Sean Hannity Show - Who Is Julian Assange - 9.8

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 9, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:31:45

Who Is Julian Assange - 9.8

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.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Happy Thursday.
	Did you watch the forum last night?
	A lot of interesting stuff came out of this.
	Not that you're going to hear about it from the mainstream media because they missed the total point, which we hit on as soon as we got on the air last night.
	800-941 Sean.
	Now, Julian Assange is going to be on the program today.
	We have him booked for an hour.
	Coming up at the top of the next hour, the founder, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks.
	And, you know, I know a lot has been made since I had him on TV the other night and comments that I made back, you know, at the time, 2010, when it was being revealed, military secrets.
	I was scared to death that people were going to die as a result of this.
	He has had 10 plus years now of a track record of never being wrong that I can find.
	Not one.
	My opinion has shifted and changed somewhat on Julian Assange.
	And I know the left will say, well, Hannity, that's because you're hyper-partisan and you want him to dump whatever he's telling you.
	He's going to dump the batches of stuff on Hillary because you think it's going to prevent her from getting elected.
	Listen, I'm all in favor of whatever he has to dump on Hillary because she's such a congenital and pathological and dishonest liar who's enriched herself from every office she and her husband have ever held.
	It's frankly despicable to me.
	The whole thing is beyond unsightly and improper.
	But that's not it.
	Here's what I have concluded now that the period of time, and part of it was the interview.
	And you saw this the other night, Linda.
	My biggest concern, I've always been a privacy person.
	I've always believed that we have a right to privacy in the sense that, you know, I mean, you got people hacking in here, hacking in there, hacking in everywhere, and it becomes big news, et cetera, et cetera.
	And I'm like, you know what?
	We have a right to privacy.
	And I don't find many of the things out there secure.
	So that's problematic to me.
	And he said to me, he goes, no, I'm not interested in that at all.
	I'm interested in government lying.
	I'm interested in corruption.
	I'm interested in duplicity and hypocrisy and dishonesty.
	Here are two things now in retrospect we can say about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
	And by the way, for those of you who say this is only hyper-partisanship on Hannity's part, you can claim all you want, but I don't think there's anybody that has been more critical of Republicans in the last number of years than me.
	And what have I been critical of?
	I've been critical, let's see, I called him weak, timid, feckless, spineless, visionless.
	I don't think I can get any more critical than that.
	I mean, that's pretty critical.
	And I talk very specifically about things that bother me.
	Republicans show voting for issues like Obamacare repealing and replacing it.
	Yeah, they voted 50 times to repeal and replace it.
	Yeah, but not one of those times had any teeth in it.
	The only person that showed any willingness to use their enumerated constitutional power on the issue was Ted Cruz.
	Well, and that's not fair either because Rand Paul stood with him, and so did Marco Rubio stood with him, and Mike Lee stood with him.
	So it would be fair.
	Those guys, you know, and look, maybe they were there a short period of time.
	I think Mike Lee was there the entire time, the 23 hours that Ted Cruz was on the floor, Senate floor filibuster, whatever.
	I mean, he did it.
	So I think Republicans have earned the 65% betrayal rating, as I call it, in every exit poll because Republicans in the primaries, they spoke loud and clear.
	They feel betrayed by the Republican Party.
	John Boehner accumulated nearly $5 trillion in debt.
	He didn't want to be blamed for a government shutdown.
	Okay, that's fair too.
	And why would Republican, how do we say that that's conservative in any way, that this is an alternative party, if John Boehner, who has the power of the purse, is signing off on $5 trillion in new debt.
	Sorry, I do hold him accountable for that, and I hold Republicans accountable for that.
	That's not conservative.
	I keep saying to anybody that'll listen, why is this an insurgency year?
	And well, it's an insurgency year for a very simple and basic reason.
	Republicans created Trump.
	They created the power of the insurgency of cruising Trump because of their inaction.
	2014 was the election that was supposed to end in every way, shape, matter, and form, you know, executive amnesty, unconstitutional, illegal, executive amnesty.
	Just elect us and give us the House and the Senate.
	And that's it.
	By the way, Stephen A. Smith is obsessed with this program.
	Trump is done.
	No candidate in history has listened less, won't even listen to his children.
	Should listen to you.
	Can't help himself.
	Stephen A. has a comment every day.
	Now, Stephen A., who is the biggest, I wonder what he thinks of poor Tim Tebow siding with the Mets today.
	He must be losing his app.
	He must be absolutely apoplectic.
	We're on a stroke alert for Stephen A. Smith, our buddy.
	I love Stephen A. You know, why we got to call Trog Keller over at ESPN.
	Why are they such a pain in the ass over there when it comes to letting Stephen A on my radio and TV show?
	He's a friend of mine.
	He's been a friend of mine forever.
	He's really smart on politics.
	He doesn't give me the same credit for my sports knowledge.
	You know what would be cool?
	Wouldn't it be cool if Tebow can really make it in MLB and play for the Mets and be a great hitter and a great outfielder?
	That will drive Stephen A. That's years of him talking because I've never met anybody that was more anti-Tim Tebow than Stephen A.
	He can't throw the ball.
	He shouldn't be.
	Okay, I watched him the time that he played for the Broncos and he was playing a very important playoff game and he killed it.
	I thought he did great.
	Anyway, I think Tim Tebow, unfortunately, was because he's such an outspoken Christian, I think he paid a price for his Christianity.
	I bet you that's Stephen A., isn't it?
	That's Stephen A. calling you, isn't it?
	All right, tell him we'll put him on another day.
	Anyway, so let me get back to my point.
	So all of this with Assange, here's what I like about the guy.
	And I think this is really, really important.
	Very important, as a matter of fact.
	And he has exposed a vulnerability for national security that in many ways I think you can argue he did us a favor.
	You know, one of the fascinating things you'll learn about, he was 16 years old, Julian Assange, when he first hacked into, I think, the Pentagon and NASA for crying out loud.
	How did you do that at 16 years old?
	You got to give the guy credit for being pretty damn smart.
	16.
	So the other thing that I think that he has been able to do, look at, for example, the DNC and, you know, Debbie Wassum and Schultz out on her backside and four other people.
	Why?
	Because the Democrats that every election year call Republicans racist and homophobic and sexist and all of those, you know, predictable themes.
	I mean, Bill Clinton was out there saying, we white southerners, we know what make America great again, really.
	I'm actually old enough to remember the good old days, and they were good in many ways.
	That message, I'll give you America great again, is if you're a white southerner, you know exactly what it means, don't you?
	What it means is, I'll give you economy you had 50 years ago, and I'll move you back up on the social and totem polling other people down.
	All right, now just stop for a second.
	This is a guy whose mentor, he proudly says his mentor was J. William Fulbright, a segregationist.
	This is a guy's governor ensured the prominent display of the Arkansas Confederate flag.
	This is a woman who's running for president that praised as her mentor a former Klansman, Robert KKK Bird.
	That's not stopping any of them.
	Anyway, so I think the fact that Assange and WikiLeaks exposes this vulnerability, well, that's an opportunity for America to say we better get our act together.
	Because if Assange didn't expose it, that probably means that the Russians and the Chinese and the Iranians and all of our enemies around the world, maybe even radical Islamic terror groups, they too, I'll get them in a second.
	That means they probably have access to what it is that WikiLeaks hacked into.
	And the next most important thing that I think he did as a favor for us, and that is he's exposed, let's see, the DNC in those emails, let's see, there was racism, sexism, misogyny.
	There were gay and lesbian slurs in there.
	By the way, it shouldn't surprise anybody.
	I point out all the time, Hillary taking money from countries like Saudi Arabia.
	Of course, they treat women horribly.
	They kill gays and lesbians, and they persecute Christians and Jews.
	But she took their money and they bought her silence.
	Stephen A. Smith is with us.
	You must be going apoplectic.
	You're on a stroke watch today, aren't you, over Tim Tebow?
	Oh, my Lord.
	I can't believe that.
	No, no, no.
	You're on a stroke watch today.
	I am so proud of my Mets.
	They brought back Tim Thibaut.
	They brought Tim Tebows in the house in New York, the house that next to the house that Ruth built.
	You know what, Sean?
	You know what I went on my radio show today?
	What did you say?
	He said, Hannity is going to get on my case today.
	I said, I don't want to sit here and talk about Tim Thibaut.
	I said, forget all this racism.
	It's plastic.
	It's plasticism.
	How in God's name did Tim Thibault, who hasn't played baseball since high school, have 46 individuals from major league baseball teams from 28 different teams come and scouting?
	How do you know how to do that?
	Hey, listen.
	Listen, first of all, he's a phenomenal athlete that you've never given him credit for.
	Stop.
	No, no, no.
	Well, he's a better athlete than you, for God's sakes.
	Let's start there.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	All right, so he's an extraordinary athlete.
	Now, secondly, you know this too.
	He has worked his ass off.
