickening.
Speaker 1: What did and I appreciate the call. What did wiki
Speaker 1: leaks do? Now, remember we're gonna have Juliana San John
Speaker 1: at the top of the next hour. What did wiki
Speaker 1: leaks do? Okay, they exposed how corrupt America's media is,
Speaker 1: every big network, every major newspaper, How they colluded with
Speaker 1: the Clinton campaign. It exposed how they cheated to help
Speaker 1: Bernie to beat Bernie Sanders. It exposed racism within the
Speaker 1: Democratic National Committee, and sexism within the Democratic National Committee,
Speaker 1: anti Semitism within the Democratic National Committee. They exposed all
Speaker 1: of that. It exposed just how deeply corrupt and what
Speaker 1: a liar Hillary Clinton is, which we can argue we
Speaker 1: already knew that, but it confirmed it was at a
Speaker 1: deeper level. Now, I would argue with you that if
Speaker 1: this for about and I'll ask Julian in the next hour,
Speaker 1: if it was about Donald Trump, would have done the
Speaker 1: same thing, because I suspect the answers yes. And I
Speaker 1: also will tell you this that you know, in many
Speaker 1: ways he's he's the modern day Woodward and Bernstein. There's
Speaker 1: they've not been wicked, leaks, has not been wrong in
Speaker 1: ten years, a perfect track record. And Julian Assan says, now,
Speaker 1: we didn't get it from them, We didn't get it
Speaker 1: from any state, we didn't get it from Russia. So
Speaker 1: what evidence does you know, Lindsey Graham, the idiot, you know,
Speaker 1: what is he sighting except that he hates Trump like
Speaker 1: McCain hates Trump like case at cates Trump like the
Speaker 1: Bush just hate Trump. I mean, I'll just be honest here.
Speaker 1: The only people doing this are people that have always
Speaker 1: hated Trump and wanted to undermine and sabotage them. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks did what Woodward and Bernstein did. They exposed
Speaker 1: a level of corruption and government. That's what they did.
Speaker 1: I've been saying, where is where are the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: Where where are the Woodward and Bernstein's of this age?
Speaker 1: Martha Rabbit's crying on TV for crying out loud, all
Speaker 1: the Hollywood stars they saw Hamilton's. Now they're quoting Hamilton's
Speaker 1: and they saw the play, and now they're quoting him
Speaker 1: and the Constitution that Obama stomped on all these years
Speaker 1: as a means of telling electors to not go for Trump.
Speaker 1: By the way, you don't think we need extreme vetting.
Speaker 1: A thousand Muslims in London streets chanting Allaho ak bar,
Speaker 1: demanding an Islamic caliphate really pretty interesting when Donald Trump
Speaker 1: talks about extreme ben you want to invite those people here.
Speaker 1: By the way, you gotta give the t s a credit.
Speaker 1: They confiscated a big Teddy bear. Anyway, given the detailed
Speaker 1: backstory about he's homeless and hungry and now in order
Speaker 1: to remind us that everything is bad. But agents and
Speaker 1: Los Angeles confiscated a giant Teddy bear and posted a
Speaker 1: photo of the poor guy on Instagram, and they gave
Speaker 1: him a depressing backstory. I don't know what's happening. By
Speaker 1: the way, fake news. You hear about this New York
Speaker 1: City college student who claimed to be a victim of
Speaker 1: a hate crime because she's a Muslim. Everybody raced out
Speaker 1: to see that was Trump supporters. Trump supporters. She made
Speaker 1: it up. Whoopsie Daisy. Another guy faked KKK crime and abduction,
Speaker 1: you know, looking to blame President elect Trump supporters for
Speaker 1: a hate crime. Well, he confessed to the police. He
Speaker 1: fabricated his incident as well. Whoopsie Daisy. Fake news all
Speaker 1: over the place. Uh anyway, So yeah, I don't know
Speaker 1: what to tell you. We're gonna have Julian Assange at
Speaker 1: the top of the next NIP. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: information just put aside, maybe preconceived notion, any prejudice you
Speaker 1: might have. I want you to listen to Julian Assange.
Speaker 1: Number one, he hacked into the d d NASA at
Speaker 1: the age of sixteen. The guy is brilliant. The guy,
Speaker 1: for not being an American citizen, knows more about American
Speaker 1: politics than journalists. Listen to what he has to say
Speaker 1: and then decide do you believe Obama, Josh Ernest, Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: and the left and the media. What do you believe
Speaker 1: Julian Assans. That's your assignment for the next hour as well.
Speaker 1: Let Julian Osans talk here on this program on like
Speaker 1: other shows where they try and beat him up and
Speaker 1: not let him get a word in edgewise. Mediaphi where
Speaker 1: for the five and about U nine major publications in
Speaker 1: the United States are biased in favor of higuant. John Kerry,
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State, and some other US officials and
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton campaign kept putting forth propaganda to say
Speaker 1: that our publications revealing various forms of corruption and scandal
Speaker 1: within Hillary Clinton's network was in fact interference in the
Speaker 1: United States electoral process. But this has not interference in
Speaker 1: the electoral process. This is the definition of the electoral
Speaker 1: process is for media organizations and in fact everyone to
Speaker 1: publish the truth and their opinion about what is occurring.
Speaker 1: There cannot be a free and informed election unless people
Speaker 1: are free to inform. You accuse the present America of
Speaker 1: supporting Hillary Clinton. You said, the American liberal press has
Speaker 1: falling all over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton. They're erecting
Speaker 1: a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone's
Speaker 1: next as soon as she wins the election, which she
Speaker 1: is almost certainly going to do. What did you mean
Speaker 1: by that? What I meant is this kind of you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats always speaking about how terrible McCarthyism was, and
Speaker 1: there were and it was in many ways, but at
Speaker 1: least the USSR actually existed then, and there were actually
Speaker 1: Russian influenced campaigns in the United States which were serious.
Speaker 1: What we're seeing now is Hillary Clinton and her campaign
Speaker 1: trying to whip up and neo McCarthys hysteria where she
Speaker 1: claims or she claims that effectively Donald Trump is an
Speaker 1: agent to the Russians, that Wikilis is an agent to
Speaker 1: the Russians, and where her campaign has also implied that
Speaker 1: Jill Stein, the Greens leader, is a Russian agent, and
Speaker 1: that they intercept another US publication effectively Russian agents. So
Speaker 1: what we have yet we have look objectively, we have
Speaker 1: the ruling party's preferred successor running around calling the opposition leader,
Speaker 1: in fact, multiple opposition leaders and the critical press foreign agents.
Speaker 1: By the way, isn't it isn't that the very probable
Speaker 1: terrible climate to permit, and what kind of press climate
Speaker 1: is going to exist afterwards, especially if Clinton is elected.
Speaker 1: It will be perceived to be a validation of that hysteria,
Speaker 1: and so the press afterwards will be cracked down upon,
Speaker 1: and online publishers and people on social media. It will
Speaker 1: lead to a very harsh climate where the First Amendment
Speaker 1: will be very significantly eroded. The Clinton campaign has said
Speaker 1: that Russia is behind all of this. He says the
Speaker 1: Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for
Speaker 1: wiki leaks and it's emails. The Clinton camp has been
Speaker 1: able to project that kind of neo McCarthy's hysteria that
Speaker 1: Russia is responsible for everything hithery. Clinton stated multiple times
Speaker 1: falsely the seventeen uous intelligence agencies had assess that Russia
Speaker 1: was the source of our publications. Okay, uh, that's false.
Speaker 1: We can say that the Russian government is not the source. Yes,
Speaker 1: we have been publishing for ten years. In that ten years,
Speaker 1: we've published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several
Speaker 1: thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong,
Speaker 1: all right. That was Julian Assange and numerous interviews that
Speaker 1: he had, of course with Wiki Leaks, and Julian joins
Speaker 1: us now our newsmaker line, Julian, welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being with us. I know you follow
Speaker 1: the news closely. I know you see the narrative. Now
Speaker 1: there is a big bruhahab in the United States. The
Speaker 1: same media, by the way, that Wiki Leaks exposed as
Speaker 1: colluding with Hillary Clinton's campaign with near hysteria getting up
Speaker 1: to the president and John Podesta with Hillary's campaign claiming
Speaker 1: over and over and over again that it's clear the
Speaker 1: CIA says so even though there's no new evidence whatsoever
Speaker 1: that we didn't have prior to the election, and that
Speaker 1: the FBI contradicts, and James Clapper, the National Director of Intelligence,
Speaker 1: contradicts that in fact, the Russians tried to influence and
Speaker 1: the elections and and this hacked information came from them,
Speaker 1: And you're saying that is outrightly false, that's a falsehood.
