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 Clinton's 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 Two 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 bestselling 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, uh, 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 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 Clinton's 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 superpacks.
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 a hundred million dollars 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 you when your book first came out, I know now it's out in DVD in video form, and I 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 uh she gives to a for-profit university, Laureate University, while her husband simultaneously is the Chancellor getting paid sixteen and a half million dollars.
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 in just in a two year period, twenty thirteen and twenty fifteen, between them make close to fifty five million dollars 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 it's it's hard to estimate and it's hard to know, but but you're looking at tens of millions of dollars.
And here's what people have to uh recognize, and common sense provides the guide here.
Bill Clinton leaves the White House in two thousand and one, 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 two thousand eight, his speaking fees from foreign entities triple overnight.
So people that before she was Secretary of State were going to pay them maybe a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a speech, are now saying we want to give you five hundred thousand dollars for a single speech.
You know, did he become three times more eloquent?
Uh is is he sometimes three times?
Well, didn't he get seven didn't he get seven hundred and fifty grand from China at some point?
He got seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars 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 a single biggest payday ever, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars in a single speech from Erickson.
Literally seven days later, Sean, the State Department issues and and says we're not going to apply technology restrictions to Ericsson.
So the So when Donald Trump said yesterday that Hill Hillary Clinton is perfected, the politics are personal profit, and 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 seven hundred and fifty grand and them overlooking what is a a violation of of what we had set out in terms of sanctions, correct?
That's 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 coincidence.
So when I talk about money that was given by the Clinton given to the Clinton Foundation, to the Clinton Library from oppressive regimes that oppress women, gays, lesbians, uh Christians and Jews, and up to twenty-five million of the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, ten million to the uh Clinton uh uh facility, the library in Little Rock, uh, and they treat women, minorities, etc.
horribly, and the money from Kuwait and and the money from the UAE and the money from Brunei and the money from Cutter and the money from OM, 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 you know, it's human nature.
If if somebody comes up and says, I'm gonna give you a twenty-five million dollar check for something that you believe in, uh 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 of Saudi Arabia and these other regimes in in terms of their treatment of women or or uh uh gays or or other groups.
She 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 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 with 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 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 in other instances, and 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 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 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 but it seems uh on their side, maybe it's because they didn't grow up with money or something, but you know, this is very obviously very, very important to them, but they keep getting money.
They keep buying they certainly influences being bought.
If you look at all of the money that she was being paid on average, sometimes more, some very rarely less, two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars a speech.
She required nothing less than a G four fifty, which is a nineteen seat jet by Gulfstream, uh, for her travel to these events.
And these by the way, these events, we're talking about you fly from A to B, you go in, you you do maybe a hundred clicks of a camera.
Not everyone gets a picture.
She 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 Gulf stream.
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 three hundred thousand dollar proposition just for her to give one hour speech.
And and she's made it, for example, between twenty thirteen and fifteen, between the two of them.
What did they make close to fifty five thousand fifty-five thousand?
Fifty-five million dollars.
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 gets a contract to to give two million dollars 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 ten speeches for two million dollars.
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 as Secretary of State saying, I have no reason to stop this project from going forward.
So yeah, it's 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 the argument though that the 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 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.
Uh it shows how in the pocket he still is for the Clintons.
But uh, 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 and here I have to give uh some positive comments to to certain media outlets.
Um, 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 MBC 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 dollars 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 have 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.
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.
Um 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 that's a great point.
And look, this is this is the thing.
If if you give a a uh you know, a politician like Hillary Clinton a hundred thousand dollars in cash, uh, that could be construed as a bribe, but if you pay her two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars as a quote unquote speaking fee, and she comes and gives a speech, and you're able to talk to her and and communicate to her what you want and and what you would like.
It's buying access.
Exactly.
That's exactly right.
All right, I gotta run.
But how can people get your DVD real quick?
Uh, it's it's uh look at uh Clintoncashmovie.com and uh 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 audio books 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 audio book 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.
Is that there playing with a camera taking pictures?
And I thought, is that kid never see a rush 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.
When you opened up the door of the laundry room, what did you see?
Some boys with no clothes on and a little girl.
Huh?
Were they touching the little girl?
Yeah, I guess so.
They were doing an S 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, it's unity, and it's love.
All right, that was Loretta Lynch.
Her 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 sliding uh 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 just imagine.