	Let's be honest here.
	To become an even better athlete.
	He tried hard to get back into the NFL.
	And you know what?
	You ought to praise.
	Listen, I would watch you on that show with that guy you beat up every day.
	What's the name of the punching bag that you co-host that show with?
	It's ridiculous.
	What's that name, Skip?
	The guy that you pound on every day.
	I watch you.
	It's sort of like Alan Combs and me back in the day.
	He has not played baseball since high school.
	How about you give the guy a shot?
	Isn't this America?
	You believe in the American dream?
	Hold on, hold on.
	The American dream that Barack Obama ruined for everybody?
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, just stop it right there.
	Let me tell you something.
	I know a whole bunch of people.
	My show.
	Why should I stop it?
	A whole bunch of dudes in the park around the city.
	I would love the opportunity for 28 different teams to come watch them.
	How about them, Sean?
	How about this?
	How about this?
	Tim Thibault is a better athlete.
	Tim Tebow has been working on his game, and Tim Tebow has proven through apparently some of these scouts that he can hit the ball pretty damn well and that he's got a shot.
	Have you watched him hit a baseball?
	Have you watched him hit a baseball?
	Of course I watched it.
	And what did you think?
	I wasn't that impressed.
	I really, really wasn't.
	I don't even think you could hit a 100-mile-an-hour fastball.
	You can't even hit an 80-mile-an-hour curveball.
	Hold it, hold it, hold it.
	Who said that he did?
	He didn't.
	I ain't trying out for my.
	Because I actually talked to somebody that saw him that said he could actually hit.
	Stop it.
	Now, listen, I don't know if he's going to make it with the Mets.
	I don't know.
	He's going to make it.
	But here's the point.
	Here's the point.
	I love the guy.
	He is passionate.
	He put in the time, the effort, the resources to build up his game, and he's getting a shot, and you're whining about him chasing his dream.
	You know what?
	You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Stephen A. Smith.
	You ought to be championing the American dream because you are the embodiment of the American dream.
	You live the American dream.
	For somebody like you to be as successful as you are today, it's a dream.
	Let me tell you something.
	What?
	I happen to believe that Tim Tebow is one of the nicest human beings you'll ever meet in your life.
	Wow.
	He's a great person.
	Wow.
	He's a great person.
	Did you smoke pot this morning because you're really mellow?
	What are you doing?
	That's not the Stephen A. that I watched for years trash the guy on the SPN.
	Hold it.
	As usual, you try to change the narrative.
	I said Tim Tebow can't throw.
	I never said he wasn't a good guy.
	I said he can't throw, and he still can't throw.
	I was right then.
	No, you were wrong.
	I think he was treated unfairly.
	Listen, I got to tell you something.
	I would have, if I was an NFL owner, I would have put him on my team squad, worked with him a little more.
	He had his own expense, and you've got to give him credit for this.
	He hired his own quarterback coach.
	He spent hours every day trying to perfect his craft.
	I know that he had an unconventional throwing style.
	He worked on it.
	You got to admit, look, this guy won the Heisman.
	Did he win the Heisman?
	Yes or no?
	Did he win the Heisman?
	Yes, he did.
	Okay, how many people win the Heisman every year, Stephen A. Not many.
	How many?
	One every year.
	One every year.
	So it's a great honor.
	That means he's a talented athlete, isn't he?
	John Hannity, may I chime in here and say this to you?
	Because you should be ashamed of yourself of what you're just saying.
	Why do you steal my lines?
	You've got to think of your own lines.
	You're a talk show host.
	You can think on your feet.
	Come on.
	It's my line.
	We're just step up.
	Here's the deal, Sean.
	I am seven.
	I just finished doing my radio show.
	You just started.
	Wait a second.
	Tim Tebow.
	Tim Tebow.
	By the way, did you get permission from Trog Keller to come on the show?
	Because you're going to get the crap beat out of you.
	You're going to get the crap beat out of you.
	And I love Trog.
	He's my best buddy.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	My boss only has a problem with me talking politics during an election.
	What do you think about Obama?
	Nothing else.
	I have no comment, Sean.
	Obama's not running this year, so it's not what I'm saying.
	We're only talking about Obama.
	Well, listen.
	And listen, let me tell you.
	Why don't you just repeat after me?
	Because I was right and you were wrong about Obama.
	Obama's a failure.
	Obama's upset.
	Repeat after me.
	Obama is a failure.
	I will say no such thing about our president.
	I will be more respectful than you are about our president.
	Do I like everything?
	No, I do not.
	Let me give you the numbers, Stephen A. Ready?
	You are.
	The lowest labor participation rate since the 70s.
	The lowest labor participation rate since the 70s.
	Worst recovery since the 40s.
	Lowest home ownership rate in 51 years.
	12 million more Americans on food stamps.
	8 million more in poverty.
	Excuse me.
	He's accumulating more debt than every president before him combined.
	No, but she's going to follow up on the same idiotic, stupid, failed policies.
	Is he running for president?
	He is not running for president.
	Okay, then we can talk about him.
	Admit it.
	Repeat after me.
	Obama was a failure.
	I will do no such thing about our president.
	That's cutlass.
	But you trashed my boy Tebow.
	You trashed my man Tebow.
	Hold up.
	Hold up.
	Hold it.
	You're trying to tell me that on a pro level you think Tim Tebow's a winner?
	Yes.
	I remember a playoff game.
	I remember.
	By the way, why do you even like me?
	I don't understand.
	How are we friends?
	Because you're honest and you're straight up about what you feel.
	Can I ask you one other thing?
	You don't have to agree with me.
	And Stephen A. was under fire on his job for BS.
	Who stood?
	Who had your back?
	Who had your back?
	John Hannity.
	And who would have your back tomorrow?
	John Hannity.
	And who loves you?
	No question.
	I know you love me.
	You're my brother in Christ.
	How can you help yourself?
	Aren't you a Christian?
	I'm a lovable guy.
	I'm a lovable guy.
	How could you lie?
	How could you help yourself?
	You want a trophy for that?
	But most people love me.
	They just.
	I got to wrap, but you know what?
	I do love you.
	You're my buddy.
	I love this guy.
	This is what it's like in real life.
	We do this in real life every time we talk.
	Unbelievable.
	What was the big moment that the media is not focused on last night?
	So Hillary Clinton, and by the way, I found it amusing.
	Well, Donald Trump said to Howard Stern in an interview that, well, I guess so.
	Do you favor the Iraq war?
	As his definitive statement on the war, that's just ridiculous.
	With all due respect, there was no details.
	He was not pushing for it.
	As a matter of fact, on this program, remember early on, Linda, we had Trump on, and he and I went at it over the need to go to Iraq.
	And the one thing I did agree with him on is taking the oil, which he said from the very get-go.
	That was not a no-brainer.
	So that's just not accurate.
	That was not the big moment.
	Or Trump talking about the generals and saying that, yeah, unfortunately, good ones have left.
	I had Lieutenant General Mike Flynn on right after.
	And he confirmed what Trump was saying.
	As somebody that was a contrarian to the Obama agenda, he was pushed out.
	That's what rudderless means that they don't have the ability to have any impact.
	And so what he's saying is, no, elect me.
	And he said repeatedly, if they have the better idea, I'm going to listen to them.
	That's not the big moment either.
	Hillary voted for the Iraq war.
	How do these people feel when the person running says her vote to go to war was a mistake?
	That's the key.
	Hillary Clinton, let's talk about your vote in favor of the war in Iraq.
	You since said it was a mistake.
	Obviously, it was not something you said you would do again.
	I asked before for people to raise their hand if you served in Iraq.
	Can you do it again?
	How do you think these people feel when the person running to be their commander-in-chief says her vote to go to war in Iraq was a mistake?
	Look, I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake.
	And I have said that my voting to give President Bush that authority was, from my perspective, my mistake.
	I also believe that it is imperative that we learn from the mistakes like after-action reports are supposed to do.
	And so we must learn what led us down that path so that it never happens again.
	I think I'm in the best possible position to be able to understand that.
	Stop there for the Senate.
	I think the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake.
	I've said me giving authorization was a mistake.
	All right, now you just stop and freeze frame that.
	Put yourself in the mindset of a soldier that has no legs today because of her, quote, mistake, or no arms because of her mistake, or is disfigured because of her mistake.
	Put your mind in the, you know, try and project and think as a mother or father who lost their son or daughter because, oh, what I did is a mistake there.
	Oh, sorry.
	Oops.
	5,000 dead Americans.
	I guess her answer is, at this point, what difference does it make?
	And then cavalierly saying that it's imperative we learn from her mistake.
	Really?
	You know, Bernie Sanders was right.
	She doesn't have the judgment to be president.
	Admitting 5,000 Americans that fought, bled, and died in Iraq and Baghdad, Mosul, and Ramadi and Fallucia and to Crete was, that was a mistake.