Speaker 1: Our source is not the Russian government. So in other words,
Speaker 1: let me be clear, Russia did not give you the
Speaker 1: podested documents or anything from the d n C. Can
Speaker 1: you confirm whether or not you have information involving hacked
Speaker 1: info from the r n C. H we received about
Speaker 1: three pages information to do with the r n C
Speaker 1: and Trump, but it was already public somewhere else, Okay.
Speaker 1: So in other words, there was nothing significant. There was
Speaker 1: nothing comparable to what happened. So what Ranks previous said
Speaker 1: on NBC to Chuck Todd this weekend was true and
Speaker 1: NBC had it wrong. Well, as far as as far
Speaker 1: as you're aware of now, the c i A supposedly
Speaker 1: says the Russians definitely tried to im once the U S. Election.
Speaker 1: What is your thoughts on that? I think it's very interesting. Uh.
Speaker 1: The key quote for US is from James Clapper on
Speaker 1: the seventeenth of November. James Clapper is the head of
Speaker 1: the d NI either he's the Director of National Intelligence
Speaker 1: who oversees all seventeen U S intelligence agencies. Uh. And
Speaker 1: so his statement is as far as the wiki leaks connection,
Speaker 1: this is made to the House Intelligence Committee. As far
Speaker 1: as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence is not strong and
Speaker 1: we don't have a good insight into the sequencing of
Speaker 1: the releases or when the data may have been provided.
Speaker 1: We don't have good insight into that. So let me
Speaker 1: let me for the sake of our audience, Julian, let
Speaker 1: me play the exact quote. This is James Clapper, the
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence, saying exactly what you did that
Speaker 1: in fact the Russian government well to what he exactly
Speaker 1: said that. In fact, he was very very clear in
Speaker 1: saying that Wiki leaks connection with Russian hacking is not strong.
Speaker 1: Is the wiki leaks UH connection? The evidence there is
Speaker 1: not as strong, and we don't have good insight into
Speaker 1: the sequencing of the releases or when when the data
Speaker 1: may have been provided. We don't. We don't have as
Speaker 1: good insight into that. So that confirms exactly what you're saying.
Speaker 1: Can you answer whether or not there there's a report
Speaker 1: out today, and there was a report out earlier this
Speaker 1: week that in fact, they can trace back some leaks
Speaker 1: to the Department of Homeland Security as it relates to
Speaker 1: the state of Georgia. Do you know anything about those
Speaker 1: I looked when the uh, Look, let's pull back a bit.
Speaker 1: There's a deliberate attempt this week to consulate a whole
Speaker 1: lot of different issues together. Uh, it seems to be
Speaker 1: uh as a desire, an extremely dangerous and foolish desire
Speaker 1: to flip members of the U S. Electoral College around
Speaker 1: into getting up John Kasik or Hillary Clinton on the
Speaker 1: It's foolish because it won't happen. It's dangerous because the
Speaker 1: argument that it should happen can be used in four
Speaker 1: years time or eight years time for a sitting government
Speaker 1: that doesn't want to hand over power, and that's a
Speaker 1: very dangerous thing. There there's Clinton aligned packs putting out
Speaker 1: ads with lots of celebrities trying to push these electors
Speaker 1: to do it. So how are they rhetorically going about it? Well,
Speaker 1: there's our publications. It did make a significant influence during election.
Speaker 1: Lots and lots of Americans took them up, read them,
Speaker 1: analyzed them, forwarded them to each other. I was the
Speaker 1: most discussed topic according to Facebook throughout October. Okay, but
Speaker 1: then we have U S Intelligence saying they don't know
Speaker 1: how we got our staff or when we got it,
Speaker 1: and us saying we didn't get it from a state.
Speaker 1: Then there's hacking of various systems that have occurred. Okay,
Speaker 1: presumably to get intelligence. The Israelis do it, the Russians
Speaker 1: do it, the Chinese do it, The French do it
Speaker 1: every year and every election cycle to understand what policies are.
Speaker 1: So it's no surprise at all that there's record of
Speaker 1: Russians or others hacking a lot of these systems. Let
Speaker 1: let me put the questions collection. Let me put us
Speaker 1: a different way. The State of Georgia in the United States,
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State there now confirms ten separate cyber
Speaker 1: attacks on its network that we're all traced back to
Speaker 1: the US Department of Homeland Security addresses. Do you know
Speaker 1: anything about that. I don't know about this specific case,
Speaker 1: but the state are hacking I do know about because
Speaker 1: I followed it when it first came up in the
Speaker 1: original FBI report. Um, Look, these are about election. Voter
Speaker 1: registration systems, are not election not vote counting systems. Uh.
Speaker 1: It seems to be just basic identity theft. If you
Speaker 1: if you read what DHS said at the time, it
Speaker 1: said that it looked like these were going to be
Speaker 1: sold online in black markets. Really, is for the FSB
Speaker 1: going to be selling voter registration records online in black markets? No,
Speaker 1: of course, it's almost overwhelmingly likely that it is just
Speaker 1: identity left. Let me ask the DHS attacks are concerned.
Speaker 1: That could be a number of things. It could be
Speaker 1: the DHS just testing security and then people using the
Speaker 1: logs of those tests, or rather misusing them to try
Speaker 1: and claim that there's been attempt at hacks of these systems.
Speaker 1: While I certainly respect and by the way, it is
Speaker 1: important to point out some of your history. When you
Speaker 1: were sixteen years old, you did hack into NASA, you
Speaker 1: did hack into the Department of Defense, and I believe
Speaker 1: one other agency. Is that true. There's a number of
Speaker 1: books saying that, So there's a pretty good chance that
Speaker 1: might be true. Never been charged for that. I don't
Speaker 1: like to keep it that way. Yeah, that's true. Maybe
Speaker 1: the statute of limitations moved on. I said, I have
Speaker 1: said that there are two things that America needs to
Speaker 1: take from you in some of these other high private
Speaker 1: profile cases. And one is there's proof positive that we
Speaker 1: don't really have cybersecurity at a level we need for
Speaker 1: for a country that is so actively involved in intelligence
Speaker 1: and and influencing world events, etcetera. So you've done us
Speaker 1: a favor because now we could fix the problem if
Speaker 1: we so desired, but in all the years President Obama
Speaker 1: has been in office, he did nothing to fix it.
Speaker 1: The second thing that I think you you did for America,
Speaker 1: which I think is very important, is you exposed how
Speaker 1: corrupt our government is. And I'll get to that in
Speaker 1: a second. Without revealing your sources, would it be fair
Speaker 1: to say that the information as it relates to Wiki
Speaker 1: leaks and John Podesta's emails came from within the United States?
Speaker 1: To you, we have said it has not come from
Speaker 1: a state party. We know where it came from originally,
Speaker 1: of course it's John Podesta, It's from the d n C, etcetera.
Speaker 1: There's been no claim that has been held up and
Speaker 1: not even maintained anymore, that any of the information has
Speaker 1: been modified or is fake. So you can't confirm or
Speaker 1: deny if this information came from within the United States.
Speaker 1: We're unhappy that we felt that we needed to even
Speaker 1: say that it wasn't a state party. Normally we say
Speaker 1: nothing at all, but we have a conflict of interest.
Speaker 1: How we have an excellent reputation and strong interest in
Speaker 1: protecting our sources, and so we're never saying anything about them,
Speaker 1: never ruling anyone in or anyone out sometimes do it.
Speaker 1: We don't like to do it. We have another interest,
Speaker 1: which is maximizing the impact of our publications. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you this that could you here here? In order
Speaker 1: to order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications,
Speaker 1: we've had to come out and say, no, it's not
Speaker 1: a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way.
