Sean Hannity Show - Is It Just Trump and Hillary? 5.24

May 24, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:29:50

Is It Just Trump and Hillary? 5.24

Hillary Clinton is claiming victory for the Democrats and Donald Trump has become the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Could there be a 3rd party candidate that emerges? Sean weighs the possibility! 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.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show podcast.
	You know, attention to detail is critical when you own your own business, so use legalzoom.com for the legal details.
	Now, their network of independent attorneys licensed in 48 states.
	Well, they know local laws and can provide answers to your legal questions.
	LegalZoom.com is not a law firm, so you won't pay by the hour.
	Just use Hannity One when you check out and save even more.
	LegalZoom.com.
	We got a lot of news we're going to get to in the course of today's program.
	Quick checklist.
	Top stories we're following.
	Bill Cosby now ordered to stand trial in a felony sex assault case.
	Where do you hear the details of what he had admitted to in a deposition back in what 2004, 2006?
	Anyway, among the revelations that he made in this deposition for an assault that he allegedly committed in 2004, he described a 1976 encounter with a 19-year-old model, and he said that he gave the woman Kwaludes, and she became in those days what was called high, he said.
	And then he was asked if she gave consent for sex.
	Well, I don't know.
	How many years are we talking about?
	1976?
	I met her in Vegas.
	I give her Qualudes.
	We then have sex.
	So you have Bill Cosby admitting to plying teens with booze and drugs and having sex with them and having girls frequently dispatched to him by a modeling agency, according to these newly unearthed court documents, and, of course, a deposition that he had given some years ago.
	And he said that a modeling agency would provide him, oh, four, five, six young women each week when he gave this deposition in 2005 and 2006 in a lawsuit that was going on then.
	It's unbelievable to me.
	And we'll have full and complete coverage of that.
	Now, issue two: you will meet the brother of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
	Remember, the president used executive action to prevent you, we, the public, from seeing the information about the guns that were given to gangsters and cartels and all these other groups.
	And Brian Terry, a patrol agent, was killed with one of those weapons, and the Obama administration didn't use GPS tracking of the weapons.
	Well, now there's over 20 Americans killed or killed on this side of the border.
	You have over 200 in Mexico, according to officials there.
	And now we're getting answers as to why the president invoked executive privilege.
	He did it to prevent you, the people, we, the people, from discovering how corrupt the scheme was from the very beginning.
	Now, we also have a hearing today.
	The IRS commissioner did not attend.
	He'll be attending the next one, he says, in July, because Republicans are showing some backbone, especially the Freedom Caucus, and they are moving to impeach the IRS director.
	You may remember Kathleen Engelbrecht and True of the Vote, and any new tax-exempt organization that had the word Tea Party or Patriot in it.
	Remember, they were targeted by the IRS.
	Well, now the IRS commissioner apparently lied, according to officials, under oath repeatedly, and there is now a move to impeach him.
	By the way, the Republican leadership didn't want to do it.
	The House Freedom Caucus is forcing them.
	We'll check in with House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chavis and Congressman Jim Jordan.
	They'll join us also.
	Michael Cohn and D.C. McAllister.
	We'll talk about the latest ad by Donald Trump slamming Hillary Clinton for not protecting women in a video featuring the voices only of the women you heard from yesterday, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broderick.
	So that's just some of what we have going on in the course of today.
	So we've got a busy show throughout the afternoon here.
	Now, let me say this.
	Let me go back to this impeachment case for just a second.
	House Republicans, so they pressed their case for impeachment today and against the head of the agency where Obama tries to use this agency to intimidate the Tea Party that was emerging in 2010, especially during the 2012 campaign, and engineer Mitt Romney's defeat.
	Now, Republican lawmakers in the House used a judiciary committee hearing today that the leadership really didn't want to have, but the Freedom Caucus pushed.
	Anyway, they used this hearing today to lay out the case against the IRS commissioner, Jason Chavitz, Florida Representative Ron DeSantis, both GOP members on the committee, said there are grounds to remove him from office based on what they called his dishonesty, betrayal of the public trust.
	The hearing is the result of an investigation into whether the IRS improperly targeted conservatives, Tea Party members, and other conservative groups.
	Now, Jim Jordan said the commissioner had several duties.
	He breached every single duty he had.
	Now, he was invited to attend the hearing, but he didn't.
	He couldn't be prepared, even though he knew this was coming for months and months and months, or likely coming for months.
	So, anyway, then you have the Democrats.
	Oh, there seems to be an anti-IRS environment here, said John Conyers.
	Oh, the IRS that targets people because of their political views is somehow viewed as controversial.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	Some political updates as it relates to the presidential contest.
	We have Bernie Sanders is now contesting Hillary Clinton's Kentucky primary victory.
	The Sanders campaign signed a letter, and Bernie signed it himself this morning, requesting a full and complete check and recanvassing of the election results in Kentucky.
	The AP still has not called that race, despite Clinton's slight lead in the event that Sanders might ask to recanvass.
	Now, a recanvas is not a recount, but a review of voting totals, and Sanders can ask the judge to order a recount or an examination of individual ballots, but his campaign would have to pay for it.
	So we'll see what happens with that.
	Bernie Sanders has also threatened to make the Democratic convention messy.
	Now, this is important news.
	Who would have thunk it?
	But you have 17 Republicans starting out, some of the biggest names in the Republican Party.
	Donald Trump wins that race before Hillary can finish off the 74-year-old angry curmudgeon socialist from Vermont.
	It's an unbelievable political story, and it shows just how weak a general election candidate Hillary really is.
	Anyway, so Bernie is now threatening party leaders as he squares off against Hillary.
	He says, I think if they make the right choice and open the doors to working-class people and young people and create the kind of dynamic party that the Democratic Party needs, it's not going to be messy.
	He said, if they do open it, it will be messy.
	He said, democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle, but that is where the Democratic Party should go.
	Asked if the convention could be problematic, Sanders had a two-word answer.
	So what?
	Democracy's messy.
	Every day, my life is messy.
	Just look at him.
	He looks kind of disheveled.
	But if you want everything to be quiet and orderly and allow, you know, just things to proceed without vigorous debate, that is not what democracy is about.
	I hope he does know that we are a Democratic Republic.
	I would like to believe that he somehow knows and understands all that, but, you know, you never know with a 74-year-old curmudgeon socialist.
	Who knows what he really knows?
	There are three names emerging.
	Not sure why this was in the New York Post today, but they are claiming here that the vice president, latest edition, I hope it's not Bob Corker.
	I know Bob Corker made a big deal going outside of Trump Tower yesterday.
	Anyway, here's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
	He did oppose bailouts for the auto industry and tax stimulus, but he's not the guy that I want.
	Jeff Sessions, who's a great guy, I'm not sure he's the right choice.
	Retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former director of Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Advisor.
	I just don't know what he's like in public.
	I don't know if he has the chops to be a campaigner.
	Very different when you operate in the military versus in the political arena, but it's an interesting name to bring up.
	I've already expressed my preference.
	I'd bring in Newt Gingrich and really shake up that place.
	And I don't think it's a time for half measures.
	I think if we want to fix the country, we better fix it.
	If we're going to balance the budget, now's the time.
	If we're going to build the wall, now's the time.
	If we're going to get rid of Obamacare, I could see Gingrich and Trump getting it done.
	If we're going to allow coal to expand and drilling to expand and nuclear to expand and fracking to expand and new technologies to expand, well, there's no Democrat that's going to do that.
	If we're going to negotiate better trade, fine, let's do it.
	That would only help American companies.
	If we're going to defeat and name and identify radical Islam, let's do it now.
	If we're going to fix the VA, let's do it now.
	If we're going to build up our dilapidated military, let's do it now.
	If we're going to get rid of Common Core, now's the time.
	If we're going to send education back to the state, now's the time.
	All things that Trump has said repeatedly in interviews with me.
	If we're going to have conservative justices, all right, well, that initial list, the pool of potential candidates that Trump would pick from, I was pretty impressive from my perspective.
	As a matter of fact, I'd even argue very impressive.
	I'll tell you, there's other things that are going on here that we got to pay attention to.
	You know, Hillary Clinton herself, and I talked about these speeches of hers.
	If you actually look at the time period where she in two years dragged in $21 million giving speeches.
	Now, I used to do speeches and get paid for some speeches.
	I never really got that into it because I wanted to be home and be a father as best I can.
	I work enough hours.
	Anyway, if you're talking about $21 million in speaking fees, you know, and she got, what, $5 or $6 million for her book that bombed.
	Her husband gets nearly $27 million.
	And this is all in a two-year period between April of 2013 and March of 2015.
	Now, do you guys understand what a speech like that is?
	And by the way, who's she speaking to?
	You know, Morgan Stanley, $225,000.
	Deutsche Bank, $225,000.
	National Multi-Housing Council, $225,000.
	Fidelity Investments, $225,000.
	Gap Inc., San Francisco, $225,000.
	Apollo Management Holdings, more Wall Street people.
	It sounds like $225.
	Security, IT, AU, BBA, USA Securities.
	I have no idea who they are.
	Verizon, $225,000.
	Another company, Goldman Sachs, $225,000.
	Spencer Stewart, $225,000.
	The Economic Club of Grand Rapids, $225,000.
	I mean, do you understand that the average person, the average family of four at median income is down nearly $5,000 since Obama's been president?
	Do you understand that 95 million Americans are out of the workforce?
	Do you understand that one in six American men between the ages of 18 and 34 are either in prison or out of work?
