Sean Hannity Show - No-Go Zones - 12.12

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 13, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:32:13

No-Go Zones - 12.12

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	So, like many of you, I used to suffer from insomnia.
	No matter what I did, I just couldn't get a perfect night's sleep.
	Well, then I met Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow.
	He got me fitted for my very own MyPillow, and it's changed my life.
	I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer, and now you can too.
	Just go to MyPillow.com or call 800-467-1962.
	Use the promo code Sean to take advantage of Mike's two for one offer.
	Now, MyPillow is made right here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money back guarantee, and a 10-year warranty.
	And by the way, you can even wash it and dry it.
	Just go to MyPillow.com or call 800-467-1962 promo code Sean to get Mike's special two for one offer.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity radio show podcast.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Happy Monday.
	This is one of those days I've been chomping at the bit to get on television and radio to talk to you.
	Um I have never ever in my life seen anything like what is unfolding here.
	And there's a reason reason for it.
	All of a sudden, I have been spending how much time in the lead up to this election on the issue of hacking, on the issue of Hillary's emails, on the issue of the CIA buying into that false narrative about a spontaneous demonstration that was related to a YouTube video, which of course we know was not true.
	So now all of us, all right, now that hacking matters, I'm all in.
	Because if you remember back in September, we had Julian Assange on this program.
	Now, when Julian Assange, 10 years ago, came on the scene, I said he should put it be put in jail.
	And over time I kind of began to realize, especially with WikiLeaks and all the releases that they had, and I said this to him when he was on the program.
	I said, you know, I've come to the conclusion you have done, albeit in a roundabout way, America a great service.
	And people were outraged that I said this.
	And the two things that he did was one, remember, this is a guy that hacked into NASA.
	This is a guy that hacked into our defense department and other agencies when he was 16 years old.
	So he did us a favor because if you thought we had national security, we don't uh cybersecurity, we don't have cybersecurity.
	And now that we know we don't have it, what a great opportunity to now make it an integral and important part of what government does, and that is to make sure that American secrets are safe.
	The second thing that I said he did was he exposed corruption at a level that I have never seen in my entire life, 30 years on radio as a critic of government collusion and corruption, and there it was on a level I never even imagined.
	And the very same people, this is the amazing part of this.
	The amazing you you listen to these people, the very same people that wouldn't pay attention to any of the WikiLeaks revelations.
	Now think back during the campaign.
	What was the one show almost nightly that put on the screen what we were learning from WikiLeaks?
	Hello, guilty as charged.
	Who is the one person that revealed over and over and over again how corrupt and what a phony liar Hillary was, as revealed by WikiLeaks.
	She said, for example, the WikiLeaks, oh, we can't possibly vet people.
	But then she argued, of course we can vet people.
	She was willing to gamble with your lives because she wouldn't support vetting that even she herself in private admitted that we couldn't do properly.
	How can you ever possibly ascertain what is in somebody's heart, mind, and soul?
	Because that's where you have to get to.
	And it assumes, and it's predicated on an assumption that ISIS that were told by Clapper and Comey and Steinbeck and McCall and General Allen would infiltrate the refugee population.
	It assumes that they're not being trained to answer those questions, which would which would be a pretty dumb assessment if you ask me.
	Anyway, so that all of the corruption, two good things that WikiLeaks did for America.
	Because now we know we have no cybersecurity, and our answer should be to fix it.
	That's what the answer should have been.
	The President didn't care, didn't pay attention.
	The press didn't care, nor did they pay attention.
	Why?
	Because well, it wasn't in their best interest, because the New York Times and Politico and ABC MBC CBS and CNBC and MSNBC and the worst of all, CNN, they were all exposed as colluding with the Clinton campaign, and probably the biggest donor in the campaign, giving her questions before town halls, uh requesting the DNC send questions over to the to CNN before they'd interviewed Donald Trump, all of that.
	Now, in the ten plus years WikiLeaks has been out there, nobody has ever been able to prove or to say that what they have been put what they have put out there is wrong.
	So they have a perfect track record as of now.
	And so we put Julian Assange on this program for 90 minutes.
	And we asked Julian Assange about what he did when he was sixteen years old, when he actually hacked into NASA and other government agencies.
	We asked them about it.
	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 he is almost certainly going to do.
	What did you mean by that?
	What I meant is this kind of uh you know, the Democrats are always speaking about uh how terrible McCarthyism was, uh and there were and it was in many ways.
	Uh, 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 new McCarthy of hysteria where she claims, or she claims that effectively Donald Trump is a agent of the Russians, that WikiLeaks is an agent to the Russians, and where her campaign uh has also implied that Jules Stein, the Greens leader, uh, 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 the 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 uh and online publishers and people on social media will lead to a very harsh climate where the First Amendment will be very significantly eroded.
	The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this.
	It says that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.
	The Clinton camp uh has been able to project a kind of neo-Macartheist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything.
	Hillary Clinton stated multiple times falsely that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that uh Russia was uh the the source of our publications.
	Okay.
	Uh that's false.
	We can say that the Russian government is not the source.
	Yes.
	WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years.
	Uh in that ten years, we published ten million documents.
	Uh several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources.
	Uh, and we have never got it wrong.
	In ten years, they've never got it wrong.
	All right, let's put Julian Assange to the side for a minute, and let's just s assume that you don't believe him.
	Let's start there.
	All right, let's go to the let's go to the New York Times.
	Because understand where this is going here.
	You know, if you think Democrats are sincere when they're only concerned about the integrity of the electoral process as they rant and rave about their Putin Trump conspiracy theory, think again, because you now have a House Democrat that is literally calling for the electoral college to overturn Donald Trump's win because of allegations, allegations that Russia torpedoed Hillary's campaign.
	So let's go to the New York Times if you don't believe what Julian Assange said.
	The CIA's conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained.
	By the way, this is yesterday.
	It does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency's briefing on Sunday.
	Rather, it was now a new analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence, evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments.
	And then you've got, for example, then you got the Daily Beast suggesting there's a real revolt going on, said a former intelligence officer of the CIA leaks, citing discussions with former colleagues, quote, they don't like National Security Advisor nominee Mike Flynn, and they hate Trump's guts.
	Now we also had a report over the weekend that all they have done is change their assessment of the information that they had before the election.
	And then you put somebody like Reinz Previs on with Chucky Todd over at the colluding with the Clinton campaign MBC, and he's saying, well, the RNC was hacked, and he says, No, it wasn't, Chuck.
	And the FBI and everybody else looked into it and said that we weren't hacked.
	That's all part of the misinformation.
	Even CNN had to point out the following today.
	That the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats on Russia's intentions in hacking the election rests partially on the lack of agreement between intelligence agencies and the FBI about the conclusiveness of evidence.
	The U.S. intelligence community is increasingly confident that it was Russia, but the FBI said no.
	The FBI hasn't concluded any of these things.
	So I thought after 9-11, number one, we were supposed to have our agencies working and coordinating with one message.
	I'm not so sure what it tells the world when the FBI and the CIA publicly disagree on information that we now know isn't even new.
	It's all information we had before the election.
	Now, let me be very clear here.
	I've been saying that we need to fix cybersecurity.
	We need to beef it up.
	Well, Obama's known about this for the entire presidency of his.
	And what has he done to fix it?
	The only thing he's done is now speak out, what, five weeks after the election?
	Because it may advance a narrative to delegitimize Donald Trump.
	I'm not buying that there's any purity of motives here by anybody.
	You know, why would here's a funny side note?
	Why would Putin back Trump now after Obama gave everything to him?
	You know, Russian reset didn't work.
	Putin owns the Democrats.
	So let me be clear here.
	So this conspiracy theory, Donald Trump teamed up with Vladimir.
	Isn't this the same Obama, by the way, that said about Vladimir Putin?
	Remember, he was speaking.
	Now, listen, tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election.
	This is my last place for you.
	Yeah.
	And this is my election.
	I have more flexibility.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And this is my chance to make this information to Vladimir and I understand it.
	Tell...
	Tell Vladimir after the election, wink wink, not not.
	So anyway, the Democrats, this conspiracy here, Washington Post revealing that the FBI disagrees with the CIA.
	This is almost like the three stooges.
	It really is.
	Anyway, that would come from the same CIA.
	Now, let's be honest here, and I love intelligence people.
	But let's be honest, this is the same CIA that helped Obama and Hillary concoct their crazy claims that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous.
	And they had RPGs in their back pocket and mortars In their back pocket.
	And it was related to a YouTube body what spontaneously they pulled out the mortars because in the middle of the protest, they just decided to fire away.
	That's what they would have you believe.
	Remember, we had all of those people from the complex on this program.
	And not all of them said they were never interviewed.
	That the CIA Langley was doing the investigation and not asking the people on the ground what had happened.
	Now the CIA ignored crucial intelligence.
	UK Daily Mail had reported in March of 2016, since 2013, that from within ISIS ranks, they could have helped prevent its rise, according to a Syrian rebel chief spy claiming the Free Assyrian Army spy boss said that he had been sending reports to the CIA contacts for more than two years, including GPS coordinates, photographs, movements, phone numbers.
	They utilized 30 operatives placed inside ISIS controlled cities, was trained abroad, got 10,000 a month from the U.S. government.
	So they ignored intelligence on ISIS.
	Why?
	The only answer would be for political reasons.
	They manipulated the intelligence on Benghazi for political reasons.
	You know, why do we now suddenly believe the CIA is rising above politics when they helped concoct a false narrative about Benghazi?
