Sean Hannity Show - Inside Job - 12.15

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 16, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:33:11

Inside Job - 12.15

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 Markowitz, 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, as we roll along, 800-941-Sean.
	I had to do something.
	I had to tweet out something for my buddy Bo.
	Make sure it went through properly in my Twitter account because if I made a mistake, it's going to be the end of the world again that I did something horrible.
	I'd think I messed it up.
	Can you fix it for me?
	Do you mind?
	Glad you are with us.
	All right, the left is gone.
	Ape sugar.
	They just gone nuts.
	And this sore loser left, so it's not going to work with a recount.
	That failed miserably.
	Oh, I got to tell you.
	Oh, Julian Assange is on the program today.
	He's been saying, no, the Russians.
	Will somebody call Lindsey Graham's office?
	Tell him, the idiot, to listen to the second hour of the program today when Julian Assange is on, because he might learn something.
	Did the tweet go out the right way?
	Did you check it out?
	Is it all good?
	Is everything okay?
	Did I do something stupid?
	You haven't even checked yet.
	Great.
	Very quick.
	You're sipping your coffee in there with Irish whiskey in it.
	I know what's going on.
	A Christmas party in there.
	I see what's happening.
	I see the party never ended and that, you know, you just hung all, you know, that's the best way you can cope today.
	I get what's going on.
	I see it.
	Anyway, so you got sore lubricant.
	So we have Julian Assange, sore loser celebrities.
	Now they go from Russian hacking.
	Now let's just try and influence the election.
	The electors led by member Martin Sheen.
	Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you.
	As you know, our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
	An eminent degree.
	Someone who is highly qualified for the job.
	The Electoral College was created specifically to prevent an unfit candidate from becoming president.
	There are 538 members of the Electoral College.
	You and just 36 other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference.
	By voting your conscience on December 19th.
	And thereby shaping the future of our nation.
	I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
	As you know, the Constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person.
	Any eligible person, no matter which party they belong to.
	But it should certainly be someone you consider especially competent, especially competent to serve as President of the United States of America.
	By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency.
	I stand with you.
	I stand with you in support and solidarity with conservatives, independents, and liberals.
	And all citizens of the United States.
	The American people trust that your voice speaks for us all.
	And that you, you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself.
	What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president.
	He lacks the necessary stability.
	And clearly the respect for the Constitution of our great nation.
	You have position.
	The authority.
	And the opportunity to go down in the books as an American hero.
	Who changed the course of history.
	And you have my respect.
	You have my respect.
	You have my respect.
	For your patriotism.
	And service to the American people.
	Unite for America.
	All right, that is just the beginning.
	Now, my first observation is all of a sudden, the Constitution actually means something to the radical left.
	And when they mentioned Hamilton, I'm thinking, oh, I know what that is.
	They went and saw the play in Broadway or somewhere else.
	So now they think it actually is really cool to quote him.
	I thought this was an outdated racist document put together by a bunch of racists.
	Oh, all of a sudden the Constitution matters.
	And let's all work together, conservatives.
	Oh, the same people that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.
	You want to work with them?
	Or is it that you just want to manipulate them any way you can?
	You know, by the way, some of these people, there's way too many injections.
	I don't know what these people out in Hollywood do with these doctors.
	Oh, my gosh.
	Anyway, if the election gets thrown to the House, they can only choose among the top three vote getters.
	So who do you think is going to win?
	And if Elector changes his vote, well, he'll have the respect of Martin Sheen, and that's about it.
	And maybe some of the hardcore Hollywood left that don't like them anyway.
	So you got the sore loser, big celebrities, star-studded video PSA, Deborah Messing, Martin Sheen, and a bunch of people, Moby.
	I don't even know who half of these people are.
	I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary, say several of the stars.
	By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency.
	The video ends with them telling electors they would earn their respect by performing this service to the American people.
	No, they wouldn't earn the respect of anybody.
	What they're trying here is a coup d'etat.
	Basically, they want to overthrow the will of the people, and they want to wrap their arms around the Constitution.
	Meanwhile, they stood idly by the last eight years as we have a president that stomped on the Constitution and the rule of law, ruled by executive fiat, unconstitutional executive orders that had no respect for the Constitution.
	We didn't hear a peep out of these people.
	So this is now the long-shot bid to block Trump headed to the Electoral College on Monday.
	It's not going to happen.
	But the sad part of this is, as we've been chronicling here on this program, we have electors all around the country being harassed.
	You know, barrage of emails, phone calls, threats, even death threats in an attempt to block Trump from being voted in as president by the Electoral College on Monday.
	The bullying is so overwhelming that in one case, this woman literally detect devices, you know, they're now having such difficulty they can't even walk out of their own house.
	You know, grandmother woke up Wednesday morning, 1,500 emails demanding she not carry out her legal duty to vote for the president-elect.
	And they just keep coming and coming and coming, they say.
	Her answer is in her case, she's doing a mass delete so much for serving your country and going on behalf of those people that voted in your state and performing the duty and make the commitment and following up on the commitment you made to the people.
	And then you've got everybody right up to their eyeballs in this, including Clinton and Obama supporters.
	You know, you've got the Center for American Progress.
