Tragedy struck EgyptAir Flight 804 when it completely disappeared after taking off from Paris. The mainstream media is not willing to call this an act of terror but Sean is making that jump. Sean goes through the list of evidence and makes the bold statement that the terrorists are probably radical Islamic terrorists. Do you think Sean is wrong? The Sean Hannity Show is live Monday through Friday from 3pm - 6pm ET. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Wow, we made a lot of news last night in our interview with Donald Trump.
We're going to get into that.
So much news to cover.
More on his Supreme Court justices that we'll be talking about today.
We have a Rasmussen poll and a Fox poll out today that has Donald Trump plus three in the Fox poll, plus five against Hillary in the Rasmussen poll.
Our top story, though, is it's happened again.
I have very, very little doubt that Egypt flight, Egypt Air Flight 804 is terrorism.
And I'm going to explain why.
And I know people are saying that it might be terrorism.
It's possible it's terrorism.
Too early to tell if it's terrorism.
But I'm going to give you the reasons why I believe it probably is.
I may be wrong, but I'm going to tell you why I think so.
Egypt Air Flight 804 was an Airbus 8320.
Not just like a Boeing 747, 57, or 67.
This is what we call a workhorse in the sky.
Those are the two safest airplanes you want to be on commercially when you are flying.
If you're flying and you're on an Airbus 8320, if you're flying and you're on a Boeing 750-67, whatever, you're fine.
These are safe airplanes.
They have literally perfectly mastered the maintenance on these aircraft.
The pilots, you've got to be an experienced pilot to sit in the left or right seat in either one of those planes.
So I doubt it's pilot error.
Planes also don't go into a free fall like this plane did, swerving and plunging 22,000 feet and just disappearing off radar.
That doesn't happen.
Now we've got to look at where the plane left.
The plane left Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport at 11.09 p.m. local time yesterday.
It was on its fifth and final flight of the day.
There were no problems on any of the prior flights that this airplane had.
It had 66 people on board.
56 of the 66 were passengers.
Also had infants and older children among the passengers and women.
And the majority of passengers came from ports of departure and arrival from France and Egypt, and others from Algeria, Belgium, Canada, Chad, Kuwait, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
So that's where the people on the flight came from.
No Americans so far that we know of on board this particular flight.
Now, the flight crossed the Egyptian air space just before losing contact with the radar tracking system.
If you're not familiar with flight, as you fly, there are different zones in the sky, if you will.
Points where you are in contact with, let's say, air tower control A.
And then as you move out of that airspace, then you're in contact with air tower control B and then air tower control C.
And you literally say goodbye to one and hello to another if you're the pilot.
So anyway, the flight crossed into Egyptian airspace just before losing contact with the radar tracking system.
It was about 2.45 a.m., half an hour before it was due to land in Cairo.
And at that time, the plane was flying at 37,000 feet, which is under its certified maximum of 39,000 feet.
In other words, cruising altitude.
And then the pilot made a 90-degree turn to the left, followed by what one official described as a 360-degree maneuver while losing about 20,000 feet in altitude and while descending.
And at that point, radio contact with the flight was lost.
Now, we know it went into the water, so I'm not sure what the status is on the orange box, the so-called black box, which is really orange, but the Egyptian aviation minister very politely today said that the cause of the flight's disappearance was more likely terrorism than a technical failure.
Here's the thing about these airplanes, that you really need to understand this.
And I say this to friends of mine that are afraid to fly.
I'm not afraid to fly.
And I know many people that are.
And it's in 99% of those cases, when you ask people what they know about airflight, they don't know a whole lot.
They don't know the level of safety and redundancy as it relates to safety inside of an aircraft.
I mean, there's so much redundancy.
You know, there's been many times probably where you're sitting on a tarmac, you're at an airport, you're waiting to take off, and you see mechanics come on the plane.
Well, the reason the mechanics on the plane is because one of those levels of redundancy probably triggered a light to go off.
And then they got to trace it all the way back, and they usually find out nine out of ten times it's nothing, and then you end up taking off an hour later.
Well, that's how specific they are with the maintenance of these airplanes.
Now, regardless of how good an airplane engine is running, after X number of hours in the sky, that airplane's engine gets taken out and a brand new engine is put in there.
And they have figured out perfectly when to change those engines.
Do you know, for example, to prevent aircraft from falling from the sky, which it doesn't happen, or a bird strike, you know what they do?
They take frozen turkeys and they throw them inside of the engine turbine to see how many frozen turkeys that an engine can take and still continue to function and run.
That's how well made these airplanes are.
After certain periods of time, now you might be in an older aircraft and never even know it, because after X number of hours in the sky, they take the entire plane apart.
Every rivet is taken out and they put it all back together again because it's cheaper once you have, you know, the infrastructure of a plane built.
You don't have to buy a new one.
It's cheaper to rebuild it.
There's certain, after X number of hours, every single piece of avionics is updated and changed.
And avionics has gotten so advanced now that, you know, there's nothing a pilot doesn't know.
Now, here's what I'm putting together.
So it's one of the workhorses in the sky.
It's an Airbus 8320, just like a Boeing.
I'm a big fan of Boeing.
I'm a big fan.
Airbus is a good plane.
They're very well put together.
They're very well maintained.
Anyway, so the plane goes missing.
It disappears from radar.
It swerves and it plunges.
It falls 22,000 feet from the sky.
The pilots did not respond to radio calls.
Now, that's odd in and of itself, too, and I'll tell you why in a second.
Now, here's the thing that just tipped me off that I think it's a bomb.
There were not one, not two, there were three air marshals aboard that flight.
Now, if you don't know it, air marshals are actually armed.
So if you have 55 people on board and three of them are air marshals and you've got women and you've got children, now let's just imagine for a second they charged the cockpit and they wanted to get to the pilots.
Well, those doors now are locked shut.
You can't open that door easily.
Okay, so at that point in time, you know the three air marshals would have engaged because that's their job.
They have a weapon.
They would have been able to stop them.
Even if they fired the weapon, it would not have caused what happened here, even if it penetrated the airplane.
So, if you have three air marshals on board and you have a plane dropping 22,000 feet like it did, and we finally found the wreckage, then it's a pretty strong likelihood that this was a bomb.
Well, Hannity, you're rushing to judgment.
I'm giving you my best guess based on experience.
You know, you can go back.
Remember, Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, scheduled, you know, operated by Malaysia Airlines, just disappeared.
Planes don't disappear.
There's no such thing as the Bermuda Triangle in real life.
Well, it kind of is, but that's a different story for a different day.
And in that aircraft, it was a Boeing 777.
And that he had 12 passengers, 220, I'm sorry, 12 crew and 227 passengers in that plane.
Or Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.
Remember that particular that was in July of 2014, shot down, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.
Well, if it wasn't shot down and there's no evidence that there was a surface-to-air missile used, and you had three air marshals on board, then we've got one little fact that you're probably not hearing a whole hell of a lot about.
Let me give you the clincher for me.
After the Paris terror attacks, when were the terror attacks, Linda?
How many months ago?
Six, eight months ago?
About that?
It was in November.
Okay.
After the Paris terror attacks, they actually started searching.
And what they found is, and I had this confirmed earlier today, 57 Paris Charles de Gaulle airport workers were on the terrorist watch list.
Now, you would think, being el Paris, a sophisticated state, about the fixed it.
No, they did not.
The people still work there.
In other words, you have people on terror watch lists, not highly paid people, that have complete and full access to the airplane.
For example, baggage handlers and those that bring catering onto the plane.
Those people work at airports.
Now, if you're on a terror watch list, why are you anywhere near an airplane?
So the fact that all those people, apparently, a couple of them were fired, in fairness.
I got to be fair here.
A couple were fired, but still many on the watch list continued to work at the airport next to the airliners, and that means they had access to the airplanes, which means, in my mind, maybe it's conspiracy.
In my twisted conspiratorial mind, I'm thinking, let me see, three air marshals on board.
You got a Boeing Airbus, I'm sorry, an Airbus 8320.
You got one of the safest planes in the sky.
You got literally a case, those airplanes, airplanes, in spite of what you think, they just don't fall out of the sky.
I know it's hard for people to imagine this.
Even if both engines or all four engines, depending on how many you have on a particular airplane, even if they all died at once, which isn't going to happen.
But let's say it did.
Do you think the airplane just falls to the ground?
No, an airplane will glide.
It's going to glide.
You would have seen a glide pattern.
The fact that this airplane swerved and this airplane plunged and this airplane dropped 22,000 feet, that this airplane lost all communications immediately, dropped off the radar immediately, that you had three air marshals on board that were armed, and you just happened to have all these people at Charles de Gaulle airport that happened to be on the terror watch list.
I think it's a pretty logical conclusion that what happened here was a terrorist attack.
And then, okay, Hannity's profiling.
Let's see.
Let's go over the countries we're talking about here.
Egypt, France, a very high population of radical Islamists in Egypt and in France now, Algeria, let's see, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan.
Oh, Hannity, you're profiling people from countries.
You're saying this was radical Islam.