	But we must, it's imperative we learn from the mistake.
	Well, you're dead.
	How do you learn from her stupid mistake?
	That is the most callous, heinous thing I think she's ever said.
	And all the media could focus on last night was Donald Trump saying something that General Flynn confirmed to me is true.
	You can't tell Obama anything, and if you try to, you're out.
	Then she talked about Libya.
	Well, nobody died in Libya.
	Here's what she said.
	Again, there's no difference between my opponent and myself.
	He's on record extensively supporting intervention in Libya when Gaddafi was threatening to massacre his population.
	I put together a coalition that included NATO, included the Arab League, and we were able to save lives.
	We did not lose a single American in that action.
	And I think taking that action was the right decision.
	Let's go over the mistake.
	Not a single American.
	There are four dead Americans.
	But at this point, what difference does it make?
	And how, you know, go back to Iraq for a second.
	Her mistake, 5,000 dead people, so many more that fought, bleeding, dying, giving their limbs.
	She made a mistake, but it's imperative we learn from her mistake.
	And then she added to the mistake once there, and they won those cities that I just mentioned.
	Well, then why didn't we keep what we had won?
	No, she left precipitously, gave an exit date with Obama, and as a result, it created a vacuum for ISIS with the added bonus of the oil to fund their reign of terror, according to her mistake.
	And then in Libya, well, nobody died.
	With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.
	Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans?
	What difference at this point does it make?
	It is our job to figure out what they're doing.
	I'll tell you what the difference is at this point is that if you're the mother or father of one of those four dead Americans and then you discover, as we did, that there were 600 individual separate requests for additional security as the Brits and as the Red Cross were pulling out, didn't they die in Libya?
	You know, and if they're pulling out, why didn't you pull out or at least give them the security they are asking for?
	600 separate requests.
	And what was she doing during an attack that they were actually watching in real time?
	She's the highest-ranking person in the situation room worried about whether or not we need the Libyan president's permission and whether or not the brave men and women that are on standby that were never sent to go save Americans under fire that they're watching in real time, you know, whether or not they can be in uniform or not because she had them change their clothes four separate times.
	And then, of course, the lie afterwards, we know it's a lie because she told her own daughter, the Libyan president, the Egyptian prime minister, that it was a terrorist attack by El-Nusera.
	She said it herself.
	And then she told you, the American people, something entirely different.
	And then, of course, she explained the Iranian deal.
	You know, really?
	Giving the Iranians the number one state sponsor of terror $150 billion is a good thing?
	Really?
	So that they can spin their centrifuges?
	No inspections any place anytime.
	25 days' notice of coming and pending inspections, but not by Americans.
	And then you can add to that, they get to build missile defense with Putin and Russia.
	All right, so Trump says he can get along with Putin.
	Well, you just made it so the Iranians can defend themselves against the Israelis if they need it for their national security.
	And they can build up their conventional arms.
	That too came out.
	And then you talked about the VA, which you had said is, oh, we're really making progress.
	No, you're not.
	People are still dying.
	And Trump says, under my plan, they get to walk into any doctor's office, any hospital, if they can't get cared for immediately.
	I'll take that plan if I'm a vet versus the dying bureaucracy plan that incentivizes this perverse system of having multiple lists when actually when the actual time that servicemen and women ask for help versus the real time that they put down, they asked for help.
	Some people died waiting, literally, had heart attacks while waiting, committed suicide while waiting.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	That's only part of what happened last night.
	Yeah, Bill Clinton is out there.
	He's now playing the race card.
	Well, white Southerners, they know what Make America Great really means.
	J. William Fulbright, his mentor, former Klansman, Robert Bird, her mentor.
	Oh, and then we got Hillary Clinton.
	I'm sorry, Chelsea Clinton actually claiming that, get this, this is almost laughable, that Donald Trump is sexist and misogynist.
	I guess now that opens up the door to Paula Jones telling her story again, and Kathleen Willey, who tells, well, Paula Jones was exposed to by her dad.
	Kathleen Willey says she was groped, grabbed, fondled, touched against her will, and thrown up against the wall and kissed.
	And Juaneda Broderick was raped.
	Oh, but Trump's the misogynist, really?
	You want to go there, Chelsea?
	Want to talk about that?
	You're going to make those claims?
	I thought you were friends with Ivanka.
	I guess that's how far that's how deep that friendship goes.
	And that was it last night.
	I think it was a horrible night for Hillary.
	I say Trump came out the better of this on every side.
	You know, the whole issue, Matt Lauer is under fire.
	Why?
	Because Matt Lauer said about this whole issue of judgment.
	Why is it not disqualifying?
	What was the name of the mother that we had on?
	Linda, open your mic on last week.
	Her son is going to prison for one year.
	His name is Christian Saussier.
	Her name is Kathleen, and right now they're hoping to get one, but it could be two.
	It could be two years in prison for one offense.
	For taking a picture on a submarine, which is considered an offense.
	He's going to prison.
	And we're going to interview him maybe tomorrow or next week before he goes to jail.
	We're working on those details.
	Yeah.
	Unbelievable.
	But don't worry.
	We just got to learn from my mistake in Iraq.
	The Iranian deal, Libya before, during, and after.
	Donald Trump said, well, I know a lot about ISIS.
	This is what I study.
	Well, I think what he's saying is that you've got to mention radical Islam first.
	That didn't even come up last night.
	Poor Matt Lauer pressed and said, is it disqualifying?
	Now the media is beating up on poor Matt Lauer.
	I mean, he's about as innocuous as it gets.
	You know, he should have asked Trump this.
	He should have done that.
	You know, one of the other big lies that came out of last night, we now have a new classification.
	I never sent or received any classified information.
	I never sent or received anything mark classified.
	I never sent or received anything that had a header on it for classified.
	Well, the problem with that story is if you go back to January of this year, remember the whole email thread that she had with this guy, Jake Sullivan?
	I told you at the time, you know, that he wanted to send secure information through insecure means, and, you know, he couldn't do it, he said.
	And Hillary writes back and says, well, it's all right.
	You know, just we have issues sending it with a fax machine, he said.
	He said they're working on it.
	And Clinton responds, well, if they can't, just turn it into non-paper, meaning email, no identifying header, and send non-secure.
	She's telling him to send classified information.
	But then again, it's, you know, there's a C next to it, and she thought the C was alphabetical, but there's no A and there's no B and there's no D. There's just a C. We'll ask Julian Assange about this later because she saw thousands of documents.
	She knows exactly what the C meant.
	And for her to go out there and state now, Andrew McCarthy had a great article about this today.
	Yeah, even at, no, he put it on his website.
	I don't think it was on NRO.
	And, you know, he even says it's been so thoroughly discredited everything she's saying.
	And, you know, the idea that classified information doesn't always come with a header.
	And she knows that.
	And she's always known that.
	Classified material is a header that she says that's top secret, confidential.
	None of the emails sent her received by me had such a header because she told them to remove it, which we learned in January.
	Good grief.
	I just don't like being lied to again and again and again.
	But we're lied to all the time.
	By the way, Clinton campaign is now warning the press to back off Hillary's health questions.
	I'm not kidding you.
	In other words, this was in the Hill.
	The campaign intends to sharply counterattack news organizations that take questions about her health seriously.
	Our great senator, a decent, human being, Hillary Rodman Clinton.
	No, it's actually not Rodman.
	That would be Dennis Rodman.
	I actually talked to Dennis Rodman not that long ago.
	I said, what are you doing sucking up to that dictator of North Korea?
	He goes, no, man, I like that.
	He starts arguing with me.
	Pretty funny.
	We have other news today.
	Hillary Clinton won't comment about what she told the FBI about her concussion.
	Really?
	Well, she used that as an excuse that she didn't remember.
	Security briefing meetings.
	What else did she forget?
	And then other news today, the question count shows that Matt Lauer pressed Trump twice as hard as Hillary.
	This is an interesting statistic.
	It was in the Washington Examiner.
	Republican nominee got 16 questions.
	She filibustered.
	She got eight.
	Oh, whoops.
	Guess Trump got the harder interview.
	Typical.
	Angry Democrats sending Matt Lauer accusing him of being a Trump supporter.
	This is hilarious.
	There's no way that Matt Lauer is a Trump supporter.
	Here's the article I've met on Chelsea.
	This was, where did I find this?
	It was in Politico.
	In her first public campaign event since the Democratic National Convention, Chelsea Clinton didn't hold back when asked about Donald Trump's attacks on her mother.
	And response, she said that Hillary Clinton does not have a presidential look, he said.
	Chelsea said, well, I hope that everyone can see this as sad, misogynistic, sexist rhetoric that I'd hope we move beyond in the 21st century, certainly in 2016.
	Chelsea, you really want to go there?
	I don't think so.
	Trump is up by three points now in North Carolina today.
	We were following the latest poll numbers and all of this.
	Hillary was questioned about her husband's refusal to take bin Laden.
