Sean reminds listeners of the recent comments made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch when she told an audience that "our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love." The idea that compassion and love will defeat radical terrorists who are killing innocent women and children is beyond anything ever heard in terms of the level of ignorance. As we celebrate independence day and are reminded of all of those who sacrifice for our peace, we need to take a moment to think about just how important this upcoming election is. 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.
All right, this portion of the Sean Hannity podcast is sponsored by Audible.
Now, by signing up for a 30-day trial with Audible, you'll be able to get that audio book you've always wanted to read for free.
Now, discover where Audible audiobooks can take you.
To get started, just go to audible.com/slash Hannity.
That's audible.com/slash Hannity.
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 a thousand 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, made 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?
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, you know, 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.
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 clicks, she gives a 45-minute speech or a 30-minute speech, 15-minute Q ⁇ A, 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 15 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 that's what 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 hip 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 cat's 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 can people get your DVD real quick?
It's look at ClintonCashMovie.com and the book is also available as well.
Thank you so much.
Peter Schweitzer, back with us on the Sean Hannity Show.
You know when a book just really hooks you and you just can't put it down?
Well, with Audible, well, you don't have to.
Discover where Audible audiobooks can take you.
Now, maybe it's a book you've been wanting to read for a long time.
Now, Audible has something special for everyone.
So download your books or shows on your mobile device and listen anytime, anywhere.
And with an unmatched selection of audiobooks, original audio shows, news, comedy, Audible is your best source for everyday entertainment.
The Audible app makes listening a breeze with features like chapter navigation and narration speed control.
So access your books, your shows, anytime, anywhere, right from your smartphone or your tablet.
Join Audible today and explore the world's leading provider of audio books, all beautifully performed by talented actors and narrators.
Now you can start a 30-day trial and download your first audiobook for free.
Just go to audible.com/slash Hannity to get started.
That's audible.com/slash Hannity for a 30-day trial and audio book.
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 LGBTQ 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, toil, sweat, and tears.
We'll beat them here.
We'll beat them in the hills.
We'll beat them in the land on sea and the ah.
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 racists 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 Shruggs.
And welcome both of you back to the program.
Appreciate you being with us.
Thank you, sir.
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 gunshop 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 that.
Wait, wait, hang on a second.
Wait, wait, wait.
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 well, 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?
You know, how about putting Americans first?
You know, 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 girl 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 meeting, 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, 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 are.
Where did they come from, these people?
Iraq and Sudan.
Now, you know, Sudan, Northern Sudan, is half of the people.
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.
Who are we?
I mean, are we in the media 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 well, 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 Bismalah that they made over Daniel Pearl when they beheaded him, when they made over James Foley, 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 black 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 lead.
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 and 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 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.
Let me 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 is 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 to 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 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 make a right turn 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.
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 is 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 you.
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 blood and your breath.
And 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 the, I read the opinion today.
This was a judge who is acquitted, as you say, the other defendants.
This was the most serious number of crimes.
This was 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 now they're scared to death to do their jobs for fear they're going to get indicted.
All right, news roundup information overload hour on the Sean Hannity show.
We'll get to your calls at the bottom of the hour.
Toll-free, our telephone number is 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
So much has come up this week.
You remember back in 2007, 2008, I declared journalism in America's dead.
And I think we got another example this week, a prime example.
Here it is, the paper of record, the ever-so-prestigious New York Times putting out a nearly 20-page printed report that is entitled Crossing the Line, How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private.
And we have now interviewed three women mentioned in this article.
And they all say that the New York Times had an agenda going in.
They purposefully took their comments out of context, mischaracterized their relationship with Mr. Trump, and they have now come forward and said it is absolutely false and misleading and manipulative of the New York Times and what they have done.
And one was an ex-girlfriend, one was Carrie Prejan.
We had this other woman who was a Bosnian war survivor that we put on the program a lot of times.
But my point is, then I raised the question last night with Donald Trump as it relates to, well, okay, the New York Times is doing these exposés that have now been debunked by the women that they use in these articles.
These women are all furious.
These women all want apologies.
But yet where's the reporting by the New York Times on, let's see, Paula Jones, who claims that Bill Clinton pulled down his pants and exposed himself, and that Kathleen Willey, when she went to see Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, was groped and grabbed and touched and fondled against her will and threatened thereafter.
And the case of Juanita Broderick, where's the New York Times coverage of that?
And last night on the program, and it's gone viral, well, Donald Trump finished the sentence for me and said, rape.
That's the allegation that was made by Juanita Broderick.
We've interviewed her a number of times now, and she has told her story.
I have looked her in the eye.
I did the second interview after Lisa Myers at NBC.