Here's what I will say that I guess few people will say.
Is it likelier that this was, let's see, Roman Catholic extremists?
Is it maybe atheists that want to meet 72 virgins in heaven?
Or is the world at war now?
Is the truth that if it's terror, that it's probably likely radical Islamic terrorists?
And if I say that, does that make me a bad person?
Because I'm suspecting that it's probably radical Islamic terrorism that was responsible for the plane going down.
Now, I know the president.
He thinks these are man-caused disasters and overseas contingency operations and workplace violence.
He probably won't make the same conclusion or jump to conclusions the way Hannity is.
But I have an obligation to tell you what I really think.
The world is not at war with Catholics.
The world is not at war with Protestants or with Methodists or with people who are Jewish or, you know, it's not happening.
What we see is Christian persecution in the world.
And what we see almost every time there's an event like this, it ends up being radical Islamic terrorism.
And based on the facts, as I see them, that's what I think it probably is.
Now, I hope people in the news media report that.
You know why?
Because I have put one, two, three, four, and five together.
I know airplanes.
I know this airplane.
I know airplane safety and maintenance records.
I know airplanes don't act like this on their own.
And when you have three air marshals, there's no way they were able to rush the cockpit and take over the controls.
The way the cockpits are locked up these days.
You had three armed men on that flight.
It didn't have a whole lot of people on the flight, 55 passengers.
So what I'm thinking is, this is a bomb that was on that plane.
Let's see if I turn out to be right.
If I'm wrong, I will come on the air and I will admit humbly, I will say, Sean Hannity, I was wrong, but I gave you my best guess.
I'm using my intellectual capacity, my knowledge of world events as they currently are, and my understanding that like we've had evil in the past, Nazism and fascism and imperial Japan and communism, radical Islamic terrorism today is the world's number one threat and number one evil that good people are facing, including good Muslims that are victims of radical Islamists.
Okay?
There's my take.
Let's see if I'm right.
And I just pray for the families that have lost loved ones today.
Imagine another group of families got contacted that their loved ones are dead.
Why?
Because some people believe that they have a right to kill innocent men, women, and children.
They think that their God is telling them to do it and that they're going to be rewarded in heaven for doing so?
Kind of twisted.
So the New York Times does this hip piece on Donald Trump.
What is he really like with women?
You print it out.
It's nearly 20 pages.
It's ridiculous.
So I'm interviewing Donald Trump last night, and I said, okay, if the New York Times, and remember, this has now been debunked.
We had three prominent women featured in this piece on this radio program, and they all are angry.
They're upset.
The New York Times purposely took them out of context.
We find out, for example, that the writer, the author, has been tweeting out negative things against Trump.
Why hasn't this person been fired is the first real question you need to ask, but we know the New York Times has an agenda.
So let me just, so I bring up the issue: okay, if the New York Times, now that they debunked, this story has been debunked, well, are they going to question?
Here's the question I asked Donald Trump.
What about what Clinton's done?
How big an issue should that be in the campaign?
For example, I looked at the New York Times.
Are they going to interview Juanita Broderick?
Are they going to interview Paula Jones?
Are they going to interview Kathleen Willie?
In one case, it's about exposure.
In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will.
And rape.
And rape.
And big settlements, massive settlements.
$850,000 for Paula Jones.
Lots of other things.
And impeachment for lying, smearing, for smirch management.
You're losing your law license.
You know, he lost his law license.
Okay.
Couldn't practice law.
And you don't read about this on Clinton.
Let me ask you.
Now, the New York Times, and if you look at Stephanopoulos, these are like the pipe organs for Hillary Clinton.
Now, Juanita Broderick, who we have now interviewed on this program, and maybe later in the program, I'll get into some of the more depth.
We have Juan Williams on later of what she said.
I've interviewed Paula Jones.
Paula Jones said he exposed himself.
What kind of person drops their pants in front of a woman like that?
Okay, she ended up winning $850,000.
He lost his law license.
He was impeached over the whole case.
People forget that aspect of it.
Then you got the case of Kathleen Willie, goes to see him in the Oval Office.
She's groped and grabbed and fondled and touched and kissed against her will.
And then Juanita Broderick, who I've interviewed many times, has told me the story.
And remember, when Lisa Myers first interviewed her, NBC wasn't going to run it.
Why?
Quote, Lisa Myers told Juanita she's too credible.
And then I went to interview her second.
I sat in stunned silence as I interviewed her.
It was very hard to hear her tell this story.
And people have asked me a lot over the years, do I believe these women?
And I said, yes, I believe them.
I absolutely do.
Juanita Broderick commented that the New York Times hasn't contacted her about Clinton's rape allegations.
Has the New York Times similarly investigated the accusations against Bill Clinton?
And actually, have they contacted you?
Have you, Juanita Broderick, been contacted?
Because I see the accusations here against Trump, unwelcome advances, a shrewd reliance on ambition.
What about the accusation of rape?
That's pretty serious.
Did they investigate that?
Did they, Juanita, the New York Times, contact you to investigate your accusations against Bill Clinton?
No, they haven't, Aaron.
And I've not read the entire article about Mr. Trump, but I've been listening to the news and all of the fallout in connection with it.
And I wish that they would use the same amount of energy to interview the hundreds of women that Bill Clinton has probably spoken bad words about and the many women that he has assaulted.
I think a person's own actions and what they do to women speaks much louder than a person's hearsay and words.
What an interesting comparison.
So we have the women that the New York Times manipulated and took out of context and have now spoken out in Donald Trump's defense.
I have this big, long piece, but the New York Times hasn't contacted Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones.
So do they really care about the truth or is this their campaign contribution to Hillary Clinton?
I think it's a campaign contribution.
And Juanita rightly went on to say she was on Aaron Klein's radio show that the media does need to investigate my story and other women.
Millennials don't know what Bill Clinton is accused of.
Hillary is an enabler behind Bill Clinton because remember what happened.
These women were smeared and slandered and besmirched.
There was character assassination.
Remember what they did to Jennifer Flowers?
And then years later, people forget Bill Clinton admitted he did have an affair with Jennifer Flowers.
Jennifer Flowers told the truth in the beginning.
But he said, well, it was only this one time.
But he told, but he lied about her.
Remember the whole comment by James Carvo?
Well, you drag a dollar through a trailer park talking about Paula Jones.
She won her case.
You talk about Dolly Kyle Browning, and the list goes on.
Kathleen Willey told me there are dozens of more women that she has spoken to that are afraid to tell their story because they have seen what has happened to other women who have spoken up.
Now, Hillary's the champion of women's rights.
I think it's a fair question.
Was she part of the effort to smear and slander and besmirch?
And why did she sit idly by as this was happening to all of these women?
And especially in this particular case or in Kathleen Willey's particular case or Paula Jones' case, where it's not consensual like it was with Monica Lewinsky.
It's not consensual like it was with Jennifer Flowers.
This is assault we're talking about.
And I thought the champion of women's rights would understand that and want to speak out about this.
Anyway, let me play just a little bit of my cut, part of my interview with Juanita Broderick as she talked about this rape on this radio program.
While I was getting ready to go down, he called my room and he said, there's too many people down here and reporters.
He said, can we just have coffee in your room?
Which I ordered coffee to the room and I was a little hesitant, but I thought, you know, this is the Attorney General of the state of Arkansas.
So I did allow him to come to my room.
And I won't go into the details, but it was brutal, what happened to me.
And it was not consensual in any way, shape, or fashion.
And I was very distraught after that.
My nurse came back to the room, found me with my bloody, swollen lip, and we left immediately and came home.
And after he assaulted you, when I interviewed you the first time, you know, he said you, well, I'll let you say what he said to you.
I mean, it's shocking.
Oh, it is.
It shocked me completely.
He was getting ready and went to the door, and there I sat on the bed, just devastated.
And he goes to the door, casually puts on his sunglasses, and says, you better get some ice on that, and went out the door.
Wow.
She also went on to tell a story how Hillary Clinton apparently knew about it.
Is the media going to call her?
New York Times calling her?
They're going to try and save their reputation, their tarnished reputation, after being debunked and embarrassed this week.
Sad.
Such a double standard.
But get used to it.
Hillary Clinton, the champion of women.
Oh, she takes tons of millions of dollars with the Clinton Foundation from countries that treat women horribly.
Abuse women.
What difference at this point does it make?
It makes a big difference taking money from Saudi Arabia.
Why?
Because women can't vote.
They can't drive.
They're told how to dress by men.
They can't leave the house without a man's permission.
A relative has to be with them.
They can't go to work or school without a man's permission.
They can't do anything.
And if they're, God forbid they're raped in some of these countries under Sharia, where she took money from, well, they need four male eyewitnesses to prove a man is guilty of rape.
Wow, I wouldn't take a penny from the Saudis.
I wouldn't take a penny from any of these countries that practice Sharia.
I don't care, quote, how great the cause.
Remember, Rudy Giuliani told him to shove their $10 million where the sun doesn't shine.
He had character.
He had strength.
That was after 9-11.
