The Supreme Court announced today that they were deadlocked 4-4 in an immigration case that challenged the Obama Administration's current policy. President Obama had developed a program to allow undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation but a lower court ruling determined the policy overstepped Presidential powers. The tie reinforced the lower court ruling, effectively ending President Obama's policy. While the policy died with this ruling, it highlights just how important Justice Scalia's voice was and how important it will be to replace him with someone who reveres the Constitution as much as he did. The Sean Hannity Show is live Monday through Friday from 3pm - 6pm ET on iHeart Radio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
Hey, take control of your family's future with an estate plan bundle at legalzoom.com.
Now, whether it's a will or a living trust, you work with an independent attorney now available in 48 states on a plan that works best for you.
And since LegalZoom is not a law firm, well, you're not going to get charged by the hour.
So get an estate plan bundle at legalzoom.com today.
Just use Hannity One when you check out and save even more, legalzoom.com.
Donald Trump mentioned Peter Schweitzer, the author of the New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash.
He will be back on the program later in the program today.
We're learning a lot of new details as it relates to the Orlando shooter.
He may very well have had an accomplice.
And of course, our Attorney General is saying our most effective response to terror and hatred is love.
We got surveillance videos showing the terrorists shooting wounded people.
We'll get to that.
And of course, the redaction idiocy.
I pledge allegiance to redacted.
I pledge allegiance to redacted.
And I'm sure he didn't say God.
I'm pretty sure he said Allah, considering we now know the redaction was the Islamic State.
And may God know, I think it said Allah.
And the administration has a history of removing Allah from when they have any type of interpretation out of the Arabic.
Anyway, I pledge allegiance to Omitted.
I pledge allegiance to Omitted.
And may God, really Allah, protect on behalf of Omitted.
Wow.
All we need is love.
That's all we need.
By the way, recovered phones have recordings of the Orlando jihadi talking to co-conspirators regarding tactics.
We have a Senate study that shows 65% of terrorists convicted in the U.S. are first-generation immigrants.
We have an Orlando terrorist friend saying, I contacted the FBI about this guy.
Nobody paid attention.
Then we're going to tell you the tragic story about a five-year-old girl raped by two migrants.
Whereas this out in Idaho, I mean, it's an unbelievable story.
There's actually an eyewitness that saw the whole thing.
Now, I say that to you on the very day after John Kerry went out public, and John Kerry made the assertion on his own that, in fact, migrants, refugees making it through the screening process pose no greater risk than any other group.
There is absolutely no evidence, my friends.
Zero evidence.
Zero evidence.
That refugees who make it through this arduous process pose any greater threat to our society than the members of any other group.
And it is important for people to know that.
We need to remember that bigoted and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims plays right into the hands of the terrorist recruiters who propagate the lie.
It plays into the hands of people who propagate the lie that America is at war with Islam, when in fact there is no country on earth where Muslims enjoy more freedom than in the United States of America.
You know, Allah, yeah, the guy sang that next to John Kerry after he was done lying to you.
Well, that's not what our CIA director Brennan just said this week.
That's not what our FBI director said.
That's not what our assistant FBI director said.
That's not what our State Department spokesman said.
That's not what our U.S. Director of National Intelligence said.
That's not what the former envoy to defeat ISIS has said.
He's lying.
Why lie?
Why do these people lie?
Zero evidence.
Well, tell that to the family of the five-year-old girl.
Where was that rape?
It was in Idaho, right?
Good grief.
And what they do is they're sneaking them in this town and that town and that town and this town and that town.
And Hillary Clinton wants a 550% increase in the numbers of refugees we're having in spite of all of the intelligence officials.
By the way, there were three kids.
Two of them raped the girl, stripped her down naked, raped this little girl.
We got an eyewitness that actually saw it.
And the third kid is sitting there filming this girl being raped.
Yeah, migrant, immigrant.
Excuse me.
What did I say?
I said that if one person dies as a result of Hillary and Obama's policy, they'd have blood on their hands.
I hold them responsible because they're not listening to James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Steinbeck, James Clapper, General John Allen, the House Homeland Security Chairman, and all these other people.
They refuse to listen to them.
Here's an 89-year-old woman eyewitness of the five-year-old getting raped.
He's out there playing with a camera, taking pictures.
And I thought, does that kid never see a horse machine or something before?
I'll go see what he's taking pictures for.
And so when I went out there, there was trouble.
And the little girl and the boys were, the boys were being mean to my little girl.
You know, when you opened up the door of the laundry room, what did you see?
The boys with no clothes on and little girl.
Huh?
Were they touching the little girl?
Yeah, I guess so.
They were doing enough that nobody wanted to be around her because they even peed on her.
What did she say?
Peed on her?
Oh, my gosh.
They urinated on the girl, too.
Oh, excuse me.
If it's, I don't know that on radio.
Thank you very much.
Now, last night, we saw the modern-day Democratic Party of Barack Hussein, Obama, and Hillary Clinton on full display, angry, petulant, radicalized, catering to radical groups like the Occupy movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, the Bernie Sanders movement.
This is what happens when you elect a guy that learned at the altar of communist Frank Marshall Davis, an Olinskiite disciple, an Acorn organizer that went to Reverend Wright's church for 20 years and started his political career in the home of Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dorn, two unrepentant domestic terrorists.
And by the way, Hillary herself is also an Olinskiite disciple, radical, you know, in her own way.
And so the Democrats, they don't want to say radical Islam.
They go through the admissions.
You know, oh, we can't say, well, I'm committed to.
Hang on a second.
I got to get this right because you can't even make this stuff up.
It's so dumb and so stupid.
But, you know, they're out there denying the most simple and the most basic parts of actually what happened here.
And that is you have somebody that is sympathetic and says they're sympathetic to ISIS.
As long as you look at the non-redacted version that is inspired by radicalism.
And then their answer is, well, let's have more gun control.
And our most effective response to terror is unity, compassion, and love, Loretta Lynch said.
So how does that result?
Well, Democrats angry they can't take away your weapons.
Now, let me ask you a question.
If you're in San Bernardino, God forbid, and you watch this shooting unfold and in both San Bernardino and Orlando at the Pulse nightclub, in both instances, the terrorists stopped to reload.
Well, that would mean somebody that maybe had a legal weapon and the ability to use it that was in that room had an opportunity to save lives.
But of course, if you listen to Democrats, they were chanting last night, no bill, no break, as Paul Ryan was calling for a vote.
Then they were singing, We Shall Overcome.
The only one that had enough courage to step up and try and remind them it's radical Islamic terrorism was our buddy Louis Gomert.
Let's play some of the madness from last night.
On House Joint Resolution 88, the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution.
House joint resolution 88.
Joint resolution disappearing.
The votes said by the Department of State when I looked at the definition for the term judiciary.
The question is, will the House on reconsideration pass the joint resolution?
The objections of the president to the contrary, notwithstanding, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Klein, is recognized for one hour.
My vote is override.
The gentleman from Minnesota yields back.
The question is.
of his arguments and his position, his fear.
Just a vote.
No fly, no good.
No fly, no bud.
No fly, no bud.
No fire, no bud.
We're getting the gun.
It's like we're becoming, you ever see these countries where the legislators break out in fistfights?
This is what America is now descending into now that the party of Hillary and Obama have now taken complete hold.
There used to be a time where there were moderate Democrats.
Remember, Joe Lieberman, they went after him.
He actually was a liberal Democrat on social issues, but he believed in national security.
And because of that, they ran him out of the party.
He had to run independent to win.
And then he still aligned with these people.
I don't know why he did, but he did.
Or, you know, the Scoop Jackson Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, they're all gone.
Zell Miller years ago left the party.
So you got this Democratic sit-in, this whole gun control agenda.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that we've made points repeatedly on this program.
And John Lott's been on this program many times.
All of these mass killings, from the Charleston killer, the Aurora killer to others, they choose as their targets the places that are what?
Gun-free zones.
In other words, when they case out places they want to strike, they stay away from places like certain colleges and airports that have security that would make their killing spree far more difficult to achieve.
And in the 2012 Aurora killer case, he chose the one theater that did not allow concealed weapons.
And other mass killers, we have learned after the fact, you know, mock the idea of gun-free zones.
You know, my point is that in the context of this madness that unfolded last night, if you haven't seen it, we'll show you on Hannity tonight, is that the real aim should be to save lives rather than advance an ideology.
You know, that's what they should be arguing for in many cases.
That would be concealed carry permits.