Speaker 1: Pay attention to the content of the publication. So in
Speaker 1: other words, when you say state party, wasn't another state
Speaker 1: like Russia or or some other countries. Correct. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you about were key leaks? And I think this
Speaker 1: could shake up the political world? Is it true? An
Speaker 1: email sent in July of this year that you have
Speaker 1: that describes how funds could be diverted from the Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign to the super packs of Jeb Bush, Carl Fierina,
Speaker 1: and John Kasick specifically document number one oh seven eight
Speaker 1: six four five and it reads j B C F
Speaker 1: J K packs will be noticed noticeably silent for the
Speaker 1: rest of the campaign. Each will receive a significant allowance
Speaker 1: from advertising budget HRC. Hillary is in the loop and
Speaker 1: talk to all three personally, eyes only. Is that a
Speaker 1: legitimate I don't have that in front of me. We
Speaker 1: have we have published nearly hundred thousand documents, So I
Speaker 1: mean I have seen references to things like that. I
Speaker 1: don't recall seeing an eyes only phrase. Do you recall
Speaker 1: any quid pro quo as it relates to Senator Lindsey Graham,
Speaker 1: that that he would get some assistance merely in other words,
Speaker 1: when he ran for re election for the Senate? I
Speaker 1: believe in I don't know de Graham is in the
Speaker 1: Podesta emails. Yes, all right, well that's something that maybe
Speaker 1: hopefully over time we'd be able to follow up on.
Speaker 1: I have a I have so many more questions for you.
Speaker 1: Let me let me ask you a couple of these. Um,
Speaker 1: do you think the president knows as you do that
Speaker 1: the source was not Russia for Wiki leaks? And I
Speaker 1: think it's important to point out that for over ten years,
Speaker 1: Wiki Leaks has never been proven wrong, not one single time.
Speaker 1: Do you believe the president is purposefully advancing this for
Speaker 1: political purposes to delegitimize Donald Trump? Do you it's clear?
Speaker 1: It's clear too look at the statements by James Clapper.
Speaker 1: He also made an earlier statement that, Um, the U. S.
Speaker 1: Intelligence is not aware of when we received material or
Speaker 1: how so it's pretty clear that, um, he must be
Speaker 1: getting those briefings as well if the public is getting them. Um,
Speaker 1: so there's a delivered attempt to conflate, but they see
Speaker 1: some of the public is concerned. The only interesting that happened.
Speaker 1: Thing that happened is that Wiki Leaks published a number
Speaker 1: number of different types of nation the d n C publications,
Speaker 1: John John Podestas and a variety of Clinton emails obtained
Speaker 1: the Freedom Information Act. So that's what's interesting to the public.
Speaker 1: By the way, it would not be the first time
Speaker 1: the CIA was politicized. You might remember during the Benghazi case.
Speaker 1: I actually spend time on this program talking to the
Speaker 1: people that were there on the ground while the attack
Speaker 1: was going on. The American people were told a very
Speaker 1: different story that this was quote, a spontaneous demonstration related
Speaker 1: to a YouTube video. And I just don't know many
Speaker 1: demonstrations that are spontaneous where they happen to have in
Speaker 1: their back pocket RPGs and mortar rounds which were fired
Speaker 1: at the consulate and the compounds. That's false, uh, And
Speaker 1: our publications show that Hillary Clinton knew it's false. There's
Speaker 1: a letter from Hillary Clinton to Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Quinton's
Speaker 1: uses an assumed name, Diane Reynolds, and that's the day
Speaker 1: or the day to day or the day after the attack,
Speaker 1: where she says, in fact, it was well, my point
Speaker 1: was group the c i A advanced that false story
Speaker 1: that it was a spontaneous demonstration when we now know
Speaker 1: it was a terrorist attack, and they advanced it through
Speaker 1: the CIA and language Langley. There were some people there
Speaker 1: that were playing politics at the CIA, advancing a false
Speaker 1: narrative story that we know as false. All right, Julian,
Speaker 1: if he can just stay right there, we'll come back.
Speaker 1: We'll continue more with Julian Assange and his insight as
Speaker 1: the founder and director of Wiki Leagues and more as
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Show continues. As we continue our interview
Speaker 1: with Wiki League's founder and director Julian Osange, let me
Speaker 1: ask you this. You never thought Donald Trump would win?
Speaker 1: Why I didn't think he would win. I thought he
Speaker 1: had a much higher chance than what the polling was giving.
Speaker 1: I'd gone through Brixit, Uh, and it's very similar case
Speaker 1: in Brixit where you had a new nationalist feeling in
Speaker 1: the country and disenfranchisement with existing elites. Uh. But there
Speaker 1: was polling number of professional pulses coming up to Brexit, AH,
Speaker 1: and they got it wrong because people misled the pulses
Speaker 1: in two different ways AH. And to be frank to pulse,
Speaker 1: some of the pulsars also wanted to be misled. But
Speaker 1: so those people who are going to vote against Brexit
Speaker 1: um um, so that they were going to vote for it,
Speaker 1: and those people who are going to vote for it
Speaker 1: said they're going to vote against it. The same thing happened,
Speaker 1: it seems in the case of Donald Trump selection. So
Speaker 1: why is that there was intense pressure in the United
Speaker 1: States from the mainstream media to make people feel ashamed
Speaker 1: of wanting to vote for Donald Trump and to make
Speaker 1: them feel like that they had to vote for Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton even though they didn't want to. Actually, I think
Speaker 1: it's this second case of of Hillary Clinton supporters falsely
Speaker 1: tell polsters that they would vote for her and they're
Speaker 1: not doing it. Um that made the difference in the election.
Speaker 1: So I had assumed that these pollsters had seen the
Speaker 1: Brexit situation and they'd taken that into account. They said
Speaker 1: that they had taken it into account, and that was
Speaker 1: not true. Now, very interestingly, I think that if the
Speaker 1: polling had been accurate, donald Trump wouldn't have won. Interesting,
Speaker 1: Now why do I say that, Well, Donald Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: campaign outspent Donald Trump but almost two to one. If
Speaker 1: the polling had been accurate, AH bankers and other cashed
Speaker 1: up interests would have given Hillary Clinton another five billion
Speaker 1: dollars and she would have blasted that and advertising everywhere.
Speaker 1: But they didn't give her all that money because they
Speaker 1: didn't perceive that there was a need to, because she
Speaker 1: seemed that she was four or five points ahead in
Speaker 1: the polls. So they got fooled by the polling and
Speaker 1: therefore didn't spend the amount of money that they needed
Speaker 1: to on the campaign and didn't recruit other resources to
Speaker 1: recruit even more mainst media resources to beat up Trump
Speaker 1: and to defend Quentin because they didn't think there was
Speaker 1: a need to. Let me ask you, remember when the
Speaker 1: New York Times was going full throttle with the story
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump's taxes, which was stolen information at the time,
Speaker 1: and and everybody in the media thought it was fair
Speaker 1: and it was legitimate coverage, and they how they got
Speaker 1: ahold of it was not an issue in any way.
Speaker 1: You view yourself and you view wiki leaks the same way.
Speaker 1: You view yourself as a journalist. Information came to you
Speaker 1: and you disseminated that information because you felt the public
Speaker 1: had a right to know. What is the difference between
Speaker 1: what you and wiki leaks have done versus what the
Speaker 1: New York Times and CNN does when they published Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's taxes that were that were received illegally or received
Speaker 1: There is a difference. Our stuff has more impact. Well,
Speaker 1: that's okay, I kicked touche. I can't disagree with that
Speaker 1: very good point. But but in other words, you do
Speaker 1: view wiki leaks. One of the things in the in
Speaker 1: the conversations that I've had with you, both on radio
Speaker 1: and TV, is how important it is for you to
Speaker 1: maintain a perfect record and not get anything wrong in
Speaker 1: terms of the information that you acquire that you release.
Speaker 1: You wanted to be right, and so far you've been
Speaker 1: right every time. So I p abway have been right
Speaker 1: for since we were founded a decade ago. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a It's a very valuable thing to have a perfect record.
Speaker 1: It's also a curse because we have to work so
Speaker 1: hard to keep it understood. And my big fear ten
Speaker 1: years ago, which you and I discussed the last time
Speaker 1: you were on my radio show when I wanted to
Speaker 1: arrest did, I said, because I felt you would release
Speaker 1: potential information that would result in methods and people potentially dying.
