Sean Hannity Show - Hillary's Russian Ties - 8.1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:32:01

Hillary's Russian Ties - 8.1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast.
	You know, attention to detail is critical when you own your own business, so use legalzoom.com for the legal details.
	Now, their network of independent attorneys licensed in 48 states.
	Well, they know local laws and can provide answers to your legal questions.
	LegalZoom.com is not a law firm, so you won't pay by the hour.
	Just use Hannity One when you check out and save even more.
	LegalZoom.com.
	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.
	All right, happy Monday.
	So much to get to today, so much to talk about.
	The most underreported story of the day, I bet you didn't even hear this yet.
	Is you know, WikiLeaks Julian Assange has now said that the next leak that he will make will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
	I have gone back.
	He's never been wrong, not one time.
	We also have an investigative report today from our friend Peter Schweitzer, author of the best-selling book and now movie Clinton Cash.
	He's got an article from Breitbart today.
	Why did Hillary Clinton State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?
	Wait till you hear this corrupt story.
	I mean, it's unbelievable.
	While she's Secretary of State, it's the same old quid pro quo.
	The money funneled back through speeches to Bill while she's Secretary of State.
	Oh, and by the way, companies, big Silicon Valley tech companies, are literally handing over technology that could be used for dual use, what they call dual-use technology.
	In other words, military as well.
	So we'll break that story open with Peter Schweitzer in the course of the program today.
	And so much more.
	Bad news on the economy.
	You know, this is now, we told you last week, the lowest, the lowest number in terms of home ownership percentage of the population in 51 years.
	Seven years now into the eighth year of Obama, the so-called recovery is the weakest since the 1940s.
	Manufacturing in July, we got new numbers out today at a slower pace than we've had in a long, long time.
	In other words, zero growth, zero movement, and you have a doubling of our national debt to show for it.
	I mean, I'll get into all of this in the course today.
	I want to start with the media coverage of this Khazir Khan issue, Kizra Khan issue, whatever his first name is.
	I saw the speech.
	I feel sorry for the guy.
	Anybody that loses their son, his son literally stepped out, saved people's lives.
	He is a hero in every way.
	And I bet most of you don't know that Donald Trump said he is a hero.
	Not by the way, the media is covering this story.
	The media, and here's the fascinating part of this.
	And I have to go back to 2007 and 8, and I have to go back to my prediction that journalism in America is dead, that the news media is dead, that they don't do their job.
	My frequent comments that the number one donator, the number one donation to the Hillary Clinton campaign will be the mainstream media.
	If you noticed all weekend, the very same media, not me, the liberal mainstream media, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, that ignored Pat Smith's speech at the Republican convention.
	That ignored the speeches of mothers that lost their children to illegal immigration.
	In other words, in most cases, we have illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, usually pretty horrific, sent to jail after their prison terms, just released back into the general population.
	And these women then lost their children.
	I had on this program those women last week.
	I had on my TV show those women last week.
	I had on Pat Smith last week.
	In other words, while they're ignoring it, not covering their speeches, this is now an obsession.
	It shows where their hearts and their souls are in the course of this election.
	And they're all in now.
	They're all invested in this 100-day run-up to this general election campaign.
	And, you know, here you have a mother in the case of Pat Smith, where she literally accuses Hillary of lying to her about her son's death with the casket of her son a few feet away from her.
	And these same reporters just can't get enough of Khazir Khan and his attacks on Donald Trump.
	Now, this whole dust up with Kazir Khan has gotten all the headlines.
	Some are beginning to wonder why equal time isn't being given to Hillary Clinton, who has challenged Pat Smith's claims that Clinton told her the Benghazi attack started because of an anti-Muslim video.
	And Hillary, like she always does, deflected and lies when she was on Fox News Sunday this Sunday with Chris Wallace.
	And the father of Tyrone Woods both say that on the day that their sons' bodies were returned to the United States, that you came up to them and you said it was all because of a video, not terrorism.
	Now, I know some of the other families disagree with this, and I know you deny it.
	My question is, why would they make that up?
	Chris, my heart goes out to both of them.
	Losing a child under any circumstances, especially in this case, two State Department employees, extraordinary men, both of them, two CIA contractors, gave their lives protecting our country, our values.
	I understand the grief and the incredible sense of loss that can motivate that.
	As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, it's not what they heard.
	I don't hold any ill feeling for someone who, in that moment, may not fully recall everything that was or wasn't said.
	Basically saying these parents of dead children are liars.
	Now, who's saying this?
	A woman that we know lies with regularity.
	A woman that we know in this particular instance.
	While simultaneously telling the American people this was related to a YouTube video, we now know that this is all on videotape.
	I've interviewed Jason Chavitz.
	He's confirmed it.
	I've interviewed all of these other people.
	They've confirmed it.
	They were live streaming what was obviously to anybody who has seen it, and I've talked to people who have, that this was a terror attack.
	She told her own daughter it was a terror attack.
	She told the Libyan president it was a terror attack.
	She told the Egyptian prime minister it was a terrorist attack.
	And the only people that she told otherwise was the rest of us.
	In other words, the American people, all of you were lied to in the course of all of this.
	So the question then becomes: well, why is Pat Smith's grief being minimized here?
	You know, if you look at the media, they cover this election as a referendum on Trump, and voters really see it the right way, that this is a referendum on Hillary, and that that's not going to change voters' perspective.
	You've got some people, town hall, have we forgotten that Hillary Clinton pretty much called a gold star mother a liar?
	Well, that's what she did even this weekend.
	I know she didn't remember it right.
	I know.
	We know she lied.
	We have the evidence that she lied.
	I'll give you another - you want to know what the liar did also?
	I'm watching this with amazement.
	So we played for you many times, Trey Gowdy, and he was grilling James Comey.
	And in the course, James Comey, remember, he did the entire investigation.
	And in the investigation, when Trey Gowdy had a chance to question James Comey on every excuse Hillary gave to the email server scandal issue, James Comey confirmed she lied.
	Listen.
	I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
	Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email.
	Was that true?
	Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
	So it was not true.
	But I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
	Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received.
	Was that true?
	That's not true.
	There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.
	I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified.
	Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
	There is no classified material.
	Was that true?
	There was classified material emailed.
	People across the government knew that I used one device.
	Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
	Secretary Clinton said she used just one device.
	Was that true?
	She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
	But we turned over everything that was work-related.
	Every single thing.
	Personal stuff, we did not.
	I had no obligation to do so and did not.
	Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department.
	Was that true?
	No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.
	All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate.
	Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive.
	Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
	No.
	How can we possibly, how corrupt can the media in this country be that they forget a proven liar again and again and again and take her word over the word of a grieving mother and then ignore that story as much as they have and then try to blow This up, let me tell you how big they've blown this thing up into.
	If you look at what's his name, Khazra Khan, the father of this soldier that bravely, courageously served his country and gave his life.
	This is not what this debate is about.
	We honor him.
	It's not about banning Muslims.
	It is about protecting Americans and American security.
	And when you have the FBI director, CIA director, assistant FBI director, director of national intelligence, former special envoy to defeat ISIS, and you have the House Homeland Security Committee chair saying, just like Belgium and France and Germany and Europe in general, that ISIS and terrorists will infiltrate the refugee population, it is a massive issue.
	But if you Google the terms, now Pat Smith, Gold Star mom, has been out there three years.
	I've interviewed him many, many times.
	You compare the coverage, go Google it.
	Pat Smith, Benghazi, you get 384,000 hits.
	If you do a search of Khuzra Khan and Trump, you get 491,000.
	That's 100,000 stories per day because it's only been five days that this has been in the news.
	Don't tell me the media in this country does not have an agenda.
	Don't tell me that they're fair, balanced, and objective because it's a lie.
	This is the single biggest donation that Hillary Clinton will get in this election cycle.
	And by the way, how exactly did Donald Trump attack Mrs. Khan?
	Which is now the latest argument, which I suppose at this point is probably sacrilegious, but can somebody explain to me exactly did Donald Trump attack his wife?
	I don't think so.
	I've searched high and low.
	The only comment that I can find that Trump actually directed towards Mrs. Khan was about her silence during her husband's convention speech.
	By the way, it does raise quite well, you know, why didn't the father speak out in 04?
	And here's another point nobody in the media is going to bring up.
	And it's a fair point whether they like to hear it or not.
	Because wasn't it Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq war, the war in which his son was killed?
	Look, I do not want to put salt in the wound of a gold star parent.
	I just don't.
	It's against my nature.
	I just, I have too much honor and support.
	He is now putting himself into a political arena here.
	Donald Trump did not support that conflict or that war in spite of this minutiae that people pulled out of the Howard Stern show, which didn't say he supported the war, if you listen to the whole thing.