	They're focused like a laser beam on this.
	So-called nonprofit John Podesta-led, and they're providing Democrats with the centralized resource to oppose the president's move, starting with his cabinet positions.
	Listen, they are going to try, and I've witnessed this before.
	I was there when Newt Gingrich was elected in 94.
	I followed his speakership closely.
	And by Christmas, after the November election, he was the Gingrich that stole Christmas.
	He was the guy that broke Tiny Tim's crutch.
	He was the guy that was going to take food and water out of the mouths of grandmothers.
	All of these arguments are now being made.
	Why do you think I was mocking those that said there's going to be a war on old people beginning in January?
	You know, so you've got all the electors being harassed.
	Then you've got people like Keith Oberman.
	Imagine when Obama was elected in 2008, if I tweeted out, you treacherous Russian whore at real Donald Trump, the White House and all of us have been after you for this for months, and we will get you.
	Really?
	What does that mean?
	Is that a threat?
	You treacherous, you treacherous Russian whore at real Donald Trump.
	The White House and all of us have been after you for this for months, and we will get you.
	Well, what does that mean?
	And that's, by the way, some of the more mild things that he says.
	Michael Moore, Donald Trump is going to get us killed, he said as he posted an essay on his personal Facebook page criticizing the president-elect.
	Most of us would agree that John, then he starts talking about, well, he's not getting his presidential daily briefing, which, by the way, he says he just doesn't want the repetitive briefing.
	He said he wants all new information to come to him on a daily basis.
	He also has a vice president-elect who's doing that duty every day as well.
	It's not like it's not happening.
	He says he get it when I need it, as long as it's not repetitive.
	In other words, if it's the same briefing every day, he's saying, I'm letting Mike Pence handle it and update me if anything's important.
	I mean, so anyway, it's, you know, they don't care.
	They're just angry.
	Then you've got on Wednesday, yesterday, the president-elect added three more high-profile CEOs, you know, Pepsi CEO and Uber CEO and Tesla CBO to this big meeting they had with all these other people.
	Facebook, by the way, is going to label news, fake news, real news.
	Well, who gets to decide?
	Certain, for example, is it news if CNN slips the questions to Hillary before a debate?
	Is it news if CNN is asking the DNC for questions for Donald Trump?
	Is it news if the New York Times or Politico writes something and then they allow the Democrats an opportunity to edit it before they send it out publicly?
	Or is that basically just a wink and a nod in a corrupt system that they've designed with each other?
	Anyway, when the Pepsi CEO got to the board and got to discuss some things, she started saying, my employees were all crying after Trump won.
	Sounded like Martha Rattitz.
	You got a California professor in hiding after he told their students that Donald Trump's election was an act of terrorism.
	An act of terrorism?
	Amy Schumer, the comedian, yes, relation to Chucky Schumer, calls on women to march and protest against Donald Trump, just like Michael Moore is calling for disruption at the inauguration.
	Anyway, she said, January 21st, I'll be there, she said.
	Who's coming with me?
	What's the march for?
	Nothing's happened yet.
	Although by the 21st, I expect that a lot of executive orders will have been repealed.
	You know, Vanity Fair, angry white Trump voters wanted submissive Russian women.
	Oh, let's insult Melania Trump again.
	Let's go after her.
	You got 46 more electors signing on to a letter demanding the Putin-Trump intelligence briefing.
	Not that it matters, but even Loretto Lynch says there's no evidence that Russia interfered with the U.S. election, none whatsoever.
	Never mind that Ed Klein is reporting that the FBI director James Comey told Trump the Russians did not influence the election.
	Politico ended up having to fire a reporter after an obscene tweet about Donald and Ivanka Trump.
	You can't believe half this stuff.
	Two-thirds of Americans say Russian hacking made no difference.
	It didn't make a difference.
	And it did not make a difference, not one.
	Lindsey Graham is lying to the American people.
	There's no evidence whatsoever.
	None.
	That the Russians were involved in this in any way, shape, matter, or form.
	One of the reasons we're having Julian Assange on, Julian told me in prior interviews that Russians were not involved.
	And if you want to get things a little bit more interesting, there was a story in the Daily Mail that talks about the ex-British ambassador to Uzbekistan, an associate of Assange, who told the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington, D.C. to pick up the emails.
	In the case of Hillary Clinton and John Podesta, he claims he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources.
	And the leaker's motivation was discussed at the corruption in the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders, and that the source had legal access to the information and that the documents came from inside leaks, not from anybody hacking anywhere.
	Whoopsie-daisy.
	Well, we can't have that.
	That doesn't go with our narrative in any way, shape, matter, or form.
	You know, well, sorry, but where does the truth?
	You know, let me tell you this.
	And it is true, the Daily Call points out that the FBI and Justice Department's still going after the Clinton email server.
	But let me just say this.
	If we have no new information, the only reason they're elevating this story, because it's the same information we had before the election, we're only doing it for one reason.
	Well, the recount didn't work.
	Now we're going to try a simultaneous path.
	We're going to delegitimize Trump by claiming the Russians hacked, and there's no evidence to back it up, as the director of national intelligence has said, as the FBI director has said.
	Let's not listen to them.
	Let's listen to the CIA political side of the CIA.