Speaker 1: Because there is so much in terms of covert operations,
Speaker 1: people working undercover, you purposely choose not to publish that information. Correct. Well, yes,
Speaker 1: if we're talking about Afghanistan, there were fifteen thousand documents
Speaker 1: that we didn't didn't release because you thought people's lives
Speaker 1: would be in jeopardy immediately, No, but we thought that
Speaker 1: there was a reasonable possibility so that we wanted to
Speaker 1: study the issue further. So we we didn't think that
Speaker 1: people's lives would definitely be in jeopardy, but we weren't sure,
Speaker 1: so we wanted to hold things back to we to
Speaker 1: we understood it. Yeah, all right, I have a lot
Speaker 1: more questions for you. Let me let me ask you
Speaker 1: a few of these, because I think this is very
Speaker 1: important for our audience to fully completely grasp and to understand. Um,
Speaker 1: so you only had three pages on on there, r
Speaker 1: n c Um. Do you think the media in the
Speaker 1: US is trying to scapegoat you? And what message do
Speaker 1: you have for them? Um? Don't they're increasingly not very important.
Speaker 1: I think. I think Trump has even made this statement.
Speaker 1: And there are a paper tiger in this election, and
Speaker 1: the new publications on the internet one can get pretty
Speaker 1: directly to the people. So there's old press are less important,
Speaker 1: and the degree of bias they've been showing during the
Speaker 1: electoral process. And it has come from both sides, but
Speaker 1: I suppose particularly the liberal press, readers see that they
Speaker 1: feel it, they don't like being lectured to, are told
Speaker 1: what to do, and they rebel against it. I think
Speaker 1: this is the other reason why Trump won that no
Speaker 1: one's speaking about, which is that kind of hectoring ah
Speaker 1: from the liberal media in the United States, and the
Speaker 1: type of advertising that Hillary Clinton was putting out really
Speaker 1: turns people off because it seemed like those people who
Speaker 1: already had a lot of social power. Uh, we're telling
Speaker 1: you what to do, and so you wanted to do
Speaker 1: the opposite. How easy from your assessment as somebody that
Speaker 1: has been involved that this most of his adult life. Now,
Speaker 1: how how secure? If you're get to give a grade
Speaker 1: of one to ten, ten being the most secure? How
Speaker 1: secure is America's agencies, American government, America's secrets, Everything is
Speaker 1: almost completely insecure out the computer systems have become so
Speaker 1: complex that it is not possible to understand all the parts, uh,
Speaker 1: let alone secure them. Is it is just impossible. So
Speaker 1: and that goes for individuals as well as a government.
Speaker 1: It goes goes for all of us. Yeah. Yeah, Do
Speaker 1: you think there could be a separate operation within the
Speaker 1: Russian government, separate and apart from the information you have
Speaker 1: at wiki leaks? Okay, So this is interesting that there's
Speaker 1: a there's a conflation between the three things. Wiki leaks
Speaker 1: publications and I told you what James Clapper says about them,
Speaker 1: but they don't. I can't see how the Russians transferred
Speaker 1: them to US et cetera. That had the impact everyone's
Speaker 1: talking about alleged hacks of the US voting system. You
Speaker 1: just mentioned the DHS for example, and other publications appearing
Speaker 1: on the internet that basically almost no one has heard of.
Speaker 1: They didn't have any impact in the election. In fact,
Speaker 1: might have had the opposite impact. In this last category,
Speaker 1: there's a site called DC leaks and another and the
Speaker 1: word press site run by a guy calling himself goose
Speaker 1: Off two. Um, now, who were behind these We don't know?
Speaker 1: Do you know these people? Uh? And there was a
Speaker 1: couple of no and there was a couple of publications
Speaker 1: also by The Hill and by Gorka Uh and the
Speaker 1: Smoking Gun that claimed that their documents came from I
Speaker 1: think from Goucifer maybe this DC Weeks. So those look
Speaker 1: very much like that they're the Russians, but in some
Speaker 1: ways they seem very amateur and that they look too
Speaker 1: much like it. And so this is what far from
Speaker 1: me to quote John Bolton, I think it should be
Speaker 1: executed or something, but he has said correctly that if
Speaker 1: something looks so much like that is meant to be
Speaker 1: the Russians, then maybe someone wants you just think that's
Speaker 1: that's such a good point. Let me ask you about
Speaker 1: the Chris Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, an
Speaker 1: associate of yours. He was quoted in The Daily Mail
Speaker 1: that he flew to Washington, d C. For the emails.
Speaker 1: He claimed he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded
Speaker 1: area near American University with one of the email sources
Speaker 1: and the leakers. Motivation was quote discussed at the corruption
Speaker 1: of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary
Speaker 1: election playing field against Bernie Sanders, and he said the
Speaker 1: source had legal access to the information. The documents came
Speaker 1: from inside leaks, not from hacks. Yeah, we don't comment
Speaker 1: on sourcing. Craig Murray is a former UK ambastor. He
Speaker 1: is a friend of mine. Uh, he is not authorized
Speaker 1: to speak on behalf of you. Are you angry that
Speaker 1: he gave this interview? I just don't want to go
Speaker 1: anywhere in either. Okay, that's fine, Um, But can I
Speaker 1: ask the question in a roundabout way without being annoying
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be annoying here. Is it much
Speaker 1: more likely that would have happened versus the Russians? I
Speaker 1: don't want to be drawn on this. Okay, that's too.
Speaker 1: We have to protect our sources understuff. I can't be
Speaker 1: drawn on it. Okay, let me When were you first
Speaker 1: alerted that someone had hacked these documents of Podesta? That's
Speaker 1: the interesting question. Uh, trying to cast my mind back.
Speaker 1: They took a while to prepare, and so did the
Speaker 1: d n C leagues. So to other publications, it's quite
Speaker 1: a lot of work verifying them, formatting them, indexing them,
Speaker 1: understanding them. Um. But for the same reason of making
Speaker 1: it hard for authorities to track when our sources have
Speaker 1: communicated with us. We don't like to mention precisely when
Speaker 1: we've obtained things. So there really is no evidence at all,
Speaker 1: and everyone's saying that the Russians has done this. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you whether you mean you know in the
Speaker 1: Manning case, uh, was that a Russian attempt at undermining
Speaker 1: the Bush presidency with you know, war logs, giving Liberals
Speaker 1: what they needed to erode in terms of the GOP
Speaker 1: and support and paid maybe the way for Barack Obama
Speaker 1: to win an election. Well, we were such sticklers for
Speaker 1: this kind of thing. We've never said that, uh, Tilsey
Speaker 1: Manning is one of our forces. At trial they have
Speaker 1: said that they are. But even if someone is arrested
Speaker 1: and convicted, and even if they were guilty, we still
Speaker 1: don't say whether they're one of our sources or not.
Speaker 1: Because someone INSI situation is under you can argue with
Speaker 1: under some kind of form of duress. Let me ask
Speaker 1: you one last question. For those especially in the media
Speaker 1: that will pick will pick up allegations at his trial
Speaker 1: that um that he was working for the Russians, let
Speaker 1: me ask you a question about your motivation, because in
Speaker 1: a private conversation we once had without divulging the nature
Speaker 1: of that conversation. You said to me, I am a journalist.
Speaker 1: I I get information that you think the public needs
Speaker 1: to know. You said to me, you have no interest
Speaker 1: in information about private citizens, for example. That and that
Speaker 1: you think what you have discovered exposes like for example,
Speaker 1: I think if there were any good reporters in America,
Speaker 1: they would have taken the Wiki leaks information that I
Speaker 1: put up on a TV screen every night and I
Speaker 1: read on my radio program on fifty stations every day,
Speaker 1: and they would have taken the issue of how corrupt
Speaker 1: our media is, how corrupt the Clintons were, and they
Speaker 1: would have made this This would have been a case
Speaker 1: bigger than Watergate. But for whatever reason, they've gone into
Speaker 1: this mode where you're they don't claim you're a journalist,
Speaker 1: that you're a trader, and that divulging this information was
Speaker 1: only political. But I do believe it. If it was
Speaker 1: a Republican they would have been praised, singing your praises
Speaker 1: day and night. How do you what do you want
Speaker 1: Americans to know about what your motives are? Well? Wiki
Speaker 1: Thinks has been going for ten years. We specialize in
Speaker 1: obtaining information which has been suppressed from the public that
Speaker 1: is of political or historical importance, understanding it, analyzing it,
Speaker 1: publishing it, protecting our sources, encouraging interaction with the public.