Winston Churchill blood sweat and z we'll beat them here, we'll beat them in the hills, we'll beat them in the land on sea and 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 I am a committed soldier of ISIS, and they redact ISIS because they don't want to offend uh 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 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 eighty-nine year old neighbor saw suspicious activity, approached the area, and was the one eye witness 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 uh 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 gonna 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 uh 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, it's some of the recovered phones from the nightclub in Orlando Pulse have recordings of the jihadi uh 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.
Um 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.
Uh, 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 uh when he had tried to purchase weapons at his shop.
They never even came down to the store.
You have Disney who called the FBI saying that he and his wife had been casing Disney.
He'd been cheering 9-11 uh 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.
Uh, he said they were quote on Islamophobic, and they killed That investigation.
This is a massive intel fail 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, uh I Rich, I had you on with Phil Haney and both both of your 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 you know what we saw in there was not just Phil's scrubbing of names, but the systematic removal of anything pertaining to Islam at the at the strategic intelligence, at the policy levels where we couldn't even say Islam.
We couldn't talk about Muslim.
We couldn't say that.
Wait, well, hang on a second.
Wait, wait, wait.
You could not say radical Islam at the state at the Department of Defense.
Levels in the Pentagon where the 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.
I uh I and you meanwhile, we had the names of terrorists or known terrorists, known uh 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 and it's it's uh Well, tell us your specific tell us your specific story.
I don't want to put words in your mouth.
My my specific story is uh someone who wanted to work on this issue, you know, 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 at a at a 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 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 where Donald Trump is right.
Well now American people are sick of it.
So you're you're describing a Department of Defense that is so politically correct we can't identify an enemy.
You're you're you're talking about major failings on just the a surface level, and this is supposed to supposed to be covert ops um that can't even be put into place because of political correctness.
And then Phil Haney's describing a scrubbing of names that have been developed by agents out in the field for years and years, and uh it 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 and and they never followed up.
Look, this is ongoing.
Uh, there are very bad people out there, and uh, we know I 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 a on high.
The idea that the attorney general would say love and compassion will defeat jihad is catamount to saying we must surrender.
And it's not that 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 claring 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 one of two or three um um websites that reported it, We came under enormous criticism, uh, you know, visceral attacks by the left that the story didn't happen, and then when it of course it did happen because you heard the eyewitness, um, they said we got the story w wrong because we had said, and this I'd gotten from someone who was there, uh, Syrian refugees, but they were from Iraq and Sudan.
That's like saying we got their shock 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 to be.
Where did they come from, these people?
Iraq and Sudan.
Now you know Sudan, Northern Sudan is a very important thing.
Well, wait a minute, but John Kerry, he 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 fantasist 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 we I mean, are we?
Who in the media Europe?
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 searched 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 why wasn't this posted everywhere?
It wasn't.
I'll tell you who posted it.
Solon posted with this headline No, Syrian refugees didn't rape a child in Idaho.
Right wing urban blood, blah, blah, blah.
Jezebel posted no, Syrian refugees didn't rape a child in Idaho.
The Inquisitor, uh, Syrian refugees didn't gang rape a five-year-old.
Idaho prosecute, 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 to stop Islamization of America.
Fifty I have over fifty thousand uh members, and my own page has three hundred and fifty thousand uh followers.
I mean, there is a there is a considered effort by the leftist Islamic machine to shut down any discussion in accordance with Well, look at look at what the attorney general did this week.
You know, the they released the transcript uh I pledge allegiance to omitted.
I pledge allegiance to omitted.
May God and I guarantee you it wasn't God that it was Allah.
Absolutely protect him on behalf of omitted.
And then she says, our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion and it's love.
Is surrender.
Look, the very first words he uttered on his first nine one-one call was the Bismalah was uh 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 let me give the last word uh to our good friend Rich uh Richard's pretty scary.
I mean, this is a state of denial.
It's sort of like the nine eleven commission report.
They're at war with us, we're not at war at 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 communities access to their account.
Uh there was a program run called Dana Minor.
We also look back and we'll see that Prince Walid bin Talal, the Prince of Saudi Arabia, probably the most prominent fiscal jihadi in the world, the guy who offered ten million dollars to Giuliani.
He's now a uh 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 gonna lie to you.
All right, I wish I had better news.
I don't.
More than seven hundred and thirty thousand lives have been changed as a result.
These are students, their teachers, their 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 I will whip up votes.