It's been a horrible week for Hillary.
You know, you got a New York Times story out.
The story says, defiant, determined to transform the Democratic Party, Senator Sanders is opening a two-month phase of his presidential campaign aimed at inflicting a heavy blow on Hillary Clinton in California and amassing enough leverage to advance his agenda at the convention in July or even wrest the nomination from her.
I tell you, if I'm a Bernie supporter, I'm pissed.
This is so rigged for Hillary.
She has 500 and some odd superdelegates.
Bernie has 41.
Bernie wins 5136 in West Virginia.
5136.
Hillary gets just about the exact same amount of delegates.
He won 18, she won 11.
When they give the superdelegates out, he has 19, she has 18.
What's the point of people in the Democratic Party voting?
Story goes on to report advisors to Sanders said that he was newly resolved to remain in the race and committed to an aggressive campaign.
He sure is.
He's been buoyed by a stream of polls showing him beating Trump by larger margins than Hillary.
Well, Hillary is now down five in the latest Rasmussen poll.
She's down three in the Fox News poll that came out late yesterday.
The cumulative result of anger at the National Democratic Party over a debate schedule that his campaign said favored Mrs. Clinton, a fundraising arrangement between the party and the Clinton campaign, the appointment of fierce Clinton partisans as leaders of important convention committees, and the party's rebuke of Bernie Sanders on Tuesday for not clearly condemning a melee at the Nevada Democratic Convention on Saturday.
Bernie's had it, and Bernie's going to war with the Clintons.
By the way, Hillary did respond to the Trump use of the R word yesterday on my TV show.
People can judge his campaign for what it is, she said.
I'm not going to run my campaign.
He can say whatever he wants.
It's not so much for me what he says.
I'm really used to it.
I have a thick skin.
Here's a question for Hillary that CNN didn't ask.
And maybe Mr. Cuomo can ask the next time she's on.
She won't come on my show.
Do you believe these women are lying?
Do you believe all these women are lying?
Do you think that surrogates of Bill Clinton say, oh, you just drag a dollar through a trailer park is a good way to portray women?
And why do you take money from countries, millions of dollars from countries that treat women horribly, and it appears you've never spoken out against their treatment or mistreatment of women?
Do you ever feel compelled to defend your honor and the honor of your husband with statements that he's making that go to the core of the relationship, Cuomo asked this morning?
No, Clinton responded not at all.
I know that's exactly what he's fishing for.
I'm not going to be responding.
She can't respond to this.
Every time she plays the gender card, Donald Trump has an answer.
And you know what?
Unlike a lot of these Republican candidates, they wouldn't have had the backbone to do this.
Say what you will.
Donald Trump even addressed this last night, and I think I agree with him.
If he didn't fight as hard as he fought, he would not be the nominee.
If he doesn't fight against Hillary, he will not be the president.
And Mitt Romney did not fight this hard.
Bob Dole did not fight this hard.
John McCain did not fight this hard.
John McCain, especially, wouldn't even touch Reverend Wright.
Barely touched Ayrs and Dorn.
I took all the heat for that.
Anyway, so this is now a prospect of a long-drawn-out campaign.
Trump has a five-point lead and a three-point lead over Hillary.
Clinton is ahead 14 points among women, yet Trump leads by 22 points among men.
So the story out of the Rasmussen poll is Hillary has a man problem.
Men don't like her.
And Donald Trump's doing better with women than she's doing with men.
And we've known for a long time.
The American people believe she's not honest and she's not trustworthy.
Trump has a net negative of 17 points.
But the horrific number, only 31% of respondents think she's honest and trustworthy.
66% say she's not.
That means she's underwater 35% points.
And if you think the Fox News poll is an outsider, well, Rasmussen has the same thing.
It's almost identical.
For now, though, Hillary has to find her way to pour cold water on Bernie Sanders, and she doesn't even have time to deal with Donald Trump.
And there's other bad news for Hillary, too, which is that a new online viral video.
Oh, my gosh, you've got to watch it.
Put it up on Hannity.
Will you please put the link up?
The 13 minutes straight, tapping into exactly what this widespread belief among voters is she's not honest and trustworthy.
It's hilarious.
It's got 7 million hits on YouTube.
We'll put it up now.
How long will it take?
Five minutes?
She'll put it up now.
It'll be up in five minutes.
It's unbelievable.
Anyway, so the media is playing dumb as the Broderick cases resurface.
Juanita dares the New York Times to investigate Clinton's rape.
Hillary's negatives are higher than Trump's in the latest poll.
Clinton's allies are pressuring Bernie Sanders to get out.
He's doubling down.
Ed Randell had to apologize for saying that Hillary will win the ugly women vote because there's more ugly women in America.
Another dumb thing said by a Clinton surrogate.
And it's almost too unbelievable to watch.
And by the way, Hillary is now doubled down on Obama's idiotic position on this transgender bathroom order.
Now, can I just say something?
I don't want a woman that thinks she's a man in my bathroom.
And if I'm a woman, I don't think I want a guy that thinks he might identify as being a woman, which I'm perfectly okay with.
I don't judge people.
If that's how you think, that's fine.
But if you have male genitalia, go to the men's room.
I don't think it's fair to put women in that position.
I'm sorry, I'm old-fashioned.
I'm really out of date.
I'm out of touch.
You know, I'm actually thinking about other people beside myself, like, let's say 10-year-old girls.
I told you about the nine-year-old girl assaulted by a guy in a restroom.
Oh, why didn't the media pick up that?
And so we believe at this stage we should refrain from citing conflicting hypotheses.
First of all, we have to try to locate either the plane or the plane's wreckage, and then we will move to looking at hypotheses for what happened, which does not mean that we rule out terrorist-related hypotheses.
It would be premature to rule anything out at this point.
First of all, our heart goes out for all the family members and friends of all involved in this terrible incident.
As I can tell you now, we have found the wreckage.
We confirmed that the wreckage has been found.
And the search and rescue teams are now turning into a search and recovery.
Where is it flying?
It's flying from Paris, the site of multiple jihadi attacks, to Egypt, where we have Bait al-Magdasi, an offshoot of ISIS, killing hundreds of people in the last couple of years.
So the destination and the origination point are symbolically important from the point of view of jihadis.
And then lastly, if you look at the flight manifest, this aircraft has been everywhere in the last few days, from Brussels to Beirut, Eritrea to Casablanca.
It's been to all kinds of airports where there is, let's say, put it politely, less than a fully Western standard of security.
Put all those things together, and it starts to get quite suspicious.
All right, that's the very latest and what you're hearing about Egypt Air Flight 804.
As we've been telling you all day, our top story today, it was supposed to land in Cairo in Egypt.
And what you're hearing is it was an Airbus 320, A320, commonly regarded as a workhorse.
It's like a Boeing 767 because its reputation of safety and frequency with which it is used by commercial airlines.
It left Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport at 11.09 p.m. local time.
It was on its fifth and final flight of the day, 66 souls on board, 56 of whom were passengers, two infants, an older child among the passengers.
And what we know is it disappeared, the plane, from radar.
It was swerving.
It plunged.
It fell 22,000 feet.
It's almost certainly a terrorist attack.
It's believed because there were three air marshals on this flight.
So it had to then, from my perspective, be an explosive of some kind.
Otherwise, why wouldn't they have not stopped it?
Whatever else would have happened?
The pilot did not respond to radio calls.
Airport workers have been investigated.
And that's the very latest of what we know.
Joining us now, Pete Hegseth is an infantry officer in the Army National Guard, an Iraq, an Afghanistan veteran, author of In the Arena, Good Citizens, a Great Republic, and how one speech can reinvigorate, sorry, America.
Jonathan Gillam, Navy SEAL, former federal air marshal, and Captain and Colonel Jay Joseph of J. Joseph Aviation Consulting.
Welcome all of you.
Jonathan Gillum, I'll start with you.
I have little doubt it's terror.
I know they can't totally, completely verify it now, but the airplanes, as I pointed out in other cases, just don't fall out of the sky.
Well, I mean, let's first off, let's look at the area where this plane left from, where it had been flying around in.
I mean, I don't want to bring too much politics into this, but the fact is, folks, if you want a good idea of what bad politics can do from the threat analysis side, you can see here that, you know, France has got one of the highest populations now, France and Belgium, of terrorists outside of the Middle East.
And so it's no surprise that the plane was leaving from that area and had flown around that area and then exploded in the sky.
If a terrorist is going to get on a plane, it's probably going to be in that area.
And it's been shown again and again that this is the hotbed now.
This is the area where they're wanting to attack.
Well, I think it's obvious.
And, you know, a lot of questions have been raised in recent weeks, Pete Hegseth, about America and about the long lines by the TSA and their incompetence, but we haven't had any incidents here.
As inefficient as they might be, they've been pretty efficient at stopping any terror attacks on our soil.
But I think in the end, we've got to understand we're going to be targeted again, and our airlines are all going to be targeted.
Well, indeed.
We haven't had it here, but we certainly could.