Speaker 1: H and that educates everyone and they can decide how
Speaker 1: they want to live their lives accordingly. And we've won
Speaker 1: a lot of awards for that, a lot of journalism awards.
Speaker 1: I've won the equivalent of the Pull of Surprise in
Speaker 1: my own country Australia, the Walkley Award. Sure other journalists
Speaker 1: have won the top journalism prize in the country three
Speaker 1: three times in the case of Kristin Prapson. So we're
Speaker 1: pretty good at this. We have a perfect record. Now,
Speaker 1: I think you're pretty good. Have we have a pretty
Speaker 1: big impact as you have seen. I think you had
Speaker 1: a huge impact on this election and it makes it
Speaker 1: angers Democrats. Would you have published the same thing if
Speaker 1: it was about Donald Trump? Absolutely? Yeah, that And because
Speaker 1: you know, if Donald Trump UH makes a lot of
Speaker 1: enemies on on the inside UH in his time in office,
Speaker 1: then he could he could well face the same thing
Speaker 1: in four years time. By the way, that is the
Speaker 1: best indication that this did not come from the Russians.
Speaker 1: I don't think you meant to say that, but listen, Julian,
Speaker 1: I do appreciate your time. I do think you had
Speaker 1: an impact. But I do think you we got to
Speaker 1: see a glimpse of how corrupt the nature the institutions
Speaker 1: of American government and our political system are. It's actually
Speaker 1: frightening to me. It is. It is frightening, I think.
Speaker 1: I mean, I love our publications. They're so rich, and
Speaker 1: you can get a very direct understanding of the power
Speaker 1: networks that exists in d C and with the media
Speaker 1: and so on. At the same time, yes, they're they're
Speaker 1: disturbing that once you know what's going on, then you
Speaker 1: can do something about it. And that was my argument
Speaker 1: about why I think America owes you a debt of
Speaker 1: gratitude for that and for the exposing exposing that we
Speaker 1: have no cybersecurity. Julian, I've taken way too much of
Speaker 1: your time. Thank you so much for being with us.
Speaker 1: We really appreciate it. We hope you'll come on TV.
Speaker 1: So thanks. I think it's important to note that on
Speaker 1: election night, and we we had our guard up for this,
Speaker 1: in our our cyber experts at DHS had we had
Speaker 1: our crisis action team ready. Um on election night, we
Speaker 1: did not see anything that amounted to altering ballot counts
Speaker 1: or or degrading the ability to report election results or anything.
Speaker 1: Nothing out of the ordinary, And there's always a certain
Speaker 1: amount of noise that goes on out there, um and
Speaker 1: so on election night itself, we did not see anything
Speaker 1: that affected the ballot count. So I should ask in
Speaker 1: in that context whether you can assure the country based
Speaker 1: on what you saw that night in your analysis, since
Speaker 1: that Russian hacking did not affect the outcome of the election,
Speaker 1: are you confident of that? Well, we see no evidence
Speaker 1: that hacking by any actor altered the ballot count or
Speaker 1: any cyber actions that deprived people of voting. Now, what's
Speaker 1: also true, and this goes to something that we've discussed
Speaker 1: in the in the briefing on Monday. There's ample evidence
Speaker 1: that was known long before the election, and even in
Speaker 1: most cases long before October about the Trump campaign in Russia,
Speaker 1: everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to
Speaker 1: hack his opponent. It might be an indication that he
Speaker 1: was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or
Speaker 1: sources he was he had available to him, that Russia
Speaker 1: was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact
Speaker 1: on his opponent's campaign. That's why he was encouraging them
Speaker 1: to keep doing it. Trevor, I think what everybody has
Speaker 1: to reflect on is what is it about our political ecosystem?
Speaker 1: What is it about the state of our democracy? Where
Speaker 1: the leaks of what we're frankly not very interesting emails
Speaker 1: that didn't have any explosive information in them, the result
Speaker 1: was interesting ended up being an obsession and the fact
Speaker 1: that the Russians were doing this was not an obsession,
Speaker 1: This was not a secret. Running up to the election,
Speaker 1: the President elect in UH in some of his political
Speaker 1: events specifically said two, the Russians heck Hillary's emails so
Speaker 1: that we can finally find out what's going on, and there,
Speaker 1: you know, confirm our conspiracy theories. You had UH what
Speaker 1: was very clear UH relationships between UH, members of the
Speaker 1: president Alex campaign team and Russians and a professed UH
Speaker 1: shared view on a bunch of issues. All right, there
Speaker 1: you have follow up to our hour long interview in
Speaker 1: the last hour with Julian Assange of Wiki Leaks joining
Speaker 1: us now to discuss Rich Higgins, vice President Intelligence National
Speaker 1: Security Program's former manager with the Department of Defense, Combating
Speaker 1: Terrorism Technical Support Office and Irregular Warfare Support Program. Philip
Speaker 1: Painey is a founding member of the Department of Homeland
Speaker 1: Security and author of the books See Something, Say Nothing.
Speaker 1: John Idonasi is the founder and CEO of vis Sense,
Speaker 1: a computer scientist, former Navy seal who invented new capabilities
Speaker 1: and Special Ops Community and Central intell for the Special
Speaker 1: Ops community and Central Intelligence Agency. Guys, I'll start with you,
Speaker 1: Rich Higgins, I mean, Julian Assange. Cannot be any more clear.
Speaker 1: Russia did not do this. They do have a tenure track,
Speaker 1: could of not getting anything wrong. Nobody has disputed the
Speaker 1: information that they released. Um And then when I asked
Speaker 1: Julian about Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan,
Speaker 1: an associate of his, and what he told The Daily
Speaker 1: Mail that he claimed he had a clandestine handoff in
Speaker 1: a wooded area near American University with one of the
Speaker 1: email sources. That the leaker's motivation was the disgust at
Speaker 1: the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and tilting the primary
Speaker 1: election against Bernie Sanders Uh, and that the source had
Speaker 1: legal access to the information. I'm more inclined to believe
Speaker 1: that story than anything that Obama, Hillary Podesta, the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is trying to feed us. Uh, and the CIA,
Speaker 1: which we know is politicized issues in the past, especially
Speaker 1: involving defending Hillary on Benghazi. Your thoughts, Sean in one
Speaker 1: fell sloop. We've seen as as this administration has on
Speaker 1: their way out the door, polluted Department of Poland Security,
Speaker 1: polluted the Central Intelligence Agency, the legitimized the election. The
Speaker 1: person with the most clear ties to the Russians that
Speaker 1: I know about is actually John Podesta. And this is
Speaker 1: a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I
Speaker 1: don't know it is. Um. Nobody still knows what happened
Speaker 1: to the d n C staff or murdered a couple
Speaker 1: of months ago. So so you're talking about this guy Seth, right,
Speaker 1: do you think that's Do you think that there is
Speaker 1: a connection there? I have to tell you so, I
Speaker 1: have no proof of that, but I mean we we
Speaker 1: really given the Assoni statements, given the content of the information,
Speaker 1: given Assangea's statements, to the legality of their uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the person who actually had the access to the documents.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a there's a lot of stuff there
Speaker 1: that makes me question, what's happening. Unbelievable. Philip, what's your
Speaker 1: take on this, especially the track record of Wiki Leaks.
Speaker 1: The track record is of Assange the clandestine handoff drop off,
Speaker 1: which she did not want to discuss in any way
Speaker 1: and says it was an unauthorized interview. Who do you
Speaker 1: tend to believe here? And do you think that the
Speaker 1: CIA may be playing politics because there's no new information
Speaker 1: since the campaign, no new information that this is all
Speaker 1: stuff they had before the election that we were all
Speaker 1: aware of. Both the FBI and the Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence James Clapper all say that they do not believe
Speaker 1: that there is not evidence that there's a Wiki leaks
Speaker 1: connection with Russia and the Russian hacking. Well, hello everyone,
Speaker 1: Hello Sewn For me, this is deja vu all over again,
Speaker 1: just leading to listening to the lead up interviews before
Speaker 1: we started. These are the same individuals that shut down
Speaker 1: cases that I worked on within the Department of Homeland
Speaker 1: Security and Reading Secretary of State Brian Kemp's comments about
Speaker 1: his inquiries into the hacking of the Georgia election computer,
Speaker 1: he wrote that since contacking DHS with these concerns, we
Speaker 1: have collaborated with the agency and provided extensive additional information,
Speaker 1: and then j Johnson's response was not specific as to
Speaker 1: the attacks intent or origin, despite the fact that many
Speaker 1: questions remain unanswered. That sounds like a Hollywood scriptwriter for
Speaker 1: what I went through. That's exactly the way they dealt
Speaker 1: with me. Every time I brought up a concern about
Speaker 1: national security. They would never answer the question directly. And
Speaker 1: now we see it on a macro big screens scale.