Now, I'm telling you right now, I hope this never happens to you.
And I said that, all right, Obama and Hillary, they're insisting, Hillary especially, they're going to bring in refugees that every single intelligence official in this country is warning against.
We have a five-year-old girl raped in Idaho.
We have this case in Orlando.
Their answer is not to say the words radical Islam.
Their argument is we can't even, we've got to redact the words of the terrorist because it's too offensive to let people know the actual truth about what this guy stands for.
So they redact it.
Okay, and the net result of that, the net result of their failed policies, you know, now we're going to bring in 550% more.
So does that mean that every rape, every murder, every crime by every refugee could have been prevented but for Obama and Hillary insisting that we take these people in and insisting and fighting to prevent you, law-abiding people, from being armed to protect yourselves.
By the way, and I understand that many of you may choose not to be armed.
I get that.
There are friends of mine.
I go, you want to go shooting?
No, I don't like to shoot.
Okay, well, I do.
But you know what?
If something happens and my friends with me, they're going to be, if it's San Bernardino, I'm going to do everything I can do to save their life.
I'm going to do everything.
If I'm in the Pulse nightclub, I'm going to try and prevent as much pain for all those families that lost loved ones.
If I'm in San Bernardino, I'm going to try and take matters into my own hands and stop terrorists.
Soon as they start reloading, I'm hiding.
I'm coming out.
I'm putting my laser on my Glock 40 right on their forehead.
Probably I'd go for upper body mass.
For those of you in law enforcement out there, don't worry.
I am extremely, extraordinarily well trained.
I do have a laser because my sight is not quite as good as it used to be.
But I can still shoot, you know, pretty well, pretty effectively.
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 Hannity One when you check out and save even more.
LegalZoom.com.
All right, so we have some Supreme Court decisions I want to go over.
Also, Brexit, the British exiting the European Union, that I know that maybe a lot of you are saying that's probably not at the top of your list.
The priorities are things to pay attention to, but it might be in ways that you don't imagine.
I think Britain struggling like the rest of Europe with the Islamization and migration issues that they're facing.
Let me actually, I have some thoughts on this, by the way.
So anyway, Brexit is what it's known as, and British exit from the European Union.
And my belief is they're going to leave.
And if they do, I mean, the polls are neck and neck.
It would be a huge resurgence in British nationalism, almost what Donald Trump is trying to establish here in the U.S.
And I think it would be a good thing.
Now, the argument that if Britain leaves the EU, it will be shut out from trade and other economies is just silly.
But it has the fifth largest economy in the world, and Britain's standalone economy is very strong, and they're going to do just fine.
And there's like no other nations that will shut them out if they leave the EU.
Now, if Britain does leave, I suspect, as some have predicted, that the markets could be spooked for the short term, but probably in the long term, it will be better and stronger.
And I don't think most people have any idea of the insane and crazy regulations that these bureaucrats in Brussels, you know, they make Obama look like Milton Friedman for crying out loud.
I mean, it's suffocating.
It's oppressive.
And it's just been overwhelming in terms of anti-growth for the economy of all of the continent of Europe.
But anyway, so I think Britain will do much better off standing on their own.
But beyond that, this is really rooted in what we're discussing, and that's immigration.
I mean, it's real.
It's much worse than the U.S., and that is in part because of Britain's membership into the EU.
For example, let's say you're Romanian.
You get an EU passport.
You get to go to Britain.
And then you get access to everything in Britain.
That means schools, their health care system, which is already overwhelmed, the National Institute of Health.
And by the way, they do have death panels in Great Britain.
Oh, let's see.
You're 76 years old.
You have exceeded the life expectancy.
Oh, I'm sorry, you need a new hip.
We can't afford to give it to you.
Good luck.
Here's a screw.
Here's a screwdriver.
Take care of it yourself.
And that's how their system works.
Anyway, unemployment and everything else also overwhelmed, just like the rest of the world economy.
And, you know, it should be the U.S. leading us out of all of this, and we're not.
So it's an enormous financial burden placed on Britain, and it's pulling it down.
And it also impacts security.
And, you know, it's scare tactics that are being used again by those that want this world government that, you know, to pretend that Britain leaving the EU is going to jeopardize security relationships that they have.
No, that's not exactly what's going to happen in any way, shape, matter, or form.
But again, that's, you know, typical of the left everywhere around the world.
They're all pretty much the same, and that is they lie and they scare, and that's what Hillary's trying to do, scare everybody about Donald Trump.
But that, you know, Britain leaving the EU will jeopardize security relationships with nations like France and Germany.
No, it won't.
The U.S. has great relationships with those countries, and we're not involved in the European Union.
But I hope the EU, if not, collapses, I hope that they lose significant influence.
I mean, I'm not going to have any influence elsewhere discussed this.
I'm just interested in how this comes out, but I don't think it's good for Europe or America or the world order.
And I think a weak Europe is bad for all of us.
That's why the Islamization of France and Belgium and even Sweden and other countries in between and Germany taking in all these migrants is bad.
You know, that's why you have 88 separate Sharia courts just in Great Britain.
That's why you have no-go zones in France.
And if Europe is weak and the EU is making European nations weaker and not stronger, that's bad for the world.
And by the way, these countries, Britain, Germany, France, just to name three, are more powerful on their own.
And why should the better-run nations be financially responsible for those that are poorly run?
Why should the Brits and Germans be obligated to bail out Greece or Spain if their governments overspend and mismanage their money?
Because you've had huge amounts of money being taken out of Britain in fees and regulations to take care of these poorly run nations, which take away the incentive for them to improve because they keep getting bailed out.
And weak countries keep dragging down the stronger ones.
Where it should be that the stronger ones, with their success, you know, it's a rising tide lifting all boats.
Anyway, it threatens British sovereignty and I think is part of a larger effort by the left to weaken national sovereignty.
They want the integration of these huge transnational organizations.
And I think in the end, that's all part of the socialist dream.
You know, the lyrics John Lennon's song, Imagine, imagine there's no countries.
It isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for.
No religion too.
Imagine all the people living life in peace.
He sounds a lot like Loretta Lynch.
We just got to love, if we just love our way out of radical Islamism.
It's nonsense.
It's detached from truth.
It's detached from reality.
And now, and it's detached from how we as human beings live our lives and how we develop our loyalties.
We pledge allegiance to nations, not transnational entities.
You know, to the United States, not the United Nations.
Although there are some that would love that to happen.
And the British should pledge loyalty.
By the way, there will be a press at some point for the U.S. to go into, you know, we should bail out all of Africa, all of Asia, all of Europe.
You know, we should bail out the entire world, and then we'd be poor, too, like everybody else.
We'll all drag down with each other.
There was a significant movement at the courts today, the Supreme Court, a 4-4 tie blocking the president's illegal, unconstitutional executive amnesty in which he sought to shield millions of people living in this country illegally from deportation.
His answer was, oh, the only difference is between them and us is that they just don't have the right papers.
No, the difference is they didn't obey the law.
They're here.
They're undocumented.
They're illegal.
They violated the law.
And this president wanted to violate the Constitution, the precepts, the concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government.
And he didn't like the laws as they were written and signed into law by previous presidents.
So he decided through executive fiat he would just rewrite it on his own.
Anyway, as a result of the decision, as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants will not be shielded from deportation or allowed to legally work in the U.S.
So the 4-4 deadlock left in place an appeals court ruling blocking the ban.
And what's important to note here is that the issue has less to do with the policy merits of Obama's decision than the fact that it was simply and transparently unconstitutional, and Obama himself had said so many times that he didn't have the authority to do that.
But he did it anyway.
No respect for the law, no respect for the Constitution he's sworn to uphold.
So in this case, the federal appeals court, this was in New Orleans, said the administration lacked the constitutional authority to shield these illegal immigrants from deportation and make them eligible to work with work permits without approval from Congress.
Now, Texas, by the way, give them credit.
They led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program that Obama announced in November of 2014.
By the way, the only reason this even went to the courts is because Republicans were too timid and weak to use the power of the purse, as they promised in the election in 2014, to stop Obama's illegal, unconstitutional executive amnesty.
So a nine-justice court agreed to hear the case in January.
By the time the arguments took place in late April, Anton and Scalia had tragically died, and that left eight justices to decide the case.
And the court presumably split along liberal-conservative lines, predictably, I should say.
And the court did not say how each justice voted, but I think it's pretty certain.
But anyway, had Scalia been alive, certainly would have voted with his fellow conservatives, and they would have formed a majority in favor of the states.