	Then Sunday's Washington Post, the FBI disagrees with the CIA.
	I mean, it's almost you can't even make this stuff up, and it's hardly breaking news that the FBI doubts the CIA's claims.
	New York Times reported on this, as I just read to you.
	FBI has been conducting multiple investigations, even CNN reports of alleged connections between Russia and Donald Trump, but none so far have yielded proof of criminal connections between the parties.
	That investigation included allegations against Roger Stone, a Trump supporter about a possible connection of WikiLeaks, which has been undergoing a complex six-year investigation.
	So that didn't help in there either.
	That didn't help anybody there either.
	So, you know, like the same way the New York Times pub published Donald Trump's stolen tax records.
	Whoopsie daisy.
	Oh, yeah.
	Or even the Pentagon Papers, which were also stolen.
	Democrats love that one.
	But the bottom line, according to CIA the CNN, is well, the FBI so far has been unable to prove that WikiLeaks is conspiring with Russian intelligence to steal materials.
	I can only tell you this, because I have talked to Julian Assange on air, off air, on TV, on radio, and I've watched him give other speeches.
	And he categorically denies any of this came from Russia.
	Any of it.
	So, you know, unless and until we can prove it, I'm just assuming this is another liberal media fake news story that they're all falling for.
	And it's politically motivated, as evidenced by their lack of concern about hiking uh hacking and cybersecurity over the years.
	So, you know, nobody knows what happened.
	But I do think this is a wake-up call.
	Maybe now, after months and months and months and months and months and months and months of me calling for them to fix cybersecurity, maybe now these idiots will listen.
	Maybe they'll now protect our secrets.
	And by the way, did anyone care that there was a 99% likelihood that America's enemies got into Hillary Clinton's email?
	Not one agency, they think at least five.
	At least five foreign agencies hacked into Hillary's.
	Got a debate on this our top story.
	Democrats urging the electoral college to avoid Trump.
	When you know what this is, their whole recount sham didn't work.
	So now let's try this.
	Let's try to delegitimize Trump this way.
	There's nothing new that they discovered that we didn't know that we didn't talk about prior to the election.
	But let's act as though, oh my gosh, Vladimir Putin picked Donald Trump, and there's new information out there.
	That's the way it's being presented to you.
	But even the New York Times acknowledges there's nothing new.
	They're not emphasizing that the FBI disagrees.
	They're just trying to smear Trump.
	No new evidence.
	I'll read from the New York Times again, shall I?
	The CIA's conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the elections.
	Rather, it's just a new analysis.
	Oh, And the FBI disagrees with it.
	Oh, and the RNC was not hacked.
	Oh, and even CNN has to acknowledge that the FBI and the CIA don't agree on it.
	Oh, whoopsie daisy.
	Oh, and we have to acknowledge that we do know that the CIA was politicized.
	Now, I don't say this with any glee.
	I love our intelligence officials.
	These are people, just like the military, that put their ass on the line for the safety and security of our country.
	Now, I view them, those people, as very different from a bureaucratic agency.
	And the bureaucratic agency did in fact go along with a false narrative.
	Not, I know Trump talked about weapons of mass destruction.
	No, well, we do know that they use weapons of mass destruction.
	I've never been able to.
	We know that Saddam used them.
	We have pictures of Kurds and children lying in the street that were gassed.
	So we just don't know whether or not he stopped the program, whether he moved those those weapons to Syria in the lead up to the war, we just don't know.
	Nobody's ever probably going to know.
	But we do know when it came to Benghazi, well, we know in that specific case that the CIA and Langley never talked to the people on the ground that we interviewed regularly.
	They never asked them.
	And they came to this conclusion that this narrative about a about a spontaneous demonstration that was related to a YouTube video was the cause of Benghazi.
	That was never true.
	And if they would have talked to the people on the ground that were taking incoming RPG and mortar fire, they would have known that it can't possibly be spontaneous.
	Why?
	Because people at demonstrations don't have mortars in their back pocket.
	They didn't just say, well, hang on, I'm going to go home now while the while the demonstration's starting, and I'll come back with some RPGs and some mortars.
	Because that's what happened to the compound.
	So yeah, the bureaucrats at the CIA, and I don't know who they are, they have shown themselves to have a propensity to become political.
	And that should be troublesome to everybody.
	The FBI's been conducting multiple investigations of connections between Trump and Putin and Russia and his campaign and their backers, and they've done this forever.
	But you know, what's so frustrating about all this is nobody was listening to us.
	Well, when I said, and I said 10 years ago, I said, you know what, what Julian Assange did here, I thought people were going to die.
	Well, it turns out that that information was never released.
	Now, in the 10 years that have ensued, they've never been wrong.
	And I'm not saying I know John Bolton thinks he's an enemy of the United States and McConnell says the same thing.
	Put it all that aside.
	But when you really think about it, if a kid can hack into a kid, a 16-year-old, can hack into NASA and hack into the Department of Defense, if we're getting all of these hacks happening, and we're told 99% certainty that enemy countries hacked into Hillary's email, and nobody cares except people like me.
	And then I'm saying, all right, well, let's look at this objectively.
	And Julian Assange and WikiLeaks exposed a major vulnerability for our security.
	Let's fix it.
	How many, how long, Linda, how many times have you heard me say fix it?
	Now that it's been exposed as being weak, inefficient, and kind of almost non-existent.
	Maybe we need to fix our cybersecurity because you can't have national secrets if you don't have cybersecurity.
	Nobody cared that it's believed the 99% certainty that Hillary's emails with classified information on it that she lied about.
	Nobody seemed to care about that.
	Nobody cared about WikiLeaks exposing the collusion, the same media that is going absolutely insane right now.
	They didn't seem to care when they were exposed as colluding with Clinton during the campaign.
	Although let's not pay attention to that hacking.
	Let's not pay attention to that one because that makes us look like crap.
	Unbelievable.
	So we've been trying to we've been trying to upgrade security.
	And you know, look, there's one other thing.
	WikiLeaks expose just how corrupt all of these people are.
	How corrupt the media is, how corrupt CNN is, how corrupt MBC is, how corrupt ABC is.
	And by the way, you kind of began to see it.
	John Harwood, he's, you know, bragging that he's helping Clinton, bragging he got under Trump's skin as a moderator.
	Martha Raditz, she hosted a debate on CNN with Anderson Cooper, and she's crying once it's announced that Trump wins.
	I mean, if you're a Bernie supporter, you ought to be livid because they cheated Bernie Sanders.
	They exposed the DNC.
	Is everyone forgotten as being anti-Semitic and racist and misogynist?
	Just all this stuff got ignored by except by people like me.
	And I got beaten up because I dared to say that, well, in a way, Julian Assange did us a favor.
	Because now we can fix the problem.
	Now we know there's a problem.
	Fix it.
	Don't blame the messenger when it's our own incompetence.
	And then we got exposed that, oh, the CIA did.
	There are met people at the CIA.
	I don't know who they are.
	And I'm making a very big distinction when this gets written about today by somebody in the media between CIA operatives and the politicians, those that play politics at the top of the CIA.
	Those that now, even though we have no new information, we're now told.
	Those that would now politicize the information that we all knew about before the election.
	So to delegitimize Trump.
	Why?
	Maybe you don't like, as the Daily Caller said, maybe you don't like Mike Flynn.
	Oh, you don't like Donald Trump.
	So now let's delegitimize him.
	Let's hurt him because he said publicly he doesn't believe it.
	And it says as though Trump did this.
	FBI investigation refutes the CIA investigation.
	They have found there's no evidence that Russia tried to help Trump.
	The FBI found that the hacking into the Democratic emails was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Trump.
	Yeah, but by the way, we knew all of this.
	WikiLeaks was ten years ago.
	What did Obama do in ten years?
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	He didn't fix it.
	He made things.
	He was involved in the Russian reset.
	I don't care if you again, I'm not even citing the fact that Julian Assange said to me on this radio program, it wasn't the Russians, dude.
	It wasn't the Russians.
	Okay, now he's they've never been wrong in ten years, but I'll put that aside.
	You don't trust Julian Assan.
	Fine.
	Where's the evidence?
	Tell me where the new evidence is.
	Before you get hysterical.
	Except that people are politicizing it.
	That's all it is.
	I already know we've been hacked.
	We already know Hillary was hacked.
	We already know there's hacking going on.
	But they haven't done a damn thing to stop it.
	You know, maybe Trump will fix it.
	Like the rest of the mess that he's got to that he's got to fix out there.
	Now I know Bolton is no fan of Julian Assange, and he's saying that the hacks during the election season seemed to have been a false flag operation.
	Bolton's a pretty smart guy.
	I don't know for sure, but he was on Fox News with Eric Shawn.
	He'll be on with me tonight.
	Noodle be on with me tonight.
	Rudy Giuliani will be on tonight.
	We'll get to the bottom of this.
	But anyway, you know, Bolton questioned why the FBI director, Comey said during the investigation of Hillary's server that there was no direct evidence found of foreign intelligence service penetration, but cyber fingerprints were found in regards to the presidential election.
	It's not at all clear to me, he said, just viewing this from the outside that this hacking into the DNC, they didn't get into the RNC according to Ryan's Previs.
	He says in the RNC computers was not a false flag.
	So the question has to be asked: why did the Russians run their smart intelligence service against Hillary server, but their dumb intelligence service against the election?
	That would be a pretty profound question, actually.
	And Bolton's a pretty smart guy.
	So we'll leave that for what it is.
	All right, let's get to some calls here.
	Ron in Arizona, Ron, how are you?
	I'm fine.