	Do you understand that one in five families don't have a single family member in the labor force in spite of these phony unemployment numbers that Obama and Washington puts out every month?
	Do you understand how bad this is?
	Do you know what you get for 225, do you know how long she's working?
	Maybe she does, you know, it's called a grip and greet.
	Let me give you the insider terminology here.
	Grip and greet is, all right, you line up, X number of people, usually high donor people, to whatever the organization is.
	They get to come and shake your hand and take a click.
	A click is a picture.
	All right.
	In other words, people don't get to use their own phones because it always takes forever.
	People can't set them up.
	So they have somebody, so you do a certain number.
	I'll do 100 clicks.
	I'll do 200 clicks.
	I'll do a meet and greet of 50.
	I'll say, hi, how are you?
	Nice to meet you.
	Take a picture.
	They get to go home, show their friends, oh, they met Hillary Clinton.
	225.
	All right, so maybe the grip and greet, maybe the clicks is 45 minutes of your time.
	All right.
	Then you give the speech.
	Maybe you do QA, but I don't think she ever does QA.
	You're done maximum two hours.
	Maximum.
	What does the average family of four make?
	50 grand a year, 60 grand a year?
	Some people make so much less.
	It's a racket.
	It is just, and by the way, another Goldman Sachs interview.
	You know, another London Drugs Limited.
	Oh, okay.
	National Association of Chain Drug Stores.
	American Society for Clinical Pathology.
	Oh, that's healthcare industry.
	Global marketing.
	You know, every single solitary, the Jewish United Fund Jewish Federation.
	You know, I could keep going on.
	It's all the same.
	The National Association of Realtors.
	You think these people are paying her that kind of money up to $400,000 in some cases for two hours if they don't want something in exchange from her?
	Pharmaceutical Care Management Inc., they have Vancouver Board of Trade.
	She's president.
	You don't think if they make a phone call that she's going to pick up?
	If you make a phone call, you're not going to get picked up on.
	I can tell you that right now.
	Drug, Chemicals, and Associated Technologies, Xerox, Board of Trade, Metropolitan.
	Do you see how incestuous this whole thing is?
	By the way, I still got seven pages of stuff to write.
	Cisco's, Vegas, $325,000.
	It's funny to see which companies got screwed over and had to pay a lot more.
	Very few pay less than $225,000.
	Very few.
	But it's all the same industries.
	It's the gaming industry.
	It's the healthcare industry.
	It's big banks.
	It's Wall Street.
	No wonder she doesn't want to release those eBay, for example.
	She doesn't want to release the speeches.
	Why doesn't she want to release the speeches?
	Because if she releases the speeches, we'll know who bought and paid for her.
	We'll know what she said to pander to them.
	We'll know exactly how sick and incestuous this is.
	We'll see how they have capitalized.
	We were broke when we left the White House.
	Broke my backside.
	I'm not buying it.
	So corrupt.
	So, so incestuous.
	So despicable.
	You know, attention to detail is critical when you own your own business.
	That's why you need to use LegalZoom.com.
	Now, they take care of all the legal details so you can focus on growing your business.
	Now, you already know that LegalZoom is a great way to start your business, and they've helped over 1 million people get up and started the right way.
	But there's more to running your business than getting started.
	Supplier and customer contracts come with the territory.
	And if you need to hire help, well, every state has its own employment laws.
	So don't spend your valuable time researching laws and reading small print.
	Let the experts at legalzoom.com handle this.
	Now, they have a network of independent attorneys licensed in 48 states who know your local laws and regulations.
	They'll provide the best legal answers for your day-to-day questions.
	And the best part is you don't pay by the hour since LegalZoom is not a law firm.
	Instead, you pay a low monthly fee.
	You know exactly what you're getting up front.
	Go to legalzoom.com today and spend your time growing your business instead of worrying about the legal details.
	Just use Hannity1 when you check out and save even more.
	LegalZoom.com.
	So.
	Yes.
	Now watch when my mouth actually moves.
	That's not me.
	Let's stop for a second.
	I better explain that.
	This is a woman.
	This has now gone so viral.
	There's more than 135 million views of this Texas woman.
	Her name is Condus Payne.
	She was on Good Morning America.
	You remember the movie Star Wars?
	She does this Chewbacca, and it's the most infectious laugh.
	You got to look it.
	We'll put it up on Hannity.com, but just listen to some of this.
	It just makes me laugh every time I hear it.
	Here, listen.
	I can't stop.
	Oh, I gotta stop.
	Okay, okay.
	Oh, my gosh.
	I kind of want to drive around like this.
	Oh.
	Okay, now I'm going to let Chewbacca talk here.
	I'm in tears.
	You know what's so awesome about that?
	You know what we don't do enough of in life?
	You don't have that belly, belly, real, you can tell it's real, spontaneous laugh.
	I mean, you can compare it to Hillary Clinton, and it's just so phony.
	That is such a – that's not real.
	That's not exactly the same thing.
	You can just tell.
	This is such a belly laugh.
	It just makes me smile.
	We'll put it up on Hannity.com.
	You can take a look at it.
	You know, now that this issue, I was thinking about this in the break.
	Now that this judge ruled in Pennsylvania that Cosby's deposition, he gave back in, what, 2005, 2006, now that the judge ruled that they couldn't be used as evidence against him and dozens of women accused him of sexual assault and aggravated assault charge, et cetera, et cetera, stemming from the incident more than a decade ago involving Andrea Constad.
	Now that Bill Cosby's been ordered To stand trial in felony sex assault, now that we have the transcripts of what it is he admitted to, you know, when there's that much smoke, there's got to be fire.
	Now, here's the interesting thing.
	Now, from my standpoint, following legal cases all these years, almost 30 years on radio, 20 on TV, I've learned a lot.
	I'm shocked.
	There's no non-disclosure here.
	I mean, especially as it relates to the deposition.
	Now, the big political news is this Pennsylvania court's decision that Cosby can be criminally prosecuted for a sex assault based on 12-year-old allegations, even though the Montgomery County District Attorney made a deal with Cosby back in the day when the allegations first surfaced.
	And based on what he admitted, why would this guy ever make that deal?
	You know, that he would never be prosecuted.
	Why did the prosecutor make that deal?
	When is somebody going to ask him, why did you give a sweetheart deal?
	Why?
	Because he was famous?
	Did he give you any favors?
	Did he do your son or daughter's birthday party or bomitzva or something?
	I mean, what's going on here?
	Anyway, because he didn't think the case was winnable.
	Yet you have a deposition where he's saying he gets five or six young models a week delivered to him by a modeling agency?
	Has police ever investigated the modeling agency?
	Is anyone going to investigate Bruce Castor and why he made this deal?
	Admitting he's plying young people with Kwaludes and drugs and alcohol and having sex with them, which is by definition, in many states, rape.
	You know, the same testimony Cosby promised would never be used in anything but the civil suit includes the most damaging allegations against him in the criminal prosecution that he was promised would never be brought.
	So why did the Montgomery County DA go back on the deal with Cosby?
	Now, the testimony resulted in a substantial cash settlement between Cosby and the victim.
	The exact amount, that part is confidential.
	So last fall, a new district attorney was elected in Montgomery County.
	And that DA, Kevin Steele, had campaigned on a promise to go after Cosby, which he's now doing, despite his predecessor's non-prosecution promise, which brings me to my point.
	Now, think about this.
	If a newly elected leader can change the rules and go back on an official deal to go after Cosby, what's to prevent, let's say, the Trump Justice Department from deciding that, well, even though the statute of limitations may have expired and the allegations against Bill Clinton, the women that we had on yesterday, Juan Ada Broderick, Kathleen Willie, and Paula Jones, there might be another way to prosecute Clinton criminally, which, by the way,
	you've got to be careful of because that'll be used against conservatives again and again and again and again and again.
	But just as a side note here, something to think about.
	Here's another story.
	By the way, 800-941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	We'll get to some of your calls here in a second.
	You've all heard that, and it looks like it's a scandal du jour Anytime anyone is associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton.
	You know, they attach themselves to the inner circle of lackeys, cronies, and aides.
	That's why I said, remember the name Brian Pagliano, the guy that set up the special server for Hillary Clinton in the mom-and-pop shop bathroom, which we now know was compromised.
	But anyway, putting that aside, you have the governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe.
	CNN Purse reported, other outlets have now confirmed that McAuliffe, BFF of Bill and Hillary Clinton, special pleader back in the day, co-chair of Bill Clinton's re-election in 96, chairman of Hillary's campaign in 08, former chairman of the DNC in the 2000s, world-class political fundraiser for himself and the Clintons, is now under a federal investigation.
	You notice this never ends with the Clintons and company.
	They sure keep the FBI busy.
	Anyway, Governor McAuliffe, remember Rob McDonald, he ended up getting a jail sentence.
	Now, the Supreme Court has decided to look at it on the basis of whether or not he might have violated laws by receiving certain gifts when he was the governor.
	But anyway, he's now the subject, Terry McAuliffe, of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and prosecutors from the Justice Department's Public Integrity Unit.
	The investigation dates to at least last year and is focused at least in part on whether donations to his gubernatorial campaign violated the law.
	Gee, what a shock that would be.
	What a real shocker that would be.
	Anyway, they've been scrutinizing McAuliffe's finances, including personal bank records, tax returns, public disclosure forms that date back many years, and are interested in foreign sources of income.
	Here we go.
	Charlie Tree all over again, renting out the Lincoln bedroom.
	The Clintons, who didn't make enough money in a two-year period, she gets $21 million in speeches.