Keep in mind the millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country.
With ancestors 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 that's not a solution.
In fact, that's the real amnesty.
Pretending we can deport eleven million people or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money is a betting uh what is really just factually incorrect.
It's 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 uh states led by Texas objecting to the administration's 2014 executive actions that should have could have shielded millions of undocumented workers, or as the President say says they're American in every way but on paper.
Uh that would mean they're here illegally, uh 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 war that we'll get to as well.
Also, we have uh 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 Sekulo 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.
It em it at least for now, the decision of the court uh 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 the sound there where the president says they are Americans in every way, but on paper, but that 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 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 if if Justice Scalia uh had not been deceased, we would have had a five-four merits win and it would have ended the case, period.
I I still think I'd rather be four-four tied than the on the other end losing.
But uh five justices would have made a dip if 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 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 re-evaluated and probably brought to an end sooner rather than later.
So again, you know, splintered courts, here's what you're gonna have.
But uh I wasn't shocked with this one uh in the nature of the the case, but I think it even even the majority opinion, there is some concern uh where it ends up uh ultimately on affirmative action.
I think affirmative action has is probably seen its day and and it may be a case or two away.
Because generally they've been gutted uh pretty successfully uh 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's say one other thing, Sean, this immigration thing, though, which is big.
The President kept threatening to use uh 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 gonna 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 uh 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.
Uh 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 uh when ordinary people were meant to be able to come and put their thoughts forth about what the cigar was.
Well, I actually I actually read it a little differently.
I mean, what 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 coequal 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 sort of the second part of that was that uh the court had said that the INS, the immigration and naturalization service and the act the statutory basis for that, you know, for that agency that overrides the President's power here.
So and I think Obama admitted it himself.
He has reached the 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 what are your thoughts on the affirmative action case?
I I 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, uh, sided with uh affirmative action this time, whereas normally he has voted against it.
Um 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 uh 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 if uh 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 uh eternal question, and John Roberts famously said the way to just 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 uh you know, the sort of the liberal view is that African Americans, Hispanics, basically non-whites have had a long history of uh 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, and 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, uh African American academics, they're saying that these young men and women that are coming out of high school or college or going into m the professions that are minorities compete very well with their non-minority counterpart.
So the the point is I think what John Roberts would 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.
Janielle's also, I think, right.
I mean, it was surprising in a sense that Justice Kennedy uh went the way he did here, although this case had the opinion itself, the majority opinion has a lot of caveats.
All right, another case that came down today.
The Supreme Court placed new limits on state laws that make it a crime for motorists as suspected of drunken driving or DUI to refuse alcohol tests.
The justices ruled the police must obtain a search warrant before requiring drivers excuse me, drivers to take blood and alcohol tests, uh, But not breath tests, which the court considers less intrusive, and this came in response to three cases in which drivers actually challenge 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?
Uh can I say one thing real quick on that Sean?
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 that's absurd.
By the time you get look, I 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 twelve 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 I walk out of the club at like one 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.
Cops says get out of the car and you gotta 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 zero zero.
And he then he goes, No, this can't be right.
Blow again.
Zero zero.
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 I mean this this case was all about the 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 your privacy is slight, but the need for breath testing is high because of the you know enormous of number of death and injury that results from uh drunk driving.
Yeah.
Jay?
Yeah, I think look, I mean, there's the the expectation of privacy is always the legal issue when you when you get to the 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 and for us.
But the thing is, let's say somebody's close.
Let's say the average state laws is.08 in terms of the legal limit of alcohol you can have in your blood and your your breath, and you know, let's say you're one point zero, 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, and go that's why uh majority has to you know, I think that the the breath test is is the easier case.
And that's been the law, by the way, for a long time.
The the blood tests have always been deemed to be more intrusive though.
Any time and and by the way, not just in this context, any b blood withdrawal, blood for medical purposes, you remember all those cases.
Right.
This has always been a different issue, yeah.
Yeah, the government then has a blood sample of yours.
Um and then the question is what do they do with that?
Actually, to your point, uh 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, um 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 uh the Baltimore prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, is now strike three.
You know, 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.
Uh, 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 uh 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 gotta 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 j I read the opinion today.
This was a a judge who is acquitted, as you say the other uh defendants, this was 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, um, the judge determined that there was no criminal conduct here.