	Yourself, John.
	I'm good.
	What's going on?
	Yeah, I was uh it just seems really fishy, all this going on.
	You know, over here in Arizona, you have McCain doing a bipartisan investigation that says Russia was involved in helping Trump.
	And it's just as far as CIA goes, I mean, it's Obama is like a puppet master.
	He has a streams on people, and so I think this is his doing.
	Um, as far as to smear Trump's uh election win, I mean, I don't see how what will that exactly accomplish unless they have a bigger picture they're trying to get.
	It just uh it just I just got more information.
	This is pretty interesting.
	See if you what this says to you.
	Uh this is in politico, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
	Apparently they haven't disbanded yet.
	They're now calling on the electoral college to consider the possibility of overturning Trump's election victory because Putin torpedoed her campaign.
	Gee, what happened to Hillary's complaint?
	You know, challenging the election results would be uh so horrific.
	I thought that was the worst thing anybody can do.
	It only applies if she won.
	Then nobody can question it.
	But anyway, uh from the politico, in its first show of public support for efforts questioning the legitimacy of Trump's victory, Hillary's campaign said they're supporting a request by members of the electoral college for an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention into the presidential election.
	The bipartisan electors letter raises very grave concerns involving our national security, said John Patest Podesta.
	Oh, but it was not national security problem when Hillary, you know, set up an email server with top secrets and even special access programs in the bathroom of a mom and pop shop.
	They're such hypocrites, they're such phonies.
	As far as your uh knowledge, I mean, you've been in this for quite some time.
	If this does go to Congress, if he doesn't get the electoral votes, and it does go to Congress, and they don't vote Trump, what do you think will happen?
	Because it seems like both parties, as far as the Republicans well, they're not really all for Trump right now.
	And so I can see them shifting.
	They need 37 people to to shift.
	37.
	I don't see that happening.
	That's seven days from now.
	Now electors, you know, have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution, and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.
	All right, so what's happening here is at the end of the day, they don't think this is going to happen.
	At the end of the day, this is about delegitimizing Donald Trump.
	Their recount effort failed.
	You know, Podesta's statement follows an open letter from ten members of the electoral college, including Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter, and a former member of Congress who demanded a briefing of U.S. intelligence officials on any ongoing investigations into Trump ties to Russia in a letter to the director of national intelligence, the electors, nine Democrats, one Republican, argue that they require the information ahead of December 19th.
	Nothing is gonna happen.
	What they're doing here is they want to delegitimize Trump.
	That's all this is.
	All it is, as evidenced by all of the collusion and phoniness that we've seen to this point.
	Uh Ron, thank you.
	Good call.
	Rick Fort Myers, Fox News Radio 925.
	I'm gonna go down and visit my friends in Southwest Florida soon.
	How are you?
	Oh, good, son.
	How are you doing?
	I'm good.
	What's going on?
	Real quick.
	Um, you know, the elephant in the room, the pink elephant in the room is the media.
	We know that they sit on stories, you know, like the blue dress, because uh break that.
	You know, we know that TMZ sat on a story about Donald Trump.
	We know that they sit on all these stories, and the thing is is okay.
	If they were sitting on all these stories, how much of the information that was hacked that the that the media already knew?
	They knew I I I guarantee you that they knew a lot of this information that was hacked, but yet they didn't want to report on it.
	The other thing is, too, is the media, you know.
	I mean, I'm I know Ferguson's not in, you know, our conversation right now, but you know, how many how much did the media interview those people's uh that that lost their businesses?
	Uh when did the media interview Black Lives Matter if they were gonna pay for that?
	You know, if they're money.
	Remember, they advanced the whole narrative.
	That was that was Michael Brown's friend that said, uh, hands up, don't shoot.
	And then they all repeated it.
	And it was never true.
	Never.
	And they're worried about fake news.
	They are fake news.
	If you collude with the Clinton campaign, you're not a news outlet.
	You're a political arm of the Clinton campaign.
	And that's why they're going.
	Look, the last thing they want to do is admit that they were wrong.
	Sort of like the people on these lowly traffic trafficked websites.
	The never Trump are people like at Red State.
	I mean, they just they're obsessed with going back to the election that they lost.
	They're willing to sabotage Trump and help Hillary win and let Hillary make Supreme Court appointments.
	Let Obamacare stay the law of the land.
	You know, allow America to be dependent on foreign oil to never fix our borders.
	To you know, never vet refugees the way Hillary said privately that we should, thanks to WikiLeaks.
	I mean, just think about all this.
	It's very profound.
	What did I say every day since the election?
	I said there is going to be a war every single solitary day.
	They're not gonna let up.
	They're only gonna get nuttier and nuttier and nuttier.
	Do you believe?
	Let's just clear this up.
	Do you believe does the president elect believe that Russia was trying to muddy up and get involved in the election in 2016?
	Number one, you don't know it, I don't know it, and there's been no conclusive or specific report to say otherwise.
	So that's the first thing.
	The second thing I would tell you is that you don't have any proof that the outcome of the election was changed.
	Forget about who did the hacking.
	Do you want to know?
	Even if someone did the hacking.
	No, you don't have to be a very good thing.
	Does he want to know?
	Of course we want to know.
	So there's gonna be an investigation.
	He wants an investigation on Capitol Hill.
	Of course, I I uh listen, I don't know what investigations he wants, but we yes, we do want to know.
	But what I don't want to do, Chuck, is have a debate with you over an unnamed source that the article said was inconclusive over who hacked and why they hacked.
	Look, someone hacked.
	We don't like that.
	I don't like it.
	No one wants it.
	We want to protect American interest.
	It's America first.
	I don't want the DNC hacked.
	I don't want anybody hacked, but I don't know who did the hacking.
	That's my point.
	You dispute seventeen different intelligence uh agencies that have assessed that Russia agents were behind this.
	You dis you dispute this?
	Chuck, this is insane.
	In the same article about those 17 agents says the report was inconclusive.
	You're forgetting the most important piece of the case.
	It was inconclusive funding.
	Vladimir Putin, right?
	It was not inconclusive that Russian agents were involved.
	There's a difference.
	And I understand why you're trying to parse Chuck, but there is a difference.
	Do you not try to parse it?
	I don't know who did the hacking, Chuck.
	The article is based on a lie that the RNC was hacked, so the entire premise of the article is false.
	The sources are unnamed, and the report was inconclusive.
	The president elect of this country is discrediting the organization that basically protects us from foreign invasion from from uh, you know.
	Isn't it time for him to step down?
	I mean, dude, he has to step down before the inauguration before they give him the nuclear code.
	We are at risk when the president of the United States is fighting with the CIA.
	Well, that was a terrible thing.
	It's ex on CEO.
	I was gonna get to it actually.
	Sorry, that's a telephone.
	A man with strong ties, business ties to Russia and personal ties to Vladimir Putin.
	Now, does this bother anyone?
	Yeah, why would I hear that?
	Why?
	Who used to be his campaign director, he had to quit because of his ties to Russia.
	I mean, do we have to wait till the hammer and sickle is on the American flag before we stand up to this guy?
	Hammer and sickle on the American flag, more media hysteria.
	Glad you're with us.
	Hour two of the Sean Hannity show, Top Frey or telephone numbers 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Remember when we had Julian Assange on this program for an hour and a half, as I've been pointing out.
	And he admitted that he hacked into NASA and the Department of Defense and other agencies when he was 16 years old.
	Okay, that's a pretty Good indication that America doesn't have cyber security in any way, shape, matter, or form.
	And when I asked him, as I played in the last hour whether or not it was the Russians that did this, he said no.
	Now you'll say, Hannity, why are you believing Julian Assange?
	Well, WikiLeaks has not been wrong in ten years, and unless and until he's proven to be a liar.
	I'm listening to what he has to say.
	I don't have any conclusive evidence on my own.
	But, you know, when I said he did America a favor, Linda, remember how much I came under heavy fire.
	And he did us two favors.
	One is he exposed we don't have cybersecurity and we need it.
	I've been screaming this for months and months on this program.
	Two, he also exposed just how corrupt your government is at a level that even I, as a government critic, all my life had no idea it was it was this bad.
	And that was exposed.
	It was all exposed.
	Then you get the CIA without any new information, we are told none.
	None that what they had before the election.
	All they have done is politicize the intelligence, and the FBI contradicts the intelligence.
	So what is anybody supposed to believe here at the end of the day?
	And also, on top of all this, now all of a sudden everybody cares.
	They didn't care when the media was colluding with Hillary Clinton on hacked emails.
	They didn't care.
	They weren't paying attention to it.
	They just, oh, that's just part of everyday work, I guess, in Washington.
	The New York Times and Politico and NBC and CNBC and MSNBC and the worst offenders at all of all were CNN.
	But they didn't care then.
	They didn't want to report on it then because it exposed them for being corrupt.
	And now there's great indignation.
	They they didn't care when the media was colluding with Hillary to try and influence the election, which was proven.
	Now there's great indignation.
	This is the same select moral outrage that we always get from the left.
	Now, is it important for America to fix cybersecurity?
	I've been saying it for months.
	Yeah.
	Fix it.
	And why did the Democrats that are so outraged now?
	Why didn't why do they remain silent when Hillary Clinton is getting, you know, questions from CNN and favorable treatment all over the media.
	And she's getting questions before debates, and they're burying the exposure that she caused.
	It's 99% certainty that her email was hacked into.
	It wasn't a big deal before the election.
	So now the Democrats that remain silent about all of these things, now all of a sudden it's about Donald Trump.
	Now they're interested.