	The same people that told us a spontaneous demonstration occurred in Benghazi and a bunch of spontaneous demonstrators just decided in the moment, they didn't plan it, they're not terrorists, that they were going to pop out of their pockets mortars and RPGs and fire it at the compound.
	Because that's what the CIA concluded.
	And that's the false talking point narrative they advanced.
	And they did it to help Hillary Clinton advance her lie.
	Now, I'm not saying CIA operatives are all this way, but certainly there are some people in Langley that did that.
	I don't know who they are, but they never spent any time talking to the people on the ground in Menghazi.
	These are fascinating times we're living in.
	So was it a handoff in the woods near American University, or was it Vladimir Putin?
	And why would Obama change from saying, you can't influence our elections to, well, we've got to investigate.
	And John Podesta and all their big money people.
	They're now doing it to delegitimize Trump.
	As I witnessed in 94 with Newt Gingrich, the destruction of Newp began on day one.
	The same thing is happening with Donald Trump.
	They want to destroy him and make him fail.
	And that means not fulfill the promises he made on the campaign trail.
	Now, I assume that I know the media establishment's already against him.
	The Democratic establishment is against him.
	And in short order, my prediction is this.
	That Republican establishment, they'll turn on him too because they're not going to like any drain the swamp or term limit legislation or taking away power from them to spend the money that they've been spending like drunken sailors with no offense to drunken sailors in the last 10 years.
	You didn't need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from malicious Russian cyber activity.
	The president-elect didn't call it into question.
	He called on Russia to hack his opponent.
	He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton.
	So he certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on.
	The last several weeks of the election were focused on a discussion of emails that had been hacked and leaked by the Russians.
	These were emails from the DNC and John Podesta, not from the RNC and Steve Bannon.
	It was the president-elect who over the course of the campaign indicated that he thought that President Putin was a strong leader.
	It was the president-elect who indicated the potential that he would withdraw from some of our critically important NATO commitments.
	Now, what's also true, and this goes to something that we discussed in the briefing on Monday, there's ample evidence that was known long before the election and even in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign in Russia.
	Everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent.
	It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent's campaign.
	That's why he was encouraging them to keep doing it.
	All right, that's Josh Ernest, 25 now till the top of the hour, the propagandists for Barack Obama at the White House podium.
	So again today, he is saying Trump has inside knowledge of hacking in spite of no evidence.
	He is saying that Trump was involved basically in the hacking, that he encouraged it.
	Ernest, my buddy Rowan Scarborough wrote me, he said, Josh Ernest would not be doing this without Obama's seal of approval.
	And he's right.
	So you have an outgoing president, and I told you this a long time ago.
	He will not have the class of a George W. Bush.
	He will not be able to help himself.
	His rigid radical ideology will drive him to be a constant critic of the incoming President Trump.
	That's why I did the whole They're Not Your Friends monologue.
	They're not.
	And neither is Ryan and neither is McConnell.
	And you just, they're not going to be your friends.
	They'll only like you while you're popular.
	As soon as you're a little less popular, then they're going to dump you overboard as quickly as possible and try and destroy you.
	So, this is what's happening now.
	This is where it gets even more interesting.
	The former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, our old friend Peter King of Long Island, is accusing the CIA of, quote, conducting a disinformation campaign against Trump, slamming the intelligence community Wednesday for forcing the cancellation of the planned House Intelligence Committee briefing on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.
	I'll tell you why I think they canceled it.
	And I think it's pretty obvious because they know that every congressman is going to say, well, we knew all of this.
	There's nothing new here.
	Why did you change the conclusion on the same information that you had before the election?
	So they don't want to be embarrassed and exposed as having a political arm within the CIA, within our intelligence community.
	I want to be perfectly clear here.
	I love our intelligence community.
	We need intelligence.
	A lot of brave people work for the CIA.
	A lot of people are putting their lives on the line for their country, but there is a political arm within the CIA that was on display during Benghazi, as I've been telling you.
	He said, all we've heard from the intelligence community over the last several months is they could not say there was any attempt to undermine Hillary and help Trump, King told Fox News.
	Anyway, he says it violates every protocol.
	It's almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States.
	It's absolutely disgraceful, and if they're not doing it, then it must be someone in the House or the Senate who's leaking false information, and there should be a full investigation into this.
	This is all true.
	And now we know that James Comey, the FBI director, said Russia had no input into this, which is why we're going to interview Julian Assange at the top of the hour.
	Very smart man, Julian Assange.
	Whether you like him, dislike him, I know he's controversial.
	I've said a number of times he's done America a favor.
	He's pointed out we have no cybersecurity as a government, as a people, number one, and number two, how corrupt your government is, deep to its fundamental core.
	Anyway, so apparently also, the Washington Examiner points out this whole stonewalling of Congress.
	You know, why is this happening?
	Because now the House Intelligence Agency, their committee chairman, rebuking the intelligence agencies today and yesterday for their refusal to grant a briefing request on cyber attacks during the U.S. presidential election.
	Well, why would that be?
	One, because they might be laughed out of the room.
	Two, they might be exposed as politicizing intelligence to help Hillary and the Democrats undermine Donald Trump, the incoming president.