	Maybe I'll get into this later today if I have time, but we have Julian Assange when we get back.
	It was a mistake to have a personal account.
	I would certainly not do it again.
	I make no excuses for it.
	It was something that should not have been done.
	But the real question is the handling of classified material, which is, I think, what the implication of your question was.
	And for all the viewers watching you tonight, I have a lot of experience dealing with classified material, starting when I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee going into the four years as Secretary of State.
	Classified material has a header which says top secret, secret, confidential.
	Nothing.
	And I will repeat this, and this is verified in the report by the Department of Justice.
	None of the emails sent or received by me had such a header.
	All right.
	We now all know that that was the latest incarnation of a lie that Hillary has been telling about classified information on her email server.
	You know, this is as Andy McCarthy put out today, no classified information does not always come with a header, and Hillary knows it.
	So she thoroughly has been discredited with the whole, well, I never sent or received classified information.
	I never sent or received anything more classified.
	And now she says it doesn't have a header.
	Well, this arose last night during this big debate, and it raises a lot of questions about Hillary's emails, what has been discovered, what is yet to be discovered.
	And joining us right now is somebody that probably knows more about this than anybody else in the world.
	And that's Julian Assange.
	He is the founder and the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks.
	He's an Australian computer programmer.
	And how are you, sir?
	Welcome to the radio program.
	I'm good.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate you being here.
	All right, let me first start with, let's go back to the beginning.
	Because for 10 consecutive years, you have never gotten anything wrong that I can find, and you stand proudly on that statement.
	Is that true?
	It is true.
	It's an enormous reputation to try and keep up.
	And that's why.
	By the way, I've gotten things wrong, and I have to apologize and correct.
	A lot of people in the media don't like to do that, Julian.
	Well, unfortunately, we've been quite successful in never having got it wrong.
	So that's why we have to spend time vetting our material before we publish it to keep that perfect reputation.
	Now, I've got to be perfectly frank and blunt with you.
	At one point when the whole WikiLeaks story and what it was was being revealed, I was, as an American citizen, I got to be honest, very nervous and I was very critical of you and even at one point thought that you were waging war against the United States.
	And that's how I felt at the time.
	And I also worried, Julian, that, all right, where does this hacking end as a big believer in privacy?
	I'm thinking, all right, there's no end to this.
	This is going to go after every American citizen, every single person, every text, every email.
	And, you know, as somebody that believes in the right to privacy, especially for individuals, I was concerned.
	What I didn't factor in at the time, and I will admit my mistake, is that I think you have done the United States of America and the world a great service.
	And let me tell you why.
	I think, number one, you showed a vulnerability that as a country, we needed to know about.
	You told me the other night it was simple for you to break in and get American records.
	Is that true?
	Well, not for me.
	In general, computer security is incredibly weak.
	Right.
	So for all sorts of organized crime, other states, teenagers in their bedroom, sure.
	So I think on that level, I think making the United States of America aware of that vulnerability is a really good thing because now hopefully they can hire the right people and fix it.
	Would you agree with that?
	Yeah, but if we go back a bit, there was a lot of false statements.
	You know, we've published most famously, we've published a lot of things from a lot of countries over the last decade that have put guilty people in prison, released innocent people from prison, led to international settlements, including against the largest ever international settlement against Russia in the UCOS case.
	So, you know, we publish serious things.
	But under the Obama administration, when we published Hillary Clinton's cables, her reaction, because it was very embarrassing that she didn't protect them, was to try and kill the messenger.
	And as part of that, they launched a PR campaign to try and suggest that our publications had caused people to come to harm U.S. soldiers and others.
	That's false.
	In fact, the Pentagon had to admit under oath in 2013 that they could not find a single person who had been physically harmed by our publications.
	But that false messaging was assumed, because it came from the government, to be true at the time.
	And of course, a lot of people were understandably angry in the United States.
	But that was false, and they had to admit under oath that it was false.
	You see, this is where I think that my thinking, and over time, number one, you made America aware of a great vulnerability, and that is that if we don't have cybersecurity, America doesn't have secrets.
	And I think that any country in a day and age of ISIS and radical Islamists and those that would bring harm to innocent men, women, and children anywhere around the globe, I think that's enormously important, especially from a national security standpoint.
	And I think the other thing that has had a pretty profound impact on me, and you mentioned a number of examples, where WikiLeaks has literally led to truth, I think you exposed a level, a deep level of lying, of a corrupt government, deeper than even me as a staunch critic of government was kind of shocked by.
	Does that make sense?
	So in that sense, I think you have done the American public a service.
	Well, that's that the purpose of our organization is to try and bring the truth to the public, which is otherwise suppressed, either because of media bias, and we've seen a lot of that in this election, where actually a lot of the Democrat-aligned media like MSNBC, Politico, Washington Post, we exposed as acting against journalistic ethics and taking marching orders from the DNC,
	checking, in the case of Politico, their copy with the DNC before even their own editors managed to see it.
	So unfortunately, there has to be a place where whistleblowers, consultants, and yes, even computer hackers who care about the truth have a place to publish it, which is verified, where people can trust what's published, because we put our entire reputation on the line to make sure it is trusted.
	The thing that I asked you the other night that also had a pretty profound impact on me is I asked you, okay, you obviously have the ability to hack into government records around the world.
	Would you ever use it against individuals?
	And you are an emphatic no.
	That's not the purpose of your organization.
	It's not the purpose of our organization.
	But also, we're just we're not interested.
	We don't hack.
	We're a publisher.
	We encourage whistleblowers to come forward by campaigning for them, by co-founding the Courage Foundation, which supports whistleblowers.
	Yeah, and showing that when people publish with us, they have a big impact.
	If you look at the DNC publications, there had been some other publications by The Hill, which is not a bad publication for Washington, D.C., Gawker and so on, documents from the DNC, PDFs.
	But they had no impact.
	But when we published the DNC emails, there was enormous impact.
	The top five people at the DNC had to resign, including the President Debbie Wassum and Schultz.
	And that's because, A, we're really trusted by the public and by journalists.
	And B, we have a philosophy of making our material available to the people equally so they can check that what it is claimed to say, it really does say they can find what's been buried by the press or missed by the press, either just by accident or lack of resources or because of political bias.
	You know, it's interesting because I know that a lot of people say, well, Hannity, you changed your views on Julie and Assange, and I'm just looking at this very objectively.
	These are the same people that, you know, they know I don't want Hillary Clinton to be the next president.
	That's a fair and true statement, and I would certainly understand people jumping to that conclusion.
	What they will negate to tell people is there's nobody the last number of years that has been more fiercely critical of Republicans and how weak and timid and feckless and spineless and visionless they are and how they allowed Obama's agenda to go through.
	They never challenged him.
	They never used their constitutional enumerated powers to stop him.
	And I've been far more critical of them.
	For me, it's not about politics.
	It's about the truth and what's right.
	And when Republicans are weak, I call them out, which I don't see the Democrats do.
	Let me ask you this.
	Well, there's good and bad people in both parties.
	I'm sure that's a good question.
	I agree with that.
	I agree with that.
	I agree.
	I think there are well-intentioned people.
	And I also think there are people, as you have learned, I mean, you know, one of the things that amazed me about the whole DNC hacking is here you had racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, you know, gay slurs.
	And I'm thinking, wait a minute, that is the narrative, the false narrative that I as a conservative fight back against that is used by the Democrats every election season.
	And by the way, it pisses me off.
	And talking about Hispanics as taco bowls.
	Right.
	Right.
	And no one really paid attention to that.
	That took my breath away.
	And that got covered up.
	Let me ask you.
	Go ahead.
	I found the most serious email in the DNC collection is actually, to my mind, not the most salicious.
	It is an instruction through the chain of command of the DNC to plant false stories about Bernie Sanders supporters committing violence with a number of outlets and to, quote, not have their fingerprints on it, unquote.
	If you look at the DNC charter, it says explicitly that they, in a presidential primary, they are meant to be strictly neutral and impartial.
	Yeah, I think that's extraordinarily well said.
	Let me ask you specifically about Hillary.
	When you were on TV with me the other night, I brought up a quote that you had given recently to the New York Times, and you accused the press in America of supporting Hillary Clinton.
	You said the American liberal press is falling all over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton.
	They're erecting a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone's necks as soon as she wins the election, which she is almost certainly going to do.
	What did you mean by that?
	What I meant is this kind of the Democrats are always speaking about how terrible McCarthyism was, and it was in many ways.
	But at least the USSR actually existed then, and there were actually Russian influence campaigns in the United States which were serious.
	What we're seeing now is Hillary Clinton and her campaign trying to whip up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria where she claims that effectively Donald Trump is an agent of the Russians,
	that Wikileaks is an agent of the Russians, and where her campaign has also implied that Jewel Stein, the Greens leader, is a Russian agent, and that The Intercept, another U.S. publication, are effectively Russian agents.