	Now it's uh he's he can't be president.
	He's got to get out.
	You know, fixing cybersecurity should be the focus, and we have been saying this forever on this program.
	You know, here's this even a CNN article.
	There's a gap on the Russian hacking co conclusions between the CIA and the FBI.
	They can't get their act together.
	The CIA got nothing new between the election and this weekend about the information that may have been hacked or the help that they tried to might have given Donald Trump, except they have now put a spin on it.
	It's the same information we had before.
	Nothing is different.
	They're even admitting that nothing is different.
	And this conspiracy that Vladimir Putin, you know, teamed up with Trump to increase his election chances.
	That on uh, you know, all of that has been unraveling.
	FBI disagreeing with the CIA.
	Now, this would be the same CIA, by the way, that helped the Obama administration concoct their crazy uh claims that an internet video caused the Benghazi attacks.
	Remember, they wouldn't talk to the people that were there, and we interviewed the people that were there, and that they decided to run the investigation out of Langley, and the investigation out of Langley supported the spontaneous demonstration claim.
	Okay, so you have a bunch of protesters, and they just happen to have happen to have missile launchers and mortars in their back pocket, and they spontaneously decided to attack the complex.
	Well, that was all live in.
	You know, U.S. uh the Free Syrian Army spy boss said he'd been sending reports to his CIA contacts for more than two years.
	That included GPS coordinates, ISIS movements, photographs, phone numbers, and his operation, which utilize what, 30 operatives placed inside of ISIS controlled cities were trained abroad.
	Anyway, let me get uh some insight into all of this.
	Dan Bangino's with us, risk management consultant, former Secret Service agent, NYPD contributing editor of Conservative Review, and Lieutenant Colonel Buzz Patterson, author of Dereliction of Duty, he saw an eyewitness account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security.
	That wasn't paid attention attention to during the campaign either.
	Dan, what's your take on all of this?
	You know, Sean, I I think you summed it up and and you pointed to two entities that have really lost and sold out their credibility in this.
	One has been the Obama administration politicizing the intelligence community through Benghazi, and remember you I think you brought this up as well.
	Remember the whole thing with ISIS, where the intelligence community was warning about ISIS and the allegations were that pressure was coming from the White House to diminish the gravity of those reports to make it seem that the Obama administration was dealing with a problem uh not as severe as it actually was.
	So the Obama administration politicized itself and politicized the intelligence community.
	So they're they've ruined all their credibility speaking about this issue.
	But number two, you you know, you accurately pointed out the media as well.
	You know, where was the media attention to the Bob Kramer tapes at Project Veritas?
	I mean, we had a guy on tape, Sean, talking about working with the Clinton campaign to foment violence at political rallies in a free constitutional republic.
	I mean, this is third world republic stuff, and the media was nowhere to be found on this.
	So this whole idea that the election result was somehow jeopardized by a wishy-washy intelligence report that was not conclusive.
	I mean, everybody credible admits that, is all of a sudden you look at the media with a with a wry eye and you're like, Really?
	Now all of a sudden you're concerned, it seems kind of disingenuous.
	It's more than kinda.
	Lieutenant Colonel Buzz Patterson, your thoughts.
	Yes, and well, having worked in the White House and known how critical um information, cyber information is, I have to agree with you on on both counts.
	Number one, we have a very poor cybersecurity network in this country, and it needs to get b much better much quicker.
	And secondly, the fact that Hillary uh used a private server in her uh in her basement and poo-pooed the idea, the thought that possibly uh her files have been hacked into and and by foreign governments, which we knew it probably was nine percent of the case the fact, um, then all of a sudden it becomes a big issue after the election, I think it's is is disingenuous.
	It's the the intel intelligence agency's been used as a political pond for years and years and years, and probably still will be, but when you got different you've had the FBI and the CIA arguing about whether or not they were hacked, that's that's a big issue.
	It's it's being politicized.
	Well, I mean, obviously, if there's nothing new, if there's no if there's no new information that proves this, then there can only be one conclusion that I think the American people can come to, and that is that the intelligence that we had before the election is now being politicized to sort of take the legitimacy away from the Trump presidency.
	Is that is that a fair idea?
	I will tell you this, Sean.
	I would I will tell you this.
	There's no doubt in my mind that the the uh the DNC and in the Clinton campaign knew they had been hacked prior to the election.
	There's no doubt.
	And um and but the Obama administration had that same information.
	So the fact that they sat on that until after the election, to me is disingenuous and dishonest.
	And um we've been getting hacked in this country for for decades.
	In fact, when I worked at the White House, Sean, we didn't have even have internet access inside the building because we were afraid of of that of that kind of thing going on.
	We had an internal network in the White House, so we and we were not allowed to go uh on onto the internet via those computers.
	So it's been it's been a concern for about twenty-five years as far as I'm concerned.
	You know, and Chuck Todd, you know, claiming to Reinhards previous that the RNC was hacked, but he wasn't hacked.
	And the FBI's told the RNC they weren't hacked.
	But they just go out there with these bizarre conspiracy theories at this point, and they race and they run with it.
	Well, maybe Chuck Todd should have been a little more critical of Hillary Clinton's email problems, which we were told ninety-nine percent likelihood hacked and hacked by enemies of the United States.
	Maybe that maybe he should have been upset and concerned about some of the other issues involving hacking, but you know, maybe about his own network, for example, maybe about John Harwood, for example.
	And maybe about Sean, they th there are two talking points on this, Chuck Todd.
	Their talking points are just completely wrong.
	Uh number one, his whole argument falls apart.
	If the premise you're basing your argument on is that the Russians tried to alter the outcome of the election by hacking into the DNC and the RNC and selectively releasing information damaging to the DNC only, that entire argument hinges on the fact that the Russians did hack into the RNC and they didn't.
	And And that's where Todd's P this is where you have to look at the media and shake your head, and you say, why would he say that on a national television show in front of millions of viewers when he knows it's not true?
	I mean, it's another bit of fake news.
	And that's what we have to start calling this stuff.
	It is fake news.
	And his other talking point about the 17 agencies agreeing on that is not true either.
	The 17 agencies says it said there was a pattern that resembled things they'd seen in Russia.
	All right, well, when I was a federal investigator, I saw patterns all the time.
	I don't haul people into jail because something fits a pattern.
	You have to have proof.
	They didn't have proof.
	They're just making this up.
	It's just another bit of fake news.
	Yeah, well, I go back to this one thing, and this goes from, you know, I think it's it really hits the heart of it.
	The CIA's conclusion, this is from the New York Times, does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election.
	Several American officials, including some who read the agency's briefing, have now said on Sunday.
	Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence, evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments.
	Then from the Daily Beast, you know, they said there's a real revolt going on, said a former intelligence officer of the CIA citing discussions with former colleagues.
	They don't like the NSA nominee Mike Flynn, and they hate Trump's guts.
	Well, that tells me, all right, the whole thing is political.
	Oh, absolutely.
	It's it's been a game for s for so long, uh, Sean.
	It's a it's amazing to me that this thing's been going on.
	And um again, I go back to the fact that the other thing, the problem would be how do we even quantify the damage it was done to her campaign?
	How would we if you if you go ahead and accept a face value, yes, she was hacked into the DNC was hacked, they had all this information.
	How are you going to quantify the damage that it did to her campaign?
	I mean, how do you take a step back down and say, okay, or Trump got this many votes in these this many states because they they had the information?
	No, there's no way you can do that.
	And he goes back to the very thing that the whole thing is being politicized from the from the get-go.
	They knew about it, they sat on it until after the election.
	Look, if there's hacking going on, which I've been warning about for a long time, it's gotta be fixed.
	It's gotta be fixed.
	And they've known about it for years, they've done nothing, but now that it now that it might hurt Trump and his legitimacy, now we'll now we'll care about hacking.
	I'm sorry, Crimea River.
	I'm not buying this the spin or this BS.
	But I gotta run, guys.
	Yeah, real quick.
	One quick thing on this.
	Also, I forget who said it this weekend, but it's amazing how they're so conclusive now they found these footprints at the DNC for the Russians, but nobody's managed to find any of those footprints on the Clinton server.
	Awfully convenient, isn't it?
	Absolutely.
	All right, guys, appreciate it.
	Thanks for both of you being here.
	All right, when we come back, my poor buddy Ami Horowitz, he traveled to Sweden and apparently got attacked.
	We'll find out what happened there.
	Also, our news roundup and information overload.
	We'll get back into this hacking issue.
	Do you think that Sweden has a responsibility to adapt to the immigrants culture coming in?
	Definitely.
	Should a woman when they come here dress, you know, modestly, you know, with pants and with sleeves.
	Is that important?
	It is our.
	If you come to Inkibi, uh obviously everywhere Sweden is a discourse, you know.
	I gossip is gossiping.
	Sometimes I say we go to the scare.
	Right.
	Is it dangerous here sometimes?
	Sometimes, yeah.
	We found out exactly how dangerous when while we were setting up a chute at a neighboring location, we were approached by five men and told to leave.
	While my crew took off, I stay to simply ask why we had to leave.
	Because I was still wired.
	We have the sound of what happened next.
	How come it's a problem to uh to film here?
	I don't want to be filmed.
	I never why what's the what's the why just the law's fun.
	No, why why is it?
	I'm not filming anything.
	Look, look, show me show me what you got.
	Let go of me.
	Show me what you got.
	So you find it.
	I let go of me.
	I don't want to do the phone.
	Show me let go of the man.
	I was not the first person assaulted by gangs of immigrants, nor will I be the last.