You know, an investigation after the first Paris attacks found that there were, you know, 57 employees at the Charles de Gaulle airport who were on the terror watch list, Islamists, some of which continue to work at the airport today, I'm told, but are under further review.
So you've got legitimate known jihadis working at the Charles de Gaulle airport with access to secure areas.
Again, that may not be what happened or how it happened, but that is a very clear vulnerability.
And political correctness and everything else Jonathan talked about are true.
They neuter themselves, but we should not think we're immune.
I'm calling here from Minneapolis-St. Paul, where we've had a serious Somali Muslim population problem of going to fight with al-Shabaab and ISIS.
Very recently, a former Delta employee found himself at Minneapolis airport, was fighting with ISIS.
We had a Minneapolis airport worker who decided to leave four years ago.
He was serving coffee in the terminal.
Then he was a suicide bomber in Mogadishu.
So radicals look for folks with access, and airports are high-profile.
And we don't do a very good job of vetting a lot of these people.
And because Paris and France, they refuse to acknowledge they're at war, they won't take the necessary steps to screen out people who are literally trying to find vulnerabilities to kill innocent civilians.
Yeah, Colonel Joseph, what is your take on all of this?
I don't understand why there's this impulse among especially politicians in this country.
Well, it's too early to say if it's terror, but that's where my mind goes instantly now.
I mean, I think it ought to be our first thought, our first suspicion, not to quell everybody's fears that it's not terrorism.
Well, Sean, I mean, I absolutely agree with you in Jonathan's comments.
Pete's comments are right on mark.
You know, I worked for the airlines for a number of years, and Pete cited specifically Minneapolis airport.
You know, first and foremost, you know, any political agendas ahead of safety put the general public at risk.
Make no mistake about that.
We in the airline industry watched, you know, specifically the Minneapolis airport for a number of years.
The folks that have access to the concessions to the ramp areas that are traditionally low-wage workers have great access and really get underneath the belly of the beast in terms of security.
You know, as airline pilots and flight crew, we used to watch with absolute amazement how some of these workers were just really fanned through the TSA security process.
Not just the persons themselves, but perhaps even cards full of sodas and things like that.
So we have some vulnerabilities.
To turn a blind eye to this and not put the scrutiny where it needs to be, I think, is a weakness in our system.
And pure and simple, agendas ahead of safety will never prevail, and we're going to have some problems with this.
Again, as an accident investigator, I caution everybody, let's take a deep breath, let's see.
But I do agree wholeheartedly, and I flew the Airbus for a number of years.
It's a great airplane.
And it's a safe airplane.
Isn't it a safe airplane?
Isn't it an airplane that has incredible redundancy in terms of safety measures?
This isn't the type of plane that's just going to fall out of the sky and plunge 22,000 feet, is it?
Oh, you're absolutely right.
It does have.
In fact, the systems in the Airbus itself, we called multiple redundant systems.
It operates under different laws being applied by wire airplane.
You know, in our business, nothing bad happens until something bad happens first.
And certainly something as sinister as a bomb on board the aircraft.
It doesn't matter how safe the aircraft is.
It's the argument for a terrorist attack and what the devastation it could do far exceeds the capability of any of these aircraft.
Yeah.
Jonathan, you served yourself as a federal air marshal.
The fact that they had three air marshals on this plane, that is, for me, all the evidence that I need that this had to be a bomb.
But I'll tell you why.
Because if you have three armed air marshals and you've done this, if somebody is, let's say, rushing to the cockpit, they're going to get them.
Well, there's definitely going to be a fight, that's for sure.
And I think, you know, one thing we can say is that they wouldn't have had air marshals on that plane unless that particular flight was at risk.
There's too many flights that throw air marshals on every plane.
So, you know, you can say without giving away any tactics, techniques, or procedures that air marshals are placed on the planes that are most likely targeted.
So that in itself, from an investigator standpoint, lets you know that that plane or that flight route is a hot hotbed.
The thing that really stands out and bothers me about this, though, is that these same people that are constantly downplaying any terrorist attack that we have are the same people that are, and this goes for France and all these other areas as well.
These are the same people that are responsible for building up the security.
And I was just listening to Josh Ernst before I came over.
I was telling Linda, and this is his quote, we constantly counter the threat by adapting our security system to protect the traveling public.
That is an outright lie.
That's an outright lie.
And the colonel can tell you this, they don't manipulate the security.
They don't have specialists out there saying, if I was a bad guy, I would attack here.
They don't do that.
It's bureaucracy running the security.
I have been told by friends of mine, and I'm actually hesitant to say this, but I think my listening public has a right to know by people in the know that there are very few people like you on flights, air marshals on flights.
The numbers are like 3 to 5% maximum.
But guys like me can be used more efficiently than just on a plane.
We should be the ones that they're using the subject matter experts to tell them this is where an attack might happen.
This is the critical areas.
These are the critical times.
You would think after 9-11, with all due respect, Jonathan, it's a little late.
You would think by now they would have done all of this.
Let me go back to Pete for a second.
Pete, you talked about how do we know that there are 57 people that work at Charles de Gaulle Airport that are on the watch, our watch list or Paris's or France's watch list.
How do we know that?
Well, they went back and reviewed their, they just, they basically across the fact.
After the fact, indeed.
So after the Paris bombing, they went back and reviewed the security passes of the, I believe, you know, 85,000 people.
After the Paris bombing, how long ago was that?
Six months ago?
Eight months ago?
So here we are, but it says also that security badges were taken away from many of them, but a lot of others continued to work.
You see, Paris is seized up by political correctness.
They're unable to do what's necessary to actually remove people.
So, you know, what constitutes radicalization?
Well, it's more than this.
And this is now questions that America has to ask.
Really tough questions.
Yes.
We've got 88 Sharia courts inside of Great Britain for crying out loud.
So Great Britain now has capitulated to radical Islamists that don't want to assimilate.
We know what's happening in Germany.
We know what's happened to France.
So basically, the Islamization of Europe is real.
It's not about assimilation.
It's about indoctrination by the great numbers of Muslims coming into countries and wanting those countries to adapt to their lifestyle.
Is that true or false?
It's true.
And I did a report for Fox and Friends six weeks ago about the Somali Muslim neighborhood here in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where the very same things are happening.
There's no assimilation.
They demand accommodation.
And as a result, you have no allegiance from the second generation or very little.
So they're attracted by propaganda to go fight with al-Shabaab or ISIS.
And there's only a matter of time when they turn that vitriol back at us.
There's radical mosques here in Minneapolis in this metropolitan area where they preach jihad.
And that jihad has been pointed at other targets so far.
But there's no reason why our airport, our Mall of America, or any other city where this happens could eventually be a target because this is the violent side is the end of a long train where a culture is unable to stand up for the values on which they were founded.
Great Britain and France are long down that spectrum.
We're not there yet, which is why we have to be so proud and unapologetic as Americans to demand that allegiance and assimilation.
Colonel Joseph, I'll go back to you one last time.
This airplane is safe.
If it's not a bomb, can you think of any other scenario in which what we're hearing about this airplane, about it swerving and then diving 22,000 feet, is there any other circumstances that would cause that to happen that you can think of as a pilot of that plane?
Well, certainly, again, with the redundancies in the systems of the aircraft, there's very few things that I would consider would cause something like that to happen with the profile that apparently was witnessed by the radar data.
It's a great airplane.
Like I said, with those systems in there, even if it were to revert to the most basic, what we call the mechanical system, the pilots would still have the capacity to control the aircraft.
But the other side of this thing, Sean, pure and simple, the absence of communication from the cockpit, regardless of how busy the flight crew was tending to the non-normal, if that is in fact what it was, a mechanical rather than a terrorist act, that capacity for them to transmit some kind of emergency language over the radio to indicate that they're having mechanical problems should have prevailed.
That certainly does not appear to be the case, which makes me think that it was more something that happened very, very rapidly and probably was in a way that was through some type of explosive is your first guess, like mine?
That would be my first guess.
That's my first guess in the campaign.
All right, listen, for example, thank you for the New York Times.
Colonel Broderick.
Thank you all for being in the interview.
Are they going to interview Kathleen Willey?
In one case, it's about exposure.
In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will.
And rape.
And rape.
And big settlements.
Massive settlements.
$850,000 for Paula Jones.
Lots of other things.
And impeachment for lying, smearing, for smirch men.
You're losing your law license.
You know, he lost his law license.
Okay.
Couldn't practice law.
And you don't read about this on Clinton.
Let me ask you.
Now, the New York Times, and if you look at Stephanopoulos, these are like the pipe organs for Hillary Clinton.
Now, Juanita Broderick, who I have interviewed now twice years ago on TV and not that long ago right here on the radio program, and I've interviewed Kathleen Willey on radio and TV, and I've interviewed Paula Jones on radio and TV.
Well, when this New York Times hit piece came out that said Donald Trump treated women a certain way that has now been totally and completely debunked by most of the women mentioned in that article, it does raise the question that Juanita Broderick herself raised in a recent report that the title of that article was Crossing the Line, How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private.
We've now interviewed three women who say it's absolutely false.