	But what this really seems to be about is politics and a political agenda and a media that is running with it.
	And he pulls out his Constitution and he tells Donald Trump to read it.
	And, you know, well, this guy is an immigration lawyer.
	Does anybody know that?
	So I assume that on issues involving the vetting of refugees and Trump's general comments about radical Islam, not Islam, radical Islam, and vetting refugees and building a wall and immigration and people that want to come to this country, he has a political grievance with Donald Trump.
	And in that sense, he specifically focused on EV visas, a special category in which rich foreigners can essentially buy a visa by promising to invest in a certain amount of money.
	So is it possible that this is all about politics here?
	I do not want to discuss somebody else.
	And then George Stephanopoulos picks up the narrative and runs, Mr. Trump, what sacrifices have you made?
	Oh, okay.
	Well, ask the same thing of Hillary, George.
	The same woman that you said is fierce and has a volcanic temper and berates people like you.
	And you still do the bidding for her.
	I don't know.
	The media hypocrisy here is on full display.
	You know, if Khuzra Khan says that Donald Trump has a black soul, then it's now the focus forever.
	You know, but meanwhile, if you look at CNN, they broke away from speakers that spoke out against illegal immigration that lost loved ones.
	Why is that?
	People that I interviewed, Sabine Durden, Mary Ann Mendoza, Jamil Shaw, why aren't their stories highlighted?
	What has Hillary Clinton done to help them?
	This double standard is so nauseating to me.
	It gets very frustrating, but it is what this is the campaign.
	You've got to understand, this is the hand any Republican is dealt, any conservative is dealt by a media that is abusively biased, like this one.
	You need to take control of your family and assets.
	Now, it sounds like common sense, but too many people procrastinate instead of getting an estate plan before it's too late.
	Now, with LegalZoom.com, there's no reason to put it off any longer.
	Now, you don't have to figure out on your own whether you need a will or a living trust and what's best for you.
	Instead, you work with an independent attorney, now available in 48 states.
	Now, they'll walk you through your options and recommend an estate plan that offers the best solution to fit your needs.
	And since LegalZoom is not a law firm, well, you can count on efficiency and value.
	Everything is on your schedule, your terms, plus you know what your estate plan bundle costs up front instead of worrying about high hourly rates.
	Now, that's how LegalZoom has become the leader in helping families with their legal needs.
	You get the legal help and you walk away feeling great about it.
	So don't leave the most important decisions that you can make in the hands of other people.
	Take control of your family's future with an estate plan bundle at legalzoom.com today.
	Just use Hannity1 when you check out and save even more, legalzoom.com.
	Claris Feldman writes for the American Thinker.
	The headline is, who is Khuzra Khan, the father of this fallen U.S. soldier?
	Well, he indied in Iraq, by the way.
	And as we have said, and even Trump has said this, that he honors his service and his patriotism and the sacrifice of his son in a war that he did not support.
	Hillary did.
	And we are a grateful nation, and we really are.
	It is a sad, tragic thing that so many have had to die.
	And if you look at the gains of all of our military, especially in Iraq, it breaks my heart.
	We better revisit any military commitment in the future in light of the politicizing of war that we have allowed now to go on for way too long.
	58,000 dead in Vietnam, we pull out.
	Over 5,000 dead, Iraq, Afghanistan, and what happens?
	The very ground they fought, bled, and died for and sacrificed their lives for, our national treasure died for, ends up in the hands of ISIS because the war ends up politicized by people like Hillary and Barack Obama.
	And they go in there, and even though every admonition is given to them, don't pull out early and give back these gains.
	Between drawing a red line in the sand against President Assad in Syria, not following through after he did use weapons of mass destruction against his own people, that created a vacuum for ISIS to grow.
	And giving up cities like to Crete, Fallusha, Mosul, Ramadi, and others allowed ISIS to gain a foothold and the financing through oil to advance their terror goals, their caliphate.
	But I think it also needs to be pointed out that Donald Trump's not running against Mr. Khan.
	He's running against Hillary Clinton, who did vote for the war.
	And when Mr. Khan goes out there and tries to politicize this whole thing, you got to understand and say, well, Trump hasn't sacrificed anything for America.
	At least he created more jobs than Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton ever have.
	He didn't enrich himself the way the Clintons have from countries like Saudi Arabia that practice rigid Sharia law with their horrible human rights record and treatment of women and gays and lesbians and Christians and Jews.
	Okay, what has Hillary and Bill Clinton sacrificed?
	How much money do they get paid per hour per speech?
	At the time, even when Hillary is Secretary of State cashing in, we'll get to that later in the next hour with Peter Schweitzer.
	You know, Bill lied to draft to Bill lied to the draft board.
	He dodged the war in Vietnam.
	And while they have been mostly in the public employ the last 30 years, they have amassed hundreds of millions of dollars for both their foundation and to enrich themselves.
	That's hardly a sacrifice by the Clintons.
	Anyway, back to Clarice Feldman.
	You know, anyway, she did a little investigation here.
	And so anyway, she looked up and Googled the law practice of Mr. Khan.
	And it shows that his law office is on Madison Avenue.
	And she then says she called over and was surprised he didn't have a D.C. telephone number.
	So I called back to check, was told by the man that answered that it was not Kisra Khan's office.
	The man answered would not tell me whose office it was, she writes.
	So I did more digging, and I learned that that is also the phone number of a group called American Muslims Vote, which says that their mission is to, quote, create an enlightened community by providing and developing patriotic American Muslim leadership and encouraging American Muslims to participate in the democratic process at the local, state, national level and vote on Election Day.
	And then she searched the domain name, and in fact, it was Kisra Khan who registered it back in July of 2016.
	So in other words, what is being said and suggested here is that it seems very similar to Cindy Sheehan from her perspective.
	In other words, to advance a political agenda.
	And in other words, in that goal, you know, the media is fully cooperating and endorsing and supporting everything that is said, which shouldn't surprise anybody because that's what Democrats often do.
	Now, I want to go back to another point here, because I think this is very important.
	The Khans are not.
	When Donald Trump talks about vetting refugees, I go back to a point I've made often.
	And you need not look any further than Belgium or Germany or France or other parts of Europe where all these refugees were taken in and people were murdered and terror attacks occurred and there were numerous rapes and other stories one after another.
	Germany had, what, four in eight days or six and ten days attacks and it turns out every time that it's a refugee.
	Those are the people that Donald Trump is talking about.
	Those are the people if somebody grows up under Sharia that Donald Trump is saying must be vetted before they come into America.
	In other words, he has always been talking about people here illegally, or he's been referring to our National Director of Intelligence, CIA, FBI director, assistant FBI director, former special envoy to defeat ISIS, and the House Homeland Security Committee chair that says that these terror groups will infiltrate the refugee population.
	Terrorists are coming through the borders.
	Obama has decided to take in 10,000 refugees.
	I don't know how you ascertain whether or not somebody that is well-trained by ISIS is trying to infiltrate that population, especially when we have other options that are available to us, like setting up safe zones where we provide food and medicine and supplies and baby formula and cots and blankets and whatever people need, and even the military assistance to keep the Syrian refugees safe.
	So that has not been the people that Trump is against.
	And the Democrats, you know, literally trying to turn this into something that from the beginning is disingenuous and misleading.
	And that's Trump's position on the issue.
	And the Democrats use people all the time.
	This is what they do.
	And they twist the narrative to something that it never was.
	Every election year, Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic.
	They hate clean air and clean water, want your children to die homeless and hungry, and they want to throw your grandmother over a cliff.
	This is it.
	This is a moment.
	And this is the media rushing to their offense and advancing this false narrative as if Donald Trump, when he talked about a temporary ban to we can vet people, somehow was talking about the cons.
	No, that's not who he ever was talking about.
	You know, this is not Trump.
	I don't understand how this, you know, and then you look at the narrative.
	In five days, Kisra Khan has gotten more coverage than Pat Smith has gotten by a corrupt media in three years.
	They ignored, for the most part, the death of her son.
	Donald Trump did not attack his wife, just asked why she didn't speak.
	All right, well, that sounds to me a little bit like poor Rick Lazio walking over during a debate and handing Hillary Clinton a piece of paper.
	You would think it was the most sexist thing that had ever happened.
	You know, and you've got Mr. Khan out there telling CNN that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.
	That is false.
	That is Hillary Clinton's narrative.
	That is Obama's narrative.
	That is a political narrative.
	Because in the name of the Quran, in the name of Islam, the strict interpretation of the Quran, Hadith, etc., this is where, this is what is cited by radicals to commit the most atrocious things possible.
	And I can tell you another thing.
	And I think this is, and more Muslims are being killed by these groups than anybody.
	It's to protect every American.