	But women are taking the brunt of the explosion of violence across Sweden.
	What we have is, first of all, a very a Swedish culture.
	Then we bring in last like last year 190,000 people that come from a very different culture.
	A culture that isn't liberal, that has radically different views on women, on sexuality, on gender, on all these things.
	There's an explosion.
	Yeah, you it we it would be clashes.
	This is Rinkby, a leafy northern suburb of Stockholm, also a completely Islamic area.
	The police have said this is a complete no-go for them and for journalists.
	Has there been an increase in violence and crime here in Sweden?
	More violence and uh harder violence with uh guns and what type of weapons are you guys seeing on the streets?
	You can see uh Talashnikov's hand grenades from the east, guns, handguns, everything you can find in Afghanistan, you can find it here.
	Doesn't Sweden have very strict gun laws?
	For sure, you know, and and we get all the time.
	We got new laws about guns.
	Uh ties it up uh more.
	And uh I think it's I think it's good, but you know the violence increased anyway.
	This is a former police station which had to be moved a couple of years ago.
	Now the police will tell you that it simply became too unsafe for them to have a full-time presence here.
	Would you go as far as to say that these no-go areas are essentially states within a state?
	Yeah.
	Most of the no-go areas is like that.
	Are there areas where they're if you're pursuing uh somebody where you'll simply stop and not pursue them once they get into this no-go area?
	Yeah.
	If uh the police is chasing uh uh another car for some kind of crime, if they reach uh what we call no various, the police wouldn't go after it.
	Do you see the violence really spreading across Sweden into the cities?
	At least one or two times a week.
	And let's say five years ago, how often would you say it was?
	Three times a year.
	Really?
	The increase in this in this kind of crime is exponential.
	I think we called uh court uh of guard.
	We didn't uh expect it to be so uh so much uh so much increase.
	All right, 24 now till the top of the hour toll freak telephone numbers 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, uh that was our friend Ami Horowitz, the Daily Mail has printed out an article that Ami actually was punched and kicked and choked by five migrants because he went into a no-go zone in a Swedish city, but I was told no-go zones don't exist.
	Such things are not real.
	They don't exist in Paris, even though people I know have actually been there, and other places as well.
	Anyway, so uh he joins us now.
	Ami, tell us what happened.
	Well, you know, it was an incredible experience, obviously.
	You know, I I I went there initially because by the way, before we get started, let my audience know, you are insane.
	You're the same guy that got on a boat with Syrian refugees to infiltrate them, and what other nutty things have you done?
	I interviewed Islamic jihad, interviewed Hamas, uh, went to Venezuela recently.
	Oh, yeah, and you stood outside the DNC with a picture of Trump is great.
	That too.
	That may be my most dangerous stunt I've ever done, actually.
	It's probably true.
	So what happened?
	So so as as many of your I know you know, and maybe people maybe a lot of your listeners know, there has been an absolute explosion, epidemic of rape going on in Sweden.
	And it's been absolutely parallel to the increase in Syrian and other Islamic migrants into Sweden.
	They've actually taken in more per capita, more Islamic refugees than any Western country in the world, including Germany.
	Most people don't realize that.
	And and hand in hand with that has been an increase in rape, and I went there to figure out what's going on.
	What I found out was not only is rape increasing exponentially, but violence in general.
	Weapons are being flooded into Sweden despite like you heard in the audio, despite the fact they had the strictest gun laws in all of Europe.
	And it was absolutely crazy.
	So I had to go to what they call, yeah.
	You know, you asked the question, people are debating the existence of these places.
	I can tell you firsthand they exist.
	We crossed that threshold within seconds.
	Five guys jump on top of me and beat the living crap out of me.
	Uh we just played this.
	I mean, you really were getting punched.
	How bad were the injuries?
	They were, thank God, nothing was broken.
	It was it was it was I was bruised up pretty badly.
	What what happened was when it really got scary is after they were punching me and punching me and kicking me, and I realized nobody was going to help me.
	I was looking around and people in the square were standing around and staring at me and laughing.
	I knew I had to do something for myself.
	So I took some of your ninja moves, and I was just able to just barely get to my knees.
	I grabbed the guy close to me.
	I punched him in the throat.
	They let go for a second.
	I ran, they took me down, and then he dragged me into a building.
	And this is why I thought, Sean, I thought this is it.
	I'm they're gonna kill me here.
	Ami, if you're gonna do all this crazy stuff that you do.
	I've been training for five years.
	You need to train.
	You need to be able to protect yourself.
	And the little moves that I've shown you when you've been in studio, and I one of our target one of our targets and my targets in a fight is I'm gonna go for your throat.
	And uh certainly you always have the option of just gouging their eyeballs out and whatever you need to do to defend yourself.
	But uh seriously, if you're gonna do this crazy crap that you do, you need to learn to defend yourself.
	You're right.
	You're absolutely right.
	You're absolutely right.
	I look at you, sensei.
	I look at you.
	Yeah, oh great, I'm gonna be your sensei now.
	I I'm only a brown belt.
	I'm getting my black belt.
	I'm working towards it.
	It's gonna probably take me two more years.
	But what's incredible, Sean, about this thing is you're right.
	When I interviewed Swedes about what's going on in Sweden in their own country, the amount of self-denial that I came across was almost pathological.
	That was the most maybe the most disturbing part of this whole thing.
	Look, I mean, this is the problem.
	Remember when that Christmas, how many years ago was it?
	Was it two Christmases ago or one?
	When they took down the Christmas tree in Sweden?
	No, when they actually when they had all these allegations of rape that started coming out like one after another after another, there was this sort of I'm I guess it was in Germany at the time.
	That was this past New Year's.
	That was a good thing.
	Yeah, that was this past New Year's.
	And I'm thinking, okay, is anybody gonna pay any attention to this?
	Anyone gonna watch this?
	I mean, we're talking about dozens of people that are making the allegations.
	And there's Angela Merkel.
	Now all of a sudden, Angela Merkel saying, Well, women can't wear uh, you know, full cover or burqa or hijab.
	They can't wear it now.
	And now she's under fire for that.
	But I mean it's too little too late.
	You were there two years ago following the influx of people.
	That's right.
	But here but here the kicker, of course, the takeaway from all of this is it is not listen, uh the let's let's be honest.
	I don't care about Sweden.
	Okay, they're anti-Israel, a lot of them are anti-Semitic.
	The reality is I care about America, and I want to make damn sure that we don't repeat the same mistakes that Europe is making as today, in real time, we see Europe, the the social and cultural upheaval that's happening there is happening today.
	I don't want to see a repeat of that here.
	That was the beginning of why Donald Trump was elected, to be honest with you.
	We don't want the Democrats allowing these Swiss refugees to I'm sorry, this the Syrian refugees to come here.
	And the problem is is that we're not learning our lesson.
	That's the issue.
	That's the takeaway from this whole thing, Sean.
	Well, I give you a lot of credit.
	You have a lot of guts to go in there and do it.
	I think it is the takeaway.
	But even with Trump's victory, I mean, look, 10,000 in Michigan is not a lot of votes to win by.
	Uh 24,000 in Wisconsin, it's it's substantive.
	It's it's a win, it's a big win, and seventy uh thousand in Pennsylvania, that you know, all of this combined, a little over a hundred thousand.
	And that's not a lot in terms of the American public that remains divided, but I think one of the most important part of his agenda besides the economic agenda is vetting refugees, number one, and number two, building the wall.
	I mean, with the these things are the basic constructs of what you need for a for it for a a society in America to cl to close to if you don't have borders, if you don't have vetting, then your country is going to burn.
	I don't understand why the open border people, including Hillary Clinton, don't understand that.
	Is that without basic, basic vetting, basic borders, that's the building blocks of of any country.
	How could you go without it?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	All right.
	Now, did your uh injuries heal?
	Thank God, all healed up.
	I look as pretty as ever.
	Alright, with all due respect, you're a lot of things.
	Pretty is not one of them.
	I know, and I say that very affectionately.
	I mean, I think you're a guy that has a lot of guts, and you're tougher and braver than 99% of everybody in the media, but you're you're nuts, but you're not pretty.
	You're just not.
	All right.
	A fact is a fact.
	I have to acknowledge that.
	Exactly.
	I only tell the truth on the program.
	Well, we're glad you're okay.
	Ami Horowitz, thank you, my friend.
	My pleasure.
	Stay safe.
	800, 941 Sean.
	You know your friend Ami, and I I saw this over I saw this today when I was doing my research, and I said, Linda's gonna book Ami.
	Linda loves Ami.
	Linda's like Ami's number one fan.
	Linda and Ami are like they sit in there, they talk for hours.
	So I knew I didn't even question it.
	I didn't even look at my guest sheet tonight.
	Because I knew Ami Horwich was going to be on it.
	I love radical Islam the way he is a hero.
	He's gonna get killed if he doesn't learn self-defense, though.
	Well you're gonna teach him, right?
	No, I'm not gonna teach him.
	Why not?
	Because I don't have time to do that.
	Aren't you a man of the people?
	I'll teach him what's going on.
	What about the common man who needs to protect himself?
	So GQ was gonna have a piece done on me about my martial arts.
	It turns out the guy like called me every name in the book.
	Now there's a part of me that would love bringing him into my j dojo.
	But you know the risks associated with that.
	It's a very unfair fight.
	Financial and otherwise, you know, if he leaves with an injury, he's gonna cry and sue and blame and whine and write horrible things.
	He really is a Nazi.
	I mean, this is like the left.
	There's like these people over at Red State.
	They've lost their minds.