They mischaracterize how they feel about Donald Trump, and they feel that they were taken out of context and they want apologies, including Donald Trump's former girlfriend, Brewer Lane, and of course, Carrie Prajan, Miss California 2009.
Well, anyway, Juanita Broderick, Wednesday afternoon, tweeted, the New York Times should do equal time investigating Hillary's enabling of Bill Clinton's sexual assaults on women.
She's supporting Donald Trump.
And in a widely shared tweet, she referred to being raped by Bill Clinton.
And Donald Trump said it.
Joining us now to discuss, also we have his Supreme Court list that he released yesterday.
And we have Donald Trump now up by five in the Rasmussen poll up by three against Hillary in the Fox News poll.
Juan Williams, author of the book, it's actually a very good book.
It's not liberal.
We the people, the modern-day figures who have reshaped and affirmed our founding father's vision of America.
Lori Wyndham is a senior counsel at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Juan Williams, Paula Jones won $850,000.
Paula Jones claims that Bill Clinton pulled down his pants and exposed himself to her.
Kathleen Willey has told the story consistently over the years that in the White House in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton fondled, touched, kissed, groped, and grabbed her against her will.
Juanita Broderick tells the story of rape.
Then, of course, we have the Clinton teams over the years smearing, slandering, besmirching these women.
Now, Donald Trump used that word last night.
Fair game?
Well, I'm very curious because, you know, even with polls that now I think are stunning, polls that show Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton head to head, which is a first, and polls that show that Donald Trump's favorability numbers are actually now lower than Hillary Clinton's.
Neither of them are low, both very high, but I'm saying as a matter of comparison.
But you, Sean Hannity, are looking at this issue, and I'm thinking, is Bill Clinton running for president again?
Apparently, according to Hillary, he's going to be running the economy.
Oh, my God.
But wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hang on.
Here's the question.
Here's the question.
By conviction, somehow, the wife is to blame?
No, but the wife, is it a fair question to say, well, you hear these women, you claim to be the candidate of women's rights and women's champions.
There's a couple of problems Hillary has.
She sat back silently as she watched these women being slandered and smeared and besmirched.
On top of that, I think it's a fair question to ask: do you think these women are all lying about your husband?
And here's issue number two as it relates to women.
Why did you, as part of the Clinton Foundation, accept millions and millions of dollars from countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and others that don't let women drive and tell women how to dress and say that women can't be seen in public without a male relative and only males get to decide if women go to school or work and women need four male eyewitnesses to prove rape.
And yet, I'm focused.
And she's never once criticized them, and they gave her millions of dollars.
Did they buy her silence?
How could she be the champion of women's rights and take money from a country like that?
But let me just say, I find that you are blaming the wife for the husband's sins.
I mean, I wonder if people might say that.
So you believe these women.
So I want to know.
He's a cold case.
He's been impeached.
Do you believe these women?
I've interviewed all three numerous times.
I believe all three of them.
Does Hillary Clinton guilty?
No.
Do you believe them?
I don't know enough about whether to believe them or not, but you said Paula Jones actually collected money from.
That's correct.
That's correct.
$850,000.
He must be some culpability.
And he lost his law license, and he was impeached over it.
Okay, so let's, but he's not running for president.
Okay, but here's the problem: she said he's going to run the economy.
And number two, she claims to be a champion of women's rights.
And you've got not only women that claim that to be abused by her husband, but then they were serially smeared and she never stood up for women.
Wait a second.
Did she save her family?
Do you have any respect for that?
Well, if you listen to Juanita Broderick, she intimidated, she was intimidated by Hillary Clinton.
If you listen to Kathleen Willey, she tells a story of intimidation.
And all these other women as well, Tolly Kyle Browning, and there's many others.
You're a conservative.
I would think that families and holding together families, even for the children, is important to them.
Well, it's important, but can you, Lori, can you be a champion of women's rights and stand by idly by and watch women smeared while making those accusations against your husband?
Can you be a champion of women's rights and accept money from countries like Saudi Arabia with their atrocious record on women's rights?
I think it's deeply troubling, especially when you're looking at places that do have terrible records on women's rights.
And I think it's important that we have a broad conversation here.
So many times women's rights get reduced basically to abortion and contraception.
We need to have a broader conversation about women's rights and about things like our rights to our First Amendment, our rights to religious freedom, our rights under the Constitution.
These are things that are core values that matter to women too, and that needs to be part of the conversation.
Well, I agree totally.
But you know something?
Juan Williams, as they get their surrogates vis-a-vis the New York Times to go out there with this totally debunked story this week, crossing the line how Donald Trump behaved with women in private, and those women come to his defense.
Well, the women in Bill Clinton's life have said just the opposite.
And Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton has been called an enabler.
And I think this is going to have a very, very deep impact on the election.
And I don't think the American people want phonies in the White House.
And I think this is going to be very troublesome for her throughout the entire campaign.
And liberals like you, that I do believe you care about human rights and personal freedom.
And I think you believe that women should be treated well.
I've got to believe you're troubled at the behavior and the slandering of these women, aren't you?
Well, you know, I care deeply about Sean Hannity and Donald Trump, and I'm glad that Donald Trump, in the face of mainstream media bias, has Sean Hannity as his surrogate.
But I think...
Well, you know who I'm a bigger surrogate of?
Who's that?
Juanita Broderick.
Let me play you some of the things.
Let me play you.
Let me play some of her so you can hear it for yourself.
Back in 1978, when he was running for governor of Arkansas, he came to my nursing home on one of his rounds.
He was coming to nursing homes and businesses in the area.
And the picture that you see now out on the news was the picture that we took with some of my residents and Bill Clinton and myself.
And when he was there, he made a point to tell me when I was there, whenever I was in Little Rock, the police call that they had some special campaign things to give out.
And at that time, I was working on his gubernatorial campaign.
Well, a short time after meeting him, my nurse and I did go to Little Rock for a nursing home seminar.
And when we got there, we stayed at the Camelot.
I don't know what the hotel is called now, but the next morning of the meeting, I called Mr. Clinton's campaign office.
And I said, this is Juanita.
And Mr. Clinton told me to come by and pick up some information and special things for campaign workers.
And she said, oh, yes, so you're supposed to call Mr. Clinton at his apartment, which I did.
She gave me the number to call.
And he said, why don't we meet in the Camelot coffee room, which I was getting ready to go down.
Norma went on to the meeting, and I was getting ready to go down to the coffee shop to meet with him.
I had several things, Sean, that I was interested in talking with him about.
The nursing homes were struggling, and we needed a better reimbursement system.
And when he was at my nursing home, I explained a lot of this to him.
And he said, Oh, I'll be very interested in hearing that.
We need to help the nursing homes.
And so this is what we were supposed to get together and talk about.
While I was getting ready to go down, he called my room and he said, There's too many people down here and reporters.
He said, Can we just have coffee in your room?
Which I ordered coffee to the room, and I was a little hesitant, but I thought, you know, this is the Attorney General of the state of Arkansas.
So I did allow him to come to my room.
And I won't go into the details, but it was brutal.
What happened to me?
And it was not consensual in any way, shape, or fashion.
Now, I'm going to stop it there.
She told me the story in person.
I wanted to cry.
Does that bother you, Juan Williams, as a person that cares about women's rights?
Anytime you tell me about anybody being abused, I would be troubled.
And last night, Donald Trump telling Sean Hannity rape.
I mean, that's the word he used, am I right?
That's the word Juanita used.
Well, I'm saying that's the word Donald Trump used.
That's the word Juanita used, and that's what she said.
She go to the police, Sean?
Did she file a case?
Has he been convicted?
He was the Attorney General of the state of Arkansas.
So, in other words, there is no legal action.
Oh, okay.
He never was.
Oh, okay.
So, just like, according to you, because they didn't file cases, which is sadly pretty common in rape cases.
I would agree, but I'm just saying.
Laurie, let me ask you.
That's that.
Yeah, exactly.
He was the attorney general.
Laurie, let me get your take on it.
You know, it's very disturbing and very sad to hear this story.
And I think if we are going to have the sort of campaign that it looks like we are in for, where we're looking at the histories of both candidates, then we're going to be hearing a lot more of this, and we're going to have to decide what our standards are going to be and what sort of treatment of women we have a right to expect from our presidential candidate.
But it's amazing that it takes Sean Hannity to get the New York Times to report on Juanita Broderick, isn't it?
I mean, and they only had to do it because they were exposed as doing a very biased hip piece this week, as evidenced by all the women in that piece coming out defending Mr. Trump.
Well, I think, you know what?
I thought that piece fell flat.
So I'm in the corner on that.
It backfired, didn't it?
But I've got to say, Donald Trump has rights, and so does Bill Clinton.
I don't think you just want to say, oh, somebody said Bill Clinton did this, and then you say flatly, therefore he must be right.
These women are not going to be a good person.
Well, I guess what the difference is is we know that he lied about Jennifer Flowers because he ended up finally admitting that.
All right, but that was consensual.
We know that he lied about Monica Lewinsky.