And that would have been significant both because this is an issue Obama hoped would become one of his central legacies, and now it will not.
The effort is effectively dead.
And this also marks yet another time Obama has been slapped down by the Supreme Court for acting unconstitutionally.
Almost exactly two summers ago, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments.
Remember the recess appointments?
That was back in 2012 when he declared that the Senate to be in recess, even though they weren't in recess, and unable to act on his nomination to the National Labor Relations Board.
So what we're seeing unfold is a system of government, the founders designed working as it's supposed to.
The great insight of our Federalist founders, people like James Madison, was the importance of separation of powers, checks and balances, one branch of government checking the power of another.
In this case, the Supreme Court, not for the first time, restrained and pulled back the unconstitutional acts of an American president who himself acknowledged what he was doing was illegal and unconstitutional.
So you've got a president that, in spite of what his own teachings tell him, repeatedly pushes the limits of power, and the Supreme Court slaps him right down on his knuckles saying, nope, no, you don't.
Sorry.
And today was a good day in that sense.
And it's a good time, as any, to give thanks for the wisdom, the insight, the foresight of our framers and our founders who understood that people like Obama would rise and need to be restrained.
By the way, there's another development today.
The third police officer in Baltimore, this time it's Officer Cesar Goodson.
This is the guy that, if they were going to find a guilty verdict, probably would have been it.
He was driving the police van in which Freddie Gray incurred the fatal neck injury last April.
Well, now he was found not guilty of second-degree depraved heart murder by the Baltimore City Circuit Judge Barry Williams.
Here's a guy, 46 years old, found not guilty on charges of manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office, and reckless endangerment.
He waived his right to trial by jury.
His bench trial began June 9th.
Final arguments were heard Monday.
And Gray, a 25-year-old Baltimore resident, remember he ran from the police at 8 in the morning, known as a drug dealer by the police officers, died of those injuries.
Anyway, and then we saw what unfolded in Baltimore at the time.
Anyway, they ended up shackling this guy, handcuffing this guy.
They didn't have a seatbelt.
That's not the cops' fault that the paddy wagon doesn't have a seatbelt.
Anyway, the judge said that the evidence simply was not there.
There was no way that Officer Goodson would have known that Freddie Gray was injured until the final stop at the Western District, and that's when a medic was called.
The judge chided the state for using the term rough ride, saying it's a highly charged term, and they failed to define it.
Total slapdown.
The prosecution's theory of this case did not fit the facts that they had presented to the judge, and he was troubled by this, according to WJZ's Helgrin reporter.
I find it hard to believe that he would convict any of the officers in any of the four remaining trials to come.
So why are you going to waste the people's money?
But once again, just like in the Michael Brown case with Darren Wilson, and just like the Trayvon Martin case and every other case, there's this rush to judgment.
They create the expectation in the minds of community members that there's going to be a certain verdict and result, and it never ends up working out that way.
The president weighs in on Michael Brown and Darren Wilson.
He didn't know that there were all these eyewitnesses that actually saw Michael Brown trying to struggle and grab Darren Wilson's gun.
Or all of the black eyewitnesses that testified that Michael Brown kept charging right after Officer Wilson, even though he told him to stop.
Or in the case of Trayvon Martin, somebody who would look like his son, in that case, he didn't predict that there'd be an eyewitness that saw Trayvon grounding and pounding his head, George Zimmerman's head, into the cement.
It's another example, prosecutorial overreach, and it was obvious from the day it was brought, and I told you from day one, this was the likely outcome.
So you see an overly aggressive, restless prosecutors trying to placate and politicize a case without evidence, overcharging, looking stupid in the end.
The justice system in this particular case, in the person of Judge Williams, stepped in to prevent an injustice from occurring.
But you know what the net result of this is?
Cops don't want to do their job anymore.
The Ferguson effect, it's called.
The Baltimore effect, it's called.
They don't want to do their job.
You know why?
Because they don't feel like risking their lives with a jury or a judge and the rest of their lives in jail because they're being put up in a political trial, which is what this was.
You know, sorry to say it, Blue Lives Matter.
By the way, all the rush to judgment.
Don't cops who fight for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, how come we don't give them that right?
How come we don't stand up for their right to be presumed innocent?
Anyway, where do you see this thing tonight?
We're going to show you about how crazy and insane the Democrats were.
The whole episode is pathetic, melodrama, Democratic Party that has now been radicalized.
Hillary Clinton gave China millions of jobs and our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself.
In return, Hillary Clinton got rich.
The book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweitzer documents how Bill and Hillary used the State Department to enrich their family and America's and at America's expense.
She gets rich, making you poor.
Here is a quote from the book.
At the center of U.S. policy toward China was Hillary Clinton.
At this critical time for U.S.-China relations, Bill Clinton gave her a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters.
These funds were paid to the Clintons bank account directly while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States.
Tell me, folks, does that work?
She sold out our workers and our country for Beijing.
Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will ship millions more of our jobs overseas and give up congressional power to an international foreign commission.
Now, because I have pointed out why it would be such a disastrous deal, she's pretending that she's against it.
She's given and deleted, as you know, and most people have heard about this.
Have we ever heard about her deleting anything?
No, I don't think so.
She deleted the entire record from her book, and deletion is something she really does know something about because she's deleted at least 30,000 emails, which, by the way, should be able to be found.
All right, that was Donald Trump Hour 2 Sean Hannity Show.
That was his big speech yesterday, a big takedown of Hillary Clinton.
And he mentioned our friend Peter Schweitzer, author of the New York Times best-selling book, called Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help Make Bill and Hillary rich.
And he joins us right now.
Sir, welcome back to the program.
Oh, it's great to be on with you, Sean.
Thanks for having me.
You know, you think about the things, world-class liar, the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, perfecting the politics of personal profit and even theft.
When she ran the State Department, she ran it like her own personal hedge fund, doing favors for oppressive regimes and many others.
And, you know, are we really talking over 1,000 foreign donations going to the Clintons over the years?
Yeah, I mean, it's a massive, massive, unprecedented circumstance in American political history where you have America's chief diplomat, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and at the time she is making critical decisions, there is a flood of money.
I'm talking hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to the Clinton Foundation or ending up in the Clintons' pockets from foreign entities.
Now think about that, Sean.
I mean, we're used to, okay, Wall Street, oil companies, labor unions trying to influence our politicians.
Foreign entities can't do that because they can't contribute to campaigns.
They can't give monies to super PACs.
It's against the law.
The Clintons established this mechanism around it.
So the problem today is not Wall Street or oil companies in Texas.
The problem is foreign oligarchs in Nigeria and Russia are giving sometimes more than $100 million to the Clintons while she's making decisions that affect their country.
Well, explain.
I don't think most people know exactly what you're talking about.
It's been a while.
You've been way ahead of the curve.
When your book first came out, I know now it's out in DVD and video form, and I'll tell people later how they can get it.
But I think the most important thing that we've got to understand here, you know, for example, she's at the State Department, $55 million she gives to a for-profit university, Laureate University, while her husband simultaneously is the chancellor getting paid $16.5 million.
Now, in the real world, that's a quid pro quo.
That's illegal.
You go to jail.
It's a massive conflict of interest, massive.
All right, so the Clintons, just in a two-year period, 2013 and 2015, between them, make close to $55 million in speeches.
But where are the speeches we're talking about?
It's Wall Street, it's big banks, insurance companies, lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments.
How much money have they made from foreign governments?
It's hard to estimate and it's hard to know, but you're looking at tens of millions of dollars.
And here's what people have to recognize, and common sense provides the guide here.
Bill Clinton leaves the White House in 2001, and his speaking fees are pretty high, and they start to go down over time, right?
Because he's no longer as relevant.
He's been out of office five or six, seven years.
When his wife becomes Secretary of State in late 2008, his speaking fees from foreign entities triple overnight.
So people that before she was Secretary of State were going to pay him maybe $150,000 a speech are now saying we want to give you $500,000 for a single speech.
You know, did he become three times more eloquent?
Is he sometimes three times more than $10?
Well, didn't he get $750,000 from China at some point?
He got $750,000 from a foreign company, Erickson, that was in trouble with the State Department.
We know that from State Department cables because they were selling telecom equipment to Iran.
He gets his single biggest payday ever, $750,000 in a single speech from Erickson.
Literally seven days later, Sean, the State Department issues and says, we're not going to apply technology restrictions to Erickson.