	Now, when it was owned by Eric Erickson, it was much better.
	And Eric sold it.
	Salem Media bought it.
	There's some of our radio partners.
	And they've got all these never Trumper people.
	And my argument is this okay.
	When Trump does appoint an originalist to the Supreme Court, talk to me.
	Because it wouldn't have happened if you people had your way.
	If he builds the wall, then come talk to me.
	If he cuts taxes, come talk to me.
	If he vets refugees, come talk to me.
	If he eliminates Obamacare, then come talk to me.
	If he makes us energy independent, which seems energy is very high up on their agenda, just looking at their appointments, come back to me.
	If he sends education back to the States to help save kids and give them the education they deserve and solve problems and create jobs, then come talk to me.
	If he doesn't do them, you can blame me.
	But if he does do them, you know, you could basically, you know, kiss my feet that you were wrong and I was right.
	But there certainly was no hope of any of this happening with Hillary Clinton.
	And then they're making allegations, well, I'm not friends with with Rick Perry.
	Rick Perry, I love Rick Perry.
	Rick Perry and I are buddies.
	I saw him at the last debate.
	He came up to me and gave me a hug.
	He was there with Marcus Luttrell.
	You know, I would have been totally fine with Rick Perry as president.
	Absolutely love Rick Perry.
	You know, but I made a position stand that I'm not going to endorse, and I'm going to let the people decide, and I'll support the candidate.
	And then when Trump won, I went to I went to the wall for Trump.
	There what there was no option here.
	These are what these never Trumpers want.
	I mean, now there's obsessed, obsessed, trying to undermine the person because they're such sore loser crybabies.
	They're as bad as liberals.
	So now they want to they smear just like liberals do.
	Hannity's racist.
	No, Hannity deplores racism and has said so repeatedly over the years on radio and TV.
	Well, he retweeted some alt-right guy.
	I still to this day don't know what alt-right is.
	It's a new word that we discovered in the course of the election that I'd never heard before, which I've explained many times.
	Why do you think I say alt-radical left?
	Because there's a bunch of people on the left that are insane, starting with the news media.
	So my only statement to all these people is get over yourself.
	They had a great website at one time.
	Used to read it regularly.
	And they have destroyed it.
	Absolutely destroyed it.
	I would not be asked if how what their website numbers are like.
	And then get them to me if you can later today, okay?
	According to the Washington Post, the CIA has concluded that Russia intervene in the election to help you win the presidency.
	Your reaction.
	I think it's ridiculous.
	I think it's just another excuse.
	And uh I think it's just uh, you know, they talked about uh all sorts of things.
	Every week it's another excuse.
	We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College.
	I guess the final numbers are now at 306, and she's you know down to a very low number.
	Uh no, I don't believe that at all.
	You say you don't know why.
	Do you think that the CIA is trying to overturn the results of the election or somehow to weaken you in office?
	Well, if you look at the story and you take a look at what they said, uh there's great confusion.
	Nobody really knows.
	And hacking is very interesting.
	Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act, you're not gonna catch them.
	They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody.
	It could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace.
	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 uh the Democrats are always speaking about uh how terrible McCarthyism was.
	And it was in many ways.
	Uh, but at least the USSR actually existed then, and they 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 near McCarthy hysteria.
	Where she claims, or she claims that effectively Donald Trump is uh agent of the Russians.
	That WikiLeaks is an agent to the Russians, and where her campaign uh has also implied that Jules Stein, the Greens leader, uh is a Russian agent, and that the Intercept another U.S. publication, uh effectively Russian agents.
	So what 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.
	What kind of press climate is going to exist afterwards?
	The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this.
	He says that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.
	The Clinton camp has been able to project a kind of neo-Macartheist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything.
	Hillary Clinton stated multiple times falsely.
	That's seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that uh Russia was uh the the source of our publications.
	Okay.
	That's false.
	We can say that the Russian government is not the source.
	Yes.
	Wiki's been publishing for ten years.
	In that ten years, we published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources.
	And we have never got it wrong.
	Never got it wrong.
	There's been no media outlet that claims they ever did get it wrong.
	Now, Julian Assange in the interview with me saying that no, the Russians aren't responsible for the information that was hacked.
	So what do we know here?
	Now all the same media people, all the never Trumper people, you know, they're they feel energized.
	They're there we got Democrats calling on and urging the electoral college to void Trump's win over the Russian hack allegations.
	Now let's go to the ever so loved New York Times.
	Even they wrote the following.
	The CIA's conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election.
	Several American officials, including some who had read the agency's briefing said on Sunday.
	Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that, by the way, existed before the election.
	Evidence that others feel does not support these judgments, and that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump and got their desired outcome.
	Which then leads to the conclusion that, oh, okay, so the information's all the same, but now this far out of the election and the recount didn't work, and Trump's about to get the electoral college victory in seven days.
	Let's see if we can muddy up the waters even further and take away legitimacy to his big electoral win.
	And even the Daily B says there's a revolt going on about the uh former intelligence officer of the CIA leaks, citing discussions from former colleagues, they don't like National Security Advisor nominee Michael Flynn.
	And they quote, hate Trump's guts.
	This is their whole life's work being thrown out the door.
	They feel like the whole intelligence committee is on probation.
	The ex-bi spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the agency's internal anguish publicly.
	Well, that would appear to indicate that they're politicizing it, which maybe then goes to the heart of how it is even CNN reporting that the disagreement between some Republicans and Democrats on Russia's intentions in hacking the election rests partially on the lack of agreement between intelligence agencies and the FBI about the conclusiveness of the evidence that officials tried to leak and explain this weekend.
	So in other words, the FBI has and and then they went out there with this other false lie.
	And there was Reinz Prevus.
	He was on with Chucky Todd of MBC, another colluder with the Clinton campaign.
	And Chucky Todd was insisting that the RNC was hacked.
	Well, it turns out that Reinz Prevus had brought the FBI in for a week and that they weren't hacked, and that Chucky was wrong.
	But he still won't listen.
	And by the way, here's a side thought.
	Why would Putin want to back Trump after the left and Obama pretty much gave away the store to him?
	Russian reset didn't work out too well.
	So that's got to be at least brought into the public discussion as far as I'm concerned.
	You know, so you got a democratic conspiracy that has now emerged.
	You know, Donald Trump teamed up with Vladimir to torpedo Hillary Clinton's election.
	Well it unraveled what the Washington Post after revealing the FBI disagrees with the CIA's claim, and this would be the same CIA that helped the Obama administration concoct their crazy claims that an internet video caused the Benghazi attacks.
	So in other words, there's politics at the CIA.
	I love the CIA.
	I we need intelligence.
	But we can't have intelligence agencies that are politicized.
	And I'm sorry, it never made any any sense whatsoever that somehow a spontaneous demonstration, you know, broke out at the embassy in Benghazi and and these guys just spontaneously had in their back pocket, you know, RP, uh what do you call these things?
	RPGs to fire at the compound.
	It didn't make sense that they had mortars in their back pocket to fire at the compound at their quote spontaneous demonstration.
	But they went along with the ridiculous explanation that was given by the Democrats.
	They ignored intelligence and that was given beforehand that all of this was gonna happen.
	So none of this makes sense on any level.
	FBI investigation refutes the CIA.
	Whoopsie Daisy.
	You know, I've met the DNC WikiLeaks leader, and the person is an insider, not Russian, is one of the reports today.
	Now I don't know conclusively who it is, but I do know that the people that say they know are saying it's not Russia, it was never Russia.
	Anyway, here to help sort through what is becoming the story of the day.
	We have Scott Wheeler, Army veteran, for former investigative uh journalist, GOP trust executive director, Scott Ulinger is with us, a retired CIA operations officer, navy naval reserve officer, expert in Russian intel operations.
	I'm gonna refer to you as Scott U and then Scott W, okay?
	So you guys know who when to talk.
	Scott, you were in the CIA.
	Uh, yes, I was, Sean.
	Okay.
	Look, and by the way, I admire, I want to be very clear here.
	I admire our intelligence agencies.
	But I do take issue when they took the investigation in Benghazi out of the hands, wouldn't even talk to the people that were on the ground that were there, and they decided to run the investigation out of Langley, and then they conveniently concluded that the what I believe was a lie by Hillary Clinton, that this was a spontaneous demonstration related to a YouTube video was really political.
	That bothers me.
	Am I wrong?
	That was no, you're absolutely not wrong about that, Sean.
	That was that was an egregious um violation of trust right there.
	That was that was a terrible incident.
	There's no doubt about it.
	The um regarding Russia, the the the subject uh at hand right now is it's pretty murky, and it's kind of hard to comment on it without seeing the actual classified reporting.
	But there are certainly indications that you brought up that show that there is some politician going uh at work here.
	Well, I mean, that's the problem.
	I mean, how do we have I mean, first of all, it looks horrible to the world, those in it when the CIA and the FBI are are battling each other publicly?
	I think it looks horrible.
	And I thought after 9-11 that they were supposed to be coordinating on all of these issues.
	Right.
	Right.
	I think that the um one thing that I don't like is that the the fact that the Washington Post obtained this, it was apparently it was leaked, which is not a good thing.
	That might indicate some political motivation.
	And um and also the no the sourcing.
	See, if the report has very good sourcing, then that might be one matter.
	But if it's just sp if the report was simply speculating based on a lack of sourcing and saying things like that Russia intervened to so that Trump would win, that that's that's really uh faulty faulty analysis right there.
	And when you start speculating report, you start, you know, hurting the reputation of your of your agency because you're politicizing information.