	Devin Nunes of California said it's unacceptable for the intelligence community directors that they would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee's request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign.
	The legislative branch is constitutionally vested with oversight responsibility of executive branch agencies, which are obligated to comply with our requests.
	The committee is vigorously looking into reports of cyber attacks during the election campaign.
	And in particular, we want to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it is not shared with us.
	Now, was it the White House that altered the assessment of the information that we all had before the election that the FBI contradicts, that the Director of National Intelligence contradicts?
	The committee's deeply concerned that the intransience in sharing intelligence with Congress can now enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.
	That's exactly what's happening.
	Exactly.
	It's so transparent.
	We got some other news here.
	The reversal of this horrible Iranian deal apparently has already begun.
	The Obama administration's disastrous deal is being relegated now, just like Obamacare, to the ash heap of history, just like Executive Amnesty will be relegated similarly.
	Congress passed new sanctions on Iran last month by a veto-proof margin.
	Today, their implementation begins all over the objections of our appeaser-in-chief, Barack Obama.
	Now, Iran is making threats, and they're doing some saber-rattling.
	They're trying to cancel the nuclear, that if they cancel the nuclear deal, they will cancel it if new sanctions are passed.
	They make good on that threat.
	Well, that's a guarantee that what I predicted would happen is going to happen.
	They'll get nuclear weapons.
	So stupid.
	They already have the money, the ransom money.
	Unbelievable.
	Anyway, let's get to our phones here.
	Some of you have been very patient.
	Tom in California.
	Tom, high, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hey, Sean.
	Real quick, Josh Ernest is trying to tie Trump to the Russian hacking by a flippant remark that he made during the debate about Russia giving Hillary's emails to the press.
	If we use that logic, a couple of weeks before the election, Obama was talking to some blogger about voting, and he made an offhand remark about illegal voting.
	It was a yes, but it was a no.
	You know, it was kind of a flippant remark.
	But if we want to tie Trump to the Russians, then we have to tie Obama to illegal immigrants voting.
	Well, I think that's a good point.
	And we know illegal immigrants voted.
	I don't know how many, but this has been chronicled.
	Just, you know, go talk to people like John Fund.
	And it's just been a...
	Well, I live in California.
	I know it.
	Yeah, of course.
	It's happened.
	I don't know how many, but if one happens, it's one too many.
	Anyway, let's get to our phones.
	Josh in Kansas.
	What's up, Josh?
	Sean, thanks for taking the call.
	Love your show.
	Love what you do.
	I'll be real brief and quick.
	I just want to talk about the hypocrisy that we live in today.
	You know, the Democrats are so quick to talk about how the Russians supposedly influenced the election, and that's the only reason Trump got nominated, and that's the only reason he won.
	Well, they're so quick to forget that they cheated Bernie out of a fair process to be a Democratic nominee.
	They're so quick to erase all the memories of people having that information that they cheated Bernie out of a fair process.
	It's crazy.
	Well, it's great that you say that because this whole Daily Mail article about Julian Assange's friend and associate and a guy that works at WikiLeaks, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, saying that the WikiLeaks emails came from the Clinton campaign from a disgusted Democratic whistleblower for the very specific reason that you're talking about.
	And that is that all this information about Podesta's emails were handed off in a wooded area near American University.
	And that the motivation of the leaker was discussed at the corruption at the Clinton Foundation and tilting the primary election playing field against Bernie.
	And the source apparently had legal access to the information, that the documents came from inside.
	Yeah, you're right.
	And by the way, did they care about the media colluding with Hillary?
	Josh?
	They don't.
	And it's just so funny because, I mean, it's just accusations.
	It's accusations after accusations.
	You have the FBI director saying that's nonsense, and they don't care.
	It's like they're doing everything they can to get to the point of, okay, you know what?
	He's going to become our president.
	Let's give him the respect that he deserves.
	But it's just they don't want to do that.
	And I don't remember when Obama, I was so frustrated when Obama got elected.
	You know, I'm in a conservative state, but even even then, so, like, when he got uh, when he got elected, I don't remember it being like this.
	I don't remember when people were crying and going and hollering and saying, oh, my goodness, we're, you know, we're doomed.
	I don't remember any of that.
	It's just it's so sickening uh sickening.
	You know, my friends, uh, people I talk to, they just cannot come to their senses.
	They're just, you know, they want to cry about it and make excuses, and it's just, it's sickening.
	It's sickening.
	What did, and I appreciate the call.
	What did WikiLeaks do?
	Now remember, we're going to have Julian Assange on at the top of the next hour.
	What did WikiLeaks do?
	Okay.
	They exposed how corrupt America's media is, every big network, every major newspaper, how they colluded with the Clinton campaign.
	It exposed how they cheated to help Bernie to beat Bernie Sanders.
	It exposed racism within the Democratic National Committee and sexism within the Democratic National Committee, anti-Semitism within the Democratic National Committee.
	They exposed all of that.
	It exposed just how deeply corrupt and what a liar Hillary Clinton is, which we can argue we already knew that, but it confirmed it was at a deeper level.
	Now, I would argue with you that if this were about, and I'll ask Julian in the next hour if it was about Donald Trump, would he have done the same thing?