	Anyway, so Mike Pensimpudy's, he's weighed in on this.
	But if you're traveling to the United States from countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, yeah, we've got to have a vetting process that keeps Americans safe.
	Every country should be doing this.
	It's common sense.
	This is what every top national intelligence official in this country has warned us about.
	This is what is unfolding every single solitary day in Europe.
	So Trump's message is dead on accurate.
	This is a very dangerous world.
	This is a real war being waged against us by people that have no compunctions about cutting off your head and bombing innocent men, women, and children in shopping malls or anywhere else.
	These are people that are at war with us.
	And what I think is happening politically here is they have kind of Trying to divide or blur the lines here between the targeting of violent Muslim extremists, which Donald Trump has never spoken, has only spoken about, and not average, everyday Muslims that are freely practicing their faith.
	And the media is purposely distorting this.
	Now, I think it is essential for your security and your family's security that we vet anybody coming from anywhere into this country.
	And if we can't ascertain what's in people's hearts, we better be careful and not make the same mistakes that Europe has made, because you'll have the same predictable results.
	You'll have a terror attack a day, people dying every other day.
	And that's what's going to happen here.
	And that's what Trump is trying to prevent.
	You know, but Trump should have, in that sense, recognize and made the distinction, perhaps a little louder.
	Maybe you can criticize, but that's not the point.
	That does not justify the media's purposeful distortion, manipulation, and propaganda of the entire issue.
	The entire issue.
	And it is what they get.
	This is what the Clintons get from the media.
	They get false narratives being advanced to the point where it is never going to end now, probably in terms of the media coverage of all of this and the hypocrisy of an abusively biased media is on full display.
	What is the backstory here?
	This is in the American Thinker by Byron York.
	Khan's speech wasn't a finely detailed case, but he suggested that Trump's Muslim ban and Mexican border wall proposals are unconstitutional, which, by the way, they are not.
	Neither one is.
	Specifically, Khan cited the word liberty and equal protection of the law in suggesting that Trump and his policies violate the Constitution.
	Ellen Toplansky writes that the American Thinker, but in fact, there's simply no sense in which border wall violates the Constitution.
	None.
	There's nothing unconstitutional about deporting people in this country illegally.
	And Byron York emphasizes, as far as the Muslim ban is concerned, Trump amended his proposal to focus on immigration from countries that are compromised by terrorism, which, by the way, I thought was clear from the beginning, but he needed to extra clarify for the sake of stupid media people.
	And that's why he said what he said.
	And moreover, Trump reiterated: Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero.
	But this is about radical Islamic terror.
	Why doesn't the media report that?
	And the weakness of our leaders to eradicate it.
	According to Walid Shubat and Theodore Shubat, who bet on his programs, I know you say Shabbat.
	That's what I call him.
	Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia and co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues of Muslim Law, Sharia.
	I'm just beginning to dig into this.
	We'll find out.
	You all know by tonight when I get on TV.
	But anyway, there are two people that I've found to be very credible in the past, and they're saying that he wrote the material for the Muslim Youth Movement in Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihad.
	So we've got to find out if that's true and see if there's going to be egg on the face of the mainstream media before all this is said and done.
	This story's not over.
	And by the way, remember, as you hear Trump talk about securing our borders and you hear him talk about vetting people from countries with radicalism, well, don't forget at this current moment, the FBI is investigating over a thousand cases in our country of ISIS suspects being here.
	Well, maybe you think your state of Idaho or your state of Hawaii is safe.
	All 50 states are now part of an investigation.
	And if you want to talk about discriminating against religion, well, I can, I got some facts and figures.
	Later on, Peter Poole of PJ Media will be with us.
	I'm sorry, Patrick Poole of not Peter, Patrick Poole of PJ Media.
	He says his headline today is the Obama administration already discriminates against Syrian refugees on the basis of religion.
	And he points out that of the 6,877 Syrian refugees that have arrived in 2016 through July 31st, oh, of 6,834 of the 6,877 are identified as Sunni, Muslim, Shia, Muslim, or generic Muslim.
	0.7% of refugees are non-Muslim.
	This is at a time where there's real persecution and, frankly, a Holocaust that has been going on against Christians.
	That we've pointed out, how many times have we had Nahrain and Waya on this program crying, begging America for help because Christians are being slaughtered every single solitary day?
	We don't bring those people into the country.
	No.
	A thousand active ISIS probes.
	Donald Trump wants to keep you safe.
	Donald Trump didn't talk about Mr. Connor or his son, nor was he talking about people like Mr. Khan or his son.
	By the way, the new WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, this weekend, the next leak on Hillary will lead to her arrest.
	A new WikiLeaks email shows Hillary may have sent arms, the Daily Wire is reporting, to ISIS.
	Weapons flowing over to Syria being pushed by Hillary Clinton and the jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that there's in those emails.
	All right, hang on.
	I got to tell.
	Hey, baby doll.
	It's my daughter.
	How are you?
	I'm in the middle of radio.
	Can you wait two minutes?
	I have to tell my audience one thing and then I'll get right to you, okay?
	Is that okay?
	All right, you stay right there.
	I love you too.
	Yes.
	All right, hang on.
	I'm sorry.
	I got to.
	What are you supposed to do?
	I'm in the middle of work.
	My daughter.
	Am I not supposed to pick up the phone?
	I have to pick up the phone.
	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 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.
	In a congressional hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public.
	Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received.
	Was that true?
	That's not true.
	Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
	There is no classified material.
	Was that true?
	There was classified material emailed.
	He directly contradicted what you said.
	Let me just.
	He not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.
	Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is, number one, I made a mistake not using two different email addresses.
	I have said that, and I repeat it again today.
	It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.
	I take classification seriously.
	I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked.
	And so in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, well, among those 300 people, they made the wrong call.
	At the time, there was no reason, in my view, to doubt the professionalism and the determination by the people who work every single day on behalf of our country.
	How do you lie to the FBI and now you're running for president?
	Seriously.
	How do you lie to the FBI and now you're running for president?
	How does that happen?
	Right?
	Ah.
	You know what?
	I've been saying, I've been saying, let's just beat her on November 8th.
	But you know what?
	No.
	You know what?
	I'm starting to agree with you.
	I'll tell you.
	Tired.
	Tired of saying.
	You know, it's interesting.
	Every time I mention her, everyone screams, lock her up, lock her up, lock her up.
	They keep screaming.
	And you know what I do?
	I've been nice.
	But after watching that performance last night, such lies.
	I don't have to be so nice anymore.
	I'm taking the gloves off, right?
	Yes?
	Take the gloves off.
	Take the gloves, right?
	Taking the gloves off.
	Just remember this.
	Trump is going to be no more Mr. Nice Guy.
	All right, there you have our top stories of the day.
	So much going on today.
	That was Donald Trump.
	Now even the Washington Post acknowledges the four big Pinocchio lies of Hillary on the email server.
	Even after Comey called her out on it, she's still denying it.
	The underreported story of the day, which is Julian Assange saying that the next leak will lead to Hillary Clinton's arrest.
	And of course, in five days, the coverage of Kazir Khan has received more coverage than Pat Smith has in three years, a gold star mother.
	And so many other points about that.
	Now, we also have some polling data we want to share with you today.
	If you look at the Real Clear Politics Average, it's dead even at 40.2 for Clinton, 40.2 for Trump.
	One shock poll in the Reuters poll, the L.A. Times poll, rather.
	Hillary Clinton only won one day in the month of July, just one.
	You see that there's a lot of third-party support beginning to emerge and so much more.
	But anyway, here to go over a lot of these latest poll numbers and what they mean and how to interpret them.
	We have Kelly Ann Conway is back with us.
	She's the founder and president of the polling company.
	John McLaughlin, pollster, founder of McLaughlin and Associates.
	Welcome both of you to the show.
	Great to be here.
	Hi, Sean.
	You know, I would always expect a bump in the rate in any, it doesn't matter how badly a campaign, a convention goes, you always kind of expect a bump.
	Do you see one here, Kellyanne?
	Sure.
	And it's just not breaking news.
	I mean, if you think about the Daily Caller piece that came out today, Sean, where an objective content analysis of media coverage of the two parties' convention, the coverage of the Republican convention was, quote, 12 times more negative than coverage of the Democratic convention.
	So her bounce should be like 20 points.
	She should have 65% of women.
	She should have all kinds of independents.
	And she just doesn't.
	I mean, as her convention went on, sure, she gets a bunch, a bump from having a four-day love fest with the mainstream media.
	But at the same time, she's just not able to put Donald Trump away in a fashion that one would think could happen to someone who has every advantage, all the King's horses, all the King's men, their money, two presidents supporting her, the whole mainstream media.
	And why?
	Because as she took the stage on Thursday night, 68% of Americans said they did not find her honest or trustworthy.