	So what do we have here?
	We have, let's look at objectively, we have the ruling party's preferred successor running around calling the opposition leader, in fact multiple opposition leaders, and the critical press foreign agents.
	By the way, isn't that the very terrible climate to permit?
	And what kind of press climate is going to exist afterwards, especially if Hillary Clinton is elected?
	It will be perceived to be a validation of that hysteria.
	And so the press afterwards will be cracked down upon, and online publishers and people on social media, you know, it will lead to a very harsh climate where the First Amendment will be very significantly eroded.
	You know, what we're talking with, we're discussing the issue of Wikileaks, its founder, its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, is with us.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We'll come back on the other side a lot more to ask him more specifically about what he's discovered about your government, how he got started in all of this.
	What specifically, to the extent that he'd be willing to share, what batches of information does he think he'll be releasing before the election?
	We'll get to that.
	Also, we'll get to your phone calls coming up.
	And much more.
	800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number as we continue.
	We continue our discussion here with the founder, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, and that's Julian Assange who's with us.
	You told me that you have batches, what you call batches and batches of information that you're continuing to vet specifically related to Hillary Clinton that you have said numerous times you believe will have a profound or could have a profound impact on this election.
	What else can you tell us about that?
	I said significant.
	Profound is possible.
	It depends on how the stuff is taken up.
	But we saw a very good take-up last time with the DNC leaks, so I'm hopeful.
	I can't scoop ourselves before we publish, but we have tens of thousands, possibly as many as 100,000 pages of documents of different types related to the operations that Hillary Clinton is associated with.
	They're from several I don't want to speak about sourcing, but let me put it this way, that in response to DNC publications, a lot of people have been inspired by the impact and so stepped forward with additional material.
	So you are currently putting all of this together.
	Where in the process are you?
	Because I know that it's important to you to maintain your perfect track record in terms of not getting information wrong.
	In terms of a timeline, we do have an important election in just 61 days.
	Where are you in terms of that process?
	I'm quite confident now on the initial batches in terms of vetting them, that they are accurate, they are what they say they are, that our sources are not lying to us about what they say they are.
	But it's quite a complex business to sort things, to index them, to make sure they're presentable, to try and see what the top initial angles are that come out.
	And we're a small shop.
	We're working around the clock.
	We understand very much the time pressures that people have and how significant it is to try and get that out.
	We worked like hell to get the DNC publication out before the DNC.
	We did get it out the day before the DNC.
	I am very confident we're going to get this material out long before the day before the election.
	Now, as a result of your interview with me on TV, the Clinton campaign sent out a message associating you with Roger Stone, who's not even involved in the Trump campaign.
	Does that have any impact whatsoever on your decision to make these batches available?
	And when you say batches, that's plural.
	How many batches would you say you have?
	It's a question about how the first batch is digested, but there's some natural batches, so we're talking at least three or four natural batches.
	But as we see how the publications progress and what particular angles people decide to run with, you know, what the public finds are most interesting, then we might extend that or we might contract it.
	A lot of this is resource-bound as well.
	We're a small investigative publisher, so there's huge weight on us to get it all done.
	It's hard work.
	How would you describe, tell me the adjectives if you feel that the batches are relevant in terms of what would interest the public and the electorate?
	What are the adjectives that you would use or you would want used after you release some of these batches to describe the information that you're going to pass forward?
	What would you want people to say?
	Devastating.
	I'm not going to scoop myself on your show, Sean.
	Well, you absolutely can.
	We're on 550 radio stations right now all across the country.
	I have no idea if you even know who I am.
	We're a diligent, careful organization.
	I don't want to go there.
	I am confident it is significant.
	This is what you said to the PBS.
	So there's a lot of different angles.
	You said what we have is a significant amount of information.
	The information itself is significant, and it pertains to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	And we will be releasing it in several batches, and we will be finished as we are finished with our journalistic work on each batch.
	Yes.
	It seems like there's no end to this.
	We have been doing this for 10 years.
	Yeah.
	That's a good point.
	Almost like a job security.
	Did you get, would you answer this question, did you get all 33,000 deleted emails that Hillary Clinton deleted?
	I'm not commenting on what we have other than to say we have significant material about the campaign.
	We will be releasing it as soon as we possibly can, as soon as the journalistic formatting presentation work is done.
	If people want to speed that up, we're tax deductible in the United States.
	That'll allow us to hire more presentation people and more researchers.
	But yeah, otherwise I don't want to scoop out publications before we are ready to present them to the public.
	Let me ask you about the personal impact in your life.
	You'll never give your location.
	I won't waste any time asking you.
	But you are hidden away and you have been for a significant period of time.
	There was an attempted break-in at apparently what they describe as your embassy home.
	Ecuador has questioned London's inadequate response.
	On top of that, it was revealed yesterday Sweden's Court of Appeal is debating this week whether to grant you an open court hearing in your campaign to rescind an arrest warrant against you.
	The appearance is related to sexual assault charges that you're facing in Sweden.
	Do you claim all of this is false?
	And is this as a result of the work that you're involved in, do you believe?
	Well, I'm not facing any sexual assault charges.
	I haven't been charged with frequent misreportage.
	In fact, in that Swedish case, we have a lot of cases, but in the Swedish case, I haven't been charged.
	Well, the appearance that you took back in 2010 was related to that.
	I've already been cleared by the chief prosecutor of Stockholm.
	The thing was resurrected after the involvement of a politician, a guy by the name Claire Borgstrom, back in 2010, in the middle of our kind of conflict with Hillary over the publication of the cables.
	The United Nations, this year, after 18 months of litigation and review, on February 5, made a formal finding that I am being illegally detained and I should be immediately released and compensated.
	So that's the facts on there.
	What we're trying to do in Sweden is enforce that determination.
	Let me ask you this.
	Get the Swedes to make it themselves.
	At the age of 16, this is fascinating to me.
	You broke into the systems of NASA and the U.S. Pentagon.
	You were busted on 25 counts of hacking.
	You're 16 years old.
	Which, you know, I guess the question I think my audience would most want to hear from you is this.
	In all of these years that you have read all of this relevant information from the bowels of our government, what should the average citizen know that they don't know about America's government?
	And more particularly, I would argue, under this president, but any president that you want to share?
	That's a very interesting question.
	It is an interesting experience to be a very young person trying to understand the world and educate yourself.
	And as an Australian, you know, Australia is a long way from anywhere else, but you can kind of get out with your mind, which is what I and some other Australian teenagers were doing, exploring the world, trying to understand it.
	And that, of course, includes the U.S. government.
	I would say that some things to understand.
	Even the worst institution has good people in it.
	The people at the bottom are usually pretty good.
	As you go up, people become more duplicitous.
	We can talk about some big structural things here.
	They're quite explained.
	Over all these years, you've been accused of being a rapist, an enemy combatant, a CIA covert operative, a Mossad agent for Israel.
	All of these things.
	Yeah, I mean, and listen, I've got to be honest, I'm a big supporter of the military because I think the world is a very evil and dangerous place.
	I really do.
	I believe in covert operations, too.
	But I know that you, you know, in 2010, in April, with the release of Collateral Murderer, you showed an American helicopter in Iraq opening fire on unarmed civilians.
	That's not what I want my military doing.
	I don't want them.
	There might have been one or two that were armed.
	Actually, we say that explicitly in the video.
	But yes, the majority not armed, not engaged in combat, and two were Reuters journalists.
	Later on in that video is the serious incident, the real serious incident, where there's a Reuters journalist wounded crawling along the gutter.
	Good Samaritans turn up in a van with two kids on the way to school.
	They go to collect him off the street, and then the helicopter opens fire on that van, which is just collecting the wounded.
	So then there's a cover-up.
	And in some ways, the cover-ups are more serious because they're systematic corruption.
	You can have one event or another event, but the way the system heals itself is by, you know, being accountable for when things go wrong.
	That's how you...
	Do you agree with my worldview, though, that there is evil in this world?
	Do you agree with my worldview that unfortunately human beings haven't all fallen short of the glory of God, to quote a great book?
	That we are dealing with some evil people and they don't respect human life and human dignity, and there have to be steps to protect innocent people?
	Yes, I've dealt with and seen very bad people.
	I mean, friends of mine have been assassinated.
	I've had calls for my assassination.
	There are a lot of bad people in the world.
	There's a lot of good people as well.
	So go back to my original question then.
	What would you tell the American?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Go ahead.
	Finish your thought.
	No, I was about to say, I think that, you know, you've got basically 10% of people are really very fine.
	2% of people are psychopathic liars and actually enjoy causing suffering to others.
	That's true across nearly every society.
	It varies a little bit between societies.
	And then the people in the middle, they kind of go either way.
	They take their leads from examples that they see.
	Back to my original question.