	Because I suspect the answer is yes.
	And I also will tell you this: that, you know, in many ways, he's the modern-day Woodward and Bernstein.
	They've not been wrong.
	WikiLeaks has not been wrong in 10 years.
	A perfect track record.
	And Julian Assange says, no, we didn't get it from them.
	We didn't get it from any state.
	We didn't get it from Russia.
	So what evidence does, you know, Lindsey Graham, the idiot, you know, what is he citing?
	Except that he hates Trump, like McCain hates Trump, like Kasich hates Trump, like the Bushes hate Trump.
	I mean, let's just be honest here.
	The only people doing this are people that have always hated Trump and wanted to undermine and sabotage him anyway.
	WikiLeaks did what Woodward and Bernstein did: they exposed the level of corruption in government.
	That's what they did.
	I've been saying, where are the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC?
	Where are the Woodward and Bernsteins of this age?
	Martha Radditz crying on TV for crying out loud?
	All the Hollywood stars, they saw Hamilton.
	Now they're quoting Hamilton, and they saw the play, and now they're quoting him and the Constitution that Obama stomped on all these years as a means of telling electors to not go for Trump.
	By the way, you don't think we need extreme vetting?
	A thousand Muslims in London streets chanting Allahu Akbar, demanding an Islamic caliphate.
	Really?
	Pretty interesting when Donald Trump talks about extreme vetting.
	You want to invite those people here.
	By the way, you've got to give the TSA credit.
	They confiscated a big teddy bear.
	Anyway, given the detailed backstory about he's homeless and hungry, and now in order to remind us that everything's bad, but agents in Los Angeles confiscated a giant teddy bear and posted a photo of the poor guy on Instagram, and they gave him a depressing backstory.
	I don't know what's happening.
	By the way, fake news.
	You hear about this New York City college student who claimed to be a victim of a hate crime because she's a Muslim.
	Everybody raced out to see those Trump supporters, Trump supporters.
	Oh, she made it up.
	Whoopsie daisy.
	Another guy faked a KKK crime and abduction, you know, looking to blame President-elect Trump supporters for a hate crime.
	Well, he confessed to the police he fabricated his incident as well.
	Whoopsie daisy.
	Fake news all over the place.
	Anyway, so I don't know what to tell you.
	We're going to have Julian Assange at the top of the next hour.
	There's a lot of information.
	Just put aside maybe preconceived notion, any prejudice you might have.
	I want you to listen to Julian Assange.
	Number one, he hacked into the DOD, NASA at the age of 16.
	The guy's brilliant.
	The guy for not being an American citizen knows more about American politics than 99% of journalists.
	Listen to what he has to say.
	And then decide, do you believe Obama, Josh Ernest, Hillary Clinton, and the left and the media?
	Or do you believe Julian Assange?
	That's your assignment for the next hour.
	As we'll let Julian Assange talk here on this program, unlike other shows where they try and beat him up and not let him get a word in edge-wise.
	The media censorship that exists in the United States, where four of the five top TV networks and about eight of the nine major publications in the United States are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton.
	John Kerry, the Secretary of State, and some other U.S. officials and the Hillary Clinton campaign kept putting forth propaganda to say that our publications revealing various forms of corruption and scandal within Hillary Clinton's network was in fact interference in the United States electoral process.
	But this is not interference in the electoral process.
	This is the definition of the electoral process, is for media organizations and in fact everyone to publish the truth and their opinion about what is occurring.
	There cannot be a free and informed election unless people are free to inform.
	When 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, you know, the Democrats are always speaking about how terrible McCarthyism was, and it was in many ways.
	But at least the USSR actually existed then, and there were actually Russian influence campaigns in the United States which were serious.
	What we're seeing now is Hillary Clinton and her campaign trying to whip up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria where she claims, or she claims, that effectively Donald Trump is an agent of the Russians, that Wikileaks is an agent of the Russians, and where her campaign has also implied that Jewel Stein, the Greens leader, is a Russian agent, and that The Intercept, another U.S. publication, are effectively Russian agents.
	So what do we have here?
	We have, let's look at objectively, we have the ruling party's preferred successor running around calling the opposition leader, in fact multiple opposition leaders, and the critical press foreign agents.
	By the way, isn't that the very terrible climate to permit?
	And what kind of press climate is going to exist afterwards, especially if Hillary Clinton is elected?
	It will be perceived to be a validation of that hysteria.
	And so the press afterwards will be cracked down upon, and online publishers and people on social media, you know, it will lead to a very harsh climate where the First Amendment will be very significantly eroded.
	I mean, 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 has been able to project a kind of neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything.
	Hillary Clinton stated multiple times falsely that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications.
	Okay.
	That's false.
	We can say that the Russian government is not the source.
	Yes.
	WikiLeaks' been publishing for 10 years.
	In that 10 years, we published 10 million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources.
	And we have never got it wrong.
	All right, that was Julian Assange in numerous interviews that he had, of course, with Wikileaks.
	And Julian joins us now on our newsmaker line.
	Julian, welcome back to the program.
	Thank you for being with us.
	G'day, Sean.
	I know you follow the news closely.
	I know you see the narrative.