	He gets $27 million in speeches.
	She gets money for a book to bombs.
	It seems like money was their sole objective in life.
	I can't believe how greedy they are.
	And of course, they go after the rich.
	They go after Wall Street.
	They go after pharmaceuticals.
	They go after the health industry.
	And these are all the people buying them off.
	And I'm not even talking about the millions and millions of millions to the Clinton Foundation from countries like Saudi Arabia, other countries that practice Sharia law.
	And they seem to have bought Hillary's silence about their abuse and mistreatment of women.
	Anyway, so as part of the probe, officials have scrutinized all of these things that McAuliffe has been involved in, including his time as a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a vehicle of charitable foundation set up by the former president Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
	No allegation in this case that the foundation did anything improper, but the probe is focused on McAuliffe and electoral campaign donations.
	By the way, the same guy that's giving convicted felons, 200 and some odd thousand of them, the right to vote in Virginia, you don't think that's to help Hillary?
	Anyway, according to CNN, among the McAuliffe donations that drew interest of the investigators was $120,000 from a Chinese businessman by the name of Wang Wenelang.
	I hope I said that right, through his U.S. businesses.
	And according to the Post, Wang is a donor to both McAuliffe and the Clinton Foundation.
	West Legend Company, a New Jersey affiliate of Realand Enterprises, a Chinese firm led by Wang, gave $120,000 to McAuliffe's 2013 campaign and inauguration.
	His $2 million pledge to the Clinton Foundation drew attention this year because of Wang's connections to the Chinese government, both as a member of the National People's Congress and as a contractor entrusted to build China's embassies.
	Wang's companies ship soybeans through Virginia ports, part of our large trade imbalance with China.
	Foreign nationals are prohibited under federal law from making political contributions, except immigrants who hold green cards.
	Now, an American subsidiary of a foreign corporation cannot contribute campaign funds if it is financed in any way by the parent company or if individual foreign nationals are involved in the decision to make the donations.
	Now, Wang supposedly holds U.S. permanent resident status, which makes him eligible to donate to McCullough's campaign.
	Now, the FBI surely knows this, which is why there's got to be more going on here.
	And officials say the investigation remains, quote, active and ongoing.
	And the probe is being conducted, at least in part, by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Virginia, which last year won a conviction against former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald and his wife on public corruption charges.
	Now, the probe is legally separated but politically relevant to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of the email server while she was Secretary of State.
	And I say relevant because there has been the stench of scandal following the Clintons and the Clinton inner circles for their entire public lives.
	I mean, this is like there's a whole generation of young people.
	That's why Bernie supporters are all so against Hillary.
	I mean, go back.
	She invested $1,000 in the late 70s and turned it into $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures when she stopped trading after 10 months.
	Clearly, the result of an illegal arrangement.
	In the years since, and for those people close to the Clintons and the Clintons themselves, they've been soaked in scandal.
	I mean, you know, now you got brown-nosing Terry McCullough, who catapulted to political prominence because of his prodigious and shady fundraising for the Clintons, is now under federal investigation.
	So I want to see how this thing unfolds.
	Anyway, 800-941 Sean, our number.
	Let's go to Atlanta News Talk WSP.
	Tracy is standing by.
	Tracy, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	No problem, Sean.
	I normally love your show and care for you a great deal and watch your face for a long time, listen to you for a long time.
	I cannot stand your support for Donald Trump.
	Well, as a draft-dodging Vietnam War, draft-dodging coward.
	He doesn't have the right to lead this country.
	Look, I didn't even vote.
	I'm a registered conservative.
	Let me go back to what I promised you in 2015 at CPAC.
	And then I'm going to play for you what I said in 2016 at CPAC, all before a nominee was chosen.
	And then if you still want to be mad at me for keeping my promise, that's fine.
	But you know, it'd be nice if you wanted to play all that, but the thing to remember is that you have done such a hatchet job on the one decent conservative candidate that we had that there's no choice for him to win now.
	I mean, he's.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down.
	Slow down.
	Slow down.
	I have done no hatchet job to any Republican candidate.
	There were three instances.
	Hang on.
	There were three instances in which you're talking about Ted Cruz, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Three instances where I'm interviewing him and he accused me of asking Trump questions.
	I never got a question in all this process from any candidate about another candidate that I used ever.
	Well, I believe you when you say that.
	And when he accused me the third time, I was pretty pissed off.
	Sure.
	But I still like Ted Cruz.
	I like him a lot.
	I would have been glad to support him as president.
	Here's what I said in 2015.
	Okay.
	You guys got the tape?
	We don't have it yet.
	Well, I promised in 2015 I'd give candidates all the time they needed and that I would allow them to speak and then I'd allow you to vote.
	Put Ted Cruz on the Friday before the primary votes and then I'll show that.
	Slow down a second.
	No, slow down a second.
	The way, I offered every single candidate the week or two weeks before the day they wanted.
	He picked Friday shows.
	Do you understand that?
	I'll put his own people on to defend it.
	I have the text to prove it.
	They would pick the day they wanted to do, number one.
	Number two, he liked doing Fridays because it often got a replay on Saturday and Sunday.
	Did you know that?
	Well, I guarantee you, if you offered him between the choice between Friday and the eve of the primary, I can't do it.
	Well, I hate to tell you that that might have been true in one case only, but it was not true in most of the cases.
	And I would go with the days they made available to me.
	And I'm going to tell you something else.
	This is just a fact.
	He was very hard to book compared to Donald Trump.
	Very hard.
	And I pushed hard.
	Linda, how hard did we, who was the hardest person to book in this campaign?
	Ted Cruz.
	Yeah.
	And who had more air time than any other candidate on radio?
	Ted Cruz.
	I do appreciate what you do and what you've been doing.
	I don't have time to play this stuff.
	I'm talking about this guy.
	It's got it in.
	All I can say is this.
	This is what he tells me.
	He's going to fix the VA, build up our military.
	You read about his justices.
	He wants to end Common Core, send education back to the States.
	He wants to defeat radical Islam.
	Hang on.
	He wants energy independence, get rid of Obamacare, build the wall, and balance the budget.
	That's what he says.
	So if that's not conservative versus Hillary, then don't vote for him.
	That's my advice.
	I'm not telling anybody who to vote for.
	Okay?
	No, you're not, but you're doing a good job of pushing Trump above everybody else.
	It's already over.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	The whole thing's over.
	I made a promise.
	I'll play it next week because I'm going to go on vacation for a couple of days.
	Anyway, I got to go, but I'll play what I as a matter of fact, Linda, put it up on my website.
	What Sean said at CPAC 2015, what I said at CPAC 2016.
	It'll be up within the hour.
	I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault.
	Don't let anyone silence your voice.
	You have a right to be heard and you have a right to be believed.
	We're with you.
	I was very nervous.
	No woman should be subjected to it.
	It was an assault.
	He starts to find out my top family and I try to pull away from him.
	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 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.
	Two big settlements.
	Massive settlements.
	$850,000 for Paula Jones.
	Lots of other things.
	And impeachment for lying, smearing, besmirchmen.
	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.
	All right.
	So last week, by the way, hour two Sean Hannity show, write down a toll-free telephone number.
	It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	At the bottom of this half hour, the issue of impeaching the IRS commissioners come up, and we have House Oversight Committee Chair, Congressman Jason Chavitz, Congressman Jim Jordan.
	Also later in the program, Bill Cosby, if you haven't heard, has ordered a stand trial and felony sex assault case.
	Speaking of which, last week, the New York Times went after Donald Trump.
	They thought they hit the huge trifecta until we interviewed his ex-girlfriend and Carrie Prisian and other people that have worked for Mr. Trump, women that pledged that he was one of the nicest people that they ever had the privilege of working for.
	And the New York Times purposely manipulated their words and distorted their views.
	And they all went public defending Donald Trump, debunking the New York Times.
	Well, then in an interview, I asked him whether the New York Times should, in fact, be interviewing Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, all three of whom were on the show yesterday.
	And he mentioned the R-word, which went viral.
	Well, now the Trump campaign has slammed Hillary Clinton for not protecting women in a video featuring just the voices of Bill's sex assault and rape accusers.
	Well, anyway, joining us now to discuss the strategy and what this means for the campaign, we have D.C. McAllister, senior contributor to the Federalist.
	She was a cruise supporter.
	She said she will support Donald Trump.
	Michael Cohn is the executive vice president, special counsel to Donald Trump.
	In the course of a week, to me, Michael, it is unbelievable how a story could not only be debunked, but then the entire issue, I'm sure the New York Times working on behalf of Hillary's campaign, gets reversed like jiu-jitsu, and now they're on defense after the media has given them a pass for years, not only over Bill's conduct.
	And I'm not talking about his consensual relationships, but exposing himself and groping and grabbing and the allegation rape and Hillary enabling all of this.
	I've never seen anything happen in my entire analysis of politics in 30 years like that.
	Changed so quickly.
	She's the great enabler-in-chief, and there's not a whole lot that I can say regarding your statement, Sean, that the New York Times owes Mr. Trump and others a very significant apology.
	They manipulated words, they twisted words, they twisted facts, and fortunately, Mr. Trump's microphone is as large, if not larger, than the New York Times.
	And simply because of that tremendous reach that he has, he was able to debunk the New York Times and expose them for the fraud that they are.
	Yeah.
	What's your response to all this, D.C.?
	It seems that, and I watch very closely, after Donald Trump mentioned the R-word on my TV show, I watched both Bill and Hillary were asked about it.
	They have nothing to say.