Well, there the girl I think at some point we've got to examine, you know, whether, you know, the so-called Ferguson effect, the Baltimore effect, cops can't do their jobs because they're the problem.
You know, now they're now they're scared to death to do their jobs for fear they're gonna get indicted.
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 numbers 800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
So much has come up this week.
You remember back in two thousand seven, two thousand and eight, 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 oh ever so prestigious New York Times putting out a nearly twenty-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.
So, but my point is then I raised the question last night with Donald Trump as it relates to well, okay, the New York Times is doing these exposes 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 that Bill Clinton pulled down his pants and exposed himself, and that Kathleen Willie, 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.
Uh 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 MBC.
I looked her in the eye and I believed her.
People ask me all the time, do you believe the 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, well, may 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 or work without a man's permission.
Why take money from those countries?
Where is the criticism from the great champion of 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 a brand new piece that she has put out.
It's called uh uh untouchable subjects, fearless reporting on her website.
And uh 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 not well, just because I work at CBS.
Yes, of course I did.
Great deal of respect for really all the longtime CBS 60 minute correspondence.
Listen, I think sixty 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.
Um, 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 twenty 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, uh pharmaceutical industry, you name it.
It just 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, and left me feeling I had very little meaningful to do, so I uh managed to work very hard, managed to get out of my contract early.
Yeah.
And by the way, you're not I I 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, and uh, but you are a reporter.
It I 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 nonpolitical 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.
Um I'm sure you did.
Well, you have to submit the entry now.
Oh, okay.
I didn't 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 gonna go out there and beg people to vote for me for the Hall of Fame.
That's that's not up for me to do that.
I know.
Um, 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, right?
That you know, which preceded this.
But my my gut reaction of 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 in the good old days, you cannot report a story and leave out these important uh facts of context.
They 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 Pryjan, 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 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, you know, 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 the allegations they're making about being mischaracterized and what they said they were told by the reporters versus what the final story showed.
Yeah.
And then the more interesting part, Juanita Broderick Challenged on the very same the 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 Willie a number of times and Paula Jones.
And I think the bigger and I've also examined why Hillary Clinton claims to be a champion of women's rights, takes all this money from Saudi Arabia, and they have a deplorable record as it relates to women's rights and gay and lesbian rights, and she has never criticized them that I can find, and I've searched long and hard to find criticism of Saudi Arabia from Hillary, and it seems like the champion of women's rights, you know, her silence was purchased.
Well, it almost seems to me, who knows what the motivation is that if reporters are trying to create a certain narrative, we know that is the case in some instances.
Are they trying to balance out Hillary's supposed woman problem by manufacturing or creating an equally large one for Donald Trump so that erases that uh 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 you did some very interesting reporting I felt.
Six degrees of separation among Trump critics.
Uh uh I rather than read it, you talk about Jorge Ramos, you talk about Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain.
Uh you talk uh about uh let's see, what was his name?
Jim Messina, uh who heads up the uh the priorities pack USA and and Brad Woodhouse and you know, why don't you explain some of what you've reported?
Well, I'm I'm researching a new book, and it's 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 Astro Turf 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 uh well represented in media accounts in 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 uh against Trump, but their common connections.
Many people probably don't know that Hillary Clinton has this formidical 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's super PACs and supporters and speak against Trump or sometimes Bernie Sanders or whatever interest, you know, that they think threatens Hillary Clinton.
So Univision, as you know, Jorge Ramos has been an aggressive, you know, critic of Trump.
Univision canceled Miss Trump's U uh the Trump Smith USA pageant.
Well, Univision's owned by Saban Capital Group, which is run by a top Hillary Clinton supporter who's given seven million dollars, 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, you know, tangential relationships that bear no, you know, no relevance.
Uh correct the record.
He's the spokesman for Correct the Record, which sounds like a neutral fact-checking website.
Um 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 one goal in mind, and they're usually that's usually not disclosed in the reporting.
And then the people behind Correct the Record again is her super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, run by Media Matters David Brock, Media Matters David Brock is a Hillary Clinton surrogate.
That organization works on her behalf.
So all these seemingly diverse critics have some common 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 uh incest, it's incestuous the among these media groups and and these campaigns.
And then you can add to that the propaganda of of Ben Rhodes over at the White House.
I mean, we knew back at the time that he 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 of uh being a 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's surprised me most about that New York Times story?
That should have been, I don't believe it was in the editorial section.