Again, that was consensual.
So we also know that Paula Jones won her case and won money and he was disbarred.
We also know that Kathleen Willey has been consistent in telling her story, and Juanita Broderick felt compelled to tell the story because she didn't want this to happen to any other women.
Now, based on his history, I looked her in the eye and I interviewed her.
You didn't.
And I believe her.
I'm amazed that your eyes are above the muck and mire, the mud that's being slung around here about sexual charges in the midst of this campaign.
Is that the best of the money?
Do you think Hillary Clinton and all the names that you know what?
You know what James Carville said about Paula Jones, who ended up winning her?
You know what he said?
Do you want to know what he said about, and again, she won her case.
But you don't want to know what he said, oh, you just drag a dollar bill through a trailer park.
You never know what anybody's going to say.
You are true.
And guess, did Hillary stop James Carville?
No.
Hillary was part of the enabling faction of the Clinton campaign.
Maybe Mike Tyson next.
Why didn't she say something about Mike Tyson?
You know, you're really desperate, aren't you?
This is bringing this stuff up.
This really hits something to do with Hillary Clinton.
Do you want to know why?
Because this hits deep, doesn't it?
Because it really goes to the heart that she's not a champion of women's rights, is she?
I think so.
She's not the champion of women's rights.
Really?
Then why does she take money from Saudi Arabia?
You are getting into her face.
I'm asking you.
In a way that's unseemly.
I wouldn't take a million dollars from Saudi Arabia because of the way they treat women.
The United States government does business with them.
I haven't heard you scream about it.
Oh, yes, you have.
I've screamed about Saudi Arabia being a duplicitist.
I want the 28 pages that are redacted from the 9-11 Commission report.
I want the families.
I want the families.
I talk about Saudi Arabia every day.
Every day.
I'm working with them on our side against the Iranians and the people.
Excuse me.
You're wrong.
I am the loudest critic against Sharia law in Saudi Arabia in the country.
Well, we all are, but I'm saying it wasn't.
It wasn't specific to women.
But now, Linda, is it specific to women?
Trump is the great protector of American rights.
How often do I talk about Saudi Arabia?
He's been a stalwart when it comes to Saudi Arabia and that treatment of women.
They don't have men to identify a rape or how they can't drive cars, et cetera.
I'm sure Lori feels the same way as a woman.
Yeah, Lori.
Absolutely.
You wouldn't take money from them, would you?
Absolutely not.
The record on women's rights and human rights atrocious.
And by the way, you know, look at these countries that are throwing gays and lesbians.
All right, Sean Hannity believes in traditional marriage, but I stand with the gay and lesbian community and say these countries have got to stop killing people, innocent people.
Mind your own business.
How do you like that, Juan?
It sounds pretty liberal to you, right?
I'm sticking up for people.
I don't like you out of character.
I prefer you as you.
But I will say this: I think, again, you are stretching to somehow go after Hillary Clinton for the sins of Saudi Arabia, much less built.
No, she takes their money.
She just takes their money.
And you know what that money bought for Saudi Arabia?
Her silence, because she never criticizes them like I do.
So much has come up this week.
You remember back in 2007, 2008, I declared journalism in America's dead.
And I think we got another example this week, a prime example.
Here it is, the paper of record.
The ever-so-prestigious New York Times putting out a nearly 20-page printed report that is entitled Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private.
And we have now interviewed three women mentioned in this article.
And they all say that the New York Times had an agenda going in.
They purposely took their comments out of context, mischaracterized their relationship with Mr. Trump, and they have now come forward and said it is absolutely false and misleading and manipulative of the New York Times and what they have done.
And one was an ex-girlfriend, one was Carrie Prejan.
We have this other woman who was a Bosnian war survivor that we put on the program a lot of times.
So, but my point is, then I raised the question last night with Donald Trump as it relates to, well, okay, the New York Times is doing these exposés that have now been debunked by the women that they use in these articles.
These women are all furious.
These women all want apologies.
But yet, where's the reporting by the New York Times on, let's see, Paula Jones, who claims that Bill Clinton pulled down his pants and exposed himself, and that Kathleen Willey, when she went to see Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, was groped and grabbed and touched and fondled against her will and threatened thereafter.
And the case of Juanita Broderick, where's the New York Times coverage of that?
And last night on the program, and it's gone viral, well, Donald Trump finished the sentence for me and said, rape.
That's the allegation that was made by Juanita Broderick.
We've interviewed her a number of times now, and she has told her story.
I have looked her in the eye.
I did the second interview after Lisa Myers at NBC.
I looked her in the eye and I believed her.
People ask me all the time: do you believe these women?
Yes.
In every case, these women were lied about.
They were smeared.
They were slandered.
They were besmirched.
And their character was assassinated.
And they paid a dear price for daring to speak up.
Well, you would think that the New York Times, if they're so interested in how candidates treat women, they might ask some tough questions of Hillary Clinton.
And as I said earlier today, why did she take money through the Clinton Foundation from countries that treat women horribly, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other countries that practice Sharia law, that tell women how to dress and that they can't drive and that they can't vote and they can't be seen in public without a male relative?
They can't go to school or work without a man's permission.
Why take money from those countries?
Where is the criticism from the great champion of women's rights, Hillary Clinton?
She took their money.
Did they buy her silence?
Anyway, Cheryl Atkinson is somebody that over the years I've just come to have great, incredible respect for.
She's been on the program before, and she worked at CBS for a long time, and she tried to do some really important reporting, and she was stymied by the news operation there.
She joins us now.
She has a brand new piece that she has put out.
It's called Untouchable Subjects, Fearless Reporting on her website.
And she goes into different news stories, the Fast and Furious story, Benghazi, medical and vaccine, and others.
And then she does this whole piece on six degrees of separation among Trump critics that I think is valuable, especially in light of what's happened this week.
Cheryl Atkinson, how are you?
I'm great.
Thank you for having me.
Did you know Morley Safer?
He passed away today.
I did, not well, just because I work at CBS.
Yes, of course I did.
Great deal of respect for really all this longtime CBS 60-minute correspondence.
Listen, I think 60 Minutes is biased, but I will tell you this: the show is usually, it has one or two segments that I think are phenomenal.
And then there's the one biased piece that drives me nuts, usually Steve Croft, you know, sucking up to Obama, but that's a different story.
You watched what happened this week.
You actually lost a job in many ways because you were fighting to get truth out on certain stories involving President Obama.
Remind people of your story.
Well, to be clear, I felt the last couple years at CBS, after a wonderful 20 years, there were all kinds of pressures not to report, not only on government scandal, Obama administration, alleged wrongdoing, but also corporate malfeasance, pretty much anything that could go after people considered our corporate partners or our political partners at the corporate level, pharmaceutical industry, you name it.
It came to be where they simply wanted stories to boil it down to something very simple on the weather.
And I think you see that.
My friends at the other networks complain of the same thing, but my job was so specific to investigative reporting, it left me feeling I had very little meaningful to do.
So I managed to work very hard, managed to get out of my contract early.
Yeah, and by the way, you're not, I don't know that I've ever read anything about what your political persuasions are.
I mean, I say I'm a conservative because I am, but you are a reporter.
In your heart of hearts, that's what you want to do.
You want to be fair and balanced, and you want to get big stories out there and inform the public.
Am I right about that?
Yes.
I mean, what I love, I think it's a wonderful intellectual challenge that too many journalists today overlook, that you cover a story that may even be contrary to how you personally feel, but you cover it fairly and follow the facts and sometimes even change your mind about what you thought the story was.
That's what we're supposed to do, and it's a wonderful intellectual exercise.
And I've, you know, received Emmy awards for investigating the Bush administration and investigating the Obama administration and doing non-political stories.
It really doesn't matter.
I think I deserved an Emmy for all my work on Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dorn.
No one ever called me.
I'm sure you did.
Well, you have to submit the entry now.
Oh, okay.
Somebody told me yesterday that I was nominated to be in the Radio Hall of Fame, and I'm like, oh, that's nice.
And they said, no, you're supposed to get people to vote for you.
I said, I'm not going to go out there and beg people to vote for me for the Hall of Fame.
That's not up for me to do that.
No.
Well, let me, what's your take on the New York Times story about Donald Trump this week that has now been debunked?
I mean, isn't this the classic case of a story and a storyline pre-written by a guy that was out tweeting negative things against Trump?
Well, let's not forget the Ben Rhodes New York Times story as well.
Oh, my gosh, which preceded this.
But my gut reaction to this was: you know, it's perfectly legitimate to interview these women and to conclude or have people conclude in your report that this was inappropriate somehow.
But you are obligated, regardless of what you feel, to appropriately report the context that the women or some of them say they were not offended.
Maybe you think they should have been offended.
Maybe you wish they had been offended.
But you cannot, as a journalist, at least the way I was brought up, and CBS would never have let me do this in the good old days.
You cannot report a story and leave out these important facts of context.
They have an obligation to say, you know, well, first of all, I don't think they should have put their personal opinion in it, but let's say they do.