	Well, based on what you just said to me, let me ask the question this way: based on your classification of people, with many being good, many being in the middle, and 2% being psychopathic, and based on all the information you've been able to read and glean from things that Americans don't have the opportunity to see, except that you're sharing it, how would you classify Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
	Obama's hard to understand.
	There's a clear transition in Obama as he gets into government and then starts to identify with the authority that he has, and as far as we can see, starts to become more abusive in his exercise of authority because he identifies too much his own ego with what has happened in relation to various parts of the government.
	The president should be someone who forces accountability on the government rather than someone who tries to hide when the government gets it wrong.
	And Hillary?
	Hillary Clinton, I mean, I'm not that interested in the personal assessment.
	But you're able to, let me say this: you're able to glean things that others are not.
	Like, for example, in the DNC case, you were able to glean racism, sexism, homophobia, all things Democrats say.
	They're the champions of women's rights.
	They're the champion.
	Like Hillary Clinton takes money from the Saudis.
	The Saudis practice Sharia, treat women, they kill gays and lesbians, and there's no religious freedom for Christians or Jews.
	I find that repressive.
	That's right.
	And she takes their money.
	I find that the height of hypocrisy.
	So my question to you is: does she fit into that 2%?
	She's a does-what-it-takes kind of person.
	The question is: how has she gotten where she is now?
	Who are her kind of supporters, her cronies, the people that she relies upon to propel her and her working methods?
	Listen, I know you've given us been very generous with your time.
	Can I ask you a question?
	Would you be able to stay one more segment?
	Yeah, sure.
	You know, because I honestly, I don't want to interrupt your questions, but I have so many others, and I don't want to interrupt your answers, so I have so many other questions because I really want you to speak freely.
	And that's why my list of questions is very long, and I've read a lot about you, and I'd like to share a lot of it with our audience.
	So if you can stay one more segment, Julian Assange is with us.
	He's agreed to stay, founder, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.
	We'll pick it up right where we left off here about his worldview, what he's been able to glean from the documents that he has seen and is now sharing with the world.
	As I said, I believe there are two major benefits for you, the American people, in all of this.
	Number one, that we have been revealed how unsecure our computer systems are, and there is no cybersecurity within government, none whatsoever.
	And number two, also a level of corruption that I think should shock the conscience of any law-abiding, constitutional-loving American, and frankly, citizens of the world.
	We'll continue more with Julian Assange.
	We'll also get your calls in: 800-941-Sean.
	Tollfrey, telephone number, we'll continue.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
	All right, news roundup, information overload here on the Sean Hannity Show.
	We continue with Julian Assange, the founder, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks.
	I want to go back to, again, you've been able to see things from within the deep bowels, not only of our government, but other governments as well, and information that you've gleaned that others have not had access to, although you put it together and you share it with the world.
	And I know you've come under great criticism.
	As a matter of fact, you know, did you say earlier in this interview, I'm just paying attention to you here, because I think you've had friends assassinated because of your work?
	Yes, in Kenya.
	Can you expand on that?
	What happened?
	Well, we were involved in a process where more than 1,500 people, it's quite a complex domestic thing in Kenya, but had been killed by some elements of the Kenyan police.
	And the Kenyan Human Rights Commission was investigating this.
	The guys were being originally shot, then garrotted to hide the wounds, and then chucked into rivers and buried in landfill, etc.
	And the guys we were working with, two lawyers, were going to the Kenyan Human Rights Commission to present their results.
	And then they're in their car in the afternoon, and the van pulled in front, van pulled in behind with AK-47s, and they shot through the windows and killed them.
	Sad, isn't it?
	It's really, there's so much evil in this world.
	It's so horrible sometimes.
	Let me ask you.
	You asked a question before, Sean, about which I struggled to answer a bit about what is my worldview after being in the bowels of institutions for a long time.
	I guess it's as you see people near the top of the institution, what they say internally to each other, it's basically a contempt for democracy, a contempt for the public, and self-confidence in that contempt.
	Can I ask you to expand on it in this way?
	Through the prism of the DNC and those emails, again, which showed racism, sexism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, gay slurs, etc.
	You know, you talk about a contempt for we the people in the case of the United States, that showed real contempt and real hypocrisy.
	And I want you to go into the broader question, and you have free reign to go anywhere you want in terms of what, especially related to our election, would you think the American people have a right to know about Hillary Clinton based on the bowels of documents that you have read that maybe we have not?
	I'm not going to scoop our upcoming publication, Sean.
	You've got to give me credit for trying.
	I mean, you don't expect me not to try.
	Jeez.
	As far as the DNC leaks are concerned, I mean, you know, everyone knows the big takeaway.
	The DNC acted against its own constitution to try and rig the primary process against Bernie Sanders and for Hillary Clinton.
	And then afterwards, immediately afterwards, Hillary Clinton said that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is, you know, her best pal, literally two hours afterwards, her best pal and would become the honorary head of her campaign and be her surrogate, etc.
	Basically saying, hey, don't worry, all my cronies, as long as you do something corrupt for me, you'll be taken care of.
	And it's very interesting that she feels that she must make that statement because obviously politically, it doesn't help her to make that statement with the American people.
	It obviously doesn't help her to make that statement with the Bernie Sanders guys and girls.
	So who is that statement for?
	It's for her cronies and allies, which she wants to reassure, don't worry, I'm going to look after you.
	If you help me in a corrupt manner, you're going to be taken care of.
	And that's a very bad sign.
	So she's corrupt.
	She is a corrupt behind the scenes when nobody's looking.
	She's a very different person than what she portrays publicly.
	Fair statement?
	Yes.
	Is she only?
	Fair statement.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Sean, can I go into some of the FBI report and our cables about Hillary Clinton that we've published?
	Yes.
	Because I think this is something that really needs to be focused on because it's undeniable.
	So in the FBI interview with Hillary Clinton, I have it here.
	I'll just quote from it.
	Where are we?
	So this is about the C in brackets on a document.
	Now everyone who has a security clearance or has been in the Senate or is an investigative journalist, and frankly, a lot of people have been in the most people have been in the military know what a C in bracket means next to a paragraph that means classified.
	An S in bracket, classified confidential.
	An S in bracket means classified secret.
	U in brackets means unclassified, and TS in brackets means top secret.
	So in her interview, which is reported by the FBI, when asked what the parenthical C meant before a paragraph within the captioned email, Clinton stated that she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.
	Yeah, there's no A and B. There's no A and B.
	And there's no D either.
	We have something much stronger than that, much stronger than that, which we published her cables, all of her 2009 cables and some of her 2010 cables.
	So that's her first year as Secretary of State.
	And there are literally thousands of examples on her website where she has signed off the cable with her own name, Clinton, and the paragraphs above that have this C in brackets.
	She has been using that C in brackets thousands of times while she was Secretary of State.
	Now, if Hillary Clinton turned around and said, oh, but, you know, I just dictated that cable, someone else put these brackets in, which I don't believe happened all the time.
	But anyway, she turns around and says that.
	We also have thousands of cables that we have published that were sent to her that had this C in brackets.
	So the original I never sent or received classified information was always a lie.
	That was always a lie, but she is intimately familiar with this C marking.
	We have published proof of her writing it using it thousands of times.
	There's one email thread from June of 2011 that included Hillary telling a top aide, his name is Jake Sullivan, to send secure information through insecure means.
	And in response to her request for a set of since redacted talking points, you know, he writes, well, they've had issues sending secure facts and they're working on it.
	And she responded, well, if they can't, turn it into non-paper, meaning email, with no identifying heading and send non-secure.
	Now, why is that important in light of what happened last night?
	Because last night was the first time she mentioned there's no heading.
	You don't need a heading.
	And it shows there was a heading there.
	She was aware of headings and she was aware of the importance of removing these headings.
	So there is a concerted effort to defy the law, defy security, do whatever she pretty much damn well pleases, and then she lies with a bandit.
	Now, you were talking about three personality types in the last half hour.
	You said 2% are psychopathic.
	That kind of seems to me to fit into that category, and you didn't want to go there.
	I don't want to make a personality assessment.
	In some ways, it doesn't matter.
	She does what she does, and that's...
	Yeah.
	She does what she does, and she has the allies that she has, and that's going to define her as a president, just like most political candidates.
	And that, to some degree, is unalterable.
	Well, then let me ask you about America's media, though.
	You put out all the-you know, she's going to act like that.
	If you read The People of the Lie, though, I don't know if you've ever read The Road Less Traveled or The People of the Lie.
	I mean, lying in and of itself is an act of evil.
	There's a certain dishonesty, and when you do it with a calculated purpose to advance one's career, I think it becomes even more pronounced.
	But the American lied.
	That's a concrete example of her lying.
	How many times do you think you've caught her lying based on your analysis of what you found?
	Well, I think there's dozens of incidences.
	So she lies with regularity.
	This particular one that I just gave, this is something that everyone can see.
	You can go to wikileaks.org slash plus D, P-L-U-S-D, and just put in Clinton in the search term, select the classification as confidential or confidential, no, foreign, or secret, and you will see those cables.