So when Donald Trump said yesterday that Hillary Clinton is perfected, the politics of personal profit and she ran a State Department like her own personal hedge fund doing favors for oppressive regimes.
Well, in this case, it's China.
In this case, it's them doing business with Iran at a time when we have sanctions on Iran, and it's her husband getting $750,000 and them overlooking what is a violation of what we had set out in terms of sanctions, correct?
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
And you see this pattern over and over and over again, whether it's human rights policy in Africa, whether it's our policy in Latin America, you see the same pattern.
It's impossible for there to be this many coincidences.
So when I talk about money that was given to the Clinton Foundation, to the Clinton Library, from oppressive regimes that oppress women, gays, lesbians, Christians, and Jews, and up to $25 million of the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, $10 million to the Clinton facility, the library in Little Rock, and they treat women, minorities, et cetera, horribly.
And the money from Kuwait and the money from the UAE and the money from Brunei and the money from Qatar and the money from Omam, again, oppressive regimes towards women, gays, lesbians, Christians, and Jews.
She never criticizes them.
They all take the money.
And wouldn't it be really foolish to believe that they're not expecting something in return for those millions of dollars?
What did they get in return?
You're exactly right, Sean.
It's human nature.
If somebody comes up and says, I'm going to give you a $25 million check for something that you believe in, the Clintons would say, oh, well, that's not going to affect our behavior.
Of course it's going to affect your behavior.
And it's in the actions that they took or they didn't take.
So Hillary Clinton was certainly not a critic of Saudi Arabia and these other regimes in terms of their treatment of women or gays or other groups.
She simply was not.
And in terms of the policy positions that she took, they were highly favorable to those regimes.
Well, let me tell you two things off the top of my head that I think that she paid them back.
Number one, we're still dependent on foreign oil.
Meanwhile, we have more natural gas than the entire world combined.
We are the Saudi Arabia, we're the Middle East of natural gas.
We have the ability to be energy independent.
New technologies and horizontal drilling would allow us to be energy independent in three years, add to that coal mining, add to that nuclear technology, all the things she's against.
So one thing they're benefiting from is her being against America being energy independent.
A second thing is they certainly seem to have bought her silence.
I've done an extensive, exhaustive search.
I don't see Hillary Clinton criticizing the mistreatment of gays, lesbians, women, Christians, and Jews in these countries that practice Sharia.
So did they buy her silence here, too?
Well, you know, it certainly seems like it because you would expect her to be outspoken on those issues.
She's been outspoken on those issues in other instances, and I think rightfully so, but not when it comes to these specific regimes.
And, you know, you have to wonder what is the connection between the two.
And the problem that the Clinton defenders have is they want us to suspend disbelief.
They want us to say that these regimes are shoveling this money at the Clintons completely out of a sense of beneficent love.
They just love the Clintons.
They don't care what they get or do in return.
That's not the way that these regimes operate.
It's not the way that oligarchs in Nigeria or Russia operate.
So they are sending large sums of money to the Clintons.
They want things in return.
And the evidence is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, took numerous favorable policies for all of these individuals that were sending her money.
Why are they so fascinated with money and enrichment of themselves?
I mean, you know, at some point, there's only so much money that anybody can spend in five lifetimes for crying out loud.
But it seems on their side, maybe it's because they didn't grow up with money or something, but this is obviously very, very important to them.
But they keep getting money.
They keep buying, certainly influence is being bought.
If you look at all of the money that she was being paid on average, sometimes more, very rarely less, $225,000 a speech, she required nothing less than a G450, which is a 19-seat jet by Gulfstream for her travel to these events.
And by the way, these events, we're talking about you fly from A to B, you go in, you do maybe 100 clicks of a camera.
Not everyone gets a picture.
You have to be a really high donor to get a picture.
Then after the click, she gives a 45-minute speech or a 30-minute speech, 15-minute QA, and she walks out the door, gets on the Gulfstream.
Now, on top of that, she needs the presidential suite, and then she also needs additional airfare, first-class airfare for her staff and people to get there early.
So we're talking about a $300,000 proposition just for her to give one-hour speech.
And she's made, for example, between 2013 and 2015, between the two of them, what did they make close to $55 million?
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, the sums are astronomical.
And again, when you look at who is paying them and when they're paying them, I mean, you know, I point this out in the book, and Sean, we've talked about it.
You know, the Keystone XL pipeline, Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State, and Bill Clinton, for the first time ever, gets a contract to give $2 million worth of speeches in Canada for this investment firm.
They had never expressed an interest in him speaking before.
Suddenly, they want him to give 10 speeches for $2 million.
It's the largest shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline.
After he gives the last speech, three months later, Hillary Clinton in 2011 gives the green light and does the economic and environmental impact of Secretary of State saying, I have no reason to stop this project from going forward.
So, yeah, it's very, very clear.
It's repeated again and again.
And, you know, the psychology of what motivates them, you know, who knows?
The argument, though, that Clinton friends have made over the years that they're not motivated by money is laughable.
They would not be doing what they're doing.
And Aggressively, as they are.
As you mentioned the speech, I actually, for a minute, by accident, had CNN on yesterday, right after the speech.
There's David Gergen, a liberal leftist hack for Hillary.
And he basically accused Trump of slander.
And you, oh, that book has been largely debunked.
And I'm thinking, no, it hasn't.
Yeah.
It never was debunked in any capacity, although George Stephanopoulos tried to do a hit piece on you.
It shows how in the pocket he still is for the Clintons.
But I don't know that anybody debunked the truth of your book and the exhaustive research and footnotes that you put in that book.
No, Sean, I mean, in fact, look, and here I have to give some positive comments to certain media outlets.
The New York Times did a 4,000-word front-page piece on the uranium deal, confirmed what we found, their investigative team.
Washington Post did a front-page piece confirming our stuff on Haiti about how Hillary's brother got a gold mine and other problems with Haiti Reconstruction.
The Wall Street Journal News Division, Fox News, of course, even ABC News, the investigative unit, confirmed a large portion of the findings.
The real outliers here in the coverage of this book, frankly, have been NBC and CNN.
They have had zero, zero curiosity of even asking people questions about this.
Think about this, Sean.
New York Times does a 4,000-word front-page investigative piece about the Clintons getting $145 million from shareholders involved in this Russian uranium deal.
CNN has Hillary Clinton on repeatedly.
They didn't ask her one question about this.
Any other politician in America that had been subject to a 4,000-word front-page New York Times investigation, CNN would ask them repeated questions about it.
CNN has zero curiosity on these subjects.
They're too busy taking time out of Trump's speech to see if he breathes in deeply.
That's the extent of their stupid coverage.
You know, the sad thing, too, is: I mean, all these Wall Street corporations, you can look at Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs, you know, all these big firms on Wall Street, big banks, big insurance companies.
Clearly, you know, there was a report in the Politico the other day that, oh, Wall Street fat cats warning Hillary don't choose Looney Liz Warren for VP.
Why won't she release the transcripts?
What did she say?
Yeah, I mean, that's a great point.
And look, this is the thing.
If you give a politician like Hillary Clinton $100,000 in cash, that could be construed as a bribe.
But if you pay her $225,000 as a quote-unquote speaking fee and she comes and gives a speech and you're able to talk to her and communicate to her what you want and what you would like.
It's buying access.
Exactly.
That's exactly right.
All right, I got to run.
But how could people get you DVD real quick?
It's look at ClintonCashMovie.com and the book is also available as well.
Thank you so much.
He's out there playing with a camera taking pictures.
And I thought, is that kid never seen a horse machine or something before?
I'll go see what he's taking pictures for.
And so when I went out there, there was trouble.
And the little girl and the boys were being mean to my little girl.
You know, when you opened up the door of the laundry room, what did you see?
The boys with no clothes on and little girl.
Huh?
Were they touching the little girl?
Yeah, I guess so.
They were doing enough that nobody wanted to be around her because they even peed on her.
Now, I know that the LGBT community in particular has been shaken by this attack.
It is indeed a cruel irony that a community that is defined almost exclusively by whom they love is so often a target of hate.
And let me say to our LGBT friends and family, particularly to anyone who might view this tragedy as an indication that their identities, that their essential selves might somehow be better left unexpressed or in the shadows.
This Department of Justice and your country stands with you in the light.
We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, its unity, and its love.
All right, that was Loretta Lynch.
Our most effective response to terror and to hatred is love.
It's compassion.
You know, the idea that compassion and love will defeat radical Islamic terrorists that are slicing people's throats and terrorizing all of us and bombing and killing innocent men, women, and children and going into nightclubs and shooting them up, you know, is beyond anything I have ever heard in terms of its ignorance.