They still have an obligation to properly characterize what the women thought and said and not hide that.
They clearly omitted that from the story on purpose, you know, with intention.
Well, I think what every woman that I interviewed from the piece, I mean, they were angry because they actually told a very different story than what was reported.
And in the case of, for example, Carrie Prejan, who was Miss California, they said all they needed to do, they took a certain excerpt out of her book, but if they would have gone two sentences further, she's praising Donald Trump.
So it was deceptive, and she was pretty angry about it.
And they didn't tell the story about how Donald Trump stood up for her when so many people turned against her, and that Donald Trump offered to help her career and was helpful in her career.
And the ex-girlfriend, Brewer Lane, was absolutely apoplectic about what they said because she said just the opposite.
If just five years ago, this sort of fallout had happened after a local news television story, let alone a prestigious national newspaper story, that would have been a career ender for the journalists involved.
I mean, this is very serious, the allegations they're making about being mischaracterized and what they said they were told by the reporters versus what the final story shows.
Yeah.
And then the more interesting part, Juanita Broderick challenged on the very same, the day after this New York Times piece comes out, she challenged them to look into her story.
Now, I've interviewed Juanita Broderick twice.
I've interviewed Kathleen Willey a number of times and Paula Jones.
And I think the big, and I've also examined why Hillary Clinton claims to be a champion of women's rights, takes all this money from Saudi Arabia, and they have a deplorable record as it relates to women's rights and gay and lesbian rights.
And she has never criticized them that I can find.
And I've searched long and hard to find criticism of Saudi Arabia from Hillary.
And it seems like the champion of women's rights, you know, her silence was purchased.
Well, it almost seems to me, who knows what the motivation is, that if reporters are trying to create a certain narrative, we know that is the case in some instances, are they trying to balance out Hillary's supposed woman problem by manufacturing or creating an equally large one for Donald Trump so that erases that Achilles heel for her in the general election?
Well, now Donald Trump in two polls in two days is up plus five and plus three.
Let me ask you, you did some very interesting reporting, I felt.
Six degrees of separation among Trump critics.
I'd rather than read it, you talk about Jorge Ramos, you talk about Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain, you talk about, let's see, what was his name, Jim Messina, who heads up the Priorities PAC USA and Brad Woodhouse.
And, you know, why don't you explain some of what you've reported?
Well, I'm researching a new book, and some of this came to light for that, but some of it is also mixed in with this campaign that's going now and the astroturf that I've written about.
The whole goal of certain groups that are out there, whether they're political action committees that do opposition research and negative ads or PR campaigns that work for special interests and surreptitiously have false social media accounts, the whole goal is to create the impression there's widespread opinion for or against something when there may not be to sway public opinion.
And when you look at the results of the truth that's out there about feelings for Donald Trump, surely there's much opposition, but there is much support that has not been well represented in media accounts in the past year.
And you have to wonder why.
So I looked at some of the connections between this seemingly diverse set of critics against Trump, but their common connections.
Many people probably don't know that Hillary Clinton has this formidable group of super PACs, political action committees, and media watchdog outlets, whatever you want to call them, that fan out in the news and don't identify themselves and are often not identified in the news as Hillary Clinton super PACs with supporters and speak against Trump or sometimes Bernie Sanders or whatever interest that they think threatens Hillary Clinton.
So Univision, as you know, Jorge Ramos has been an aggressive critic of Trump.
Univision canceled the Trump Smith USA pageant.
Well, Univision's owned by Saban Capital Group, which is run by a top Hillary Clinton supporter who's given $7 million, one of the biggest donors to Hillary Clinton's political action committee, Priorities USA Action.
So that's just one example.
But also, you see the criticism from the British prime minister.
He called Trump stupid and wrong.
People probably don't know that Cameron's campaign strategy advisor in the past year was Jim Messina, who heads up Hillary Clinton's largest super PAC, Priorities USA Action.
I don't think these are tangential relationships that bear no relevance.
Correct the record.
He's the spokesman for Correct the Record, which sounds like a neutral fact-checking website.
Brad Woodhouse is on TV and they're issuing press releases, usually attacking Trump or even Bernie Sanders.
Well, people don't know.
Correct the Record's a super PAC for Hillary Clinton.
I mean, they have one goal in mind, and that's usually not disclosed in the reporting.
And then the people behind Correct the Record, again, is her super PAC, American Bridge 21st Century, run by Media Matters David Brock.
Media Matters David Brock is a Hillary Clinton surrogate.
That organization works on her behalf.
So all these seemingly diverse critics have some common links in the money world and in the political surrogate world to Hillary Clinton.
Unbelievable.
What you're talking about is a level of incest.
It's incestuous among these media groups and these campaigns.
And then you can add to that the propaganda of Ben Rhodes over at the White House.
I mean, we knew back at the time that he was the one that advanced the story as it relates to the YouTube video when Hillary Clinton was writing her own daughter, the Libyan president and the Egyptian prime minister, that it was a terror attack.
He advanced the story of being related to a YouTube video, the attack on our consulate.
And he's a guy that bragging about the fact that he lied to the American people because they'd never get it past the American people if they told them the truth about the Iranian deal.
And he still works at the White House.
Well, and what surprised me most about that New York Times story, that should have been, I don't believe it was, in the editorial section.
Fine to write a loving piece about Ben Rhodes.
But in defending the piece amid criticism later, the reporter wrote an article that said things like, I consider Ben Rhodes the most, the bravest person I've ever met in Washington.
He called him honest.
I mean, that's fine if he wants to conclude Rose is honest, but there have been...
But that's an editorial.
It's an editorial, and it's been disproven in instances, as you pointed out, with Libya directing the narrative toward it wasn't a terrorist attack when they knew otherwise, with the Iranian deal.
So it's fine if he wants to still call Ben Rhodes honest, but it flies in the face of established facts.
And it's just kind of shocking that that would be played off as a news report in the New York Times when it is instead sort of a public relations biography written by somebody who seems to adore Ben Rhodes.
Yeah.
You know, Cheryl, you're really doing great work.
I find it fascinating that you've connected all these dots.
How could people find it?
Where are you on the web?
I forgot where we found this.
Well, that article is at CherylAckinson.com.
I host a weekly show called Full Measure.
Is that a radio show?
No, that's a national TV show broadcast of 43 million ABC CBS NBC followers.
Well, thanks for affiliates.
Well, thanks a lot for inviting me.
I can't believe you never invited me.
I wouldn't go anyway.
No, I'm kidding.
I don't want to either.
No, but seriously, we don't, just so you know, we don't do a lot of talking head interviews.
We do something different on Sunday that no one else will have.
And this week, what we're doing is following the campaign money, the biggest contributors of the three remaining major candidates in ICE.
That's right.
And looking at, yeah, who's behind him.
So that's the sort of thing we do.
All right.
Cheryl, I do admire your work.
Thank you for being with us.
Don't forget, see all newhannity.com.
We've got great news stories going up every minute of every day, keeping you up to date on all the hot news and burning issues.
800-941-Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
We'd love to hear from you.
Michael is in Brunswick, Georgia.
We'll start with you.
Michael, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, Sean, I'm great.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'm a Bernie supporter.
I usually don't agree with you on anything.
Hey, listen, I'm sticking up for you.
I actually feel bad for you guys.
Listen, I don't know why you're voting for a socialist.
I think you're nuts, but this is why.
Now, think about this.
So Bernie wins West Virginia 5136.
All right.
So they distribute the delegates.
It's proportional distribution.
Bernie wins 18.
Okay?
Hillary wins 11.
Then you add in all the corrupt insider, bureaucratic, democratic, corrupt system, and it's all rigged.
Well, Bernie ends up with 19, and Hillary ends up with 18.
Hillary has 500-plus superdelegates, and Bernie has 41.
Now, I don't know.
If I'm a Bernie supporter, I'm pretty pissed off.
Well, you're absolutely right about that, Sean.
And on that note, you're preaching to the choir here.
Hillary's got no business being the nominee.
I agree with you totally.
She hasn't accomplished anything in her years of public service.
But most importantly, this could have been the most winnable election for liberals and progressive ideas in who knows how many years.
With all due respect, you just had all the liberal ideas that failed, but I'll let you go on.
Sean, but you know what, though?
I mean, we could still take the presidency, but no, we had to put in this party hack of Hillary Clinton, who is not representing liberals.
He's not representing progressivism.
I understand your points about Barack Obama's policies and their failures.
No, they have failed.
It's going to be an argument for another day.
That's fine.
I mean, I'll accept that for sake of this conversation.
But in terms of where I'm coming from in the Democrat Party, you know, we could have used this to push more liberalism.
And that's what you're seeing with Bernie.
And it's really a rejection of Hillary in terms of she is more of a centrist.
She is more of that typical politician, the same kind of person.
Well, I won't concede a point here.
I'm not sure what going against.
Listen, Bernie Sanders has pushed her so uncomfortably to where she doesn't want to be because she's a phony.
Look, I think Bernie is definitely more genuine, more sincere.
And I think he's a true believer.