	There is no defense for this for them.
	There is no defense, but the media has been defending the Clintons for years.
	And I'm just sick of the hypocrisy from the New York Times and other liberal media, and even some conservative media, who give Bill Clinton a pass for these horrendous treatment of women.
	And then they try to equate his treatment of women with how Donald Trump acts toward women and say it's the same when it's not, when Donald Trump has created opportunities for women.
	And what has Bill Clinton done?
	He's taken advantage of women, and his wife has been the supporter, the enabler of this.
	And as a woman, I find it extremely offensive that the hypocrisy alone in the media, in fact, they would rally.
	Remember back in the 90s, they rallied to Bill Clinton.
	They loved how he got away with it and how he was such a smooth operator and how he was all good with the ladies.
	They wanted to be him.
	And yet, and now they're attacking Donald Trump for lesser things that he's done.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	And as a woman, I'm sick of it.
	As a member of the- That's an interesting point.
	By the way, it's nice to have you guys on the same side for once after all these fights you guys have had over the last six months.
	They're lovers' quarrels.
	I don't think they're loser.
	You know what, Sean?
	As a female, why don't you tell us what you think about this?
	Yeah, you know, Michael, what have you spent all day writing that line thinking that you're very clever and smart?
	You know, that's the type of stuff that gets you in trouble.
	I'm going to sue you over that comment in this politically correct world we live in.
	And I'm going to hire D.C. as my lawyer.
	How's that?
	Absolutely.
	And we'll take you to court.
	We'll take you for everything you're worth, every cab you own.
	Oh, boy.
	But in all seriousness, interestingly enough here, D.C.'s point is accurate.
	Mr. Trump's arguments, so to speak, with females is verbal, right?
	And again, we've talked about this so many times.
	He'll speak to a man the same way he'll speak to a woman, which I think is, in his case, is actually the right way to be.
	He doesn't take exception to whether you're male or pander.
	He does not.
	And there's a big difference between a verbal incident and a physical incident.
	And I too find it offensive that they constantly try to put the two of them in the same line when they are certainly not.
	Yeah, I agree with you.
	Here's my question, DC.
	Look, as being on Ted Cruz's side, you know how effective Donald Trump can be at branding people.
	I mean, I think Jeb Bush experienced it.
	Certainly Marco Rubio experienced it.
	Your own Ted Cruz experienced it.
	I think this whole crooked Hillary and every time she tries to use the gender card, which has backfired and she has no answer, I think she's met her match here.
	I don't know what the answer is.
	I couldn't even think of an answer for her.
	I don't know if you could.
	I think this is a real problem for her, especially Donald Trump shows zero fear when it comes to hitting back, especially when people hit him first.
	You know, it's hard enough to brand people when you're twisting the facts.
	I mean, as a cruise supporter, I'll go ahead and say, I mean, Donald Trump, in the end, brilliantly, and I opposed it, but he cast Ted Cruz as an establishment character, as an establishment candidate.
	And it was not true, but he was successful in doing that.
	And the thing with Hillary Clinton is what he's branding her as is the truth.
	So he has double power when it comes after her.
	Not only is he a brilliant brander, is he great at getting his message across and actually having the small tagline attached to human beings in an effective way, but he's actually tying it to very truthful things and facts that are verifiable and part of their own history, something that has been denied by the media for years.
	And I just, it's refreshing to see a Republican actually stand up to the Clintons and give it back to them.
	I mean, that alone, even if you have a lot of problems with Donald Trump, and I do about policies, I'm concerned, but I see him moving in the right direction, which I'm very pleased to see.
	But he is actually standing up and giving it back to them, and he's doing it fearlessly.
	And this is what we have been wanting for years with these people, and I think it will be effective.
	Yeah.
	To what extent, if you're going to balance this out, Michael, and one of the things that I feel that I've been able to extract from Donald Trump in my interviews with him, even though people criticize me, is he's given me a very specific agenda.
	For example, I'm sure D.C. McAllister, as a senior contributor to the Federalists, I assume you looked at that list of a pool of Supreme Court justices he would pick from, and I bet you were pretty happy.
	I've yet to meet a conservative that wasn't.
	I was happy because there weren't any graduates from Harvard on it.
	They were all rather young.
	You hear that, Michael?
	Oh, I hear that.
	I don't see.
	There was one from Yale, but I don't see Hillary Clinton doing this kind of conciliatory reaching out to conservatives.
	I mean, these people who are in the Never Trump camp who say that they'll never vote for Donald Trump.
	Well, I don't see Hillary Clinton doing anything for us, but at least Donald Trump is.
	Yeah.
	Well, I think when I interviewed him, Michael, I get him to specifically say, okay, what are you going to do on the VA?
	He talked about fixing and repairing a broken VA that has betrayed our vets.
	He talks at length about the need to build up America's military, which is dilapidated.
	He talks not only about building the wall, but having Mexico pay for it.
	He talks about better trade deals, energy independence, coal, fracking, drilling, nuclear, all the above.
	He talks about balancing a budget, stop stealing from our kids.
	He talks about eliminating Common Core, sending education back to the states.
	He specifically says we've got a target and defeat, an enemy called radical Islam.
	These are very specific things.
	And repatriating $3 trillion of foreigners.
	That's a big issue.
	Right.
	Interestingly enough, Sean, everything that you just said are things that Mr. Trump has talked about over the course of the past 10 months.
	Yet this liberal media, on a regular and daily basis, actually, turn around and say that Donald Trump has not spoken with any specificity on anything since the day that he made his announcement.
	And I'm always shocked when people who I speak to at dinner parties or functions say the same thing.
	It's amazing how this liberal media goes about their day in terms of attacking Donald Trump for not being specific, when in all fairness, he is the most specific of anybody that's been either on the Republican or the Democratic side.
	What do you think, D.C.?
	Well, I mean, I think, well, of course, I think Ted Cruz is more specific about what he would do as far as implementing limited government policies, but that's water under the bridge.
	And so I do think he has been conservative in some of his presentations, some of his policies, and he's moving even more in that direction.
	And that's what I like seeing.
	I like to see that he is actually moving and he's listening to people because bottom line is I believe that conservative principles are the solution to our country's problems, that the right direction is a conservative direction.
	And the more I think Donald Trump is convinced of that, the more he will have the strength and the power to actually implement that.
	And what I want to see are congressmen and senators, instead of fighting against him, working with him to move him and us in that direction.
	Do I want to say something, Michael?
	Michael, you know what?
	Here's D.C., and I've got to give you a lot of credit.
	You've fought hard.
	You've battled Michael here on this program regularly.
	You fought hard for your candidate.
	And you know what?
	Your candidate lost, and you're not picking your toys up and going home like some of these other people.
	No, but I'm being attacked and skewered by my own side.
	I have lost friends.
	I have been attacked by this like you were saying.
	But you gained me and Michael as a friend.
	You couldn't do any better.
	What a great deal.
	What a great deal.
	I'm going to finally, for the first time, agree with Sean.
	You could not do better.
	Yeah, by the way, this deal is huge for you.
	Come on, let's be honest here.
	Yeah, well, huge is the hashtag?
	Hashtag huge with a wire.
	Here's another one.
	Believe me.
	Believe me.
	So anyway, Michael, go ahead.
	So, Sean, what I was going to say to you is, to me, I can't figure out why the other Republicans who stood on that stage, who signed that pledge agreement, as Mr. Trump did, not initially, but afterwards, why they are still standing on the sidelines.
	Because one thing that you have to know about Donald Trump, he is the only one who will be able to bridge the gap between the Republicans and the Democrats on the two sides of the aisle in order to get things done.
	Because that's really our biggest problem in this country.
	If a Republican comes up with a concept that's fantastic, the best concept that could possibly be thought of and to help this country to move forward, the Democrats will never approve it because then they're allowing the Republicans to get one up on them.
	And by the way, the same thing holds true for the Democrats.
	If they come up with a great idea, the Republicans do not want to join in.
	So when they start talking about this bipartisan cooperation, there is no bipartisan cooperation, which is why Obama has been an absolute failure for the last seven years.
	Donald Trump is the one guy who can bridge it because he knows most of them.
	He's worked with most of them over the years.
	And he's also the one guy.
	And DC, you sort of touched on this.
	He will call them out.
	He's not shy.
	He will call them out and he will hold them to task.
	If they don't go along and they try to filibuster, he will call them out nationally.
	And that's a very serious problem for them.
	I've got to run, but I'm betting some of the other candidates that didn't like Donald Trump attacking them will love it when he does it to Hillary Clinton.
	Guys, thank you, D.C. Appreciate it.
	Michael, thank you.
	I do hope that people on both sides of the aisle will just look strictly at the fact.
	Did they or did they not destroy the evidence?
	They did.
	Did they or did they not provide false testimony and mislead Congress?
	Yes, they did.
	When they knew it was wrong, did they come back to Congress and correct it?
	No, they did not.
	There is a series and a pattern here that is not merely an accident.
	It goes beyond that.
	And whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, whether it's a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, it shouldn't matter.
	You cannot destroy evidence that is under a duly issued subpoena.
	And there should be a consequence to that.
	And then you can't come to Congress and lie about it, which is clearly what happened here.
	John Costinen had several duties.
	He breached every single one.
	He had a duty to preserve documents under subpoena.
	He had a duty to produce those documents that were under subpoena.
	He had a duty to disclose to Congress if he couldn't preserve and produce those documents that were under subpoena.
	He had a duty to do that in a timely fashion.
	He had a duty to testify accurately.