And I said this yesterday.
Just imagine.
Winston Church of blood, toils, sweat, and tears.
We'll beat them here.
We'll beat them in the hills.
We'll beat them in the land, unseen in the awe.
He was a hero.
Or FDR's response to the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
You know, I just cannot believe the mindset, the same mindset that redacted this guy saying Allah, and they put in the word God as the interpretation, which is a lie.
Or the same mindset, I am a committed soldier of ISIS, and they redact ISIS because they don't want to offend, quote, the Muslim community.
It's not the Muslim.
We're talking about radical Islamists that want to kill us.
Now, the tape you heard before that was an eyewitness.
There is a case where a five-year-old girl was literally raped by migrant boys, apparently Muslim, in America.
And the media's response, their first instinct is to dismiss the story and label local residents racist and bigots and Islamophobes.
You know, it's sort of like the don't ask, don't tell doctrine on the refugee file is becoming just a little too routine.
Five-year-old girl sexually assaulted in a laundry room by two refugee boys as a third boy looks on and filmed the attack.
His 89-year-old neighbor saw suspicious activity, approached the area, and was the one eyewitness that described what actually happened there.
And that's what you just heard.
You know, you can add to this the stupidity of the comments of John Kerry just the other day.
There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is a threat, zero evidence.
Refugees making it through the U.S. screening process pose a greater risk than other groups.
Well, that's not what the CIA director said, the FBI director said, the assistant FBI director, former special envoy to defeat ISIS said, the House Homeland Security Committee chair said, or anybody else.
There is a great threat.
We saw it in Belgium.
We saw it in Brussels.
We saw it in Paris.
So what's it going to take?
Unbelievable.
Joining us now, Rich Higgins, Vice President, Intelligence, National Security Programs, former manager with the Department of Defense, Combating Terrorism, Technical Support, Office, and Irregular Warfare Support Program.
And Pam Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.
And welcome both of you back to the program.
Appreciate you being with us.
Thank you, Sean.
You know, there's one other thing that I didn't mention here.
Apparently, some of the recovered phones from the nightclub in Orlando Pulse have recordings of the jihadi talking to a co-conspirator regarding tactics.
We do know during the attack that he stopped to see if he was trending on social media.
We do know during the attack that he contacted his wife, who we don't know where she is right now.
Is there a co-conspirator here?
I saw this on your website, Pam.
Well, I mean, this is the latest bombshell coming out of the Orlando jihad attack.
And it's consistent with the obfuscation, the scrubbing, and the whitewashing of this worst terrorist attack since 9-11.
You know, and it's coming from the victims.
You know, they said they recorded it on their phones.
So you have a massive intel failure.
You have, as you know, I think it was a relative of yours, a gun shop owner, who had called the FBI when he had tried to purchase weapons at his shop.
They never even came down to the store.
You have Disney, you have Disney, who called the FBI saying that he and his wife had been casing Disney.
He'd been cheering 9-11 in school.
He has a history, not one, but two FBI investigations, one that was quashed when he said that the co-workers that he had threatened and said he was a member of an Islamic jihad group, he said they were, quote, Islamophobic, and they killed that investigation.
This is a massive intel failure.
I don't know why the Obama administration wants Americans to die.
There were more red flags here than a China National Day parade.
Well, I keep saying this whole thing.
Now, Rich, I had you on with Phil Haney, and both of you are whistleblowers.
Now, yours was a little bit different.
He was part of the Department of Homeland Security formation, and when Obama became president, both of you talked about a scrubbing of the names that you had acquired over a long period of time of Muslims associated with radicalism, and those names were then scrubbed.
But when you worked in irregular warfare support programs, aren't we really talking about special ops?
Aren't we talking about covert operations, plausible deniability?
Exactly, Sean.
And I think what we saw in there was not just Phil's scrubbing of names, but the systematic removal of anything pertaining to Islam at the strategic intelligence, at the policy levels, where we couldn't even say Islam.
We couldn't talk about Muslims.
We couldn't say Islam.
Hang on a sec.
Wait, wait, wait.
You could not say radical Islam at the Department of Defense?
At levels in the Pentagon where the political sphere meets the operational sphere, anywhere that touched off-limits.
So what you'll see is national military strategies, national security strategies that use this obfuscating term, violent extremism, which if you really ask what that is, it collapses into nothing.
And I think I would probably, as a former soldier, be defined as a violent extremist.
And you, meanwhile, we had the names of terrorists, known terrorists, known people, known sympathizers of terrorism in your database, and you were told and forced to erase their names.
That was Phil's specific story.
And it's your specific, tell us your specific story.
I don't want to put words in your mouth.
My specific story is, as someone who wanted to work on this issue, charged with developing capabilities for combating terrorism, we wanted to build a robust understanding of how Islam at the doctrinal level functions, understanding that jihad is part of Islam.
And the solutions to stopping the jihad are also inside Islam.
But we were prohibited from even looking in there.
Anyone who did the diligence to understand this at a level that you could actually interpret the deliberate decision-making process of our enemy was quashed by the system, hunted down and pushed out of the system actively.
So while we play lip service to understanding the threat doctrine, we don't actually understand it.
Our generals are saying we don't have a strategy.
We're wasting trillions of dollars.
And, you know, my comment is to Attorney General Lynch.
How about some compassion for your fellow Americans?
How about putting Americans first?
This is where Donald Trump is right.
Well, now American people are sick of this.
So you're describing a Department of Defense that is so politically correct we can't identify an enemy.
You're talking about major failings on just a surface level, and this is supposed to be covert ops that can't even be put into place because of political correctness.
And then Phil Haney is describing a scrubbing of names that have been developed by agents out in the field for years and years.
And just, you know, why are we not surprised that events like what happened in Orlando, we don't have more of it.
Now, Pam, you had written a column about how the Orlando terrorist friend had contacted the FBI directly about this guy ahead of time.
And they never followed up.
Look, this is ongoing.
There are very bad people out there.
And we know, I know from readers that have been contacting the FBI, they do not follow up.
This is not their own initiative.
This is coming from on high.
The idea that the Attorney General would say love and compassion will defeat jihad is tantamount to saying we must surrender.
And it's not just these egregious, gruesome, ghastly attacks.
The story of that little girl, the five-year-old girl, who, by the way, was special need in Idaho.
Idaho should be the clarion call.
Idaho should be the clarion call of every suburban mom out there.
Idaho should be Donald Trump's clarion call on immigration.
Five-year-old special needs girls who was smaller for her age, so she was smaller than five, okay, who was stripped naked, who was urinated on and in her mouth and raped.
And the media, when I first reported the story, one of two or three websites that reported it, we came under enormous criticism, you know, visceral attacks by the left that the story didn't happen.
And then when, of course, it did happen because you heard the eyewitness, they said we got the story wrong because we had said, and this I had gotten from someone who was there, Syrian refugees, but they were from Iraq and Sudan.
That's like saying we got their sock color wrong.
It's not an issue of whether they were from Syria or Iraq or Sudan or Afghanistan.
They're from jihad nations, and this is exactly the kind of immigration that Donald Trump wants to halt and that we must halt.
I mean, our special needs children.
Where did they come from, these people?
Iraq and Sudan.
Now, you know, Sudan, Northern Sudan, is a family.
Oh, wait a minute, but John Kerry, I just read you what he had said.
I mean, John Kerry said there's no evidence, zero evidence.
Refugees pose greater risk than other groups.
Because they're imposing their fantasy narrative on the American people.
And they know that the media is going to run it verbatim without questioning.
And they do, which is why so many, at least half of the American people, are misinformed.
But this story, I think, is a game changer.
If our special needs children are not safe, no one is safe.
I mean, are we going to be able to do that?
Who in the media?
Who in the media is focusing on this five-year-old, this five-year-old girl in a rape case?
I'll be honest.
I search the news exhaustively every day, and I didn't see it on my own.
My producer, Linda, pointed it out to me.
I'm like, how did I miss this?
Why wasn't this posted everywhere?
It wasn't.
I'll tell you who posted it.
Salon posted with this headline.
No, Syrian refugees didn't rape a child in Idaho.
Right-wing urban blog, blah, blah, blah.
Jezebel posted, no, Syrian refugees didn't rape a child in Idaho.
The Inquisitor, Syrian refugees didn't gang rape a five-year-old.
Raw story.
Idaho prosecuted.
Anti-Muslim bigot made-up shocking gang rape.