Fine to write a loving piece about Ben Rhodes.
But in defending the piece amid criticism later, the reporter wrote an article that said things like I consider Ben Rhodes the most the bravest person I've ever met in Washington.
He called him honest.
I mean, that's fine if he wants to conclude Rhodes' 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 Rose 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 Rose.
You know, Cheryl, you're really doing great work.
I find it fascinating that you've connected all these dots.
Uh, how could people find it?
Where are you on the web?
I forgot where we found this.
Well, that article is at Cheryl Accison.com.
I host a weekly show called Full Measure.
Was that a radio show?
No, that's a national TV show broadcast to 43 million ABC C D S N B C followers.
Well, thanks for real affiliate.
Well, thanks a lot for inviting me.
I can't believe you never invited me.
I wouldn't go anyway.
No, I'm kidding.
I don't want to.
No, but seriously, we don't just so you know, we don't do a lot of politics talking head interviews.
We do something different on Sunday that no one else will have.
And this week, what we're doing is following the campaign money, the biggest contributors of the three remaining major candidates in the race.
That's right.
And looking at yeah, who's behind him?
So that's the sort of thing we do.
All right.
Uh 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 disapproved by the Department of Education.
Definition for the term judiciary.
The question is Will the House and 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.
Access title by voting override.
The president's ideal facts about my time and I moved the previous question.
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 eyes 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 nine of rule 20.
This 15 minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a five minute vote on passing the joint resolution.
The gentleman is afraid to vote and afraid to debate.
Great.
And given the weakness of his arguments and his position, his fear is well founded.
And today it's time for a real debate on these issues.
Radical Islam.
No lie, no good.
No sign, no, no, no, but getting a gun.
Why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun?
Why do you want to protect terrorists from buying a gun?
Why do you want to let terrorists provide the gun?
Why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun?
No way!
Why are you protecting Terry?
No brain.
Hey, stop the show with the shit.
Take People in your district, a number of them who are law binding citizens, many of them who would want to carry consul carry.
I wouldn't let him have it.
I know what you're trying to say.
But corruption is corruption is bad.
Okay, but like let's talk about that for a second.
Well, I should say the uh Uber wealthy who who have protection had that protection, but individuals who are law-abiding citizens in your district should not.
Let's talk about that.
Well, a law-abiding citizens just shouldn't have to carry a gun.
You know that, so you're not gonna 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, uh 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 Gomert, 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 Parak 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 uh 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 as they pop up.
You see it with Occupy Wall Street, and this is now the representative 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 gotta go to our buddy Tavaris.
I guess we can't play the music anymore because of uh the mass of legal fees that the band Tavaris wants to charge me for playing the stupid song more than a woman.
The lawyers for Tavars, not Tavars.
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, Tavaris?
How are you?
Hey, Sean Hannity.
Let me tell you one thing, man.
What's up, buddy?
But uh I I'm I'm great.
First of all, I know you don't like you're a humble guy.
You do things out the kindness of your heart.
Your your callers might not know, uh, might not know this.
You always have my back ever since uh I was single.
Eight years it's been eight years now, ever since I was a single male out here.
He was trying to put a chassis 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 uh I can do to get you another job?
I was like, no, Sean, I'm gonna find my own job.
Recently, Sean, you just you just uh you did a big thing, man.
You you paid for my school, my CDL school, and um you did a quick I gave you one I only had one condition.
What was my condition?
That I still threw it in a in a and uh I would quit.
I know that you can't quit.
I didn't quit.
Oh, did I quit 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 I I uh finished the course.
Uh uh actually uh still have hours to go, but uh Monday we have to make up for Memorial Day.
Uh and I have to make that up.
So that means you you're gonna be an over the road trucker, and uh they're gonna help you get a job and everything.
Yeah, my school is gonna help me get a job.
I have fantastic instructor instructors uh mean.
I whiffed I went from not knowing how to basically do anything on a truck.
Now I could I can do donuts in it now.
You know.
I'm not I'm not I'm not gonna do it.
But Sean Hannity, let me tell you, man.
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 I'm I'm I'm I'm a better friend than Big Baby James.
You know what I mean?
I mean you I don't know if anyone can top sweep baby James.
He's family, so he's married to my sister.
Let me just let me just say this to Mars.
Listen, listen.
All you wanted was uh a ladder, and all I gave you was a ladder.
This is 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.