Like, I really believe Obama's an indoctrinated true believer, which is why he's never shown any proclivity to deviate from his indoctrination, which is hardcore leftism, socialism, statism, redistribution.
I mean, he's never deviated, and it resulted in millions more out of the workforce, millions more in poverty, millions more on food stamps, doubling of our national debt, median income down, housing down, one in six American men 18 to 34 out of work or imprisoned.
It's resulted in one in five families without a single family member in the workforce.
So I'm looking at the stats, but you're right about purity.
Bernie's real.
She's not.
She's a phony.
Absolutely.
And I think that's really one of the things that drives people to Trump.
It's one of the things that drives people to Bernie is because they perceive him as authentic.
Well, look what they're trying to do.
They're trying to force Bernie Sanders now.
Bernie Sanders has acquired so many votes and has made this such a race.
Now they're trying to silence.
You heard what happened out in Nevada last week.
Of course, of course.
I mean, look, I got to tell you, I don't think Bernie's going anywhere.
I think Bernie and his supporters.
I hope not.
I hope not.
After every primary, even in the states he loses, you know, keep pushing left, Bernie.
Keep pushing left.
Really, what I'm after is an end to this duopoly of the two-party system.
I mean, I would just love to see that kind of break up.
Well, Bernie should maybe run third party.
You know what?
I would vote for him, even if that meant a Trump presidency.
I'm almost to the point, even in Georgia, which is borderlining becoming a swing state, still not a swing state.
Well, I don't think that Donald Trump's going to win Georgia.
I don't think it's going to go blue, but still, in that sense, just as a protest vote, I'm almost to the point where I would vote for Trump for Hillary.
Well, I think that's a good choice.
I think, listen, and everything you've said, I agree with.
Well, you know, in the last couple of days, Sean, Hillary's been talking about putting Bill Clinton, here, her husband, in charge of our economy.
I'm over here having a heart attack.
You know, we all have to be reminded that Bill Clinton set up our country for the Great Recession.
You know, he signed that new and more heavily reinforced Community Reinvestment Act of 1995.
And that's where he pushed Attorney General Janet Reno, who applied a whole lot of intimidation to the banks.
And they put pressure on the banks to reduce the lending guidelines to minorities who couldn't get a mortgage bee.
You're right.
You know what's happening now, Jane?
They're starting to do it all over again.
They're doing it all over again.
No.
And when I've been hearing about how she wants to put Bill in charge of our economy, he already led us down to this road of Great Recession in the early 2005 to 2008.
Holy moly.
You know, he made victims out of the very people he wanted to help.
And he also put a whole lot of people out of jobs, out of homes.
Joblessness was huge for black men.
Well, it's huge now.
I mean, you have millions more.
I think black Americans have disproportionately been negatively impacted by bad Obama decisions.
But you're right about one thing.
Look, this is all predicated.
It might be a little more complicated.
People might not know what the Community Reinvestment Act is.
Just a quick reminder.
It is the government forcing banks and financial institutions and lending institutions to lower their lending standards based on the premise or predicated on the premise that every American has, quote, a right to a home.
Well, the problem is, is that people bought homes and they could not afford to pay them back.
And then they had the banks that would bundle up these big loans together, and all of a sudden all these bankruptcies come in and it drove down home prices.
It created a financial crisis in part.
You know, the Fed was active and involved in it.
None of it's been good.
So anyway, you raise a lot of good points, Jane.
That's right.
And all these people were constantly blaming the banks.
And even now, Hillary talks down about all the banks and the banks and the banks when it was really all of them who set up the banks for all of this stuff.
And then we, as taxpayers, we ended up bailing out the banks, remember?
That's correct.
And the insurance companies.
And we paid a fortune.
And guess what?
We're going to pay again.
Because they're starting to ramp it up again.
We've got to stop this stuff now.
We've got to stop it.
We've got to go back to the higher lending standards that we had before.
And we've got to stop this.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Make May were dragged into it as well.
This part is a disaster, and it's going to be another disaster in our country if Bill Clinton is heading up the economy.
Well said.
I think that's a great admonition.
Anyway, thank you, Jane.
Steve in New Haven, Connecticut, WTIC in Hartford.
What's going on, Steve?
How are you?
Hey, Sean.
Thanks a lot for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
It's an honor.
It's a first-time caller.
Yeah, my whole thing is everybody's asking Trump to be presidential.
And we just witnessed a bunch of presidential candidates acting presidential, and they all lost horribly.
I asked Trump about this last night.
He said, look, I wouldn't have won if I didn't fight hard.
And I actually am convinced he knows, he's joked about I can be presidential.
And yeah, he can be.
But you know what people want?
People want.
I think people understand the urgency of the moment.
And the moment is not a time to be polite.
It's not a time for half measures.
It's time for a political earthquake that wakes people up, gives, especially wakes Congress up to start doing things that will benefit the American people.
Stop robbing our kids, get rid of Obamacare, stop letting the Saudis manipulate energy prices, the lifeblood of our economy, become energy independent, secure the border, stop a national Common Core agenda, help our vets, build our military, identify evil, which is radical Islam.
Simple things.
What I said here is not hard.
All it takes is a little bit of strength and courage.
It's not that hard, what I'm spelling out here.
Pick originalists, strong justices like Scalia and Thomas.
You know, I'm actually confident.
I asked Trump last night.
I said, all right, you fulfilled your promise on releasing the judges' names.
How serious are you about all the things I just mentioned to you?
And he said, that's my agenda.
Of course, I mean it.
I want all of it done.
Right.
Well, my whole thing is if America does not come first here, where is it going to come first?
Well, listen, I was reading stories today.
It's funny you bring this up.
Spain now, remember what happened with Greece?
Well, Spain's debt is now worth more than the value of the entire economy in Spain.
Now, pay close attention to this.
In Venezuela, a socialist utopia, well, they don't have electricity.
They don't have antibiotics.
They don't have beds.
They don't even have soap.
And the country also is going bankrupt and belly up.
And it's happening all throughout Europe.
The, quote, migrant problem in Germany and in France and in Great Britain.
It is the large amounts of debt that these countries have taken on because of social engineering and social programming and redistribution of wealth.
It's all collapsing of its own weight.
And Europe is now collapsing.
And if America continues down this road, we will be Europe in 25 years.
Look, I'll be retired.
I may even be in my coffin by then.
But it's going to happen.
As sure as I'm sitting here talking to you, it's going to happen.
And it's not going to be pretty.
And I got to tell you, we better have a dramatic shift in direction and move towards solutions to solve these problems and think ahead for once rather than just living in the moment.
Stuart, Memphis, Tennessee, WREC in Memphis.
What's up, Stuart?
How are you?
I'm doing fine, Sean.
How about yourself?
I'm good.
What's happening?
Hey, take on this Egypt air crash.
It's screaming terrorism.
And, you know, not to use an unusual term, but the problem that I'm having with it is, you know, an airliner, unlike, you know, military fighter planes and things along those lines, is inherently very stable.
And, you know, what we've seen so far is the plane was cruising at 36,000 feet, and then it had the flight control or the flight maneuvering that they saw it descended rapidly to the 22,000 feet, made a flight turn to the left, and a 360-degree turn to the right.
I think, you know, based on what we're going to see in the very near future as far as pieces and parts of their finding in the ocean, the plane broke up in mid-air.
And from there, it's basically A320, I don't believe, broke up in the air on its own.
Oh, no, no, no.
I think there was a device on board that caused the breakup.
100%.
And the reason I believe that, as you do, is because they had three air marshals on the flight.
And the flight only had 55 people.
So three air marshals armed on a flight can stop 10 terrorists.
And not everybody, women and children on that plane.
So if they, let's say there were terrorists on the plane that charged the cockpit, well, first of all, they can't get in the cockpit that easily.
It had to be a bomb.
That's my take.
That's my question that the question I have is in Paris, since it's one of the more active airports in the world as far as Charles de Gaulle being very active.
Yep.
You know, it raises questions about the terroristic level within the country of France, which has had its events in the past year, obviously.
And then what's going on with the security at the airport?
How did somebody get the proverbial Coke can onto the plane, or did somebody place something on board?
How many Muslim nationality people are working at the airport?
And then obviously this is an Egypt air flight, so there's probably Muslim nationalities that are Egyptians that may not have had a thorough background check.
So those are concerns that I have that are bothering me right now.
Yeah.
Well, I have all of those concerns as you do, and I think it's going to be, it's fairly obvious to me.
There's not really even a whole lot to talk about except how sad it is.
You know, a friend of mine travels to France quite a bit and wrote me earlier today, Charles de Gaulle is not exactly up to the standards we are used to here in the United States in terms of TSA.
As much as we complain about the TSA, as much as I complain about being wanded, if you ever travel with Sweet Baby James, you're going to be wandered every time.
He has like, I don't know what it is.
So that's a big problem.
And, you know, when you have 57 people, as I mentioned earlier, that are on a watch list that work at Charles de Gaulle airport, and they were found after the attack in Paris, and they weren't all fired and taken off the property, that's a prescription for disaster.