That's the kind of media that people are getting.
And that's why what we do and what you do, Sean, is so crucial, what we do on Facebook.
Look, in the wake of the Orlando Jihad, Facebook took down my page and took down Stop Islamization of America.
I have over 50,000 members, and my own page has 350,000 followers.
I mean, there is a concerted effort by the leftist Islamic machine to shut down any discussion in accordance with.
No, look at what the Attorney General did this week.
You know, they released the transcript.
I pledge allegiance to Omitted.
I pledge allegiance to Omitted.
May God, and I guarantee you it wasn't God, that it was Allah, protect him on behalf of Omitted.
And then she says, our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion and its love.
Is surrender.
Look, the very first words he uttered on his first 911 call was the Bismallah.
Was Allah the Merciful, the Beneficent, the same Bismallah that they made over Daniel Pearl when they beheaded him, when they made over James Foley, and when they behead every infidel, every non-Muslim, every heretic, every apostate, every homosexual.
Let me give the last word to our good friend Rich.
Rich, it's pretty scary.
I mean, this is a state of denial.
It's sort of like the 9-11 Commission report.
They're at war with us.
We're not at war with them.
And a new report will be written after thousands are killed again.
Sean, we've become dislocated from reality.
One last anecdote for you.
Just in the past couple of weeks, we saw as Twitter moved to shut down the United States intelligence community's access to their account.
There was a program run called Dana Minor.
We also look back and we'll see that Prince Waleed bin Talal, the Belak Prince of Saudi Arabia, probably the most prominent fiscal jihadi in the world, the guy who offered $10 million to Giuliani.
He's now a large, large majority owner inside Twitter Corporation, and we see where these decisions leave.
The amount of influence that these guys have inside the United States government, inside the deliberate decision-making process of our national security apparatus, has compromised our national security apparatus.
You're basically saying we're screwed.
We're in deep trouble, Sean.
I'm not going to lie to you.
All right.
I wish I had better news.
I don't.
More than 730,000 lives have been changed as a result.
These are students, they're teachers, they're doctors, they're lawyers.
They're Americans in every way, but on paper.
And fortunately, today's decision does not affect this policy.
It does not affect the existing DREAMers.
Two years ago, we announced a similar expanded approach for others who are also low priorities for enforcement.
We said that if you've been in America for more than five years with children who are American citizens or legal residents, then you too can come forward, get right with the law, and work in this country temporarily without fear of deportation.
Both were the kinds of actions taken by Republican and Democratic presidents over the past half century.
Neither granted anybody a free pass.
All they did was focus our enforcement resources, which are necessarily limited, on the highest priorities.
Convicted criminals, recent border crossers, and threats to our national security.
This is an election year.
And during election years, politicians tend to use the immigration issue to scare people with words like amnesty in hopes that it will whip up votes.
Keep in mind that millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country with ancestors who put in the painstaking effort to become citizens.
And we don't like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship.
But here's the thing.
Millions of people who have come forward and worked to get right with the law under this policy, they've been living here for years too, in some cases even decades.
So leaving the broken system the way it is, that's not a solution.
In fact, that's the real amnesty.
Pretending we can deport 11 million people or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money is abetting what is really just factually incorrect.
It's not going to work.
It's not good for this country.
It's a fantasy that offers nothing to help the middle class and demeans our tradition of being both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.
All right, that's the president responding today to the Supreme Court, a 4-4 split on the challenge to the president's immigration executive action, which we've all said from the beginning is illegal and unconstitutional because he's bypassing laws that were passed by previous Congresses and through executive fiat just rewriting the law as he decides he wants to write it.
Now, the decision is not a full opinion, but just a one-sentence line that says the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.
And what that means is the fate of the president's immigration programs hinge on the next election.
In other words, this lawsuit started the U.S. versus Texas, and it had been brought by 26 states led by Texas, objecting to the administration's 2014 executive actions that could have shielded millions of undocumented workers, or as the president says they're American in every way but on paper.
That would mean they're here illegally on paper.
Anyway, we've got that.
We've got the Supreme Court upholding affirmative action in university admissions and a lot of other court rulings that we'll get to as well.
Also, we have the third officer in the Freddie Gray case acquitted.
Once again, how could they be so wrong after so many people had their hopes driven so high that they expected convictions for all of these police officers?
All right, here to weigh in on all of this, Danielle McLaughlin, attorney, expert, and co-wrote the Federalist Society, How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals.
Jay Seculo is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Jay, let's talk first about how this 4-4 tie ostensibly blocks Obama's executive action on immigration.
Well, it does.
At least for now, the decision of the court basically affirms the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit said that the president violated what is called the separation of powers, that he did not have the authority to change the law on his own, that that was an executive overreach.
The president, you played the sound there where the president says they're Americans in every way but on paper, but on paper is really important because if you don't have legal papers to be in the United States of America, guess what?
You're not here legally.
So that's one significant aspect.
Number two, it does highlight that the next presidential election, because we know there's a vacancy.
Look, Sean, if Justice Scalia had not been deceased, we would have had a 5-4 merits win and it would have ended the case, period.
I still think I'd rather be 4-4 tied than on the other end losing, but five justices would have made a difference.
A fifth justice would have made a difference.
So the death of Justice Scalia highlights what is at stake in the next presidential election, at least as it relates to the courts, and that's a big issue.
What do you make about the other decisions of today?
Well, the case involving the admissions requirement, people are saying this was a big win for affirmative action, but they need to read the opinion because even in the majority opinion, there is clearly an indication that this kind of preferential treatment needs to be constantly reevaluated and probably brought to an end sooner rather than later.
So again, you know, splintered courts, here's what you're going to have.
But I wasn't shocked with this one in the nature of the case, but I think it even, even the majority opinion, there is some concern where it ends up ultimately on affirmative action.
I think affirmative action has probably seen its day and it may be a case or two away because generally they've been gutted pretty successfully over the last couple of years.
So this breathed a little bit of life into it, but I don't think life's so long.
I'll only say one other thing, Sean, this immigration thing, though, which is big.
The president kept threatening to use his phone and his pen.
And I think what even this 4-4 split did was show that his pen's out of ink and his phone ran out of battery because he's not going to be able to, between now and the end of his term, he can't do this again.
Let me bring Danielle in here.
Danielle, on these two big issues on the 4-4 tie and the affirmative action case being upheld and admissions, your thoughts.
You know, I'm actually largely in agreement with Jay on his analysis.
Certainly.
So first we go to the DAPA case, which is the immigration case.
You know, the upholding of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals really did say that the administration didn't follow what it was required to do administratively, and part of that was a notice and comment period when ordinary people were meant to be able to come and put their thoughts forth about what this advantage was.
Well, I actually read it a little differently.
I mean, I think it's very clear that this was about, if you go to the earlier court decision, this was about separation of powers and co-equal branches of government, and the president doesn't unilaterally have a constitutional right or a legal right to rewrite laws on his own.
No, absolutely.
I don't disagree.
And actually, the second part of that was that the court had said that the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the statutory basis for that agency, that overrides the President's power here.
And I think Obama admitted it himself.
He has reached the limits of his power.
The court has basically said that.
So it's back to the drawing board and it's back to Congress to find a solution to immigration.
Well, I think that's all true.
What are your thoughts on the affirmative action case?
Again, I agree with Jay.
I think this was a very closely circumscribed case.
I thought it was interesting that Justice Kennedy, as you well know, a swing voter, sided with affirmative action this time, whereas normally he has voted against it.
This ongoing obligation for the University of Texas to show by data that their race-conscious admissions process is actually doing what it is designed to do is very important and is required by this opinion and white for any other institution of higher learning.
But I tend to agree with Jay.
I think that this is a smaller victory than perhaps advocates of affirmative action would have liked.
If discrimination is wrong, and I think we all agree with that, is another kind of discrimination as a remedy, is that equally wrong?
Well, this is the eternal question.
And John Roberts famously said the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
And Jay, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
But the sort of the liberal view is that African Americans, Hispanics, basically non-whites, have had a long history of discrimination in this country and that we still are required to have some kind of consciousness in terms of righting those historic wrongs.
You know, part of it is this kind of this enabling, I think, of the vestiges of Jim Crow.
I mean, this is, but except it's a long time ago.
And if you talk to a lot of academics, African American academics, they're saying that these young men and women that are coming out of high school or college or going into the professions that are minorities compete very well with their non-minority counterpart.
So the point is, I think what John Roberts, what Danielle said was right, John Roberts was right.