	Now, there is a big brew ha-hub in the United States, the same media, by the way, that WikiLeaks exposed as colluding with Hillary Clinton's campaign, with near hysteria getting up to the president and John Podesta with Hillary's campaign, claiming over and over and over again that it's clear the CIA says so, even though there's no new evidence whatsoever that we didn't have prior to the election, and that the FBI contradicts, and James Clapper, the National Director of Intelligence,
	contradicts that, in fact, the Russians tried to influence the elections and this hacked information came from them, and you're saying that is outrightly false.
	That's a falsehood.
	Our source is not the Russian government.
	So, in other words, let me be clear: Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC.
	That's correct.
	Can you confirm whether or not you have information involving hacked info from the RNC?
	We received about three pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump, but it was already public somewhere else.
	Okay, so in other words, it was nothing significant.
	There was nothing comparable to what happened.
	So what Reince Prievis said on NBC to Chuck Todd this weekend was true, and NBC had it wrong.
	Well, as far as we're aware of.
	As far as you're aware of.
	Now, the CIA supposedly says the Russians definitely tried to influence the U.S. election.
	What is your thoughts on that?
	I think it's very interesting.
	The key quote for us is from James Clapper on the 17th of November.
	James Clapper is the head of the DNI.
	He's the Director of National Intelligence, who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
	And so his statement is: as far as the Wikileaks connection, this is made to the House Intelligence Committee.
	As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence is not strong, and we don't have a good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.
	We don't have good insight into that.
	Let me, for the sake of our audience, Julian, let me play the exact quote.
	This is James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, saying exactly what you did, that in fact the Russian government, well, what he exactly said, that in fact he was very, very clear in saying that WikiLeaks' connection with Russian hacking is not strong.
	As far as the Wikileaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong, and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.
	We don't have as good insight into that.
	So that confirms exactly what you're saying.
	Can you answer whether or not there's a report out today, and there was a report out earlier this week, that in fact they can trace back some leaks to the Department of Homeland Security as it relates to the state of Georgia.
	Do you know anything about those I looked when the Look, let's pull back a bit.
	There's a deliberate attempt this week to conflate a whole lot of different issues together.
	It seems to be as a desire, an extremely dangerous and foolish desire, to flip members of the U.S. Electoral College around into getting up John Kasich or Hillary Clinton on the 19th.
	It's foolish because it won't happen.
	It's dangerous because the argument that it should happen can be used in four years' time or eight years' time for a sitting government that doesn't want to hand over power.
	And that's a very dangerous thing.
	There's Clinton-aligned PACs putting out ads with lots of celebrities trying to push these electors to do it.
	So how are they rhetorically going about it?
	Well, there's our publications that did make a significant influence during election.
	Lots and lots of Americans took them up, read them, analyzed them, forwarded them to each other.
	That was the most discussed topic according to Facebook throughout October.
	But then we have U.S. intelligence saying they don't know how we got our stuff or when we got it.
	And us saying we didn't get it from a state.
	Then there's hacking of various systems that have occurred.
	Presumably to get intelligence.
	The Israelis do it.
	The Russians do it.
	The Chinese do it.
	The French do it every year and every election cycle to understand what policies are.
	So it's no surprise at all that there's record of Russians or others hacking a lot of these systems.
	That's the problem.
	Let me put the question intelligence collection.
	Let me put this a different way.
	The state of Georgia in the United States, the Secretary of State there now confirms 10 separate cyber attacks on its network that were all traced back to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security addresses.
	Do you know anything about that?
	I don't know about this specific case, but the state hacking I do know about because I followed it when it first came up in the original FBI report.
	Look, these are about election voter registration systems, not election, not vote counting systems.
	It seems to be just basic identity theft.
	If you read what the HS said at the time, it said that it looked like these were going to be sold online in black markets.
	Really, is the FSB going to be selling voter registration records online in black markets?
	No, of course, it's almost overwhelmingly likely that it is just identity theft.
	Let me ask you.
	As far as the DHS attacks are concerned, that could be a number of things.
	It could be the DHS just testing security, and then people using the logs of those tests, or rather misusing them, to try and claim that there's been attempted hacks of these systems.
	Well, I certainly respect, and by the way, it is important to point out some of your history.
	When you were 16 years old, you did hack into NASA.
	You did hack into the Department of Defense, and I believe one other agency.
	Is that true?
	There's a number of books saying that.
	Okay.
	So there's a pretty good chance it might be true.
	We've never been charged for that.
	I would like to keep it that way.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Maybe the statute of limitations has moved on.
	I think it has, actually.
	I have said that there are two things that America needs to take from you and some of these other high-profile cases.
	And one is there's proof positive that we don't really have cybersecurity at a level we need for a country that is so actively involved in intelligence and influencing world events, etc.
	So you've done us a favor because now we could fix the problem if we so desired, but in all the years President Obama's been in office, he did nothing to fix it.
	The second thing that I think you did for America, which I think is very important, is you exposed how corrupt our government is, and I'll get to that in a second.
	Without revealing your sources.
	Would it be fair to say that the information as it relates to WikiLeaks and John Podesta's emails came from within the United States, to you?
	We have said it has not come from a state party.
	We know where it came from originally, of course.
	It's John Podesta.