I looked her in the eye and I believed her.
People ask me all the time, do you believe these women?
Yes.
In every case, these women were lied about.
They were smeared.
They were slandered.
They were besmirched.
And their character was assassinated.
And they paid a dear price for daring to speak up.
Well, you would think that the New York Times, if they're so interested in how candidates treat women, they might ask some tough questions of Hillary Clinton.
And as I said earlier today, why did she take money through the Clinton Foundation from countries that treat women horribly, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other countries that practice Sharia law, that tell women how to dress and that they can't drive and that they can't vote and they can't be seen in public without a male relative.
They can't go to school or work without a man's permission.
Why take money from those countries?
Where is the criticism from the great champion of women's rights, Hillary Clinton?
She took their money.
Did they buy her silence?
Anyway, Cheryl Atkinson is somebody that over the years I've just come to have great, incredible respect for.
She's been on the program before, and she worked at CBS for a long time, and she tried to do some really important reporting, and she was stymied by the news operation there.
She joins us now.
She has a brand new piece that she has put out.
It's called Untouchable Subjects, Fearless Reporting on her website.
And she goes into different news stories, the Fast and Furious story, Benghazi, Medical and Vaccine, and others.
And then she does this whole piece on six degrees of separation among Trump critics that I think is valuable, especially in light of what's happened this week.
Cheryl Atkinson, how are you?
I'm great.
Thank you for having me.
Did you know Morley Safer?
He passed away today.
I did, not well, just because I worked at CBS.
Yes, of course I did.
Great deal of respect for really all the longtime CBS 60-minute correspondents.
Listen, I think 60 Minutes is biased, but I will tell you this.
The show is usually, it has one or two segments that I think are phenomenal.
And then there's the one bias piece that drives me nuts, usually Steve Croft, you know, sucking up to Obama, but that's a different story.
You watched what happened this week.
You actually lost a job in many ways because you were fighting to get truth out on certain stories involving President Obama.
Remind people of your story.
Well, to be clear, I felt the last couple years at CBS, after a wonderful 20 years, there were all kinds of pressures not to report, not only on government scandal, Obama administration, alleged wrongdoing, but also corporate malfeasance, pretty much anything that could go after people considered our corporate partners or our political partners at the corporate level, pharmaceutical industry, you name it.
It came to be where they simply wanted stories to boil it down to something very simple on the weather.
And I think you see that my friends at the other networks complain of the same thing, but my job was so specific to investigative reporting.
It left me feeling I had very little meaningful to do.
So I managed to work very hard and managed to get out of my contract early.
Yeah, and by the way, you're not, I don't know that I've ever read anything about what your political persuasions are.
I mean, I say I'm a conservative because I am, but you are a reporter.
In your heart of hearts, that's what you want to do.
You want to be fair and balanced, and you want to get big stories out there and inform the public.
Am I right about that?
Yes.
I mean, what I love, I think it's a wonderful intellectual challenge that too many journalists today overlook, that you cover a story that may even be contrary to how you personally feel, but you cover it fairly and follow the facts and sometimes even change your mind about what you thought the story was.
That's what we're supposed to do, and it's a wonderful intellectual exercise.
And I've, you know, received Emmy awards for investigating the Bush administration and investigating the Obama administration and doing non-political stories.
It really doesn't matter.
I think I deserved an Emmy for all my work on Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dorn.
No one ever called me.
I'm sure you did.
Well, you have to submit the entry now.
Oh, okay.
I didn't.
Somebody told me yesterday that I was nominated to be in the Radio Hall of Fame, and I'm like, oh, that's nice.
And they said, no, you're supposed to get people to vote for you.
I said, I'm not going to go out there and beg people to vote for me for the Hall of Fame.
It's not up for me to do that.
Well, let me, what's your take on the New York Times story about Donald Trump this week that has now been debunked?
I mean, isn't this the classic case of a story and a storyline pre-written by a guy that was out tweeting negative things against Trump?
Well, let's not forget the Ben Rhodes New York Times story as well.
Oh, my gosh.
Which preceded this.
But my gut reaction to this was: you know, it's perfectly legitimate to interview these women and to conclude or have people conclude in your report that this was inappropriate somehow.
But you are obligated, regardless of what you feel, to appropriately report the context that the women or some of them say they were not offended.
Maybe you think they should have been offended.
Maybe you wish they had been offended.
But you cannot, as a journalist, at least the way I was brought up, and CBS would never have let me do this in the good old days.
You cannot report a story and leave out these important facts of context.
They have an obligation to say, you know, well, first of all, I don't think they should have put their personal opinion in it, but let's say they do.