	He had a duty to correct the record.
	He breached every single duty he had.
	No wonder the guy didn't show up.
	If I had that kind of record, I don't think I'd have showed up today either.
	I mean, never forget what happened here.
	The Internal Revenue Service and the power that it has over American citizens' lives systematically targeted fellow citizens for their political beliefs.
	They did it for a sustained period of time and they got caught.
	The Internal Revenue Service is the only entity of which I'm aware in the federal government that can ignore the Constitution as part of its job.
	Nobody else gets to ignore the Constitution, but they can take people's money without due process.
	They can take their property.
	They can move in and destroy a business that took a lifetime to build, and they have done that.
	So it is particularly important that the agents that work for such an agency that can ignore the Constitution must itself be completely overwhelmed with integrity.
	And what we have seen is not the case.
	I've heard from IRS agents who have been furious privately to see the kind of corruption and dishonesty that has overwhelmed the top of the Internal Revenue Service.
	And my question, not just to the witnesses, but to all my colleagues across the aisle, is where is the Democrat with the righteous indignation for this kind of obfuscation and dishonesty that will call the White House and say, as I did of an Attorney General, this man has to go.
	I would love to see the Democrat that still has that kind of righteous indignation to stand up and call it as it is without regard to party.
	Wow.
	That is a very powerful moment by our friend Congressman Louis Gomert.
	Before that, you heard from House Oversight Committee Chairman, Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah.
	And second, you heard from Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, who's the head of the Freedom Caucus.
	Now, I've been very critical when Republicans have gone astray in spending.
	And years before he left, I wanted John Boehner out.
	I think Mitch McConnell has been ineffective and weak, and Republicans have not fought and used the power of the purse, and they allowed the president's executive amnesty to go through.
	There are two things, though, recently that Republicans have done where I am actually somewhat, although skeptically, inspired.
	One is the Senate has stood firm on the issue of going forward with Obama's replacement for the Supreme Court.
	I believe the next president should decide who that nominee is going to be.
	And my hope is that it would be Donald Trump in this particular case, especially after he named the list of justices he would pick from.
	And secondly, they are showing background here, backbone here, and taking on the IRS commissioner, who is in fact abused his power.
	Anyway, joining us is House Oversight Committee Chair, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, and Congressman Jim Jordan.
	Both thank you for being here.
	Congressman Jordan, I do understand that you had to sort of squabble a little bit with some of the leadership to bring this forward.
	Is that true?
	Well, we had to push.
	I mean, I give Jason credit if we introduced this resolution seven months ago, and we've been pushing and pushing and pushing, and finally we persuaded him to come forward and have the first of the.
	Did you persuade him or did you use the power?
	Did you persuade him or did you have to use the power of the Freedom Caucus once again?
	Well, I hate to disclose what takes place in private conversations, Sean, but we met with him, and then shortly thereafter, we were able to get hearings scheduled.
	And that's the bottom line where we can present these facts, which we think are overwhelming for why he should go.
	So, Jason, and I'm not saying this is you because I think you're in a great position.
	I've been a fan of yours for many years, but there was resistance within the caucus to go forward with this.
	It kind of reminds me a little bit of Obama negotiating with Republicans.
	All he'd have to do is threaten a government shutdown, and everyone was scared to death of their own shadow.
	So, there was some fear here taking this on, correct?
	Well, it hasn't been done in 140 years, but that doesn't mean we should do it.
	I mean, the idea of impeaching a civil officer was a tool that was given to us in the Constitution, and we can whine and cry about the Obama administration all we want, but if we can actually stand up for ourselves, take our own destiny in our own hands, that tool that was given to us by the founders is impeachment.
	And even though it hasn't been done for a while, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it.
	Yeah.
	Let's talk about the abuses here.
	Congressman Jordan, you outlined some of them.
	Can you explain as simply as possible what abuses are?
	What is the reason to impeach the IRS chief?
	Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, breach of public trust.
	Every single one of those, according to justice story, every single one of those are reasons why you impeach.
	You don't have to prove criminal intent.
	You have to show those kind of things.
	John Costman breached every duty he had, certainly dereliction of duty, certainly gross negligence.
	For goodness sake, there were two subpoenas and three preservation orders in place.
	And under his watch, 422 backup tapes were destroyed, destroyed.
	And then he waited four months to tell Congress that there was any problem with Lois Lerner's computer and with her email situation.
	So that's the track record here.
	And it seems to me, Jason's exactly right.
	We may not have done this in a long time, but when you have this kind of overreach and the underlying offense was going after people's political speech rights, their First Amendment free speech rights, when that's the underlying offense of this kind of gross abuse of power and negligence and dereliction of duty, you have to not just give him a little love tap on the shoulder.
	You've got to punch him in the nose and say, look, for us to assert our rights as a Congress, separation of powers, co-equal branch of government, we have to do something.
	This activity, this action warrants an impeachment proceeding, and that's why we're moving in that direction.
	How is it possible, Congressman Chaffetz, that the IRS commissioner is willing to appear at a second hearing that you're going to have in June and the IRS telling Politico that the commissioner is not able to prepare adequately for this morning's hearing?
	Excuse me, but didn't he know about this for a long time?
	No, he has.
	And as Jim Jordan pointed out in some of his comments, you know, with his kind of record, you know, what's he going to say?
	I mean, the facts are clear.
	They're accurate.
	And I don't think there's any way to skirt around them.
	And he was invited by the judiciary chairman to come and testify and tell his side of the story.
	And he opted not to attend.
	Yeah.
	So he said that he had given a written response to all of this.
	What is your reaction to his written response?
	Well, the third sentence at the very beginning says that he will do everything he can to work with the Judiciary Committee.
	Well, he was invited to testify before judiciary and refused to attend.
	And then later on, part of the rub here, Sean, is the fact that the facts are so crystal clear.
	He did lie to Congress.
	They did destroy evidence that was under a duly issued subpoena.
	But he still believes that he has always given truthful testimony.
	And that is absolutely, completely, totally not true.
	He misled Congress.
	And you lied to Congress.
	When you say misled, that means lie.
	Isn't lying before Congress a crime?
	He lied.
	He provided false testimony.
	He misled.
	He did all of the above.
	It isn't.
	Look, given an opportunity to correct the record, he wouldn't correct the record either.
	So he doubled down on his statement that was not accurate.
	Yeah.
	Whatever happened to Lois Lerner?
	Remember, in 2010 is when the IRS began flagging applications for all these conservative groups.
	I know Catherine Engelbrecht, for example, of True the Vote is one person.
	Any group that had the name Tea Party in it, for example, agents would target them for review if they had the name Tea Party, Patriot, government spending.
	So whatever happened to Lois Lerner in all of this after she pled the fifth?
	What is the status of that?
	Yeah, she retired.
	She's retired and gets a pension.
	And she just got away with pleading the fifth, even though you both believe that she broke the law?
	Yeah, but she did.
	And until we get an executive branch that will actually enforce that, which the statute of limitations is not going to run out in the next administration.
	But the case that we have here today is John Costkin as the commissioner.
	And that's why we've given this to the Department of Justice in the past, and it goes nowhere.
	So if we're going to do something and take ourselves seriously, not just whine and cry about it, then we should impeach the IRS coach.
	So I remember, John Coskin was brought in.
	This is a direct quote from the president.
	When he was confirmed by the Senate, the president said he is brought in to restore confidence in the Internal Revenue Service.
	That was the standard that the president himself set for Mr. Coskinet.
	He has done anything but accomplish that.
	And again, that underscores why it's so appropriate to, when you have an offense like this and then a cover-up where documents are destroyed and he testifies false in front of Congress, it warrants an action of this magnitude.
	And that's why we're pursuing it.
	Yeah, which I think is really, really important.
	And you're also describing an obstruction of justice.
	I've got to believe if this was a Democratic-run house and the person that falsely testified before Congress had the name Sean Hannity, why do I believe I'd probably be handcuffed and already perp walked and sitting in a jail cell begging for a cake with a file in it?
	We'll come visit you.
	We'll come visit you.
	Yeah, gee, thanks.
	You'll come visit me.
	What good is the visit without the file?
	You're not going to bring a file?
	I didn't hear any commitment.
	I asked anybody about it.
	Let me ask you both.
	Let me ask this important question.
	What is the status within the Republican caucus as it relates to Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee, Jim Jordan?
	Good.
	I think you will see more and more Republicans unify around our nominee, around Mr. Trump.
	Look, look at last week.
	We saw last week on the second amendment he's a thousand times better than Hillary Clinton.
	We saw it on display last week at his speech at Louisville with the NRA.
	We know he's a thousand times better than Hillary Clinton on the life issue.
	I mean, Cecile Richards, for goodness sake, introduces Hillary at rallies, right?
	So we know on conservative issues, he's a much better, even though there's been some inconsistencies there in the past, he's much better than Secretary Clinton.
	And we know what Secretary Clinton did relative to Benghazi, where she said one thing privately and yet told the American people a completely different story, a story that was not accurate in any way.
	So all that together, we have to unify around Mr. Trump and make sure he's the next president and not Secretary Clinton.
	You know, Congressman Chaffetz, if you have the Freedom Caucus, but for the Freedom Caucus, John Boehner would probably still be speaker today.
	They have to threaten to use a mechanism known as privilege resolution to force a floor vote on impeachment of the IRS director if leadership declines.
	I guess my question is, to what extent is there any self-introspection going on among Republicans to the extent that maybe if they kept their promise to use the power of the purse and didn't have so many show votes to repeal Obamacare, but actually use that power, would be willing to confront Obama, let him shut the government down.