	It's from the DNC, et cetera.
	There's been no claim that has been held up, it's not even maintained anymore, that any of the information has been modified or is fake.
	So you can't confirm or deny if this information came from within the United States?
	We're unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn't a state party.
	Normally we say nothing at all, but we have a conflict of interest.
	We have an excellent reputation, a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so never saying anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out.
	We sometimes do it.
	We don't like to do it.
	We have another interest, which is maximizing the impact of our publications.
	Let me ask you this then.
	So here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we've had to come out and say, no, it's not a state party.
	Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication.
	So in other words, when you say state party, it wasn't another state like Russia or some other country.
	Correct.
	Let me ask you about Wikileaks, and I think this could shake up the political world.
	Is it true an email sent in July of this year that you have that describes how funds could be diverted from the Clinton campaign to the super PACs of Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich, specifically document number 1078645?
	And it reads, JBCF, JK PACs will be noticeably silent for the rest of the campaign.
	Each will receive a significant allowance from advertising budget.
	HRC, Hillary is in the loop, and talked to all three personally.
	Lies only.
	Is that a legitimate?
	I don't have that in front of me.
	We have...
	We have published nearly 100,000 documents.
	So, I mean, I have seen references to things like that.
	I don't recall seeing an eyes-only phrase.
	Do you recall any quid pro quo as it relates to Senator Lindsey Graham that he would get some assistance merely, in other words, when he ran for re-election for the Senate, I believe, in 2020?
	I don't know.
	Lindsey Graham is in the Podesta emails.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Well, that's something that maybe hopefully over time we'd be able to follow up on.
	I have so many more questions for you.
	Let me ask you a couple of these.
	Do you think the president knows as you do that the source was not Russia for WikiLeaks?
	And I think it's important to point out that for over 10 years, Wikileaks has never been proven wrong, not one single time.
	Do you believe the President is purposefully advancing this for political purposes to delegitimize Donald Trump?
	Yes.
	It's clear if you look at the statements by James Clapper.
	He also made an earlier statement that the U.S. intelligence is not aware of when we received material or how.
	So it's pretty clear that he must be getting those briefings as well if the public is getting them.
	So there's a deliberate attempt to conflate.
	Basically, as far as the public is concerned, the only interesting thing that happened is that Wikileaks published a number of different types of information, the DNC publications, John Podestas, and a variety of Clinton emails obtained under Freedom of Information Act.
	So that's what's interesting to the public.
	By the way, it would not be the first time the CIA was politicized.
	You might remember during the Benghazi case.
	I actually spent time on this program talking to the people that were there on the ground while the attack was going on.
	The American people were told a very different story, that this was, quote, a spontaneous demonstration related to a YouTube video.
	And I just don't know many demonstrations that are spontaneous where they happen to have in their back pocket RPGs and mortar rounds which were fired at the consulate and the compound.
	That's false.
	And our publications show that Hillary Clinton knew it's false.
	There's a letter from Hillary Clinton to Chelsea Clinton.
	Chelsea Clinton uses an assumed name, Diane Reynolds.
	And that's the day or the day of or the day after the attack where she says, in fact, it was a GFA.
	Well, my point was, though.
	The CIA advanced that false story that it was a spontaneous demonstration when we now know it was a terrorist attack.
	And they advanced it through the CIA and Langley.
	There were some people there that were playing politics at the CIA advancing a false narrative, a story that we know is false.
	All right, Julian, if you can, just stay right there.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue more with Julian Assange and his insight as the founder and director of WikiLeaks and more as the Sean Hannity show continues.
	As we continue our interview with Wikileaks founder and director, Julian Assange, let me ask you this.
	You never thought Donald Trump would win.
	Why?
	I didn't think he would win.
	I thought he had a much higher chance than what the polling was giving.
	I had gone through Brexit, and there was a very similar case in Brexit where you had a new nationalist feeling in the country and disenfranchisement with existing elites.
	But there was polling, a number of professional pollsters coming up to Brexit, and they got it wrong because people misled the pollsters in two different ways.
	And to be frank, some of the pollsters also wanted to be misled.
	So those people who were going to vote against Brexit said that they were going to vote for it, and those people who were going to vote for it said they're going to vote against it.
	And the same thing happened, it seems, in the case of Donald Trump's election.
	So why is that?
	There was intense pressure in the United States from the mainstream media to make people feel ashamed of wanting to vote for Donald Trump and to make them feel like that they had to vote for Hillary Clinton even though they didn't want to.
	Actually, I think it's this second case of Hillary Clinton supporters falsely telling pollsters that they would vote for her and then not doing it that made the difference in the election.
	So I had assumed that these pollsters had seen the Brexit situation and had taken that into account.
	They said that they had taken it into account and that was not true.
	Now, very interestingly, I think that if the polling had been accurate, Donald Trump wouldn't have won.
	Interesting.
	Now, why do I say that?
	Well, Hillary Clinton's campaign outspent Donald Trump by almost two to one.
	If the polling had been accurate, bankers and other cashed up interests would have given Hillary Clinton another $5 billion, and she would have blasted that advertising everywhere.
	But they didn't give her all that money because they didn't perceive that there was a need to, because she seemed that she was four or five points ahead in the polls.