	58% said she's corrupt.
	We never even asked the word corrupt in presidential polling before she was a candidate.
	Yeah, what's your take on this, John?
	I think in the beginning, I was a skeptic because Kellyanne and I both worked together to help Mr. Trump and help the campaign.
	But going into the convention, I didn't think there would be a bounce either way because they both still had high negatives that they were trying to get rid of.
	Donald Trump actually got a bounce coming out of the convention that, to me, was unexpected.
	But in a lot of the media polls, whether it was the NBC had him ahead, CNN had him ahead, Reuters had him ahead, but then they adjusted the numbers because somebody got to them.
	It was like bizarre.
	And, you know, it was like a do-over.
	Oh, you can't have Trump ahead, so we'll have to show them tight or something like that.
	But he got a bounce out of it.
	And now they're trying to take it away.
	And Kellyanne's exactly right.
	The media is very negative, and people know it.
	When you ask the voters, you know, if they're fair and unbiased or they unfair and biased against Donald Trump, two to one, they'll tell you that they're unfair and biased against Trump.
	Well, I can give you some evidence about that.
	The media is obsessed with Mr. Khan, and I feel sorry that he lost his son, but that's a war that Hillary supported and not a war that Donald Trump supported.
	Just as a side note here, but if you want to talk about media bias, at the convention, there was 20 to 25 percent more coverage on the major networks and CNN and MSNBC than when Donald Trump's convention took place.
	And add to that, for example, if you compare and contrast gold star moms and dads, I mean, you have Pat Smith, who I've interviewed many, many times.
	She's been out there three years, and they have already, in five days, given this guy Khan more coverage than Pat Smith has gotten since she first went public in 2013 after talking about her son who died in Benghazi.
	So how do you interpret that?
	Absolutely.
	And the thing is, and Hillary Clinton, as you have repeated and shown over and over again, she lied.
	She lied right to the poor woman's face when they were bringing the body back.
	And you're right.
	It doesn't get the coverage that it's sad that they lost their son, but the media bias is showing.
	And I think Kellyanne was on this exact point is Trump had more viewers than Clinton when she gave her.
	By a number of million.
	Right.
	And 30 million people watched his speech.
	And he did really well because he was able to talk to the voters directly.
	And now he's gotten this bump, and they're outraged by this bump that has shown in the polls, so they're trying to take it away.
	But people wake up to the media bias, and it's going to be a close race.
	And Trump should win because I still think there's that hidden vote for Trump where it's not so hidden to us pollsters like Kellyanne or myself.
	When you see people and you ask them the country's on the wrong track, yep, 70% will tell you they're on the wrong track.
	And they're waiting to hear Trump's message so that they can vote for him.
	And the message of change really worked for Trump at his convention, so much so that when Bill Clinton gave his speech at the Democrat convention for Hillary, they were calling her a change maker, and they had this spontaneous demonstration of signs showing that she was a changemaker they just happened to have printed up that day.
	But I don't think that's going to sell at all to the American public.
	There's a couple of things.
	If you go back to the first interview, the media keeps this narrative alive that Donald Trump attacked Mr. Khan.
	But if you go back to the initial interview, he said that Khan seemed like a nice man, only expressed surprise as to why Mrs. Khan didn't speak.
	And as a champion of women, and et cetera, et cetera, Mr. Trump wanted and hoped to hear from her as well.
	And there is a question: why didn't he bring this up in 2004 if that was the defining issue for him?
	And it's not about politics.
	He waves the Constitution around.
	And my reading of the Constitution says nothing about immigration doesn't apply to foreigners.
	I know people get offended by that.
	And on top of that, you know, is it possible that Khan's frustration, at least in part here, is because of immigration and his position on some of the issues.
	Kellyanne.
	Well, yes, Sean, and I listen, I echo, as has Mr. Trump and Governor Pence, condolences to the Khan family and gratitude for Captain Khan's heroic service.
	That's beyond reproach.
	But what the media are trying to do here is make this a fight between Donald Trump and the Khan family when it's really a fight about Trump versus Hillary Clinton on defeating radical Islamic terrorism.
	What happened on Thursday night?
	Hillary Clinton still refused to say the word.
	She talked forever, it seemed like forever, and yet couldn't squeeze in their radical Islamic terrorists.
	Do you know how she referred to them?
	She referred to them as our quote determined enemies.
	She's determined enemies.
	That's like somebody you're playing in the lacrosse game.
	They're not determined enemies.
	They're savage murderers.
	And the growth and birth of ISIS happened on her watch as Secretary of State.
	So they just want this to be a sympathetic family versus Donald Trump.
	And we have to understand that Donald Trump and Governor Pence are very strong for the veterans, for the soldiers, and that we need to get back to the larger issue here while expressing condolences to the Khan family, rightly so, that this is, you know, who can actually defeat those who here on our soil and abroad, America's interest, allies, and Americans themselves are being slaughtered by people who Hillary Clinton will not name.
	This is my point.
	I said in 2007 and 2008, Kellyanne, journalism in America is dead.
	And I appreciate the story of Mr. Khan, the pain that he and his family have gone through.
	And you're right, our thoughts and condolences go out to them.
	But as far as the media goes, how do you justify more coverage for him in five days than Pat Smith in three years if they don't have an agenda that they're trying to advance?
	So to me.
	And look, part of it is a class issue.
	You know, the media did not like Pat Smith and her message.
	She's on the wrong team.
	And may I just add another group to this conversation, Sean?
	What about the three parents of murdered children who were murdered by illegal immigrants?
	They gave very moving speeches at the Republican National Committee that some of the outlets didn't even cover.
	They had their pundits on, pontificating about who had said what and what Trump will say three days later.
	They didn't even show they broke away, and then they're critical of Fox not taking all the Democratic Convention.
	But that's a good point.
	Now, I did interview these parents, and I have yet to hear any.
	I would not be surprised.
	As a matter of fact, many of them have been critical to me about Hillary and Obama and their views on immigration and feel that if the law was upheld as it should be and the president didn't bypass the laws of the land and turn the Constitution on its head, that they in fact would have certainly been paid attention to a lot more.
	And if the media wasn't corrupt, you know, John, I think the most fascinating underreported story of the day, though, is that Julian Assange is saying that the next leak will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
	Right.
	And that's, by the way, among political operatives, all the gossip was about when this first broke.
	You know, and Assange, I think he's also got a bit of a history where Clinton, you know, there's been issues between him and Clinton in the past when she was Secretary of State and they were leaking some different things.
	So clearly a target for him that he'd like to embarrass, but that doesn't get as much play.
	You know, they really don't, you know, they thought it was great when that guy was leaking out all the stuff about, you know, U.S. secrets.
	But now it's now when it's about her.
	It's like, oh, we've got to get the FBI.
	But what's interesting among the operatives, what they're all speculating is, what are they going to drop in October?
	What does he have and what does he know about Hillary Clinton that could be dropped in October that would embarrass him?
	By the way, he's not somebody that has bluffed before.
	No.
	He's somebody that has delivered every single time he said he would.
	Right.
	And only Hillary Clinton knows in her, you know, wherever what's on her server and what, you know, maybe James Comey knows too, but we'll find out, I'm sure in short order.
	Yeah, I think so.
	What do you think, Kellyanne, on this?
	I took that.
	If I'm Hillary's campaign, I'm scared to death right now.
	No, you have to be scared to death.
	It's exactly why the media and the campaign are trying to fill the air with so much poison about Trump so that you drive his numbers down so that when all of the truth serum comes out about the content of her campaign's emails and we see cash exchanged or favors done or just complete insults towards other members of Congress or to Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, I think you'll see plenty of that.
	But here's the problem for her, Sean.
	Anytime Hillary Clinton cannot legitimately blame the vast right-wing conspiracy for her woes, she runs into a huge roadblock.
	Look what happened in the primary.
	Bernie Sanders won 22 or 23 states, millions of voters, none of whom could be legitimately called part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
	The same thing's going to happen with the email.
	Same thing happened last week at the DNC, email leaks, which is, by the way, not even leaks, revelations.
	Let's be clear.
	She can't turn around and blame her, quote, political enemies.
	These are unforced errors coming from within, and I think that could sink her.
	All right, guys, thank you both for being with us.
	We appreciate a lot more to come today.
	At the bottom of the hour, Peter Schweitzer, he has now uncovered the ties to Russia with Hillary that helped them funnel more money.
	And the same nation that is presumed to be responsible for the DNC email hack, where do you hear this story?
	A report from Russia with money, Hillary Clinton, and the Russian reset and cronyism.
	We'll give you the details when we get back.
	As president, would you hand Vladimir Putin a reset button?
	Well, it would depend upon what I got for it.