You know, the way to end discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.
So I think it needs to be more of an equal playing field now.
I think that's where this should go.
I think it was going in that direction.
Danielle's also, I think, right.
I mean, it was surprising in a sense that Justice Kennedy went the way he did here, although this case had the opinion itself, the majority opinion, has a lot of caveats.
All right, let me go another case that came down today.
The Supreme Court placed new limits on state laws that make it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving or DUI to refuse alcohol tests.
The justices ruled that police must obtain a search warrant before requiring drivers to take blood and alcohol tests, but not breath tests, which the court considers less intrusive.
And this came in response to three cases in which drivers actually challenged the so-called implied consent laws in Minnesota, North Dakota as violating the constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
What's your take on it?
Can I say one thing real quick on that, Sean?
The Sotomayor Kagan opinions in that case said that they don't even think that a breath test, they think for a breath test, you'd have to have a search warrant, a warrant to do the test.
I think that's absurd.
By the time you get.
Look, I actually came, this is a true story.
One day, so we were doing Man on the Street in a nightclub when we did Hannity's America years ago in New York.
Now, the nightclub doesn't get going until like 12 o'clock.
I mean, these night owls live very different lives than I do, obviously.
Anyway, so I waited for the place to get busy, and I actually did buy drinks for my, but I did not have a single drop of alcohol.
I knew I was driving home.
I had driven myself there.
Anyway, I walk out of the club at like 1 in the morning after we got the filming done.
I get in my car, and I drove, I make a right turn, I follow on a green light.
Now, at this particular location in New York, it's lit up like a summer day.
There's so many people on the street.
Cop says, get out of the car, and you got to blow into this.
I'm like, I didn't have a single drink.
I promise you, not one drink.
And he made me blow.
It blows 0-0.
And then he goes, no, this can't be right.
Blow again.
Zero-0.
And, you know, I had to call my boss and say, well, there might be a picture of me in the paper tomorrow getting a breathalyzer test because the cop was being obnoxious.
Right.
And the only evidence that they would have had that I had any alcohol was I came out of a club at one in the morning.
And I guess it's a fair assumption that somebody would have had a drink, but I didn't have one.
Yeah, I mean, this case was all about the tension between your privacy rights and then, you know, the laws of the road that keep us all safe.
And basically what the court came out and said was the impact of breath testing on your privacy is slight, but the need for breath testing is high because of the enormous number of death and injury that results from drunk driving.
Yeah, Jay?
Yeah, I think, look, I mean, the expectation of privacy is always the legal issue when you get to the invasion of privacy or whether there's an ability to get a warrant or do you need a warrant?
It's the old stop in front of the state.
But the thing is, let's say somebody's close.
Let's say the average state law is 0.08 in terms of the legal limit of alcohol you can have in your breath.
And, you know, let's say you're 1.0.
So you're above the legal limit, by the time they get a search warrant and you sober up and eat like a, you know, eat and absorb the alcohol in your system and drink a lot of water.
I mean, so they can be manipulated.
And then that's why majority has to, you know, I think that the breath test is the easier case.
And that's been the law, by the way, for a long time.
The blood tests have always been deemed to be more intrusive, though.
And by the way, not just in this context, blood withdrawal, blood for medical purposes.
You remember all those cases.
Right.
This has always been a different issue.
Yep.
Yeah, the government then has a blood sample of yours.
And then the question is, what do they do with that?
Actually, to your point, Sean, about this notion of warrantless searches, actually on Monday there was another case where the court ruled that if you have an outstanding warrant for basically anything and you are the victim of an unconstitutional search and seizure, if it was conducted in good faith, then the fruits of that search and seizure can actually be admitted against you because of the fact of that outstanding warrant.
Yeah.
All right.
Let's go to Baltimore.
And it looks like the Baltimore prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, is now strike three in her so-called quest for justice.
We all witnessed in horror what happened in Baltimore.
The thing that frustrates me is the continuous rush to judgment.
We saw it in Ferguson.
Even the president weighed in on that case.
Mr. Constitutional Attorney himself without hearing from the eyewitnesses who corroborated Officer Darren Wilson's story that he was being charged at repeatedly and threatened and this guy, you know, Michael Brown fought for his gun and he was not indicted in that case or jumping into the case.
President jumped into the Trayvon Martin case and my son would look like Trayvon and he didn't account for an eyewitness that actually identified Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman grounding and pounding his head into cement, just like the Cambridge police.
Well, this is the third time this prosecutor has tried to get a conviction and she's zero for three.
And at some point you got to say, okay, there was not a crime committed here.
And I think at the end of the day, that's what the juries are saying.
Right.
And this is, I read the opinion today.
This was a judge who has acquitted, as you say, the other defendants.
This is the most serious number of crimes.
This is nine charges against this police officer, including secondary degree depraved heart murder.
But based on the officer's testimony, the judge determined that there was no criminal conduct here.
Well, I think at some point we've got to examine whether the so-called Ferguson effect, the Baltimore effect, cops can't do their jobs because that's the problem.
Now they're scared to death to do their jobs for fear they're going to get indicted.
On House Joint Resolution 88, the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution.
House Joint Resolution 88.
Joint resolution disappeared in the votes here by the Department of the Definition for the term judiciary.
The question is: will the House on reconsideration pass the joint resolution?
The objections of the president, to the contrary, notwithstanding, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Klein, is recognized for one hour.
The gentleman from Minnesota yields back.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed say no.
The opinion, the chair, the ayes have it.
Those favoring a recorded vote will rise.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record by electronic device.
That was nine of rule 20.
This 15-month, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a five-minute vote on passing the joint resolution.
Yes, the gentleman is afraid to vote and afraid to debate.
position, his fear.
No fly, no bud.
No fly, no money.
Why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun?
Why do you want to protect terrorists from buying a gun?
Are you going to stop?
Why do you want to let terrorists provide a gun?
Oh, yeah, my God.
Why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun?
No, Bill.
No place.
Stop it.
Take the mic.
First carefully.
If you know the player, Terrorists with a gun.
You're all the kids.
Don't let terrorists have a gun.
David, David.
People in your district, a number of them who are law-abiding citizens, many of them would want to carry a control-carrying.
I wouldn't let him have it.
I know what you're trying to say.
Corruption is corruption.
It's bad.
Okay, but like, let's think about that for a second.
Why should say the Uber wealthy who have protection had that protection, but individuals who are law-abiding citizens in your district should not?
Let's talk about that.
Well, law-abiding citizens just shouldn't have to carry a gun.
You know that.
So you're not going to push me in that direction.
But you're protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol.
Well, that's a little different.
I think we deserve.
I think we need to be protected down here.
We need to be protected, not the people.
Of course, that was the Occupy Democratic Party last night, having a little fun on the House floor, and they were out there chanting, no bill, no break, and singing, We Shall Overcome.
And that was Louis Gohmert, you know, saying radical Islamic terrorism.
And it went on and on.
We'll show you a lot of the video of this tonight on Hannity 10 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Pretty, you know, I will say this, what I said earlier.
This is Barack Hussein, Obama, and Hillary Clinton's party.
This is what you'd expect at Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter.
This is what you'd expect from a guy that learned at the altar of a radical communist Frank Marshall Davis, was radicalized through Acorn and Olinski.
By the way, both Hillary and Obama Alinskyite disciples.
This is a guy that went to Reverend Wright's church.
This is a guy that hung out with Ayers and Dorn.
This is now the Democratic Party.
You see this on the streets with different demonstrations as they pop up.
You see it with Occupy Wall Street.
And this is now the representation.
There is no such thing any longer as a moderate blue dog Democrat.
They don't exist.
This party has been taken over by the hard left.
That's why Bernie Sanders is doing so well.
That's why Obama got elected twice.
That's why Hillary is just a third term of Obama.
Maybe worse in the end.
Who knows?
All right, 800-94-1 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, we got to go to our buddy Tavares.
I guess we can't play the music anymore because of the massive legal fees that the band Tavares wants to charge me for playing the stupid song More Than a Woman.
The lawyers for Tavares, not Tavaris.
Lawyers for all musicians won't let us play their songs except Florida, Georgia Lion, which gave us direct permission to play anything we want.
And we love Florida, Georgia Lion.
They're our buddies.
What's up, Tavares?
How are you?
Hey, Sean Hannity.
Let me tell you one thing, man.
What's up, buddy?
But I'm great.
First of all, I know you don't like, you're a humble guy.