	Let me ask you this question.
	Everyone can prove it.
	How do you assess America's media?
	Now, I started at the beginning of this interview, and I admitted I think I was wrong about you.
	And I apologize, by the way.
	I didn't do it the last time, but I will now.
	Because I think you have done a great service for the country, and I really worried, and my rationale at the time, I actually stand by it, was I really thought you had compromised the security of Americans, and that's where my focus was.
	So I did have a rationale, but it turns out that I was wrong.
	But in this instance, how do you assess American media where you're doing all the work for them?
	And I know that even the New York Times criticized you, which kind of made me laugh so much.
	Bill Keller at the Times at the time, you know, attacking you personally and then stealing everything that you put out.
	I mean, it was hilarious to me.
	But, you know, my question to you is, how do you assess the American media?
	You lay out all this information.
	They're not informing the American people to the extent they should, are they?
	There's some good journalists in the American media.
	There are.
	But if we're talking about institutions in this election cycle, I mean, it's really embarrassing.
	I mean, some of that's come out through DNC emails, but there's a rapid partisan, sorry, there's increasing bias in the media, much more than there was four years ago.
	I'm not sure why.
	I think it's probably because Hillary Clinton's network has grown so large and is intermingled with a lot of that media.
	You look at the Daily Beast, for example, its parent organization has Chelsea Clinton on the board.
	Those sorts of connections exist in MSNBC, Washington Post, Politico, etc.
	Basically, they're all in bed with each other, aren't they?
	Well, they're in bed with each other, but you could have friends or allies or relatives, but you might have ethical principles.
	Well, I criticize Republicans, and I never get credit for it.
	I beat the crap out of them.
	Let me ask you this question based on your knowledge.
	Do you think that Hillary's email server issue potentially led to the death of innocent people?
	Like, for example, like Benghazi or the Iranian scientist or any of those issues?
	Hillary Clinton's emails, a lot of people have had them.
	If you read carefully the FBI report, you see that all her emails from her private server, private server, in her lounge room, there were three, were sucked out to a cloud run by some contractor.
	She says illicitly.
	They were also pushed into Gmail.
	They were put on a laptop, which they posted to themselves and then immediately lost the whole laptop, they say.
	I think it's an interesting question as to whether they lost the laptop with all the emails of the United States top diplomat on it or whether this is a quite elaborate and frankly clever way to make a laptop disappear when you're expecting a subpoena.
	I think the people that use bleach bits are 15.
	13.
	Yeah, 15 phones busted up with a hammer.
	15 phones.
	They destroyed at least five with a hammer.
	Only two could be found.
	But she only used one device.
	Julian, she told us she only used one device.
	That was a lie.
	That was a lie.
	And also she had an iPad, and emails were being received on that iPad.
	So there's emails that we have published where you see her sending emails from her iPad or her staff are talking about her receiving emails on her iPad.
	I'm a privacy believer.
	I just have this belief that we ought to be able to, individuals ought to have a right to privacy.
	Governments are very different for me, except for covert operations, military secrets that I think every government does have a right to have in an evil world.
	Like I, for example, use an iPhone.
	It's supposed to be encrypted.
	How easy would it be for you to bust into anybody's iPhone?
	And I ask this on behalf of my audience that probably, like me, is concerned about their own privacy.
	Well, I'm not a computer hacker.
	I was one as a teenager.
	I became a security expert, an analyst and publisher and so on afterwards and fighter for the freedom of the press and the First Amendment and so on.
	But, of course, we have to study all this in order to know how to protect our own organization.
	WikiLeaks is constantly attacked by state parties, by mafia and so on.
	Everyone.
	We were banned by China as early as 2007.
	So we've had this ongoing war trying to protect ourselves for more than a decade.
	This is going to make a great movie one day.
	Is there anybody you want to play you in the movie?
	Well, no.
	No, nobody.
	Do you want to do it yourself?
	I'd rather like there to not be such things.
	All right, just one more question, final question for Julian Assange, who is the founder, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks.
	When we get back, also, your reaction to all of this, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	That and more coming up straight ahead.
	All right, we continue.
	Final question now for the founder, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, Julian Assange.
	Yes or no?
	I really want an answer from your best analysis and your understanding.
	Do you believe Hillary's email caused the death of anybody?
	I don't know.
	As I was saying before, they circulated very widely lost on laptops, in the posts, copied to remote servers, copied to Gmail, flowing over the internet.
	So that's kind of great from a Wikileaks perspective because it means such a wide number of sources.
	Yeah, it's great from Wikileaks perspective.
	But we are talking about the emails of the top U.S. diplomat.
	My philosophy about secrets, military secrets, and so on, is, yes, I believe that there are genuine secrets for a period of time.
	For example, our sources, we obviously keep them secret, otherwise they would be harmed.
	But it's the amount of time.
	I don't think there is any secret in government that must be kept secret forever.
	And that if there was such a secret, it would lead to unaccountability.
	What we're talking about with Hillary's emails is whether there was a military operation that was important, say, to save a hostage, for example, held by ISIS.
	And could that information come out near the time that that was happening?
	Or CIA officers knocks without official diplomatic status if their identities came out and they were in a very difficult situation in the Middle East that could lead to harm.
	I do think there's something here that we need to pay attention to, and I'll just leave this thought with you as you go to your dinner, is that the skills that you and your team, and I know you consider yourself a journalist, have accumulated over these many years, potentially could be used to hack into whatever electronic devices ISIS is using and save innocent lives.
	There is a potential for great good that can be accomplished here.
	Maybe just informing the American people what a pathological liar Hillary Clinton is, because you've seen it for yourself time and time again, is a wake-up call.
	And at least people go in with the full knowledge of what they're doing when they vote on November the 8th.
	But I wish I had more time.
	I really thank you for your time, and I appreciate you taking the time to be with us and share this information.
	Thank you.
	You're welcome.
	Thanks, Sean.
	Bye-bye.
	Be safe, by the way.
	I think a lot of people are out to get you.
	Yeah, they are.
	All right.
	800-941-Sean or Tofree telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	You know, it's pretty amazing.
	I find this guy fascinating.
	And I'm not sure I believe anything that anybody says about the guy.
	And I know they brought a lot of charges.
	I asked him about it, I don't know what to believe.
	I know this: that when you hit governments this hard as he has, and by the way, effectively, he's gotten people out of jail and had a lot of positive impact.
	I know that the media narrative, the media matters of the world, which are obsessed with me and tape four hours a day because they hire losers in their underwear and all over the country to monitor every word that I say.
	And they're like, oh, this is political.
	Well, I asked Julian last night, well, what if it was stuff on Trump?
	He said, well, the problem with Trump is he says everything he thinks.
	He's not a phony.
	So there's no pretense with him.
	But back to my original assessment, I remember when this first broke, the assessment was pretty clear that this probably was the worst damage to national security in the history of the country and would result in people's death.
	And based on that, I'm like, wow, this is espionage.
	This is a crime.
	So I did say that.
	I will say this.
	Now that WikiLeaks has a 10-year perfect record, and again, as a privacy person, I kind of don't want people being hacked the way they're being hacked every five minutes.
	It's not how I operate.
	But with that said, there is a great public service that has been performed here.
	Now, I want you to think about this.
	This never happens, and yet all of these foreign countries have the capability of Julian Assange as the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.
	So they're getting all that information.
	The only difference is they're not telling us that they have it.
	So now we know we have a huge cybersecurity safety problem.
	Number two, you know, as corrupt as I've always known instinctively that government is, he has also done a great service exposing just how deeply, fundamentally corrupt and dishonest your leaders are and your government is.
	I take, for example, the DNC email hack.
	So the same people that accuse conservatives every election season of being racist, they use racist language themselves.
	They do it.
	They're guilty of what they accuse conservatives of.
	They're anti-Semitic.
	They are misogynistic.
	They make gay and lesbian slurs and much more.
	What a public service to get to see the deep.
	Now, I know the media has ignored all of this because they are the willing accomplices of Hillary Clinton, just like they were Barack Obama.
	So I'm just telling you right now, this is a good service.
	You remember Elise Jordan was married to this guy, Mike Hastings?
	It was Michael, right?
	I like her a lot.
	She is a lovely girl.
	She's best friends with Elise, who used to work for me.
	Their best BFS.
	They go on vacation, send me pictures.
	I'm like, gee, I wish I had all the time Elise has.
	No, I'm just kidding.
	We're proud of her.
	She's doing great work, and she's got her own TV shows she's put together.
	So many people have left this, left working for me and done great things, haven't they?
	And Linda's stuck with me, you know, stuck like glue.
	Have you heard that song by Sugarland?
	Anyway, Hastings became a vocal critic of the surveillance state during the investigation of reporters by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2013, referring to the restrictions on freedom of the press by the Obama administration as a war on journalism.