	And I can tell you what we got in the first term.
	We got a new start treaty to reduce nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia.
	We got permission to resupply our troops in Afghanistan by traveling across Russia.
	We got Russia to sign on to our sanctions against Iran and other very important commitments.
	So, look, in diplomacy, you are always trying to see how you can figure out the interests of the other to see if there isn't some way you can advance your security and your values.
	When Putin came back in the fall of 2011, it was very clear he came back with a mission.
	And I began speaking out as soon as that happened because there were some fraudulent elections held and Russians poured out into the streets to demand their freedom.
	And he cracked down and, in fact, accused me of fomenting it.
	So we now know that he has a mixed record, to say the least, and we have to figure out how to deal with him.
	What's your relationship with him?
	Well, my relationship with him, It's interesting.
	It's one, I think, of respect.
	We've had some very tough dealings with one another.
	And I know that he's someone that you have to continually stand up to because, like many bullies, he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can unless you do.
	All right, that was Hillary Clinton in the third debate.
	Yeah, so she cites the reset.
	She cites the START treaty.
	The START Treaty was one-sided.
	In other words, we get rid of all of our weapons, and then we're at parity.
	It was so stupid.
	We're less safe, less secure as a result of that.
	Oh, okay, they let us resupply our troops in Afghanistan.
	We didn't need their help to do that.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah, well, he supported sanctions against Iran.
	Well, we now know that Hillary was the one that began the negotiations with Adolph Jr. Ahmadinejad while she was Secretary of State, which was the worst.
	That's the $150 billion deal that gave everything to the Iranians.
	Why wouldn't he support that?
	Now, the big news of the day that is underreported, as I've been saying all day, is Julian Assange now saying that the next leak on Hillary will lead to her arrest.
	This follows a lot of news that has come out today.
	We have Peter Schweitzer, Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large.
	Why did Hillary State Department urge U.S. investors to find Russian research for military uses?
	That's one of many, many columns today.
	But here to explain all of this is the man himself, Peter Schweitzer, author of the best-selling book and now a movie, Clinton Cash.
	How are you, sir?
	Hey, I'm great, Sean.
	How are you?
	The untold story of how and why foreign governments and businesses help make Bill and Hillary rich.
	Okay, let's get into this.
	I want you to just explain it as plainly as possible so anybody can get it.
	But first, what do you make of Julian Assange and his comments that what he releases next will lead to her arrest?
	Well, I would say, Sean, I'm intrigued.
	You know, Julian Assange has had access to information, seems to indicate he's got access to the email.
	So I would love to see what the contents are.
	You know, in this particular case, what we're talking about is the Russian reset.
	And Hillary Clinton was the point person on the Russian reset.
	And the idea was kind of simple.
	You know, similar to what happened during the Cold War, to get better relations with Russia, we're going to have technological and economic cooperation.
	And at the ground zero for the Russians on this, it's they wanted to create their equivalent of the Silicon Valley, something called Skokovo.
	Now, unlike ours, this was going to be government-run and all the things that you would expect.
	But Hillary Clinton's job, and she signed up for this and wanted to do this, was to recruit American high-tech companies to invest money and technology into Skokovo in the hopes of furthering greater cooperation between Russia and the United States.
	How does she benefit herself?
	Well, so, you know, this is a formula where you bring U.S. companies in to cooperate, and there are certain companies in Russia that are of the Russian part of this equation that are also participating.
	And guess what?
	A large majority of them are Clinton Foundation donors.
	So of the 28 American companies that participate in Skocovo, 17 of them are major Clinton Foundation donors.
	On the Russian side, you have Russian oligarchs.
	You have the guy who runs something called the nuclear cluster at Skocovo that's doing research on nuclear-related issues that are also Clinton Foundation donors.
	So they are making bank.
	They are making money for the Clinton Foundation from the people that are involved in the process.
	What you're saying here is that she basically is selling her soul.
	In other words, that she is benefiting in a massive way financially for what is literally, I think, can be interpreted as a major technology transfer, and it's technology that deals with research for military use.
	Is that correct?
	That's right.
	Because what ends up happening, Sean, is they start this process.
	Hillary gets these companies involved.
	These companies sign agreements under the auspices of the State Department with the Russians.
	And then the U.S. Army out at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, does a investigation and comes to the conclusion that Skokovo really is about getting military technology for the Russian armed forces.
	The FBI does its own evaluation and actually sends letters to the companies participating and tells them you ought to know that the technology you are providing is probably part of a scheme for the Russians to take this and give it to their military.
	Well, what's the follow-up?
	Do we know the extent of the damage in terms of military information and technology transfer?
	We don't.
	We do know that based on what the Army has reported that the Russian military is at Skokovo, this technology site that Hillary's helping develop.
	They are developing something called a hypersonic cruise missile.
	We also know that there are other military-related technologies that are being developed there as well.
	And, you know, Sean, here's the scary part.
	I mean, I don't know that I don't expect the U.S. and Russia to come to military blows anytime soon.
	But here's the problem.
	The Russians sell military equipment around the world, and they sell it to some pretty nasty people.
	So it is not inconceivable that our armed men and women could be facing technologies, having weapons pointed and fired at them that were developed with the cooperation of the U.S. at Skokovo.
	That's unbelievable to me.
	So what you have here is a nexus.
	I'm trying to understand this.
	On both sides, both the Russian side with these oligarchs that are donating to the Clinton Foundation.
	You have the FBI contacting American companies, 17 of the 28 of which donated the Clinton Foundation.
	That is their one common, I guess, their one common tie they all have.
	And the FBI is concerned about the fact that when you're looking at the technology involved here, technology can have multiple uses, civilian and military.
	And the FBI noted that the agency sent warnings to the technology companies, but she pushed forward anyway.
	And the Clinton Foundation benefited how many million total?
	Do we know?
	Well, they only report in ranges, so we know tens of millions of dollars.
	But Sean, the name that we haven't mentioned yet is her campaign chairman, John Podesta.
	John Podesta, during all of this, is sitting on the board, the executive board of this small energy company.
	He joins the board.
	Four months later, they get an investment of 1 billion rubles.
	That's about $35 million from a Russian government fund called Rus Nano.
	Rus Nano, according to the Russian science minister, is Putin's baby.
	This is Putin's investment fund.
	So you literally have, during the Russian reset, Vladimir Putin putting $35 million into a company where John Podesta sits on the board.
	And by the way, this is the same John Podesta, by the way, that said, oh, Sean Hannity gave Newt Gingrich and ride in an airplane.
	I mean, you know, and questioned the legality of it, which, by the way, it's all perfectly legal, and they have no idea what the business arrangement is, and nor am I going to tell them.
	But, you know, and they're the same people that did the political, I forget the imbalance of talk radio and then tried to institute the fairness doctrine once again to shut down conservative hosts because they can't stand that we are critical of Hillary Clinton and the Clintons.
	Well, that's right, Sean.
	And here's the other thing.
	So Podesta sits on the board of this company called Jewel Unlimited.
	It's got a fairly complex ownership structure, but it's got two offshore entities that control ultimately the company here in the United States.
	Podesta did not disclose his membership on the board of the master company or foundational company that runs the whole thing.
	He never listed it on his financial disclosures when he joined the Obama administration.
	But I got to ask this.
	I mean, as Bill Clinton, she's Secretary of State, Bill Clinton is giving all of these speeches.
	And you've got the 17 of the 28 U.S., European, Russian companies that participated in Skokovo that they're all giving money to Bill.
	And meanwhile, she is actively pushing and encouraging them to do this deal with Russia.
	And I mean, this to me is a classic quid pro quo, kickback, use any term you want.
	Yeah, I mean, it's got corruption throughout it.
	You've got, who are the people that get a seat at the table?
	American companies that give to the Clinton Foundation.
	And what they're supposed to get out of this, by the way, is special access to the Russian market.
	So they're getting a benefit.
	The Clintons are getting paid.
	The Russians on their side of the equation are getting paid.
	Everybody around this table is getting something out of it.
	The Clintons are getting money.
	The U.S. companies and the Russians, the people who aren't getting anything, of course, are the American people whose chief diplomat is engaged in this initiative that ends up benefiting the Russian military.
	Let me go back for a second, if I can.
	Both you and my friend Steve Bannon put this piece together as well, and that is about John Podesta.
	Now, Russian officials received $35 million from a, well, let me backtrack.
	He sat on the board of the small energy company alongside Russian officials that received, and again, this is one of Hillary's and the Clinton's best friends, that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund, a relationship Podesta failed to fully disclose on his federal financial disclosure reform.
	Is that required by law?
	Is that prosecutable?
	That I don't know, but it is highly suspicious because the way they set up this management structure is basically to avoid taxes.