Speaker 1: And I also find it remarkable that for the first
Speaker 1: time ever, I actually agreed with James Clapper that he
Speaker 1: said there was no evidence that the Russians hacked the
Speaker 1: campaign so in favor of Donald Trump. Because even are
Speaker 1: as Rich alluded to, our entire intelligence infrastructure has been
Speaker 1: has been corrupted and politically politicized so badly that our
Speaker 1: right hand doesn't know what our left hand is doing. Well,
Speaker 1: that is a perfect example of it. Yeah, right, I
Speaker 1: thought after nine eleven, and you know, because you were
Speaker 1: one of the founding members of the Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: I thought one of the things that we were going
Speaker 1: to fix was our intelligence agencies communicating with each of us.
Speaker 1: And you know, my argument is, we know the CIA
Speaker 1: politicized the issue of Benghazi and and the false story
Speaker 1: of a spontaneous attack. We know that they purposely never
Speaker 1: talked to people on the ground that had information that
Speaker 1: would be critical when they were editing the talking points,
Speaker 1: but they went with the political narrative that this was
Speaker 1: a spontaneous demonstration that was inspired by a YouTube video
Speaker 1: and the people that were demonstrating just happened to have
Speaker 1: mortars and RPGs in their back pocket, which is totally, incompletely, assinine,
Speaker 1: impossible and insane. Sure, it is especially in light of
Speaker 1: what came out afterwards from the Defense Intelligence Agency's own
Speaker 1: report that was concluded in August of that said that
Speaker 1: the administration was shipping weapons from ben Ghazi to over
Speaker 1: to Syria and backing the opposition groups which then morphed
Speaker 1: into ISIS. And even though that information has been publicly
Speaker 1: available for some time now, this administration just cheaps incessant,
Speaker 1: incessantly repeating the same false mantra. It's a perfect example
Speaker 1: of the misty disinformation campaign. We know what the truth is,
Speaker 1: and yet they keep insisting that that's not what happened.
Speaker 1: It's really quite remarkable. Well it's not, but when you
Speaker 1: look at it through a political prism, though Phil and
Speaker 1: I know you have to. You're such an innocent guy,
Speaker 1: and you know, I know that you'd like to believe
Speaker 1: the best in people. But in looking at it, viewing
Speaker 1: it through a political prism, and you say, well, do
Speaker 1: they want to delegitimize Donald Trump and his election? Then
Speaker 1: then it begins to make a lot of sense, doesn't it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: from a Machiavellian perspective, it's brilliant tactics. Machiavellian one oh one, absolutely, yes, right,
Speaker 1: absolutely right down the line. Let me let me bring
Speaker 1: in if I can for a second here, John Um,
Speaker 1: what about this was interesting to me? And I did
Speaker 1: ask I did ask Julian about this. The Georgias Secretary
Speaker 1: of State, the State of Georgia confirmed ten separate cyber
Speaker 1: attacks traced back to the U. S. Department of Homeland
Speaker 1: Security addresses. When you couple that with the Wiki leaks
Speaker 1: Craig Murray, guy who Julian did not want to talk about,
Speaker 1: who says he was not authorized to talk, and this
Speaker 1: handoff in the wooded area of the information that they
Speaker 1: got from Podesta and it was all obtained legally. Do
Speaker 1: you see any connection between these two at all? Or no?
Speaker 1: I see I see connection in the trade craft and
Speaker 1: let me just say thanks for having me on. We're
Speaker 1: entering a whole new realm here, and it's a it's
Speaker 1: a perfect storm where an individual can yield strategic power
Speaker 1: through an Internet connection. And relative to the Georgia website attack,
Speaker 1: it's very important understand unlike the other things that have
Speaker 1: occurred in history and where news can sort of embellish
Speaker 1: it unless your boots on the ground. This forensics associated
Speaker 1: with every one of these attacks. They're digital forensics. Ten
Speaker 1: separate attacks all originated from the same i P address
Speaker 1: for all the listeners, let me just unpack what that means.
Speaker 1: That means ten separate times all of the i P,
Speaker 1: which is you know, think of it as a as
Speaker 1: a post office box, all pointed to the same post
Speaker 1: office box inside DHS, which is a static registration, which
Speaker 1: means that is the home base for DHS Internet activity.
Speaker 1: The only way for that to occur is somebody is
Speaker 1: either spoofing the internet d h S I P address,
Speaker 1: which means that DHS has now been hacked and it's unlikely,
Speaker 1: or two, somebody inside DHS has proven the Georgia website
Speaker 1: so vise forensic Sean are becoming increasingly important as part
Speaker 1: of the narrative, and that's what we're missing in the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Camp isn't even able to get a clear,
Speaker 1: coherent answer from the very institutions that you and I
Speaker 1: rely on to protect our electrical grid. Wow, pretty powerful stuff.
Speaker 1: How did you want to weigh in on that, Rich
Speaker 1: and and more specifically, how is it how is it
Speaker 1: possible that they're advancing this false narrative, the CIA, that
Speaker 1: contradicts the FBI, that contradicts the Director of National Intelligence
Speaker 1: that the media is running with. I mean, Julian Assans
Speaker 1: just said, no, we only have three pages on the RNC.
Speaker 1: We don't we didn't hack into them, and it really
Speaker 1: wasn't relevant exactly what the FBI told Ryan's previous and
Speaker 1: exactly what Ryan's previous told NBC that NBC refused to accept. Well,
Speaker 1: I think yesterday, when you know the Congressman had asked
Speaker 1: to be briefed by the intelligence community on what they
Speaker 1: actually know, the intelligence agencies refused to do it. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is a direct assault against the sovereign power of
Speaker 1: Congress enumerated in the Constitution. And the thing that really
Speaker 1: screens out to me is if this is a DHS
Speaker 1: probe of a state voter registration role, for example, or
Speaker 1: the identification of voters or seeing how you voted, and
Speaker 1: we're having states rights sovereignty issues here, we have information
Speaker 1: warfare issues with the narrative adherents. May I've got to say,
Speaker 1: Congressman Pompeo and General Kelly have a lot of work
Speaker 1: to do, a lot of work to do. What would
Speaker 1: you advise them to do in what order? Well, right
Speaker 1: off the top, I would say they need to prioritize
Speaker 1: cyber for all the reasons Bill and John have enumerated here.
Speaker 1: Um terrorist group, nation state actors, domestic political opponents are
Speaker 1: all playing inside of this space, and we need to
Speaker 1: take it seriously. I think for fifteen twenty years now
Speaker 1: we've been nibbling around the edges on how serious a
Speaker 1: threat this actually is. But this is a very signal,
Speaker 1: difficant domain of security on both domestic and foreign policy
Speaker 1: or impacted by it, and we need to make an
Speaker 1: appropriate level of investment institutionally in dealing with it. Now, Rich,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Phil Handy, let me ask you, Uh, we
Speaker 1: had a thousand Muslims marching in Great Britain last night,
Speaker 1: and they want the Caliphate advance there. And I want
Speaker 1: to ask you, through the prism of everything that you
Speaker 1: knew and all your hard work of accumulating names that
Speaker 1: was deleted under the Obama administration, you know, how do
Speaker 1: we build this back up? And have you been contacted
Speaker 1: by anybody in the Trump transition team to go to
Speaker 1: work for them, of any of you. Yes, we're having
Speaker 1: background conversations and which are good indicators. What I'm looking
Speaker 1: for is restoration of our capacity to do the job
Speaker 1: that we took an oath to do. I have said publicly,
Speaker 1: literally hundreds of times in the last few months as
Speaker 1: I've traveled around the country that just let us do
Speaker 1: our job and we can we can do it. We're
Speaker 1: capable and restore the information. And also to see, by
Speaker 1: the way, the creation of a Whistleblower Commission, to create
Speaker 1: a safe pathway for individuals to come in and literally
Speaker 1: lay information on the table in front of a panel
Speaker 1: of experts and let us go through it, categorize it,
Speaker 1: prioritize it, an archive it because it's very important. These
Speaker 1: guys whistleblowers are forward artillery observers and they can call
Speaker 1: in precise air strikes because they know exactly where the
Speaker 1: targets are. And this information is historical, it's part of
Speaker 1: the country's history and it needs to be archived. That's
Speaker 1: one of the things I'd like to see. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm willing to sign me up. We have had conversations
Speaker 1: and all of this stuff is very predictable, meaning the
Speaker 1: marches in the UK, the fact that now they found
Speaker 1: out that the guy from the most recent attack in
Speaker 1: Ohio had not been correctly bad. It's these kind of
Speaker 1: things just keep going on over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: It could have been in the information that Obama a
Speaker 1: race that you would accumulated since founding the Department of
Speaker 1: Homeland Security. But I hope you worked for the Trump administration. Rich,
Speaker 1: I hope you get there. And John, I'm just getting
Speaker 1: to know you. But you sound like a guy that
Speaker 1: they could use to thank you all for being one
Speaker 1: of the welcome than the last person, the last person
Speaker 1: anyone would need is me. Who the hell needs me?