They still have an obligation to properly characterize what the women thought and said and not hide that.
They clearly omitted that from the story on purpose, you know, with intention.
Well, I think what every woman that I interviewed from the piece, I mean, they were angry because they actually told a very different story than what was reported.
And in the case of, for example, Carrie Prejan, who was Miss California, they said all they needed to do, they took a certain excerpt out of her book, but if they would have gone two sentences further, she's praising Donald Trump.
So it was deceptive, and she was pretty angry about it.
And they didn't tell the story about how Donald Trump stood up for her when so many people turned against her, and that Donald Trump offered to help her career and was helpful in her career.
And the ex-girlfriend, Brewer Lane, was absolutely apoplectic about what they said because she said just the opposite.
If just five years ago, this sort of fallout had happened after a local news television story, let alone a prestigious national newspaper story, that would have been a career ender for the journalists involved.
I mean, this is very serious, the allegations they're making about being mischaracterized and what they said they were told by the reporters versus what the final story shows.
Yeah.
And then the more interesting part, Juanita Broderick challenged on the very same, The day after this New York Times piece comes out, she challenged them to look into her story.
Now, I've interviewed Juanita Broderick twice.
I've interviewed Kathleen Willey a number of times and Paula Jones.
And I think the big, and I've also examined why Hillary Clinton claims to be a champion of women's rights, takes all this money from Saudi Arabia, and they have a deplorable record as it relates to women's rights and gay and lesbian rights.
And she has never criticized them that I can find.
And I've searched long and hard to find criticism of Saudi Arabia from Hillary.
And it seems like the champion of women's rights, you know, her silence was purchased.
Well, it almost seems to me, who knows what the motivation is, that if reporters are trying to create a certain narrative, we know that is the case in some instances, are they trying to balance out Hillary's supposed woman problem by manufacturing or creating an equally large one for Donald Trump so that it erases that Achilles heel for her in the general election.
Well, now Donald Trump in two polls in two days is up plus five and plus three.
Let me ask you, you did some very interesting reporting, I felt.
Six degrees of separation among Trump critics.
I'd rather than read it.
You talk about Jorge Ramos.
You talk about Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain.
You talk about, let's see, what was his name?
Jim Messina, who heads up the Priorities PAC USA, and Brad Woodhouse.
And, you know, why don't you explain some of what you've reported?
Well, I'm researching a new book, and some of this came to light for that, but some of it is also mixed in with this campaign that's going now and the astroturf that I've written about.
The whole goal of certain groups that are out there, whether they're political action committees that do opposition research and negative ads or PR campaigns that work for special interests and surreptitiously have false social media accounts, the whole goal is to create the impression there's widespread opinion for or against something when there may not be to sway public opinion.
And when you look at the results of the truth that's out there about feelings for Donald Trump, surely there's much opposition, but there is much support that has not been well represented in media accounts in the past year.
And you have to wonder why.
So I looked at some of the connections between this seemingly diverse set of critics against Trump, but their common connections.
Many people probably don't know that Hillary Clinton has this formidable group of super PACs, political action committees, and media watchdog outlets, whatever you want to call them, that fan out in the news and don't identify themselves and are often not identified in the news as Hillary Clinton super PACs and supporters and speak against Trump or sometimes Bernie Sanders or whatever interest that they think threatens Hillary Clinton.
So Univision, as you know, Jorge Ramos has been an aggressive critic of Trump.
Univision canceled Ms. Trump's Trump's Miss USA pageant.
Well, Univision's owned by Saban Capital Group, which is run by a top Hillary Clinton supporter who's given $7 million, one of the biggest donors to Hillary Clinton's political action committee, Priorities USA Action.
So that's just one example.
But also, you see the criticism from the British prime minister.
He called Trump stupid and wrong.
People probably don't know that Cameron's campaign strategy advisor in the past year was Jim Messina, who heads up Hillary Clinton's largest super PAC, Priorities USA Action.
I don't think these are tangential relationships that bear no, you know, no relevance.
Correct the record.
He's the spokesman for Correct the Record, which sounds like a neutral fact-checking website.
Brad Woodhouse is on TV and they're issuing press releases, usually attacking Trump or even Bernie Sanders.
Well, people don't know.
Correct the record's a super PAC for Hillary Clinton.
I mean, they have one goal in mind, and that's usually not disclosed in the reporting.
And then the people behind Correct the Record, again, is her super PAC, American Bridge 21st Century, run by Media Matters David Brock.
Media Matters David Brock is a Hillary Clinton surrogate.
That organization works on her behalf.
All these seemingly diverse critics have some common, common links in the money world and in the political surrogate world to Hillary Clinton.