	They set up what's called a foundational company in the Netherlands, and it's similar to what the corporation IKEA does.
	So they run it through this foundational company, which does not have to pay taxes and does not have to disclose income the way that other entities do.
	This is how they structured it.
	And Podesta never mentions the fact that, according to Dutch corporate records, he was on the executive board of this company at the time.
	That's a non-disclosure, and that violates the rules.
	You know, you think back, and I keep highlighting this.
	I'm beginning to suspect, and I'm totally guessing here.
	This is just my own thoughts.
	I think what Julian Assange is suggesting here is what you and I have discussed for many years.
	Now, we look at the Clinton Foundation, and, you know, her taking money from all these countries that practice Sharia and kill gays and lesbians like Saudi Arabia, and you blew this open wide open in your book.
	She doesn't criticize countries like Saudi Arabia because they gave up to $25 million of the foundation, $10 million of the Clinton Library.
	And meanwhile, they persecute gays and lesbians and put them to death.
	They persecute women and treat them like third-class citizens, tell them how to dress, say they can't drive.
	They need men's permission to go to work or school, four male eyewitnesses for a charge of rape.
	And then, of course, you can't build a Jewish temple, and you can't build a Christian church.
	So they persecute women, gays, lesbians, Christians, and Jews.
	She takes all this money.
	And that's a huge conflict of interest.
	And that to me means she basically, they bought her silence and any criticism she would otherwise give.
	In this case, now we're compromising, again, national security, and the money's being kicked back to Bill.
	No, you're right.
	And Sean, the big tell for me is what was not said at the Democratic Convention all week.
	None of the speakers, not Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, nobody else, ever mentioned the Clinton Foundation.
	Ever.
	Let me ask this.
	Saudi government, there was a report in one news source that they're funding a fifth of Hillary's campaign for president.
	Is there any truth to that?
	I don't think there is.
	I don't think there is.
	I think with disclosures of campaign contributions, it would be very, very hard to do that, and there's no evidence.
	I do think, though, look, if you are the Saudis or a foreign oligarch, you don't have to figure out a way to finance the campaign.
	Hillary's going to have plenty of money.
	If you want access, if you want influence, you can just cut a check to the Clinton Foundation.
	And by the way, the way they do disclosures, Sean, they only list the Saudis as donors of $25 million or more.
	They don't tell you what the more is.
	So we don't even technically know the full extent to which they've contributed to the Clinton Foundation.
	Unbelievable.
	Blockbuster report.
	You can read it all on Breitbart.
	And we'll put it up on our website, link it on Hannity.com.
	Thank you so much, Peter.
	You keep being proven right again and again.
	Thank you.
	Thanks.
	The Muslim ban.
	I think you've pulled back from it, but you tell me.
	We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.
	This feels like a slight rollback.
	I don't think it's.
	Should we interpret it that as well?
	I don't think so.
	I actually don't think it's a pullback.
	In fact, you could say it's an expansion.
	I'm looking now at territories.
	People were so upset when I used the word Muslim.
	Oh, you can't use the word Muslim.
	Remember this.
	And I'm okay with that because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim.
	But just remember this: our Constitution is great, but it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay?
	We have a religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected, and that's great.
	And that's the wonderful part of our Constitution.
	I view it differently.
	Why are we committing suicide?
	Why are we doing that?
	But you know what?
	I live with our Constitution.
	I love our Constitution.
	I cherish our Constitution.
	We're making it territorial.
	We have nations, and we'll come out.
	I'm going to be coming out over the next few weeks with a number of the places.
	And it's very complex.
	If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America.
	Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims.
	He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership.
	He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.
	Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future.
	Let me ask you: have you even read the United States Constitution?
	I will gladly lend you my copy in this document.
	Look for the words.
	Look for the words, liberty and equal protection of law.
	Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?
	Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America.
	You will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.
	You have sacrificed nothing.
	All right, news roundup information overload.
	This ongoing story battle, loved by the media, about Mr. Khan, which, by the way, Donald Trump has praised the service.
	I wonder why it was so notably absent that it was Hillary who actually voted for that war, not Mr. Trump.
	And Mr. Trump has honored the service of everybody here and he sacrificed nothing.
	Okay, what did Hillary sacrifice?
	I'm just trying to understand the logic and thinking, considering she was part of the decision-making that started that war.
	And I know the media is up and running with this.
	Donald Trump never attacked Mr. Khan.
	On the contrary, the initial interview, he said Khan seemed like a nice guy, expressed surprise about the attacks, et cetera.
	And anyway, so if you look at the rest of it, for instance, Hillary voted for the Iraq war in which his son was killed, but he's upset with Donald Trump.
	He's upset over Trump's original consideration of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration.
	Never mind the fact that every national security leader we have, from the National Director of Intelligence, the FBI director, assistant FBI director, our CIA director, our House Homeland Security Committee chairman, and our former special envoy to defeat ISIS said, yeah, just like in Belgium, just like in Europe, just like in Paris, yes, ISIS will infiltrate Germany, the refugee population here in America.
	He's waving his constitution around.
	Well, I think Donald Trump is right in saying there's no right to commit suicide here as a country.
	And what happens if we take in people that do come from countries that practice Sharia law?
	Well, I think the answer is very obvious.
	We have to determine and ascertain, considering Sharia values, totally contradict and usurp the values of our Constitution, our constitutional values.
	So if somebody wants to come here from a country and they've grown up in a culture that tells women how to dress, tells women whether they can drive or not, like Saudi Arabia, where Hillary takes donations all the time from, and all these other Muslim countries, and that they kill gays and lesbians for being gay and lesbian, and they don't allow the free practice of religion.
	You can't build a temple or a church.
	So if a country, you grow up in a culture that discriminates against women, gays, lesbians, Christians, and Jews, I think we have a right to ascertain as a country whether or not you plan on bringing those values with you or you have plans to assimilate into American values of liberty and freedom.
	Just simple questions.
	Now, the media that is so obsessed with Mr. Khan, they have basically ignored Pat Smith.
	As a matter of fact, we did some research, and even as though the story of Benghazi Gold Star moms, Pat Smith, have been out there for three years, the pro-Hillary media has given the Khans more coverage in five days than Pat Smith has gotten since she first went public in 2013.
	If you Google the terms, Patricia Smith and Benghazi, you get 384,000 hits.
	If you research the terms, Kazir Khan and Trump, you get 491,000 hits.
	So Khan has gotten roughly 100,000 stories per day since he went public.
	But in her three years of telling a story that frankly is far more damaging to Hillary than anything Mr. Khan has to say about Donald Trump, well, Pat Smith has averaged just 350 Google reports a day.
	Khan gets 1,000 per day.
	Pat Smith gets one-third of 1% of the coverage on a daily basis.
	Pretty amazing that that would be so overlooked.
	You know, I think, you know, you look about so many aspects of this that show just how deeply corrupt and dead the media is.
	Joining us, Patrick Poole.
	He is the National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media, Mike Gauss, President of America Coming Together, America Together.
	How are you, sir?
	Terrific, Sean.
	So good to be with you again.
	And I am so glad you're keeping up with all that is going on.
	And I'm here to answer any question you have about it.
	Are you jumping on the bash Trump train on this?
	No, I'm in neutral.
	I'm always a moderate.
	I'm in neutral.
	I will see who is wrong, and I say the wrongness rather than condemn the individuals.
	With Trump, I don't condemn him because he cannot be redeemed.
	I mean, condemn his sin, not him, because he's redeemable.
	He is going by half-ass information, Sean.
	If he had the full information, he wouldn't say many of the things he's saying.
	You know, I met with Dr. Ben Carson.
	When I met with him, I said, Dr. Carson, what you said about Muslims, I understand.
	You probably heard from someone.
	Are you ready someplace?
	That's fine.
	Did you verify it?
	When I asked the question, he backed off.
	Then I offered him, at least verify with a Muslim like me.
	When you say what Ita for talking to me, you can never go wrong.
	At least you don't alienate fellow Americans.
	And I think that's what I want to tell to Mr. Trump.
	Well, you know, I think it's worth noting.
	I mean, Mike, you and I have been friends a lot of years now, and I think you're always wrong on politics.
	You were wrong on Egypt.
	You've been right and wrong both.
	No, you've been wrong mostly, but I've been right mostly.
	You recognize that the religion, Islam, is being taken over by radicals.
	And by the way, I think it's worth repeating that ISIS has killed many more Muslims than people of other faiths, but they are in the practice of jihad and advancing a caliphate.
	And when we talk about important issues like immigration or bringing in refugees to America, we have to examine if you grow up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Oman, or any of these countries that practice Sharia, you have to agree that if somebody culturally believes they can tell women how to dress or whether they can drive or go to work or school or kill gays and lesbians or be bigoted towards Christians and Jews, we need to know whether or not they want to bring those values with them.