	Well, I mean, that's the that's the scary part here.
	Now, why are they politicizing it?
	Why did they ignore all of the leaks as it involved Hillary Clinton?
	Why did they why wasn't it important when it was exposed that Hillary was cheating and colluding with the mainstream media?
	Why was it not delved why didn't we delve deeper into the idea that it was a ninety-nine percent certainty that Hillary's email was Hacked by enemy countries.
	Now all of a sudden the same people that ignored it, now all of a sudden hacking matters only because it they think it hurts Donald Trump and it and it advances their narrative.
	That's a very good point, Sean.
	You're right.
	I mean, uh several months ago the Democrats fell all over themselves to say that though there's no chance that uh Hillary's private server was hacked, now suddenly it's openly admitted.
	But yet six months ago that was denied um that was denied to Leanne that that you know her inform ha that her secret information that she had illegally kept on her private server had been hacked by the Russians.
	They denied that.
	Well, I mean that's the Now we know now apparently that is the case.
	So the CIA can be politicized.
	That's sad to me.
	It is.
	It's it's a really it's a bad problem.
	It's it can be the death knell of an organization if it starts to lose the faith, the good faith of the American people or whatever country it happens to be in.
	I mean, you know, look at the hit that the FBI has taken with some of the comments by its director a couple of months ago.
	That's gonna take a long time to recover.
	And that's why I really hope that the CIA report is accurate, but I begin to fear that it may not be.
	And if that is the case, then the CIA is really gonna have damaged its reputation.
	Scott W. What's your take on all of this?
	Well, as you've pointed out many times, Sean, there's some staggering duplicity in the in the mainstream media over this.
	First of all, uh why in the world would Russia favor Trump?
	You you could have to ask that question superficially.
	Clinton and Obama gave uh Putin everything he wanted in the first eight years of this election, up to and including uh when Obama was passing that secret message to to Vlad through uh uh Medvedev that uh he would be more flexible after the election.
	So here's a guy who's asking a foreign leader who they now say is a threat to the United States uh to allow him space to lie to his own uh constituents so he can win an election and then become more flexible for what they're calling a threat now.
	The in two thousand and ten the FBI rounded up ten Russian sleeper cell uh spy agents from Russia.
	And the Obama administration sent them home to a hero's welcome in Moscow with no integral interrogation, no trial, no nothing.
	Now, why on earth if they are this threat that they keep telling us they are?
	Why did they do that?
	I think that's a great point.
	Listen, and I I want to be very clear, as I sp been saying all day today.
	Hacking and cybersecurity look, let me tell you both.
	I got under huge fire on this program.
	I gave Julian Assange ninety minutes on this program and I think two segments on Hannity during this election cycle.
	It was in September of this year.
	I had Julian Assange on this program.
	Now in ten plus years that they've they've been doing wiki leaks with however many millions of documents they've leaked.
	Not one time as their credibility, or one time have they been called out for being wrong.
	And he said unequivocally that this information that they release A, it wasn't hacked by them, and B that it didn't come from the Russians.
	Now, Scott, you I I I don't know if he's telling me the truth, but his track record tells me we should listen.
	Right.
	What do you think?
	It was an interesting thing you were talking about, the Democrats and the Republicans with This is a little bit counterintuitive, but I've read that believe it or not, Russians generally prefer to have dealt with Republicans previously.
	And the reason is is because Republicans are much more reliable and steady.
	They generally have uh of course they enjoy dealing with democratic administrations because often they're weaker and can be taken advantage of.
	But always what happens is Russia takes too much and then the pendulum swings too far the other way and they miscalculate.
	Like Carter in 79 was president was easy with the Russians.
	Suddenly they invade Afghanistan, and then suddenly they cancel the Olympics.
	And so Russia doesn't like being thrown around like that.
	They actually prefer someone like Reagan, who's tough but fair and steady.
	So it's kind of counterintuitive, not exactly what you'd think, but certainly um you know Russia has run Russia.
	That's a great insight.
	I do think they want somebody steady.
	I do there's no question about it.
	Yeah.
	And I think that Vladimir was never afraid of Obama, never afraid of Hillary Clinton either.
	Uh the Russian reset was a disaster.
	Uh, because he didn't fear them.
	There was nothing to fear.
	Scott W. You get the last word.
	Well, the furthering the duplicity regarding Assange, and the reason you should be vigorously defended is that the mainstream media treated him like a hero when he was leaking on the Bush administration and it exposed U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen to uh to terrorist threats.
	They treated Assange as a hero.
	And I I document this in my two thousand and twelve book, Promoting Decline, where I show the way ABC News, for example, treated him during the Bush administration, and then as soon as he leaked against uh the Obama administration, he suddenly became a pariah to the American media.
	The duplicity is staggering.
	I mean, you just can't get past it.
	It really is true.
	Very well said.
	All right.
	I appreciate both of you.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	Toll free, our telephone numbers 800, 941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of this extravagance.
	Let's get to our busy phones here.
	Sandy is in California.
	Sandy, hi, how are you?
	And we're glad you called.
	I'm just fine, and thank you for everything you do.
	Remember uh during the primaries and during the election, there was a group of intelligence people that put out a letter saying, Oh, we cannot vote for Trump.
	Don't you dare vote for Trump.
	Like 50 of them signed it.
	So they've actually put them out, put themselves out as being political.
	And therefore, they lack credibility.
	We need to be careful about any unidentified sources.
	We also uh lack credibility with John McCain and Lindsey Graham because they've spoken against Trump and they've spoken against me, a strong supporter of Trump.
	Isn't it amazing that only people that don't see the hypocrisy, the very people, many of whom were silent the entire time about Hillary Clinton, about foreign governments, about uh all of the lack of cybersecurity.
	What did I say that I got a I got my my ass handed to me day after day?
	Oh, Julian Assange did America a favor.
	He exposed that we have no cybersecurity, which is good because we can learn from it and fix it.
	And number two, I said he showed how corrupt the government really is.
	I agree, and you know, Sean, I've always felt like there was somebody in the Democrat Party that leaked that information and felt like the public needed to know.
	And we need to keep reminding the public that it showed the media working with the Democrats.
	And we can't ever forget that.
	We can't trust what we read in the post.
	Bob Woodward to me is kind of like a a betrayer because he never did anything about reporting about how bad Hillary Clinton's uh foundation was, but he's now trying to hurt Donald Trump.
	And I think we need to be strong and supportive of Trump, and we also need to remember they never made George Washington sell his farm.
	And Trump should maintain his business because that's how he'll make money once he finishes with the presidency.
	Here's the only thing I'm gonna disagree with you on is the M part.
	Now he legally has every right to run his business.
	President presidents are exempt from he doesn't have to by law get a blind trust.
	But here's the problem.
	He's got so much to do for the country that the media is going to fixate on this every single solitary day.
	What I would recommend he does he do is hand the business over, either a blind trust, somebody he he knows, believes in, has good business acumen, maybe Michael Cohn, I don't know who Anthony Scaramucci, whatever.
	Hand it over to somebody, focus on fixing the country, and that's what I would do.
	Uh anyway, thank you, Sandy.
	Appreciate it.
	Uh Jonathan is in Gulfport in Mississippi.
	What's up, Jonathan?
	How are you?
	And we're glad you called.
	Very good, Sean.
	It's such an honor to talk to you.
	I've listened to you since I was a youngster, and uh man, I'm for you and and for everything you stand for.
	Look, I'm a strong conservative millennial that voted for Trump and was excited to do it.
	I'm loving the people he's appointing.
	I just want to say I I sure hope that the Republicans don't get up there and get lazy on us and turn their back on us like they've we've seen some of them.
	I really hope Donald's gonna crack the whip, keep them in line, you keep the fire to them, and let's see this this great nation of ours get turned around.
	Hey, Jonathan, I don't know if you saw two Fridays ago on Hannity on the Fox News Channel.
	I did a special, and it was called Trump's Promises to America during the campaign.
	And they're very important to me too.
	Listen, uh I can't vouch that everything that he said on the campaign trail he's gonna do, but I want those things done.
	I want originalists on the court.
	I want repatriation, low tax, bring the multinational corporation back to the country.
	I want a fifteen percent corporate tax rate down from th 35%.
	I want seven brackets to three.
	I want Obamacare gone.
	I want health savings accounts.
	I want energy independence.
	I want the wall built and I want education back to the States.
	I want a strong national defense and I want the VA fixed.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's great.
	It's amazing.
	If he does it, and if they put if they push and stand with him, you know what?
	My ten month-old baby boy and my three-year-old baby boy are gonna get to grow up in a beautiful America, but I'm afraid if they don't do what they said they're gonna do, and he doesn't put the originalists on the on the Supreme Court, and he doesn't do those things, and the and the Republican Party doesn't get themselves in line.
	My little boys are gonna the next 30 years are gonna be lost, Sean.
	They're gonna be going against these going to other people.
	Listen, Jonathan, I hate to say I hate to sound dire.
	I think this is our last shot.
	No doubt, no doubt.
	I think it's our last shot, and I don't know what to tell you after this.
	We we've got to be smart.
	The only thing I don't like that's showing up on the agenda, and I got into this with Paul Ryan on Friday night on TV.
	I'm not thrilled about a trillion dollar infrastructure bill that's not paid for as we go.
	I'm just not.
	And I and I'm not thrilled if that money's gonna be spent by five hundred and thirty-five idiots in the House and Senate.
	Because these people just this is how they keep their power, and they're gonna mismanage the money just like they did the Obama stimulus.
	I'm not happy about it.
	Yes, sir.