	If they didn't promise, if you give us the Senate, we'll stop executive amnesty.
	You know, to what extent do you think this contributed to this insurgency year where Trump is number one, an outsider, a total outsider, and somebody that is totally disliked by his Senate colleagues, Senator Ted Cruz is number two?
	Well, look, it's a huge contributor, and I think this is a conservative nation.
	And we've got to stand up for ourselves.
	Everywhere I go, crisscrossing the country, they're mad, they're upset, they don't understand why people aren't held accountable.
	They don't understand why the spending has gotten to be so high.
	And here's the case.
	It's the IRS commissioner who has lied under oath, who has destroyed evidence.
	This should be a no-brainer, folks.
	And we've got 74 members who have stepped up to the plate and co-sponsored House Resolution 494.
	But quite frankly, it's embarrassing to me that we don't have the majority of the Republicans, let alone the majority of the entire body in Congress, co-sponsoring this resolution.
	If you need facts, go get the facts.
	But this case has been out here for a long time.
	Let me ask this question, Jim.
	I mean, you passionately made a defense of Donald Trump.
	I don't hear a lot of your colleagues doing that.
	Paul Ryan is still not endorsed.
	This campaign has been going on forever.
	I'm not sure what position on what issue that he wants to know.
	Here's what we do know.
	We have a list of a pool of names that Trump says he would pull from to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court.
	Every conservative I know has praised it.
	He has said he will fix the broken VA that betrays our vets.
	He has said he will build up our nation's military.
	He has said he will work to balance the budget quickly.
	He said he'll build the wall.
	He said he'll replace Obamacare with health savings accounts.
	He said he would support drilling, energy independence, fracking, coal, nuclear, all of the above.
	These are in interviews with me.
	He said he would also give schools, get rid of Common Core, bring education back to the states.
	He said he has a plan to defeat ISIS and radical Islam, and he's going to negotiate better trade deals.
	What part of that do conservatives not agree with?
	No, he's starting to sound more and more like Reagan, isn't he?
	You know, look, that's exactly the kind of positions we need and exactly the kind of thing that I think is going to help Republicans unify and rally around Mr. Trump and help him win this fall.
	And as I said, make sure Secretary Clinton is not the next president.
	I think it's exactly the right posture.
	And you're right, Sean, what you said earlier.
	I had a visit with Pat Goodell a few weeks back, and he said, Jim, remember three numbers.
	He's been doing a lot of polling out there.
	He said 70, 60, 80.
	70% of the country thinks that America's in decline.
	60% say they're better off than their parents, but their kids are worse off than them.
	And most telling, 80%, 80% think this count is rigged against middle-class average families and the big corporations.
	And the reason 80% believe that it's true, and that's what we've got to change.
	I totally agree.
	That's why I'm a sort of outsider in the Freedom Caucus member.
	I want to be an honorary member of your caucus.
	We'll make you one, brother.
	We'll make you one.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Thank you, Congressman Jordan, Congressman Chaffetz.
	By the way, there's new information about Operation Fast and Furious, where our government gave guns to gangsters and drug dealers and cartels and kidnappers.
	We're going to talk to the brother of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, who's going to update us now that a judge has insisted that some of these documents that were under seal because the president used his phony executive privilege claim is now coming to light, and it shows that they have not been forthcoming from the beginning about this entire scandal.
	I mean, people died needlessly.
	Over 200 people in Mexico, now 20 people in America.
	It's unbelievable.
	But first, our other story I've been talking about today, the ruling today by a judge in Pennsylvania literally orders Bill Cosby to stand trial in felony sex assault in a case that was there.
	Dozens of women, as you know, have accused Cosby of sexual assault.
	But the aggravated incident assault charge, stemming from an incident more than a decade ago, involved this woman, Andrea Constan, a woman that Cosby mentored when she was an official with the women's basketball team at Temple University, is the only criminal charge that he has faced.
	Now, there was a piece today earlier in the New York Post.
	Let me read some of this to you.
	Bill Cosby admitted to plying teens with booze and drugs before having sex with them and to having girls regularly dispatched to him by a modeling agency, newly unearthed court paper show.
	Bill Cosby said himself that at one point in his career that the agency would provide five or six young women each week, according to depositions that he gave back in 2005 and 2006 for a lawsuit that was going on against him.
	Among other revelations made by Cosby under questioning by lawyers for Andrea Constantin, who claims he sexually assaulted her in 2004, was the description of a 1976 encounter with a 19-year-old model named Therese Pickering.
	He said he gave her Qualudes.
	Now, by the way, her name has changed.
	She became, in those days, what was called high, Cosby said.
	Constant's lawyer asked whether this woman gave consent for sex.
	Quote, I don't know.
	How many years are we talking about here?
	1976?
	I met Miss Picking in Vegas.
	She meets me backstage.
	I give her Qualudes.
	We have sex.
	Cosby said he paid off this woman through his representatives at William Morris to keep her quiet.
	He admitted he needed to prevent at least one person from finding out that's Mrs. Cosby.
	And these admissions were revealed just yesterday, one day before he was scheduled to be in court for this preliminary hearing in the sexual assault case and the claim made by Constant.
	In the deposition, Cosby admitted to giving pills to Constad, then an employee of his alma mater, Temple University.
	I don't hear her saying anything, so I continue and I go into the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection, he said.
	He also recalled getting numerous models sent to him every week by an agency he didn't name.
	He didn't say when the encounters took place or identify the women.
	Well, maybe that now explains why so many women have come forward.
	I mean, it is, you're going back to 1976, all the way through 2006, and how many women have now come forward.
	You know, when I told one of the women involved that I believed her, she started tearing up because she felt nobody in the media believed her.
	Joining us now is Sheryl Harley-LeBon, a lawyer, former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, contributing fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
	Mercedes Cohen is a legal analyst for Fox News Channel and a partner at Gordon Rees, and Ron Martinelli is the author of The Truth Behind Black Lives Matter and that movement and the war on police.
	Also, going to be talking a little bit about the officer that was acquitted yesterday.
	By the way, Mercedes is a former sex crime attorney, and Ron is a former sex crime investigator.
	Mercedes, let me start with you.
	I guess when there's that much smoke, there's got to be fire.
	This admission in this deposition from 2006 to me is it takes your breath away the callousness with which he admits drugging women and basically having sex with women that are unconscious.
	Which is why the defense is going to probably not put him on the stand.
	That's the only way that he would be confronted with that type of damning evidence.
	There's going to be lots of motion practice of what is going to be permitted into the courtroom.
	But frankly, I'm so surprised that the judge did this because so many years have passed.
	If you have that type of explosive evidence, over a decade ago, you have those types of admissions.
	Why didn't someone rush to the prosecutor, Chineet, and say, look, we've got these admissions.
	Go after him.
	Go try to prosecute him.
	Why this long delay?
	And that's one of the things, of course, that the defense is screaming to the top of the rafters is why have you waited so long?
	Now memories fade and things happen, and now this man's going to be facing such a serious crime.
	Cheryl, you're almost sounding like a defense attorney here, Mercedes.
	But in reality, if somebody gives a deposition, isn't it believed that that deposition is going to be private?
	I don't think that's the case.
	Not necessarily.
	It is if they put the right controls in place.
	I mean, I litigate, as you know, I'm a litigator for a long time.
	We put in these confidentiality orders.
	By the way, let me just say something.
	We're going to figure it out.
	Mercedes is a shark.
	Mercedes seems like the nicest person in the world.
	I would not want to be on the other side of that deposition.
	You were too kind.
	But yes, there are some ways to do it.
	They didn't protect this testimony.
	They could have protected it.
	They didn't do it that way.
	What about the statute of limitations, Sherilyn?
	That's what I'm getting at.
	You know, this is what defense attorneys and supporters of Bill Cosby had been saying consistently as all these women came forward.
	They kept on saying, oh, the statue of limitations has expired.
	And again, and Mercedes knows as well as Ron that when you're prosecuting these abuse cases and rape cases, statue of limitations is a big issue.
	And I totally agree with Mercedes that the fact that this case is going back to 2004 and now you're putting, you know, we're bringing this case forward.
	You know, I'm just, I'm very curious to see how all of this unfolds to see if there's going to be any more out of more than 50 women, if there's going to be any other cases besides this one from 2004 that they're going to bring forward.
	Because this is, I think this is pretty significant, if you ask me.
	And I wouldn't be surprised that they're able to bring out more evidence.
	I mean, we've got a lot of women here, more than 50.
	This is just astounding.
	A pattern of predatory behavior that is coming to light almost 30 years later.
	Dr. Martinelli, you want to weigh in on this before we get to our other issue with you?
	You know, I've investigated a lot of these cases.
	The problem that you have here that the prosecution is going to have is these are all cold cases.
	There is no forensic evidence.
	He's already admitted that he had sex with these women, and he's admitted that he'd given them drugs.
	So, you know, the only thing that the prosecution can do is compare the modus operandi and reconcile the various women's stories to find out what similarities are there.
	I mean, normally in a case like this, we would ask these women if Mr. Cosby had denied having sex with them.
	Well, tell us a little bit about him.
	Tell us some details that nobody else knows about him.
	Talk about his private part.
	Are there any distinctions about him?
	Does he have any scars, marks, tattoos, anything like that, you know, that they could compare that Mr. Cosby has?
	Well, how would they be able to do that is, you know, to use his words, I give her drugs, we then have sex.