	Isn't that fair?
	That is fair.
	But the majority of the Muslims don't believe in those values.
	They're putting up with these tyrants.
	How do we ascertain those that do and those that don't?
	We have to vet them, don't we?
	We have to vet them and we can prepare some questions.
	The way they respond to the questions, we can make a determination if they believe in the kind of Sharia that is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
	If they do, we need to vet them further.
	If not, then like most Muslims, most average people, they think about Sharia, but they really don't believe in it, Sean.
	Majority of the Americans.
	Well, you say that, but I don't see people in all these radical Islamic countries rising up.
	I don't see it.
	They cannot rise.
	If they rise, they're going to be crushed.
	Look what that dictator did in Egypt.
	He cannot let people speak.
	Well, I mean, General Assisi came in, by the way.
	Thank goodness, because, you know, I warned you about when they toppled Mubarak and Muhammad Morsi took power.
	And this was a guy that was a former head of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that once referred to Jews as descendants of apes and pigs.
	Sean, that's where I was wrong.
	You told you are very worried about Morsi.
	I told him that the people will take it back, and they did.
	That's a nice way of spinning what really happened, but I'll let it go.
	Patrick Poole, I want you to weigh in here.
	Well, Sean, I think this whole con kerfuffle is really distracted from the real serious issues.
	And, you know, I don't think anybody is questioning the ultimate sacrifice that Captain Khan laid out in Iraq.
	But it remains a fact that more Muslim Americans have been killed fighting for ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria than have been killed fighting for the United States of America since 9-11.
	That's a serious problem.
	And as I just reported at PJ Media here today, we already have a system of religious discrimination targeting Syrian refugees.
	Well, I want to focus on this.
	Your headline today is the Obama administration already discriminates against Syrian refugees on basis of religion, except they discriminate against Christians.
	And I want you to give the data that you pointed out here.
	For example, of the 6,877 Syrian refugees that arrived in 2016, and by the way, Hillary wants a 550% increase in that number.
	6,834 of the 6,877 are identified as either Sunni, Shia, or generic Muslim, meaning that 0.7% are Christian.
	And meanwhile, they have been persecuted and there's been an under-reported systematic massacre of Christians in that region.
	Exactly, Sean.
	We have Secretary of State John Kerry in March coming out, giving a press conference saying that these non-Muslim religious minorities and even Muslim minorities like the Shia in Syria are being subject to genocide by Islamic extremists.
	And these are the very communities that the State Department right now is already discriminating against.
	Those numbers, Sean, again, I'm relying on the State Department's own numbers through yesterday.
	Only 43 out of 6,877 of those admitted Syrian refugees have been non-Muslims, Christians and Yazidis and other religious minorities.
	So we already have a system of religious discrimination in place, and these Democrats and Republicans who are in the media and on Twitter virtue signaling back and forth to each other have said absolutely nothing about this system of discrimination.
	Let me ask you about that discrimination issue, Mike, and also if our National Director of Intelligence, FBI director, assistant FBI director, et cetera, all these people I mentioned, a warning that ISIS will infiltrate our population through the refugee program like they did in Europe, like they did in Germany and France and Belgium and elsewhere, why should we risk taking, why should we risk one American life by taking anybody in?
	Why can't we set up a safe zone?
	Well, I think your idea, Sean, I was with a Christian coalition here who are promoting the very same idea that you've been talking about.
	I think this is one of the best ideas that you have promoted.
	I don't know why we are not taking it and running with it.
	And I think the refugees should not be humiliated again once they're being kicked out of their own homelands.
	And instead of humiliating them in Europe and here, we should create a safe zone for them for their own dignity.
	You are absolutely right.
	I think we need to take this up and move forward with it, Sean.
	Now, you mentioned about assimilation.
	Real quick, I only got 10 seconds.
	Go.
	Oh, okay.
	There is an article I wrote in Huffington Post last week.
	It said, the source of extremism among Muslims.
	It is worth reading.
	And I'm writing one more.
	There's hope for you.
	I will say that.
	You're going to vote for Trump, right, Mike?
	No, I'm an independent.
	I'm always, I mean, I was a Republican once.
	All right, I got a break.
	I'm independent.
	I got a break.
	Thank you both.
	As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools.
	We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment.
	We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs.
	We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	That was Obama.
	Of course, we heard Hillary last week in every interview.
	Yeah, they want to restrict your Second Amendment rights.
	I keep running down the list of issues.
	If you're a never Trumper, well, let's start with the Supreme Court and the nominees he'll put on the court, like Antonin Scalia, like Justice Thomas.
	Let's start there.
	Then let's talk about First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights.
	Well, there's a huge gap and difference in where these candidates stand there.
	One's going to repeal Obamacare, one's going to double down on the rising costs of Obamacare up 40% this year.
	One wants energy independence, and one wants to put coal miners and coal mining companies out of work.
	That's the dumbest thing that we could do.
	Add to that, one can say radical Islamic terrorism, one can't say radical Islamic terrorism.
	One understands the impact of illegal immigration on the economy and on national security.
	The other does not.
	One understands states and local communities are better off deciding what's in the best interests of your child and their education, and one thinks this ought to be a top-down solution.
	So there's such massive differences, but on the issue of the Second Amendment, you can see with every shooting, even though she'll never criticize the incendiary language, the rush to judgment, the lack of evidence due process, and even the presumption of innocence of cops, and Obama turns out to be wrong about cases like Trayvon Martin or Ferguson, Missouri, or Freddie Gray, or the Cambridge police.
	It doesn't stop him from weighing in.
	But yet, 3,480 people have died in Chicago since he's been president.
	He never talks about Chicago.
	So is it really about politics or is it about lives?
	John Lott is the foremost expert when it comes to truth about guns, the Second Amendment, in this country.
	He uses extensive, footnoted research in every book he ever writes, and he points out the truth about weapons that the left and the media will never tell you.
	Why gun licenses and background checks don't stop crime?
	How gun-free zones actually attract mass shooters and much more.
	And he's here with us.
	His brand new book is out.
	By the way, he's with the Crime Prevention Research Center, The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies.
	And how are you, sir?
	Doing great.
	Thanks for having me here.
	I couldn't agree more with what you're saying.
	I mean, on the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton's already promised that she's going to appoint federal judges that would overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions.
	And what most people don't seem to understand is that those cases were very narrow.
	The only thing that they did was say that the federal government could not completely ban guns, or state or local governments could not completely ban guns.
	If she overturns that, then that means governments will again be able to go and completely ban guns, just as we had gun bans in Washington, D.C. and Chicago.
	And so if you allow the government to completely ban guns, I'm not sure what's left of the Second Amendment.
	Yeah.
	Well, why don't you just go over some of your research?
	You spent a life, you've devoted decades of your life now.
	I've known you for decades.
	I've interviewed you for decades, discussing the truth by using data, real information, not emotions, but facts to back up what you say.
	For example, how gun-free zones attract mass shooters, how background checks don't stop crime.
	Explain those.
	Right.
	Well, in the war on guns, one of the things I'm trying to get across to people is how many of these laws are costly and it can actually be counterproductive.
	You know, we all want to make people safe.
	But you take something like gun-free zones.
	What happens is that these killers explicitly, time after time, pick places where they know victims can't be able to go into federal government.
	Can you give as many off the top of your head examples as you can think of?
	Sure.
	Well, I mean, just a few months ago in Detroit, there was a father who was concerned about his son's involvement with ISIS.
	He had called the FBI.
	The FBI has a horrifying transcript of a telephone call that he made explaining why he was planning on attacking one of the largest churches in the Detroit area.
	He had cased the place, and at the top of his list for reasons going after is that church forbid people with permanent concealed handguns to attend the church.
	And in horrifying detail, this killer, this prospective killer, was saying that that would allow him to kill lots of people before anybody would be able to stop him.
	But you look at other cases.
	You have cases last year with the Charleston church shooter.
	His first target was going to be Charleston College until you investigated and realized that security there could stop him from going and killing him.
	What was the one case?
	There was a school shooting.
	I know you'll remember it.
	And one of the teachers actually ran into an adjacent parking lot, had to park off campus, and went and got his gun because he was obeying the gun-free zone mandate and got it and saved lives.
	It was Joel Myrick.
	It was Pearl, Mississippi, and I believe it was 1998 when that happened.
	By the way, I love when a professor's here because I can't remember anything, so I count on my professor friends to remember everything for me.
	Well, Sean, you have so many different topics you have to deal with.
	Thanks for the excuse, which I appreciate.
	I hope when I take the exam, you'll remember that.
	Oh, always.