	His last story, Why Democrats Love to Spy on Americans, was published by BuzzFeed.
	Hastings died in that high-speed, really bizarre, questionable automobile chase in Los Angeles back in, what, 2013?
	That was Elise's husband.
	Remember calling her at the time, and just devastated.
	And I spoke to her recently.
	She's actually doing really well.
	We're really proud of her.
	She's engaged, too.
	She's, you know, she's in a good place.
	So that's what I think.
	I'd love to hear what you say.
	Vanessa's in New Mexico.
	Vanessa, you're on the Sean Hannity show.
	Hi.
	Hi, thanks for taking my call.
	I just wanted to say that when he talked about what the Democrats are really, really about, and it shows with what's being leaked, that's what stuck out to me is that they portray themselves as the political party that really, really cares about people.
	And we've got your back.
	And the truth is just the opposite.
	And the truth is coming out because he and his organization have not only the skills, but the courage to expose it.
	And like you've said, to me, it's exposing the fundamental darkness and evil that is in the hearts and minds of our leaders, which drives them to do the things they're doing.
	And with Hillary Clinton, the arrogance of that party to think that they can be exposed and still have the likability of people in America.
	It's just, it's like her audacity to even run for president when she is responsible for the death of four Americans and then calling those families liars.
	It's even amazing to me, even though I have a realistic view of how the timing of having Julian on today, I think, was perfect in light of this town hall last night.
	I just thought it was amazing.
	Thank you, Vanessa.
	I'm interested in what everybody has to say here.
	Janelle is in Georgia, Waycross, Georgia.
	How are you, Janelle?
	Glad you called listening to News Talk WSP.
	Hey, Sean, it's good to be with you.
	I'm excited to get to talk to you.
	I listen to you every day, watch you on Fox at night.
	Thank you.
	You're just a great patriot.
	Well, God bless you.
	I appreciate your kind words.
	There's a lot of people that hate me right now.
	It's nice to get a little bit of reassurance occasionally because I don't get much.
	I've got a lot of support, I promise you.
	Thank you.
	Especially in Georgia.
	Thank you very much.
	I wanted to say about Julian Assange.
	I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to offer, what he has to put out there that he says he has on Hillary, because while his tactics may be a little bit questionable in how they go about gathering this material, she is a criminal.
	And she's not been held accountable for anything she's done in 30-plus years, Sean.
	I'm sick of it.
	I want something to stick.
	She needs to be held accountable for all that she's done.
	I agree.
	I think the fact that I honestly, though, believe that there's at least 40% of your fellow citizens that we could get her on video murdering somebody, shooting them in the head at point-blank range for no reason, handcuffed behind their back, and they still defend her.
	That's a problem we have.
	Half the country's nuts.
	It is.
	I don't understand it.
	It's crazy to me.
	And in Georgia, where I live, I can't believe I don't know anybody that's voting for her.
	And I can't believe that she's up in Georgia.
	That to me is embarrassing.
	I'm going, I don't know anybody that's voting for her.
	But let me tell you, they're out there.
	And these people write me regularly so I know what they think and how they feel and everything else.
	Anyway, thank you, Janelle.
	All my best to my friends in Georgia.
	Joni is in California.
	Joni, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	I'm fine.
	Thank you.
	I've been thinking about Assange as well, and I'm hoping that he can blow a bomb of an October surprise that can hopefully bring Hillary down because she's truly the head of the Clinton crime syndicate.
	And then I'm wondering, as you just said, whether the mainstream media would even care because it's anyway, this goes into the electoral conversation.
	You know, everybody's going to think the only reason Hannity likes Assange now is because he's going to make this document dump on Hillary, which, by the way, I'm not going to lie.
	I mean, sure, absolutely.
	But here's what I've come to realize that's even bigger and more profound.
	Although this could have a profound effect and an altering effect on our election this time.
	But I think the fact that we better pay attention to cybersecurity.
	I mean, the fact that he says it's easy to hack into the Pentagon, the fact that he did it at 16 years of age, it's mind-blowing.
	The second thing, the fact that our government is so corrupt and they've been exposed as such hypocrites.
	And the third thing that was kind of reassuring from the guy, I thought, was he's not after private citizens.
	He's after governments that are corrupt and exposing corruption.
	Well, that to me is fundamentally what journalism should be about.
	So I kind of like the gutsiness of it.
	I'm sure that if it was against George Bush, that Democrats would love the guy.
	But it's not.
	It's against Hillary, and I think that they're scared to death.
	I am told within Democratic ranks, they are literally in their pants over this whole Julian Assange issue.
	They're scared to death.
	Yeah, it's happening in their pants.
	They're blanking their pants, pooping their pants.
	I'm saying it nicely.
	Why do you push me?
	You push me because you want me to say it.
	You push me because you want me in trouble.
	I get in trouble.
	I get fired.
	You lose your job.
	That really makes a lot of sense.
	So for your own self-preservation, Miss, I use the drop an F-bomb every five seconds.
	Maybe you could be a little bit nicer to me to preserve and protect so I can put food in the mouth of that beautiful baby you have at your home who looks as Irish as the days long.
	Did you tell Lenny I said that?
	That kid has got reddish hair.
	He's got an Irish face and Irish skin.
	How did that happen?
	Tell him I said that.
	He's going to laugh.
	Justin, Portland, Oregon.
	What's up, Justin?
	How are you?
	Yeah.
	Hi, Sean.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	I think that Julian Assange has done a good public service.
	I think he's proved just how not transparent Hillary and the Democrats have been.
	But I want to highlight one other thing that I haven't heard quite yet, and that's the issue of her avoiding responsibility of handling the confidential information.
	She keeps saying, I didn't know.
	I can't remember.
	Listen, if I go as a concealmentary permit holder, if I go to another state, I need to know that.
	Oh, you better remember.
	Oh, yeah.
	And you can't.
	And you can't say, well, I had a concussion in 2012.
	I just forgot my gun was in my pocket.
	That's a good thing.
	No, it's not going to fly.
	Even just driving, if I drive in another state, listen, get the file with the cake because you're going to need it.
	You'll be in jail, handcuffed, perp walked, and fingerprinted.
	And what do you call that mug-shotted?
	Robin O'Calla, Florida, next, Sean Hannity Show.
	What's going on?
	Yeah, hi, Sean.
	I'm going to change the topic a little bit.
	Sure, what's up?
	Okay, my daughter was your server at the U.S. Open on Saturday.
	Wait a minute.
	Your daughter, when I was...
	Where's your server?
	You mean when I was eating at the restaurant?
	Yes, sir.
	Wait a minute.
	Is she a real Christian girl?
	Absolutely.
	We had, I was with some friends of mine from TV, my producer, Porter, and others, and we had the biggest discussion with her and another guy all about faith and religion.
	That's what we were talking about the whole dinner.
	That's what she shared with me.
	She said, you made her day.
	You made her weak.
	Yeah, I was asking them to sit down and join us.
	And then the owner of the restaurant came out and I said, can they join us?
	I actually asked him, and he said, I guess so.
	You know, he wants them to work.
	But she, by the way, is a lovely, lovely girl.
	And the guy she works with, I loved him too.
	Well, thank you so much.
	Well, she just, she shared that story with me.
	She was telling us, we were sitting there talking about, you know, salvation and God and having a long discussion because I was raised a Catholic and others were raised different denominations.
	And your daughter weighed in.
	She was so smart and so she was amazing.
	I loved her.
	I gave her a hug when I left, you know.
	Yeah, that's what she said.
	She said that and she said, and if anyone ever doubts how generous Sean Hannity is, you can tell them he's more than generous.
	Oh, you mean I left her a big tip?
	Okay.
	Yes, sir.
	I always do that, by the way.
	That's not uncommon.
	But not only that, she said that you were just, she said you saw her as a person.
	And she said, when you're in her particular job, so many people look through them and over them and around them and don't see who they are as people.
	I've experienced that.
	You know what?
	I spent years washing dishes by hand.
	I didn't have a machine.
	I was a cook, busboy, waiter, bartender for 10 years of my life.
	Believe me, I know everything that your daughter's doing.
	I did them all myself.
	Yeah, and she's a single mom working hard.
	Really?
	Well, I should have given her a bigger tip then.
	Oh, no, you did fine.
	She was ecstatic.
	She said you were awesome.
	The people you were with were awesome.
	She was awesome.
	We had such a good time.
	I mean, I honestly, that discussion, I love talking about it.
	I could talk about that all day and night.
	And she added so much to the discussion.
	I was very impressed with her.
	And we all walked away.
	We were all talking about how great she is.
	And one of her, I forget the waiter's name, too.
	He was a good guy.
	Yeah.
	Well, thank you for sharing that.
	Please tell her she's in my prayers.
	God bless her.
	And I really enjoyed meeting her.
	She was a very special girl.
	You should be very proud as a mom.
	I am.
	She is a lovely girl.

▲