	Where they have to hang their hat on is that in every state there is a law that says that you cannot have sexual relations with a woman while they're under the influence of drugs.
	So, and they may not be cogent.
	So, this sounds like your hat, it seems to me.
	What he said in his own deposition, let's be blunt here.
	Right.
	You know, I give her quales, we then have sex.
	Isn't he admitting to rape in that deposition, Mercedes?
	Well, I mean, not necessarily.
	Depends on.
	We don't know necessarily, but obviously it depends on the level of consciousness the individual had.
	It depends.
	Some of these women were very young.
	It depends on what their reaction was.
	Depends on whether they can consent to this sexual encounter.
	There are a lot of depends here.
	And you've seen this, Sean, day in, day out.
	When you have these celebrities facing these types of criminal actions, if they take the stand, they walk.
	How many celebrities have taken the stand, haven't taken the stand?
	There's this halo that surrounds them.
	I don't think that he, I don't think that Cosby has that halo.
	I think there's been there's definitely a pitchfork effect because so many women have come forward and said there's just so many similarities in their stories.
	All these women have been drugged.
	All these women contend that they've been raped.
	It's going to be very damning for him to proceed.
	He's going to be unlike some of the celebrities we've covered in the past.
	Right.
	Where even in the light of the overwhelming evidence they walk.
	But it's clear he has a yeah, it's clear he has a pattern of predatory behavior.
	But can we make it stick?
	And again, as Ron says, it's corroborating all of the testimony from these other women.
	And again, I think that's what got us to this point, right?
	One came out, and then it just was a stream of women that were coming out every day.
	So I think clearly we have a pattern of predatory behavior, but I mean, this is going back 30 years.
	And he drugged the women.
	He admitted it.
	But what can we do with that without forensic evidence?
	Consider the tremendous impact on a jury that celebrity has.
	I mean, if you go back to the O.J. Simpson trial, and we're talking about two brutal murder allegations, and you look at how that trial ended up, and then you look at Mr. Cosby, who has, what, 50 years worth of, you know, supposedly good behavior in front of the public, that is going to weigh on at least one juror.
	And that's all you need.
	It's going to be very tough.
	And I think the other issue, of course, is you're going to have these stealth jurors, too.
	You're going to have a panel of jurors that there are going to be stealth jurors there, either pro-Cosby, against Cosby.
	All they're thinking is like, I want to be on that jury because I want that book deal.
	I'm going to write that book.
	I agree.
	There's a whole other dimension drawing this case that is really fraught with danger for both sides, not just the prosecution, but for the defense, because you don't know whether you are actually going to have a fair and impartial jury.
	Sean, I think the big deal here is, and I think the other attorneys are alluding to it, is something that juries, that attorneys are scared of, and that is jury nullification.
	So prosecutors, and what's the problem?
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Hang on a second, though.
	You know, the case is submitted, the judge gives the instructions to the jury, and they vote their conscience rather than any evidence.
	How could any human being on a jury hearing his deposition, I give her drugs, we then have sex, and all the other things I just mentioned.
	How is it possible that you not believe this?
	He's admitting.
	Well, they get caught up in the image of Cosby being on the Cosby show, the dad, or the Cosby from Sam Albert.
	I mean, you know, when people get caught up in the celebrity image, the facts suddenly disappear.
	Wow.
	And you don't know if that ever is going to see the light of day.
	We know that.
	And there may be these stealth jurors that know that as well.
	And they're going to decide based on that type if they have that information before they go into the courtroom.
	But, Sean, I think it's great, and it's grave evidence against Cosby, but whether or not it will see the light of day, it's going to be up to the judge.
	And you know, Mercedes, I've got to be honest, you are the only person I know that might have a chance to get this guy off, only because you're a great attorney, but you scare me.
	Let me move on.
	We don't have a lot of time.
	We saw the acquittal yesterday in the case of the Freddie Gray police officer, Nero.
	This, to me, is just another politicized event, and I think people's hopes were raised because of comments by the prosecutor and others.
	You wrote this book, Dr. Martinelli, The Truth Behind Black Lives Matter movement and the war on police.
	Is this what you expect in every case with all six officers?
	Well, you know, my firm is involved in death cases.
	That's what we do in independent review.
	And I wrote about this case in the book, and I predicted in the book that these officers would be acquitted.
	This was a political rather than a forensic investigation.
	Mosley and her team did this so-called investigation within 24 hours.
	I think Judge Barry Williams, the Baltimore Circuit judge, basically chastised them and said, look, there's no evidence of anything.
	And people that listened, you know, that were not in the courtroom, don't have the context of what any of these officers did and when they did it.
	And Officer Nero was an excellent example because he's completely innocent of all of these charges.
	As a matter of fact, the only time he really touched Mr. Gray was to help him into the van and to search him for his inhaler so that he could render some medical attention to Mr. Gray.
	Okay, and they're going to prosecute him for assault in the second degree and police misconduct and reckless endangerment.
	It's absolutely ludicrous.
	The only injustice that was done in this case was to Officer Nero.
	Wow.
	Wasting the court's time.
	The other point is that when you looked at the rest of the other five, Nero, really, this was the weakest case.
	I mean, what do you think, Mercedes, real quick?
	We're about to run out of time.
	No, I think you're absolutely right.
	Nero was the weakest case.
	It was overzealous prosecution.
	And then when you have Gray's friend actually support Nero in the courtroom and you have a cooperating witness and another officer, Miller, that says, I'm the one who detained and arrested him.
	Nero had nothing to do with that.
	You had all the evidence there.
	Prosecution overplayed their hand.
	They shouldn't have done it.
	If they lost credibility, therefore, it's the right result.
	All right.
	Thank you all for being with us.
	Appreciate it.
	I want to say to the family, I understand you, Payne.
	And I promise you, we will not rest.
	And to the agents, we will not rest.
	We will not rest until every single person responsible for all of us, no matter where they are, are brought to justice.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
	That was Congressman Elijah Cummings talking to the parents, the mother of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
	Now, there are reports, Darrell Issa has confirmed that, in fact, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention, as the Attorney General of Mexico is so concerned, she made a point that at least 200 Mexicans have been killed with these weapons that were provided to drug dealers and kidnappers and criminals with no GPS tracking whatsoever by the Obama administration and what has been come to known as Operation Fast and Furious.
	I mean, you've got 2,500 weapons.
	The Obama Justice Department literally allowed to walk.
	Only 600 have been recovered.
	The rest are still lost.
	And often you don't hear about it until you have a death, like in the case of Brian Terry, who I know you remember from years ago.
	We interviewed the mother and father on this show some time ago.
	At least 20 other deaths or violent crimes have been linked to Fast and Furious on this side of the border.
	A federal judge has now forced the release of more than 20,000 pages of emails and memos previously locked up under Obama's phony executive privilege claim.
	And a review by Paul Sperry in the New York Post shows that Obama officials deliberately were obstructing congressional probes into this gun-running operation that resulted in the deaths of Americans.
	Now, they also, the Justice Department program, it allowed assault weapons.
	Remember, they're so afraid of assault weapons on the hands of citizens, but that included 50-caliber rifles powerful enough to take down a helicopter to literally be sold to Mexican drug cartels and kidnappers and criminals with no way to track them.
	Internal documents also revealed that the real goal was to gin up a crisis requiring a crackdown on guns in America.
	I mean, this is like right out of Alinsky's strategies.
	The whole scheme backfired when the Justice Department lost track of the weapons, and they started turning up at all these murder scenes on both sides of the border, including one that claimed the life of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
	Joining us now is Brian Terry's brother, Kent Terry.
	And Kent, I'm so sorry about your brother.
	I heard your father, who I had interviewed a few years ago, has passed away since as well.
	I'm sure this put a lot of stress on him in his later years in life.
	And please know that this radio family of ours has your family in our thoughts and prayers.
	Well, thank you, Sean.
	I appreciate it.
	And, you know, your opening thing there with Elijah Cummings hit it right on the head.
	And now he found out who's responsible for Fast and Furious.
	What's he doing about it?
	Well, they're not doing anything about it.
	And I think the release of these 20,000 pages of emails and memos that were protected under Obama's phony executive privilege tells us why.
	They knew exactly what they were doing.
	They had an agenda associated with all of this.
	Sorry about that.
	Sorry about that, Hippo.
	Okay, that's right.
	I mean, they knew what they were doing from the get-go.
	Oh, exactly.
	Exactly.
	Like you say, it was just, of course, of course, so there was a gun problem that was coming from the United States.
	And that's what they want to do, attack our Second Amendment.
	Right.
	That's exactly what they want to do.
	They never thought they would kill a federal agent.
	Yeah.
	And by the way, so far, it's only produced 20,500 lightly redacted pages.
	But, you know, thanks to this court order, they had to cough these up.
	And, you know, investigators say they hardly cover all the internal department communications under subpoena.
	So just like with Hillary Clinton, it's a slow bleed of releasing things.
	And then they get to say, oh, that's such old news.
	Well, it's not old news if you're one of the family members who lost somebody in Benghazi or if your name is Ken Terry and you're Brian Terry's brother and you lost your brother from a weapon that our government provided to drug cartels.
	Not only to drug cartels, but illegals that are on U.S. soil using them.
	It's unbelievable.
	And then even on the Mexican side of the border, people are getting killed with these weapons.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	It's got to be in the thousands by now, Sean, in Mexico with these guns killing people.
	I mean, in 2010 and January, they showed up at a birthday party, and a lot of people don't know this.
	They killed 16 kids in 2010 and January in Mexico.
	Fast and Furious weapons showed up.