	Listen, I'll make a promise to you.
	You you keep fighting, you keep you stay strong, and down here as a young man.
	I'm gonna raise my boys to be conservative.
	I'm gonna do my part in my local government, I'm gonna try to reach people to help them, to move them along to come to the conservative side.
	But this is the biggest step that we could ever make, I believe, in the history since I've grown up in our nation.
	I'm only 28 that I've seen.
	And if if we take the right steps, I'm telling you, it's gonna be an amazing America, and my little boys are gonna they're gonna turn my age, they're gonna get older, and they're gonna have kids, and they're gonna be a good one.
	Why do you think this matters to me?
	I mean, uh I know that people listen to this program, and I guess some people have no idea where my heart is, but in spite of the fact, you know, I feel so passionately that it's our job at this point in my life.
	I've had many of my dreams come true.
	But it's now about my kids.
	It's about you, it's about your kids, and it's about the future, and I hate to see America in this precipitous decline.
	I hate to see Americans on food stamps in poverty out of work.
	I hate to see people their their hope and dream of their own home going down the freaking tubes.
	I hate that we rob our kids blind.
	I hate that we're stupid and we're sitting on more energy, the lifeblood of our economy.
	We'd never need another drop of Saudi or foreign oil, and we don't use it.
	I'm I'm I'm pissed off that our educational system is awful.
	I I I'm I'm upset we don't we don't control our borders.
	Everybody ought to see the mess that Obamacare is, and this is our chance to fix it.
	And if we don't fix it, I'm gonna be pissed.
	Yes, sir, yes, sir, and you didn't but you had no chance with Hillary.
	None.
	No, no, no, no, no, not at all.
	And look, I feel that we feel the love.
	We know you love us, we know you love this country, and uh man, I appreciate you.
	Like I said, uh listen to you, man.
	You you you you're you've made a difference in this nation and in this election, and I appreciate everything you stand for, and I'm gonna keep pushing down here, man.
	We gotta pull people to our side, but the biggest help we can have is if they keep their promise and they do the job they said they were gonna do, and I pray they will.
	Look, love you, man.
	Have a good time.
	All right, brother.
	God bless you and your family.
	I'd like to meet you too.
	All right, 800 941 Sean.
	Mary Beth is in Arkansas.
	Mary Beth, hi, how are you?
	And we glad you're called.
	We're glad you called.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	What a wonderful message that young man gave.
	Your heart should be so happy because you have done that.
	Well you have done a wonderful job turning America around.
	I'm a 61-year-old woman, and I'm in it for my grandkids and my kids, but that's not the reason I'm calling.
	I am going to tell you that if you go on the view, I'm going to be pissed at you because you are much better than they are.
	Oh, great.
	There's four people in there looking at me and they're shaking their heads.
	See, right?
	See?
	Oh my gosh.
	I was so angry.
	You know what I was gonna you know what I was going to do.
	They were gonna I was gonna go on this Thursday and then I got talked out of it by a very angry and rebellious staff in there.
	I was gonna go on and I was gonna give all the ladies of the view.
	I can say it now because the time has passed.
	I was gonna give them coloring books and crayons, and I was gonna give them play-doh and I was gonna give them, you know, like candles for aromatherapy, and I was gonna give them a glass bottle of wine instead of hot cocoa.
	I was gonna take care of the ladies of the view.
	You can't make them happy.
	You are much better than they are, and don't do it.
	I just love you so much.
	I'm so proud of you.
	But remember, I knew Donald Trump was gonna win.
	I my grandbabies knew that he was gonna win.
	And thank you so much for everything you've done for the United States of America.
	Thank you for our vets and everybody.
	Mary Beth, this country has done so much for for you and me.
	You think about this, and look, I'm not that much younger than you are.
	I'm fifty-four.
	And it's not about me at this point in my life.
	I know that uh it's maybe it sounds cliche or like a platitude.
	Just my passion is for people that are we we are hurting our country.
	We're destroying it.
	We're robbing our future.
	We're robbing our kids.
	We're we're literally taking so much talent and we're saying stay home and sleep in mommy's basement because there's no jobs available.
	Um I just I want to fix it.
	That's all I care about.
	And all these people that I fight with Mary Beth on a regular basis, I don't care about them.
	They mean nothing to me.
	Your call, the caller before you, you you are what makes this worthwhile for me.
	You're won't make me you're you're the reason I listen is because of you.
	And listen, my dad was at Ti Wojima when the flag went up at World War II.
	Yeah, and ultimately that took my daddy away.
	And the VA is not any better now than it was 42 years ago.
	And I truly believe that Trump's gonna turn it around.
	The men that he's got involved, we've got to take care of our vets because it's I'm 61.
	I lost my dad at 19.
	It was like yesterday.
	These babies that are losing their dads now and their mothers now, aunts and uncles, it's not right.
	It's not right.
	And I am so excited about the VA finally being taken care of, and you cannot go on the URI.
	We will really be pissed off.
	Oh my gosh.
	All right, Mary Ann.
	Thank you.
	Uh, Mary Beth, thank you so much.
	I appro Oh, by the way, stay on the line.
	I'm gonna give you Sherry's berries, those big delicious strawberries dipped in white milk and dark chocolatey goodness with nuts and swizzle.
	So stay right there, Mary Beth.
	Merry Christmas.
	Merry Christmas.
	All right, you bet.
	Just go to berries.com.
	It's a great gift.
	And by the way, it's a safe place that you can buy online in this day and age.
	It's a little scary.
	All right, uh Brenda is in Texas.
	Brenda, how are you?
	What's going on?
	How are you?
	I just want to first say real quickly that thank you, Sean.
	You g you I have the same sentiments that everybody before me was speaking.
	I'm fifty-eight, you're my first time ever call a radio station, and it's because of you and the people, your guests that you have on your show that got us through this past eight years of Obama and all of his transition to the left.
	Thank you, thank you, thank you.
	Oh, you're very kind.
	I'm gonna give you Sherry's berries too, okay?
	I'm in a really giving mood.
	They're big, they're delicious, they're juicy, they're scrumptious, and you're gonna love them, and that's my way of saying Merry Christmas, okay?
	Stay right there.
	All right, don't hang up.
	Can I ask you real quick?
	Yeah, ask me, okay, go ahead.
	Are you okay with Michael Moore and the people that are inciting uh to disrupt the inauguration?
	I don't know what what we would classify as terrorism, but if these people actually follow through with what they're doing, if like the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson's.
	There's nothing, there's nothing you can do.
	He's been sending out messages, disrupt the inauguration, and silence is not an option, and I have no doubt, you know, probably be led by CNN's Van Jones and uh and Michael Moore, the new dynamic cable duo.
	And listen, they have every right to protest.
	I'm not gonna take away their right.
	They have every right to be incendiary, every right to say anything they want.
	If there's one bit of violence, they need to be taken to jail.
	That's all.
	And there's there's only gonna be a certain area that they're gonna be in, and they can scream and yell to themselves all day, and that's all that CNN will care about.
	I'm gonna be caring about Donald Trump's inauguration and his first hours.
	We're sending every executive order.
	Anyway, I appreciate it.
	Stay right there.
	Ted in Raleigh, North Carolina.
	What's up, Ted?
	You got m one minute.
	Go ahead.
	Hey, Sean.
	Just wanted to make sure you're all right and see if we needed to get you some crayons and play-doh and maybe a service dog.
	I heard you whining last week about wearing the tuck.
	Come on, man.
	Man up wear the tuck for inauguration.
	I'm I'm not show you.
	I gotta work with I gotta work that night, and I'm not wearing a tux on television.
	I r Well, unless my boss makes me.
	I mean, you know, everybody in life has a boss.
	If my boss says you gotta be in a tux, I'll put the stupid things on, but I'm still gonna be in jeans underneath.
	I don't care.
	I'll put the tux on just for TV.
	What are they gonna do?
	Throw me out?
	They're gonna say, oh, your attire is not proper, Mr. Hannity.
	They're not gonna throw me out.
	Oh, come on, man.
	It's just a tux.
	Well, what are you gonna do?
	Are you gonna make are you gonna make rascal flats when they play at the inauguration or Sarah Evans is playing?
	You're gonna make them wear a tu a tux also?
	You're good, man, but you're not rascal flats, man.
	Come on.
	No, I'm just saying, you're gonna make country music stars getting a tux, they're not gonna do it.
	Nobody wants to be in a tux.
	No normal person wants to be in a tux.
	True or false.
	Oh, I think some people do.
	I think people like to sh get dressed up and show off, man.
	Come on, you can do it.
	I don't need to show off.
	You know what I want to do?
	I'd rather be home watching it on TV.
	But I have to work.
	It's on a Friday night.
	Now they're asking me to do two hours, not one.
	I'll do what my boss says.
	If my boss makes me wear a tux, I'll put the stupid thing on and I'll hate every minute of it.
	I I gotta do I I everyone's got a boss in life.
	Well, what?
	Whether I should go to the inauguration and wear a tux?
	You're gonna put a poll up on that on Hannity.com?
	You already did put a poll up.
	Oh, that's that's evil.
	I didn't even know.
	What's it what's it rating?
	People think you should look dapper in your tux.
	No, that's not then you ask the question in a slanted way.
	The question is, should Sean wear a tux to the inauguration or wear what he wants to wear.
	That's it.
	That's how I wrote it.
	Yeah.
	And what's the what's the what's the outcome so far?
	I think you're gonna look fantastic in your tux.
	That I didn't say I agree to the outcome.
	Oh my gosh.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday normally on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast.

▲