You do things out of the kindness of your heart.
Your callers might not know this.
You always had my back ever since I was single.
It's been eight years now.
Ever since I was a single male out here, you were trying to put a chastity belt on me years ago, telling me to stop having sex.
And before I was married, when I lost my job, you were like, what can I do?
No, no, what is it that I can do to get you another job?
I was like, no, Sean, I'm going to find my own job.
Recently, Sean, you just did a big thing, man.
You paid for my school, my CDL school, and you did a quick question.
I only had one condition.
What was my condition?
That I stuck through it.
And I wouldn't quit.
No, you can't quit.
I didn't quit.
I didn't quit.
I got my CDL today.
Oh, you're finished.
I got my CDL today, Sean.
Wow.
Today's the day you graduate.
So you graduated today.
I finished the course.
Actually, I still have hours to go, but Monday we have to make up for Memorial Day.
And I have to make that.
So that means you're going to be an over-the-road trucker, and are they going to help you get a job and everything?
Yeah, my school are going to help me get a job.
I have fantastic instructors.
I mean, I went from not knowing how to basically do anything on a truck.
Now I can do donuts in it now.
I'm not going to do it.
But, Sean Hanley, let me tell you, man.
Come on, go ahead.
I appreciate you.
You've been a blessing to my family.
This just changed my life completely, man.
Although, you know, people might think that we have differences.
You're my best friend.
People don't understand this.
I'm a better friend than Big Baby James.
You know what I mean?
I mean, I don't know if anyone can top sweep baby James.
He's family, so he's married to my sister.
Let me just say this, Tava.
Baby James.
Listen, listen.
All you wanted was a ladder.
And all I gave you was a ladder.
This was your dream.
You wanted to get this done.
You know, God has put me in a position a little bit that I can help people, and I like to do that.
That's a blessing.
And all I can say is, you know, there's a good feeling, isn't there, that you now know, I mean, this happens to be an area where there are a lot of jobs right now.
It happens to be, you know, your training now is going to make you a valuable employee for a lot of companies.
When oil gets back up and running again, they're paying drivers for oil massive amounts of money.
Massive.
Exactly.
And that's going to represent, you may have to move at some point.
I know you like it there in Greenville.
We're out of here.
We're out of here.
Me and my wife, my son, we're out of here.
Where are you going?
You know where you're going, you know?
I'm not sure.
You know, whatever my wife likes, it's up to her.
Hey, you know what, Linda?
Happy wife, happy life.
Why don't we put them in touch with our friends in the oil industry?
Because they're still looking for drivers, even though there's been a little bit of a slowdown.
But with your training, we can get you a job that's probably going to pay you six figures.
Oh, my goodness.
I know.
What are you going to do with all that money?
You know, here's the thing.
I talk on this program and I throw out numbers every day.
And people think it's because I like to hear myself talk.
That's not it.
You know, my life experience, Tavares, of really struggling early in my life.
I mean, I didn't have, I had 200 bucks in the old stone bank when I lived in Rhode Island.
That was it.
I had no money.
I worked with my landlord.
I fixed up his apartment so that would pay my rent or I'd fix his barn or I'd paint his house or I'd, you know, cut his lawn.
I did whatever I had to do.
And I remember not being able to afford to go out for McDonald's, never mind anything else.
And that life lesson taught me more than I could ever learn in any school, any place, anywhere.
All right, so now I have money.
But when I got into radio, I work for free.
I got into radio, I never thought I'd be successful.
I got into radio.
My first paid job was $19,000 a year.
And, you know, barely enough to pay your rent in a cheap little car that I had.
So, anyway, I just tell you this.
You take this valuable skill you've developed and you worked hard to get.
You take care of your family.
First and foremost, you got to be a good dad and a good husband.
Yes.
And you go be successful, save your money, money equals freedom, and enjoy your life.
All right?
Yes.
And Sean, what you told me, what would I do with a nice paying job?
First of all, I'm going to pay it for it.
What you did for me, I can't stop until I help somebody else and do the same thing that you did for me.
And I do.
By the way, if you vote for Hillary, if you vote for Hillary, you're going to screw it all up.
Your opportunities are going to dwindle.
And I think, and see, I think it's illegal.
Now you sound like you're buying my vote.
I'm not buying.
No, no, no.
I did not offer money for vote.
I'm just saying.
No, you did.
No, you didn't.
That's just me being, you know, just as you're not.
That's you being a typical wise ass Tavares.
I know who you are.
No, man, you're great, man.
I love you, man.
My family loves you, man.
We appreciate you.
I'm not sure if you ever need me to do, I'm there for you, man.
I want you to go live your life, go and be happy, and go take care of your family and work hard.
Work as much overtime as you can.
Pack up as much money in the bank as you can.
Don't risk it.
Exactly.
You know what?
What other way to make money?
Try and buy like the cheapest house on the block.
And try and buy the house that needs to be fixed up, needs paint, maybe needs some work, some elbow grease.
And maybe as you live in there with your family, you work on the kitchen first.
You paint it first.
You do this.
You do that.
And then you build up equity and value in that home.
And by the time you sell it, you make an extra hundred grand.
And that's serious money for your future.
Exactly.
All right, my friend.
God bless you.
Thank you.
Well, that turned out, you know what?
I'm very proud of him.
He did so well with that course.
He finished it pretty fast.
I mean, what is it?
Three, four-month thing?
Yeah.
But you know what?
That's all he wanted.
He wants to work.
Bill is in Florida.
Bill, how are you?
Glad you called.
What's up, Bill?
How you doing, Big Sexy?
Big sexy.
I've been called a lot of stuff of my day.
Not that.
I wanted to know how to vote for you for all the fame.
I'm not talking about it.
I'm not talking about it.
Oh, Bill, but I'll talk about it, Bill.
No, no, no.
Oh, great.
Turn a mic off.
So, Bill.
Oh, good grief.
Here we go.
You set this call up, didn't you?
I would never do that.
No, she didn't.
Nobody wants to hear this.
Jason.
And maybe you let her on the show a little more and maybe even call it the Linda, Lauren, Sean show.
But nope, it was all me.
Lauren, you hear Lauren laughing in the back.
Lauren doesn't talk.
Lauren just kind of sits there.
She's quiet as a mouse.
Days when you encouraged her to talk.
I tried.
It took forever to get her.
I'm going to sell there, buddy.
What?
Linda never shuts up since the day I met her for crying out loud.
I don't like that.
Sean, you're a gentleman.
You're funny.
You love your God, country, and your people.
Same as I do.
I think you deserve it.
So now that we've got that out of the way, you can cast your vote.
You can text Hannity to 36500-36500.
It's free.
Don't waste your money.
Check with your local.
Don't waste your money.
Wherever you subscribe, Rise ATT, make sure your local rates apply.
I can't get into all that legalese, but look it up, make sure, find out if you can afford to text Hannity to 36500.
Are we done?
And you can go to Hannity.com for more information.
And you can always call 800-941-Sean and talk to Lauren and Linda and Ethan and Jason.
And we'll be more than happy to get this information.
You have it until June 30th, people.
So get out there and text.
Are you done?
Oh, you're done now.
Okay.
Let's get back to our phones.
Raleigh Durham.
Scott is next.
What's up, Scott?
How are you?
Hey, Sean, thanks for taking my call.
I just wanted to give you a call, shout-out, and just to let you know a lot of your discussions regarding the abuse of citizens within the Muslim countries, how they're treated, that they're non-believers and how they perceive.
I have a physician colleague who is of Austrian descent, grew up in Kuwaiti from a pretty well-to-do family.
And I've worked with him for the last four years.
On a day-to-day basis, we talk about just the general chit chat.
Never once have we ever discussed religion or political views from any means.
We got about 30 seconds, so make your point.
I'm interested in what you're saying.
This individual came to me this past Monday and literally shut my door.
And he broke down and cried.
He said, I just want to let you know, he said, my whole life from the time that I grew up, I was taught that Islam, if you are a non-believer as a Muslim, you should be killed.
And he basically verified everything that you've been telling individuals and people deny it.
That's from the San Bernardino to France to Belgium and now Orlando.
Listen, let me say this in response.
And I appreciate you confirming that, but I want to say this.
You see the Islamization of Europe.
You see it happening all over the world.
There is a clash of culture that is so severe.
I personally think if you come from a country and you grow up under Sharia, it's so incompatible with our values.
We must have a perfect vetting system or no system.
That's the way it's got to be, or we're going to lose our country like Europe is being lost before our eyes.