	But anyway, no, you described it exactly correctly.
	That what happened was that he was a law-abiding citizen.
	He had parked his car off of school property and locked his gun there.
	But it took him like 10 minutes to be able to go and run and get his gun and bring it back to where the shooting was occurring.
	He stopped the killer who was in the process of leaving the high school to go to the middle school across the street where he was going to continue his attack.
	I mean, one can only guess how many lives he saved in that situation.
	What about, you know, why stand your ground laws?
	This became a big deal in Florida.
	What is it about them are some of the best deterrents?
	Now, the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin confrontation, you know, I followed it closely.
	I didn't rush to judgment.
	I waited for the evidence.
	The scream that we had on tape, which was identified as George Zimmerman, coupled with one eyewitness that described a ground and pound of Zimmerman's head into the concrete.
	I know people are upset with Zimmerman's actions after the trial, but that's irrelevant to whether or not we have a system of law and justice and evidence and due process.
	But that to me was an example where he might be dead today.
	His head might have been cracked open.
	Right.
	I mean, that wasn't a standard ground case in the sense that what the point of stand your ground is, is that other than that, you have to retreat as far as possible before you go and use your gun.
	And the danger for that is if you're a victim, forcing people to have to retreat and taking the time to do that could put their lives in danger.
	And there's, you know, never know whether you're going to be second-guessed by a prosecutor or somebody else.
	Did you go far enough?
	And there are plenty of bizarre cases that I could go through that actually were the impetus for passing stand-your ground laws.
	But, you know, the big thing with stand your ground is that it's the most vulnerable people in our society who tend to benefit from that.
	If you look at Florida, it's basically poor blacks who overwhelmingly use that law more than others, and simply because, as a percentage of their population, simply because they're more likely to be victims of violent crime than other groups are.
	One of the things that impresses me, and I've, as you know, I've had a carry permit in Rhode Island, California, Alabama, Georgia, and one in New York City, which is almost impossible to get.
	And I've carried a gun all of my adult life.
	I mean, I was a pistol marksman when I was 11 or 12 years old.
	And I'll be honest, there's situations where people have called mean names, and I will expeditiously run away.
	I don't want the confrontation.
	And, you know, now that I'm moving towards my black belt, I have the ability to defend myself with my hands.
	I just don't want that.
	I never want to be in a situation where I would ever have to pull my gun out.
	And I treat it with great care, and I have a fingerprint safe next to my bed.
	To me, it's a responsibility.
	And unfortunately, good people never break the law.
	It's always the bad guys.
	They're not going to obey any laws you pass anyway.
	Look, the law-abiding citizens who go through the process to get a concealed handgun permit, as you say, they tend to be extremely law-abiding.
	But they're also reticent to go and use their guns.
	They only use it as a last resort when there's nothing else that they can go and do.
	And, you know, if it'd be great if the police were there.
	Anybody who's read my books know that I think police are the single most important factor for stopping crime.
	But you look at surveys of police, they know they virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the crimes occurred.
	And the question is, what's the safest course of action?
	And what you find is that having a gun is by far the safest course of action.
	You know what statistics stunned me the most in your book?
	From 1950 to 2010, there wasn't a single mass public shooting in an area where civilians are allowed to carry guns.
	Not one.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, you would think if these attacks were random, you know, most states are allowed to go and carry a permanent concealed handgun in most public venues.
	It would be 98, 99% of the time the attacks would be occurring where guns are allowed.
	Instead, as you point out, they keep on occurring in those tiny areas in the state where they're not allowed.
	But it's not just the strong statistical evidence that you have there.
	It's also the fact that these killers, time after time, we have them on record making statements about why they picked the particular venue.
	And it's just— And like Adam Lanza, that's an example.
	Right.
	Right.
	Look, you have so many targets, so many possible places.
	The police simply can't protect every place.
	So after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year, the president of France put 10,000 military troops on the street.
	With a city of 2.3 million, even if they put 100,000, they can't cover all the possible targets.
	And the question is, what do you do when you're not able to either catch them to begin with or cover all the possible targets that are there?
	By the way, I watch you on other shows besides mine.
	I'm like, John, you're trying to get through to somebody who's just too dense to hear it.
	I don't know how you put up with that crap.
	I've given up debating other people on other shows.
	It's a waste of my time.
	But I'm glad you do it.
	Don't misunderstand.
	You brought a friend of yours in studio today.
	I did.
	Now, by the way, John's book, The War on Guns, Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies, and your friend is Nicole Renee Goser.
	Is that right?
	You wrote a book, too, how gun control helped a stalker murder your husband.
	We don't have a lot of time, but I know you're friends with John.
	And I mean, this is a real life, this brings this debate to real life.
	You have suffered.
	You had a stalker that was after you?
	Yes.
	For a long period of time.
	Actually, not that long.
	He just became obsessed with you, followed you everywhere?
	Yeah, he was a customer.
	We had a mobile karaoke business at the time, and he was a customer that just would not leave me alone.
	By the way, a lot of women go through this experience.
	It's chilling, right?
	Very frightening.
	So what happened?
	It was about seven years ago.
	A man that was stalking me murdered my husband right in front of me in a gun-free zone.
	Of course, I followed the law, and I left my permitted handgun that I normally carried for self-defense locked in my vehicle that night.
	And my stalker did not follow the law.
	He did not have a permit to carry.
	Brought that gun in and shot Ben six times right in front of everyone in the middle of the restaurant.
	I don't know what to say.
	It takes my breath away.
	That is so terrorizing.
	I don't know how you recover from something like that in life.
	It's not easy, but you'd be surprised how resilient the human spirit is.
	Well, your book is called How Gun Control Helped the Stalker Murder My Husband, Denied a Chance is the title of the book.
	And in the corner of your book, I mean, you got an adorable picture of a loving couple.
	And how long were you married?
	One year, four months, and two days.
	Wow, do you have any kids?
	No.
	No.
	I don't know how you recover from that, but John, this just highlights everything you're pointing out here.
	Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, because of my job, I've met too many people like Nikki.
	And, you know, the feeling of utter helplessness that people have.
	She didn't say I can call her Nikki.
	I have to call her Nicole.
	Okay.
	I'm teasing.
	I'm teasing.
	I'm sure she'd love to get a picture of you after the stalker.
	Well, that's really nice.
	But my heart goes out to you.
	And I know the prayers of our audience go out to you as well.
	This should not happen in America that good, honest people are sitting ducks.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, the good law-abiding citizens obey the rules, not the criminals.
	In fact, these places are magnets for attacks.
	I mean, the question I often ask people: would you put a sign in front of your home that said your home is a gun-free zone?
	No.
	None of the gun control people that I've debated over the years would admit that they'd put a sign like that because they know it's not credible.
	And it's like Hillary and all and Obama.
	They have all the security they will want for the rest of their lives.
	Right.
	All right.
	The average person doesn't have that.
	You know, the amazing thing with them is that they refuse to go and deal with the gun-free zone issue.
	Obama will say, well, you know, we already have 300 million guns.
	You know, how can guns stop these things?
	They obviously don't.
	And 99.9% are never used in the commission of a crime.
	Right.
	But the thing he doesn't seem to understand is that having lots of guns doesn't help you if you're banned from having them in certain places.
	The fact that your gun may be at home isn't going to protect somebody like Nikki when she's at her work and somebody is stalking her and tries to attack her there.
	I've said so many times: you want schools to be safe?
	I have an idea.
	Retired military armed, retired policemen armed in schools, every school.
	And nobody's going to go in there because they know they'll be taken out.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, you don't want to have somebody who's an obvious guard there.
	You know, if somebody in uniform or something doesn't.
	Doesn't have to be in uniform.
	Right.
	It has to be somebody who the students there or others aren't going to know has it.
	You know, right.
	We have lots of states now that allow teachers to do it.
	We have a number of states to tech.
	Today, Texas became the 11th state that mandates that public universities in the state have to allow people with permits to carry on school property.
	This is the 50th anniversary of the tower shooting at the University of Texas, and it's about time that they allowed people to be able to carry for protection there.
	John Lott's new book is called The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies.
	Thank you.
	I hope everyone reads it.
	We'll put it up on my website.
	I have to say, I think this is even more important than my book, More Guns, Less Crime.
	You know, the political debate here and some of the information I have here comparing mass public shootings across countries and exploding a lot of the time.
	This is very important because we need this information for the debate that we're now engaged in to save our Second Amendment rights.
	It's up on my website.
	We're also, Nicole, we're going to put your sad, tragic story up as well.
	Denied a chance is in the name of your book.
	I'm so sorry on behalf of everyone in this audience.
	John, always good to see you.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	It's pretty chilling.
	Pretty difficult times we're living in.
	I'll tell you that.

▲