Speaker 1: What do I know? Uh? What a fascinating day this
Speaker 1: has been. U It's just amazing. Republican members of the
Speaker 1: Electoral College, this message is for you, as you know,
Speaker 1: our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the
Speaker 1: American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to
Speaker 1: ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is
Speaker 1: to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications an
Speaker 1: eminent degree someone who is highly qualified for the job.
Speaker 1: The Electoral College was created specifically to prevent an unfit
Speaker 1: candidate from becoming president. There are five hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: eight members of the Electoral College. You and just thirty
Speaker 1: six other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference by
Speaker 1: voting your conscience on December nine, te and thereby shaping
Speaker 1: the future of our nation. I'm not asking you to
Speaker 1: vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to vote
Speaker 1: for Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to vote for
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. As you know, the Constitution gives electors the
Speaker 1: right to vote for any eligible person, any eligible person,
Speaker 1: no matter which party they belong to. But it should
Speaker 1: certainly be someone you consider especially competent, especially competent to
Speaker 1: serve as President of the United States of America. By
Speaker 1: voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can
Speaker 1: give the House of Representatives the option to select a
Speaker 1: qualified candidate for the presidency. I stand with you. I
Speaker 1: stand with you. I stand with you. I stand with
Speaker 1: you in support and solidarity with Conservatives, independents, and liberals
Speaker 1: and all citizens of the United States. The American people
Speaker 1: trust that your voice speaks for us all, and that
Speaker 1: you you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility
Speaker 1: granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself. What is evident
Speaker 1: is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to
Speaker 1: be president. He lacks the necessary stability and clearly the
Speaker 1: respect for the constitution of our great nation. You have position,
Speaker 1: the authority and the opportunity to go down in the
Speaker 1: books as an American hero who changed the course of history.
Speaker 1: And you have my respect. You have my respect. You
Speaker 1: have my respect for your patriotism and service to the
Speaker 1: American people. Unite for America, Ladies and gentlemen, this is
Speaker 1: your captain speaking. Welcome aboard Trump FL sixteen hundred with
Speaker 1: NonStop service to Canada. We'd like to welcome all our
Speaker 1: celebrity defectors, and we'll get you out of America just
Speaker 1: as soon as the tower clears. As for takeoff, go
Speaker 1: once we reach out prouising altitude flight attendance will pass
Speaker 1: through the cabin, collecting your U S Citizenship renouncement forms
Speaker 1: and serving complimentary beverages and disposable crying towels. And once
Speaker 1: he read the drop shone, you'll be gutting Jenny exit
Speaker 1: rampant the rear of the plane, where he'll take a
Speaker 1: drash course on parachute folding and be Jennison. And surely
Speaker 1: thereafter we'd like to thank you for choosing Trump Airline
Speaker 1: and hope you have a soft landing, Buffy. Just last
Speaker 1: week he confirmed the National Review that he's again considering
Speaker 1: a run in twos sixteen. Who Donald brought you account?
Speaker 1: Plime check? Now on the half of this country which
Speaker 1: does not want you to be president, which broadly won't
Speaker 1: you to run. Donald Trump has been saying that he
Speaker 1: will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising
Speaker 1: since I just assumed he was running as a joke.
Speaker 1: That people think that Donald Trump is a clown. Donald
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a clown, And I mean, does anybody
Speaker 1: seriously think that Donald Trump is serious about running for president?
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, you he's a clown. Which Republican candidate has
Speaker 1: the best champce of winning the general election of the
Speaker 1: declared ones. Right now, Donald Trump, president Obama will go
Speaker 1: down as perhaps the worst president in the history of
Speaker 1: the United States. Exclamation point at real Donald Trump, at
Speaker 1: real Donald Trump. At least I will go down as
Speaker 1: a president's Basically, this is the beginning of the end
Speaker 1: for Trump, at the beginning of the end. The beginning
Speaker 1: of the end is probably starting of the beginning of
Speaker 1: the end for for Donald Trump. Donald, You're not gonna
Speaker 1: be able to insult your way to the presidency. The
Speaker 1: strongest person usually isn't the loudest one in the room.
Speaker 1: So right now we have Hillary is about seventy five
Speaker 1: or favorite. We have different persons. Hillary up by doubling
Speaker 1: digits nationally, twelve points, four way race, Clon leading in Florida,
Speaker 1: Culton leading in North Carolina, Clinton leading Ohio, but the
Speaker 1: leading in Nevada. I could go on and on and on. Uh.
Speaker 1: I continue to believe Mr Trump, Trump will not be president.
Speaker 1: And so right now, Mr Trump, to answer your call
Speaker 1: for political honesty, I just want to say, you're not
Speaker 1: going to be president. All right. It's been fun, it's
Speaker 1: been great. I love you, but come on, come on, bunny,
Speaker 1: we are a major projection right now, Donald Trump will
Speaker 1: take OHI projects Donald Trump will carry the state of Florida,
Speaker 1: US win for Donald Trumpell Donald Trump, while we project
Speaker 1: will win in Kentucky, with in Indiana with its eleven
Speaker 1: electoral roads, West Virginia, Coloda, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama,
Speaker 1: North Dakota out of its three electoral votes, and South
Speaker 1: dakomaa Texas record song, Louisia, the state of Montana, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Wisconsin, Arizona,
Speaker 1: Kansas six electoral votes, Nebraska and it's five electoral votes
Speaker 1: and with its three votes. Sorry to keep you waiting,
Speaker 1: complicated business. A lot of people have laughed at me
Speaker 1: over the years. Now they're not laughing so much. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you all right, tell you have it. I think
Speaker 1: the funniest part of this is a group of these
Speaker 1: Hollywood celebrities. Not that was so powerful. I mean, what
Speaker 1: did Hillary Clinton do at the end of the campaign.
Speaker 1: She brought in Beyonce and who's she married to again?
Speaker 1: What's that guy's name? Jay Z? Cursing, dropping f bombs
Speaker 1: and bombs every bomb possible, and that didn't work. Then
Speaker 1: bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen. That didn't work. Let's bring in,
Speaker 1: you know, people one step out of the Hollywood, you know,
Speaker 1: Hall of Fame, which is like people like Martin she Anyway,
Speaker 1: they're trying now to encourage electors in the Electoral College
Speaker 1: to disregard their stage voting results and deny Trump the president.
Speaker 1: We're not telling you to vote for Hillary anybody, but
Speaker 1: anybody but him. Well, that's what elections are about. That's
Speaker 1: what the American people decided, and that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: I don't even know half of these people. I never messing.
Speaker 1: I guess I know Richard Shift, you know who B. D.
Speaker 1: Wong is. I have no idea who these people are. Anyway,
Speaker 1: they don't want Trump to reach the magic number of
Speaker 1: two seventy, and so they're trying to encourage, basically a
Speaker 1: coup de talk. They prefer the United States not be
Speaker 1: a democratic republic. They want a dictatorship and they want
Speaker 1: to be able to decide and they want electors. Well,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, it's not gonna happen anyway.