	I mean, where's the outrage in Americans wanting to know why this is happening?
	In October of 2010, you said that your brother, Brian, who was killed, expressed to your mother that he was concerned something bad would happen at work and that he didn't want to go back.
	Now, in January of 2011, just after his death, three Border Patrol union members visited with your family and urged you to look into three emails that Brian had sent, right?
	Yes, exactly.
	Tell us about it.
	Well, I was working out in Boston at the time at the West Over Air Force Base, and my brother called me, asked me if I was going to be in town, and I told him no.
	He said he really wanted to see me.
	And because we don't see each other much, he lived out in Arizona.
	I was living in Michigan.
	I said, well, Brian, I won't be able to make it home, but I'll be home in November.
	But when he got home, my mom said he wasn't acting right.
	And then, you know, the day before he left to go back to Arizona on his three or four day vacation he had in here around Halloween of 2010, he told my mom he didn't want to go back.
	He felt like he said, Mom, something bad is going to happen out there.
	And he goes, I can't tell you exactly what's going on, but something bad's going to happen.
	And my mom told him, you know, Brian, if you don't want to go back, don't go back.
	And he says, mom, I love my country.
	I love my job.
	Your mom thought, and your family, and you thought, that he picked up what was going on with Operation Fast and Furious.
	It didn't have a name then, but you, thinking back, you think he knew what was happening.
	Well, I believe that because I think he was aware there was guns going across, but I don't think he knew the extent of it.
	And not only that, Sean, I found a journal hidden in a pair of his tactical boots that he intercepted crateful AK-47s going southbound on I-10 in Arizona to 509 or something like that.
	I don't have it in front of me.
	But I think he knew some shady stuff was going on, and he went to his superiors.
	This is my belief.
	This is my family's belief that he went to his superiors.
	They ignored it.
	Then he went to the union.
	That's the only thing we can think of.
	Now, you and your family, going back to March of 2011, you gave Brian's computers, or they were taken, I guess is a better way to put it, by the feds.
	You didn't get the computers back until the following November, and those computers were completely wiped clean.
	You couldn't retrieve a thing on them.
	Is that true?
	Well, this is what happened.
	When Dennis, before we knew about Fast and Furious, Dennis Burke, the attorney for Arizona that was involved in Fast and Furious, before we knew he was involved in it, he came to visit us to make sure to tell us that the guns found at Brian's murder scene weren't from Arizona.
	They were from a store in Texas.
	And we're like, why is he telling us this?
	Well, then a week later, Cheryl Axon breaks the story.
	But in that meantime, when Dennis Burke was here in Arizona, my dad slipped and told me that the union told us Brian wrote three emails regarding a situation going on on the border or in the Border Patrol.
	And then Dennis Burke says, really?
	So all of a sudden, my dad went down to Brian's house like a week later, and my brother looked in the windows to try to get in the house and we couldn't.
	So my dad said, everything was perfect inside the house.
	And my dad went down about a couple weeks later, and it looked like it was ransacked.
	His drawers were open, clothes were on the floor, dressed up.
	Did you ever get copies of those three emails?
	No.
	No, that's where we're trying to get right now with the Border Patrol Union.
	Unbelievable.
	We're having a hard time working with them.
	They don't deny they weren't there.
	They don't deny they told us about them.
	But it's just retrieving the emails to find exactly what was going on.
	By the way, five years later, we're talking about here, too.
	We're not talking about a short period of time where, okay, government bureaucracy, they're purposely keeping those emails from you, and we, if they haven't all been destroyed at this point.
	And let me ask one other thing.
	You went to the location, the site of where your brother died.
	And at that location, I know at some point you met a Border Patrol agent that told you that your family was being lied to about the specifics of Brian's death by both the government and the Border Patrol.
	What can you tell us about that?
	Yes, me and a friend of mine, which is Brian's partner here in E-Corps, where he was the E-Corps cop, went out to Brian's site.
	Well, we met a Border Patrol off the Border Patrol agent out there, and he paid his condolences, blah, blah, blah.
	And all of a sudden, he kind of walked away and he came back towards us and he's like, hey, I just want to let you know, man, you're not only being lied to about what happened to Brian in the government, but also with the Border Patrol.
	We felt that kind of strange why he would even say that out in the middle of nowhere.
	And then he never followed up.
	He was probably afraid for his own job, right?
	That's exactly what he told me because I got a wife and kids to think about.
	That's exactly how he said it.
	Let me ask you about this.
	Donald Trump apparently was the only Republican candidate.
	This was when there were 17 in the race.
	Am I mistaken or am I wrong there?
	That asked for a meeting with your family?
	He called my mom.
	Him and his office called my mom.
	They reached out to my mom.
	This is before when he first started running, before he even got this far, that He wanted to pay his condolence to my mom, tell her how sorry he is.
	And then I just met him recently in person in a VIP here in Washington County Sheriff.
	I mean, college.
	And we had like a five, ten-minute meeting with him, me and my sister.
	And he's a stand-up guy.
	He's very sincere about Fast and Furious.
	He's very sincere about Brian's death and what happened to him.
	And he thinks that he's going to open up the books.
	He said he becomes president to get accountability.
	So when there were no cameras, no reporters, no fanfare at a meeting, he just wanted to meet with your family, pay his respects, and make you the promise that he'd open the books.
	Exactly.
	You know what I said?
	It was just me, my sister, and Secret Service and him.
	And like I said, he was very sincere, and that's the first time I walked out of anywhere from meeting Congress or anything.
	And I told my sisters, you know what?
	I believe he's the man that's going to do it.
	He's going to give us the answers.
	And I believe that.
	And this is back early in the process.
	Wow.
	No, no, this is just a couple months ago.
	Oh, this is when you met him.
	But he also reached out to your family earlier, correct?
	Yes, he reached out to my mom, not me.
	He reached out to my mom.
	I was working, but he reached out to my mom.
	Yeah, and he reached out to your mom.
	And again, no cameras, no fanfare.
	He didn't tell the public.
	Wow.
	Well, Kent, let me reiterate what I said at the beginning.
	I am so sorry for you.
	By all accounts, over the years that I followed this story, I think you know.
	I just, everything I've learned about your brother is he's an amazing guy.
	I know I interviewed your parents.
	They were amazing people.
	Your mom's still alive.
	You lost your dad.
	I think your brother would be proud of you that you are fighting to hold our government accountable for giving out guns to gangsters and drug dealers, which is insane, which resulted in his death.
	And I'm just, look, I'm not going to let this go.
	Anytime there's news or anytime there's an update, you know, you're always welcome on our airways.
	Anything you ever want from our audience, you let me know.
	I am sorry that any American would ever have to go through this, where a government provides the very weapons that kill law enforcement.
	It's unbelievable to me.
	It shocks the conscience.
	It's just not that.
	You got the threat of ISIS coming across the border now, the southern border.
	What's the chances of them using these guns on a terrorist shooting here or a small shooting or a school shooting?
	I mean, who's going to fall back on?
	You know how many years I've been saying this on the radio, Kent, and TV?
	I've always said that the borders are about ISIS crossing it more than anything else.
	You know, look, you know, what is it going to take?
	A million people to die before we wake up?
	What is it going to take?
	There was a report out today that there's such a surge in illegal aliens crossing the southwestern border.
	This is where you are.
	Undeterred by customs and border protection.
	They set a new fiscal year 2016 apprehension record in April.
	They caught 38,135 illegal aliens over a 30-day period.
	That's 1,271 a day.
	A day.
	Now, with all due respect, you know what?
	You can't convince me that some of them are not terrorists.
	You can try, but I'm not going to believe you.
	Well, Sean, I'll tell you this, and my family can tell you the same thing.
	And we talked to Border Patrol friends who are friends with them, and they tell us it's just not Mexicans coming across the border.
	We got everything coming across the border, but they're told to hush, hush about it.
	And, you know, I'll stick my neck out for them guys to the last breath I got, just like getting justice.
	But that's what they say.
	And they tell us they find Korans, all that stuff on the border.
	You know, radicals, they're coming across, but they're told to hush.
	You know, it just breaks my heart.
	I'm sitting here listening to you, and I'm saying, how would I react if this was my brother?
	How would I react if this was my son?
	How would I react if this was my family?
	I don't know how people deal with it.
	I don't know.
	I honestly think I just lose my mind.
	And, you know, I'm apoplectic for you.
	Does that make sense?
	It does, Sean, because you know, when I watched my brother get lowered down in December in the snow, and I seen him get lowered down next to a cemetery next to the river, and there was three foot of water in his gravesite.
	When they dropped that down in there, and I looked at him, I go, you know what, Brian, I will promise you, to the date of my last breath, I will get justice for you in some way and somehow.
	You know, where's Issa?
	Where's Grassley?
	Where's Gaudi?
	Where's Chafett?
	You know, they were all tip bulls at the beginning of this fast and fierce.
	And all of a sudden, they just shut it off like a light switch.
	I reach out to their office, and they don't give me no information.
	They ask me what I know.
	They want to know what I know.
	That's not my job to know what I know.
	Your job is to figure out why it happened and when it happened.
	You know, I actually believe Trump would release everything, but you know what's going to happen if Trump wins?
	I'm going to predict this, and then I got to go.
	There's going to be a cleaning of every computer in that White House, which we've never seen before.
	And I'm not trying to be negative towards you, but I just, I can see it all coming.
	Anyway, listen, God bless you, Kent.
	I appreciate it, and my best to you, mom.
	Thank you, Sean.
	I appreciate it.

▲