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 gonna 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 uh that's that's gonna represent you may have to move at some point.
I know you you like it there in Greenville, but Yeah, I we're we're out of here.
We're out of here.
Me and my me and my wife, my son, we're out of his own.
Where you going?
You know where you're going yet?
Uh I'm not sure, you know, whether my wife likes is something.
Hey, you know what, Linda, why don't we happy wife, happy life?
Why don't we put 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 gonna pay you six figures.
Oh my goodness.
I know what are you gonna do with what you gonna 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.
It's not that's not it.
You know, my life experience, Tavaris, 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 went 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 and 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 gotta be a good dad and a good husband.
Yes, and uh you go be successful, save your money, money equals freedom, and enjoy your life.
All right?
Yes, what you told me uh what I would what what would I do with a dice paying job?
First of all, I'm gonna pay it for it.
What you did for me, I can't stop until I help somebody else with and do the same thing that you did for me.
And uh I by the way, if you vote for Hillary, if you vote for Hillary, you're gonna screw it all up.
Your opportunities are gonna, you know, dwindle.
And I think and see, I think it's illegal.
Now you sound like you buy my vote.
I'm not buying it.
No, no, no.
I did not offer money for vote.
I'm just saying.
You know, just you being a typical wise ass, Tavaris.
I know who you are.
No, man, you're great, man.
I love you, man.
My family loves you, man.
We appreciate you.
Listen, I uh 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 uh 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, be you know what one thing one other way to make money.
Um try and buy like the cheapest house on the block.
And try and buy the house that needs to be fixed up, needs paint, right?
Maybe needs you know some work, some uh some elbow grease.
And maybe as you live in there with your family, all right.
You work on the kitchen first.
You you paint it first, you do this, you do that, and then you build up equity and value in that home, and that by the time you sell it, you make an extra hundred grand, and that's that's serious money for your future.
Exactly.
All right, my friend.
God bless you.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, that turned out uh 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.
Uh Bill is in uh Florida.
Bill, how are you?
Glad you called.
What's up, Bill?
How are you doing big sexy?
Big sexy.
I've been called a lot of stuff of my day, not that.
I want to know who can vote for you for all the fame.
I'm not talking about it.
I'm not talking about it.
Well, Bill, but I'll but I'll talk about it, Bill.
No, no, no.
Oh, great.
Turn a mic off.
So, Bill, oh, good grief.
Here we go.
So you set this call up, didn't you?
I would never do that.
No, she didn't want to hear this rage.
Jason maybe let her on the show a little more, and maybe you can call it the uh Linda Lawrence Sean show, but nope, it was on me.
Lauren you hear Lauren laughing in the background.
Lauren doesn't talk.
Lauren just kind of sits there.
She's quiet as a mouse.
I tried.
It took forever to get a cell there, buddy.
Well, Linda never shuts up since the day I met her for crying out loud.
I don't like public.
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.
All right.
You can cast your vote.
You can text Hannity to 36500 36500.
It's free.
Don't waste your money.
You know, check with your check with your, you know, local.
Don't waste your money.
You're wherever you subscribe, Ryzen ATT, make sure your local rates apply.
I can't get into all that legal lease, but look it up, make sure, find out if you can afford to uh 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 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 uh Durham.
Scott is next.
What's up, Scott?
How are you?
Hey, Sean.
Thanks for taking my call.
I um just wanted to give you a uh call shout out, uh, and just to uh let you know on a lot of your discussions regarding uh the abuse of um citizens within the Muslim um countries that how they're treated if they're they're non-believers and and and how they uh perceive.
I have a uh physician colleague who uh is a Syrian descent, grew up in Kuwaiti from a pretty well to do family, and uh I've worked with him for the last four years on a day-to-day basis.
We talked about the just the general chit chat.
Never once have we ever discussed religion or political views from from any means.
We got about thirty seconds, so make your point.
I I'm interested in what you're saying.
This individual came to me this past Monday and literally shut my door and he he broke down and crying.
He said, I just want you to know he said my whole my whole life from time that I grew up, I was taught that that Islam, if you are a non-believer as a Muslim, you you know, you should be killed.
And he basically verified everything that uh you've been telling individuals and people deny it, that's from the San Bernardino to France to Belgium, oh, and and now Orlando.
Listen, I let me say this in response, and I 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 gotta be, or we're gonna lose our country like Europe is being lost before our eyes.