Unbelievable.
What you're talking about is a level of incest.
It's incestuous among these media groups and these campaigns.
And then you can add to that the propaganda of Ben Rhodes over at the White House.
I mean, we knew back at the time that he was the one that advanced the story as it relates to the YouTube video when Hillary Clinton was writing her own daughter, the Libyan president and the Egyptian prime minister, that it was a terror attack.
He advanced the story of being related to a YouTube video, the attack on our consulate.
And he's a guy that bragging about the fact that he lied to the American people because they'd never get it past the American people if they told them the truth about the Iranian deal.
And he still works at the White House.
Well, and what surprised me most about that New York Times story, that should have been, I don't believe it was, in the editorial section, fine to write a loving piece about Ben Rhodes.
But in defending the piece amid criticism later, the reporter wrote an article that took things like, I consider Ben Rhodes the most, the bravest person I've ever met in Washington.
He called him honest.
I mean, that's fine if he wants to conclude Rose is honest, but there have been...
But that's an editorial.
It's an editorial, and it's been disproven in instances, as you pointed out, with Libya directing the narrative toward it wasn't a terrorist attack when they knew otherwise, with the Iranian deal.
So it's fine if he wants to still call Ben Rhodes honest, but it flies in the face of established facts.
And it's just kind of shocking that that would be played off as a news report in the New York Times when it is instead sort of a public relations biography written by somebody who seems to adore Ben Rhodes.
You know, Cheryl, you're really doing great work.
I find it fascinating that you've connected all these dots.
How could people find it?
Where are you on the web?
I forgot where we found this.
Well, that article is at CherylAtkinson.com.
I host a weekly show called Full Measure.
Is that a radio show?
No, that's a national TV show broadcast of 43 million ABC CBS NBC folks and I wouldn't go anywhere.
No, I'm kidding.
I don't want to either.
No, but seriously, we don't, just so you know, we don't do a lot of talking head interviews.
We do have a lot of things different on Sunday that no one else will have.
And this week, what we're doing is following the campaign money, the biggest contributors of the three remaining major candidates in the house.
That's right.
And looking at, yeah, who's behind him.
So that's the sort of thing we do.
All right.
Cheryl, I do admire your work.
Thank you for being with us.
On House Joint Resolution 88, the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution.
House Joint Resolution 88.
Joint Resolution disappearing.
The vote stands by the door.
Definition for the term fiduciary.
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 that share the ayes have it.
Gentlemen from Minnesota.
A recorded vote is requested.
Those favoring a recorded vote will rise.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their vote by electronic device.
Pause 9 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.
This gentleman is afraid to vote and afraid to debate.
And given the weakness of his arguments and his position, his fear is well-founded.
If you will play in talking about radical Islam, radical Islam killed these poor people!
No fly, no guns!
No fire, no bud!
No fire, no guns!
No fire, no guns!
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?
Why do you want to let terrorists provide a gun?
No bill!
No place!
Why are you protecting carriers?
No, Bill!
No place!
Hey, stop the shot!
Stop it!
Seek tonight!
Let's take a threat.
Radical Islam kills the people.
If you know what they're doing, terrorists with a gun.
Don't let terrorists have a gun.
People in your district, a number of them who are law-abiding citizens, many of them would want to carry a control carry die.
I wouldn't let him have it.
I know what you're trying to say.
Corruption is corruption is bad.
Okay, but like let's think about that for a second.
Why should, say, the uber wealthy who have protection have that protection, but individuals who are law-abiding citizens in your district should not, let's talk about that.
Well, our 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 Alinsky.
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, 800-941 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 Line, which gave us direct permission to play anything we want.
And we love Florida, Georgia Line.
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?
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, might not know this.
You always have 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 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.
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 Hannity, 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 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, Tavaris.
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.
God has put me in a position a little bit that I can help people, and I like to do that.
You're 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, yet?
I'm not sure.
You know, whatever my wife likes, it's something.
Hey, you know what, Linda?
Happy wife, happy life.
Why don't we put him 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 worked 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've 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 just.
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, no, you did.
No, you did.
No, you didn't.
That's just me being, you know, just a visit.
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.
Listen, listen, I. 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 I mean?
One other way to make money.
Try and buy 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 100 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, was 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 in my day.
Not that.
I want 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 can 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 bad.
Those days when you encouraged her to talk, 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 it.
You're a gentleman.
You're funny.
You love your God, country, and your people.
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 time.
Check with your local.
Don't waste your money.
Wherever you subscribe, Rise and ATT, make sure your local rates apply.
I can't get into all that legal ease, 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 do this information.
You have 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 Syrian 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 you to 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 denied.
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.