Speaker 1: But with that said, you know the fact that they
Speaker 1: want to. So it's cry baby sore losers. I've never
Speaker 1: seen it in my life like this, and the very
Speaker 1: thing they all lectured Jnald Trump should never do. All right,
Speaker 1: let's go to Shelly is in Nashville, Tennessee w l
Speaker 1: a C. What's up, Shelly. How are you hi, Shelly?
Speaker 1: I'm Shelly. Hi. Uh. I'm very excited to talk to her.
Speaker 1: I loved listening to Julian Osan talking um. I loved
Speaker 1: what he had to say. One of the things that
Speaker 1: bothered me most about the last couple of days is
Speaker 1: how everyone's been talking about how Russia may have hacked
Speaker 1: and then turned this information over with the intent to
Speaker 1: change the election. And yet the emails that no one
Speaker 1: is disputing show that our own media was intentionally trying
Speaker 1: to to change this election, and that's just considered normative.
Speaker 1: They were intentionally handing um questions to Hillary early. They were,
Speaker 1: you know that the fact that Russia might have had
Speaker 1: a hand in it, but our own media did, and
Speaker 1: that's okay. That just bothers me. Look, it should bother
Speaker 1: you because the very thing they're acting all upset about
Speaker 1: is the very thing they were actively involved in. You know,
Speaker 1: that was part of my opening monologue the other night
Speaker 1: on TV and saying Oh, now, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: Wiki leagues matters. All of a sudden, now hacking matters.
Speaker 1: Never mind that certainty exists that five foreign intelligence agencies
Speaker 1: have all of Hillary Clinton's emails, which would have made
Speaker 1: her compromised or would have compromised her from day one,
Speaker 1: and it didn't matter that. I mean, we've known about
Speaker 1: wiki leaks over ten years now, over ten years. And
Speaker 1: if they really cared, why didn't they stop it? Now?
Speaker 1: If the information didn't change, why did Obama say everything
Speaker 1: was fine, We couldn't nobody could impact our system even
Speaker 1: if they wanted to. Well, why, why all of a
Speaker 1: sudden the change when there's no new information except that
Speaker 1: this is all political and this is all an effort
Speaker 1: to delegitimize Donald Trump and his victory. And as I've
Speaker 1: been saying, they're gonna spend the next number of months
Speaker 1: and years trying to destroy this man. I've watched this
Speaker 1: happened before I was there, when new King king Ridge
Speaker 1: was elected Speaker of the House. I watched how in
Speaker 1: five years within within minutes after winning, remember one, in
Speaker 1: November of By December he was the ging Ridge that
Speaker 1: stole Christmas. On the front cover of News week in time,
Speaker 1: taking poor time Tim's crutch and breaking it. I mean,
Speaker 1: so it's it's this is this is basically, you know,
Speaker 1: standard operating procedure for Democrats. Just like every election Republicans
Speaker 1: a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, blah blah blah, same thing.
Speaker 1: It's a Republican wins. They try and tear him down
Speaker 1: limb from limb, and I think in the case of Trump,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be the media establishment, the democratic establishment, and
Speaker 1: at some point down the line, the Republican establishment will
Speaker 1: all will all pound on him and try and take
Speaker 1: him down. That's it. The hell with what the people think.
Speaker 1: Natalie is in California next on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: What's Up, Natalie? How are you? Um? Kind of along
Speaker 1: the same lines. I've had a lot of people come
Speaker 1: up to me and just discuss um their concerns that Hillary.
Speaker 1: By the way, is this Natalie the one that I
Speaker 1: know on Twitter? Natalie friend of the Friddle? Oh boy?
Speaker 1: How are you? Did you fix your school problem? Um? Yes,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't use those words, but it's gonna be okay, yes, okay,
Speaker 1: So what's your question? Okay? Thanks? Um, I've had a
Speaker 1: lot of people come up to me um actually at school,
Speaker 1: um and and express concerns just with this election. And
Speaker 1: I think that they think that Hillary is gonna somehow
Speaker 1: swoop in at the last minute and take back the presidency.
Speaker 1: And I've told them absolutely not, you know, but it's
Speaker 1: difficult in this day and age, when when there is
Speaker 1: a lot of social media and there's all this talk online. UM,
Speaker 1: And I would I would argue that you would agree
Speaker 1: that Trump is going to be elected president and it's
Speaker 1: gonna be fine. But the point is, do you see
Speaker 1: these ads being run and they're so clear about saying
Speaker 1: conservatives first, and then they say liberals, and they they
Speaker 1: include everybody. Would these ads be run if Hillary? If
Speaker 1: Hillary had let's just flip the situation, you know, you
Speaker 1: put you put Hillary as the president elect and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump winning the popular vote, would they still be running
Speaker 1: these ads, you know, claiming conservatives are on board with
Speaker 1: is and liberals are on board with this. I don't
Speaker 1: think that they would. So I don't think they would either.
Speaker 1: I think it's so evident that this is politics. But look,
Speaker 1: just take this for what it is. If if sore
Speaker 1: loser recounts don't work. If Russian hacking doesn't work, well,
Speaker 1: the lets to go out and we'll we'll influence the
Speaker 1: electors anything we can do to delegitimize the victory of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, which they never saw coming and they can't
Speaker 1: believe happened, and they can't they're just they're in a
Speaker 1: state of shock and anger. It's sort of like, you know,
Speaker 1: the stages of grief. What's the first, you know, you
Speaker 1: go through, an angry stage, a denial stage you go through.
Speaker 1: When you get to the angry stage, that's gonna be
Speaker 1: the stage that lasts the longest. I don't think they
Speaker 1: ever get to the acceptance stage unless Donald Trump so
Speaker 1: fixes the economy and makes things so much better so
Speaker 1: fast that it makes people's head spin that they have
Speaker 1: to even liberals acknowledge that it worked. All right, Natalie,
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Thank you all. Right, back to our busy
Speaker 1: telephones here as we check in with Deborah's in New Mexico.
Speaker 1: Deborra High, how are you glad you called hi, Sean Um.
Speaker 1: I think that everybody is trying to influence the election,
Speaker 1: just like you said, and we've heard in that clip,
Speaker 1: they're all trying to influence it just like you said,
Speaker 1: they're trying to influence now are electorals. Everybody's trying to
Speaker 1: influence the election. But here's the issue. Wiki leaks, Julia
Speaker 1: san is influencing. Maybe with the truth. That's what the
Speaker 1: American people want. They want to make a good decision
Speaker 1: when they go to that voting booth on the truth.
Speaker 1: But what the media is doing is using this narrative
Speaker 1: as a false narrative, as a smoke screen to take
Speaker 1: our focus off of the lies. The fifth that they're
Speaker 1: stealing our election with all of these illegal votes, the
Speaker 1: dead votes, the multiple votes. That's that's the problem, and
Speaker 1: that's where we need to be focusing. I totally agree
Speaker 1: with you and we will. You know, if Julian Assans
Speaker 1: had gone after Trump this way, he would be this
Speaker 1: would be Watergate too, He'd be Woodward and Bernstein all
Speaker 1: over again, all the President's men. Darlene Birmingham, Alabama, W
Speaker 1: E R C. How are you? Uh? Darlen? And Glad
Speaker 1: you called? I'm good son? How are you? I heard
Speaker 1: you interviewing um Kevin yesterday? Was it? Ye Ken? Yeah?
Speaker 1: About Let Let There Be Light as the name of
Speaker 1: the movie that I'm the executive producer was filmed here
Speaker 1: in Alabama, and I know you for bringing some work
Speaker 1: here and it's a beautiful state and I appreciate it. Listen,
Speaker 1: we thought long and hard about where we we We
Speaker 1: really did. We spent a lot of time thinking about
Speaker 1: where we need to film this and and we were
Speaker 1: going to go to Georgia. We ended up going to
Speaker 1: Alabama and it worked out really well, and everybody was
Speaker 1: so helpful. We hired a lot of people down there,
Speaker 1: and you know what, I was glad to be a
Speaker 1: part of it. But more importantly, I think you'll love
Speaker 1: the message this. Look, this isn't coming out until next November,
Speaker 1: I know, but I think it's a message everyone needs
Speaker 1: to here. And it's a message of faith, redemption, a
Speaker 1: love story. It is, it is contemporary. I think it
Speaker 1: will take on an emotional ride that I think you'll
Speaker 1: find very meaningful. I hope you really like it. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much, Okay, thank you. Eight nine for one.
Speaker 1: Shawn is a Totprey telephone number.