	So they got fooled by the polling and therefore didn't spend the amount of money that they needed to on the campaign and didn't recruit other resources, so, you know, recruit even more mainstream media resources to beat up Trump and to defend Clinton because they didn't think there was a need to.
	Let me ask you, you remember when the New York Times was going full throttle with the story about Donald Trump's taxes, which was stolen information at the time, and everybody in the media thought it was fair and it was legitimate coverage and how they got a hold of it was not an issue in any way.
	You view yourself and you view WikiLeaks the same way.
	You view yourself as a journalist.
	Information came to you and you disseminated that information because you felt the public had a right to know.
	What is the difference between what you and WikiLeaks have done versus what the New York Times and CNN does when they publish Donald Trump's taxes that were that were received illegally or received?
	There is a difference.
	Our stuff has more impact.
	Well, that's a good . Okay.
	Touche.
	I can't disagree with that.
	Very good point.
	But in other words, you do view WikiLeaks.
	One of the things in the conversations that I've had with you both on radio and TV is how important it is for you to maintain a perfect record and not get anything wrong in terms of the information that you acquire, that you release.
	You want it to be right, and so far you've been right every time.
	So far we've been right since we were founded a decade ago.
	It's a very valuable thing to have that perfect record.
	It's also a curse because we have to work so hard to keep it.
	Understood.
	And my big fear 10 years ago, which you and I discussed the last time you were on my radio show when I wanted you arrested, I said, because I felt you would release potential information that would result in methods and people potentially dying because there is so much in terms of covert operations, people working undercover.
	You purposely choose not to publish that information, correct?
	Well, yes.
	If you're talking about Afghanistan, there were 15,000 documents that we didn't release.
	Because you thought people's lives would be in jeopardy immediately?
	No.
	No, but we thought that there was a reasonable possibility so that we wanted to study the issue further.
	So we didn't think that people's lives would definitely be in jeopardy, but we weren't sure.
	So we wanted to hold things back till we understood it.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	I have a lot more questions for you.
	Let me ask you a few of these because I think this is very important for our audience to fully, completely grasp and to understand.
	So you only had three pages on the RNC.
	Do you think the media in the U.S. is trying to scapegoat you, and what message do you have for them?
	They're increasingly not very important.
	So true.
	I think Trump has even made this statement.
	I mean, they're a paper tiger in this election, and the new publications on the internet, one can get pretty directly to the people.
	So these old press are less important.
	And the degree of bias they've been showing during the electoral process, and it has come from both sides, but I suppose particularly the liberal press, readers see that.
	They feel it.
	They don't like being lectured to or told what to do, and they rebel against it.
	I think this is the other reason why Trump won that no one's speaking about, which is that kind of hectoring from the liberal media in the United States and the type of advertising that Hillary Clinton was putting out really turns people off because it seemed like those people who already had a lot of social power were telling you what to do.
	And so you wanted to do the opposite.
	How easy from your assessment as somebody that has been involved with this most of his adult life now, how secure, if you were to give a grade of 1 to 10, 10 being the most secure, how secure is America's agencies, American government, America's secrets?
	Everything is almost completely insecure now.
	The computer systems have become so complex that it is not possible to understand all the parts, let alone secure them.
	It is just impossible.
	And that goes for individuals as well as a government.
	It goes for all of us, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Do you think there could be a separate operation within the Russian government, separate and apart from the information you have at Wikileaks?
	Okay, so this is interesting.
	There's a conflation between the three things.
	Wikileaks publications, and I've told you what James Clapper says about them, that they can't see how the Russians transfer them to us, et cetera, that had the impact everyone's talking about.
	Alleged hacks of the U.S. voting system, you've just mentioned the DHS, for example, and other publications appearing on the internet that basically almost no one has heard of that didn't have any impact in the election.
	In fact, it might have had the opposite impact.
	So in this last category, there's a site called DC Leaks and another and a WordPress site run by a guy calling himself Gusafer2.
	Now, who are behind these, we don't know.
	Do you know these people?
	And there was a couple of, no.
	And there was a couple of publications also by The Hill and by Gorka and The Smoking Gun that claimed that their documents came from, I think from Guccifer, maybe this DC Leaks.
	So those look very much like that they're the Russians, but in some ways they seem very amateur and they look too much like it.
	And so this is what, far from me to quote John Bolton, who I think I should be executed or something, but he has said correctly that if something looks so much like that it is meant to be the Russians, then maybe someone wants you to.
	That's such a good point.
	Let me ask you about the Chris Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, an associate of yours.
	He was quoted in the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington, D.C. for the emails.
	He claimed he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources.
	And the leaker's motivation was, quote, discussed at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.
	And he said the source had legal access to the information.
	The documents came from inside leaks, not from hacks.
	Yeah, we don't comment on sourcing.
	Craig Murray is a former UK ambassador.
	He is a friend of mine.
	He is not authorized to speak on behalf of WikiLeaks.
	Are you angry that he gave this interview?
	I just don't want to go anywhere near that.
	Okay, that's fine.
	But can I ask the question in a roundabout way without being annoying?
	I'm not trying to be annoying here.
	Is it much more likely that would have happened versus the Russians?
	I don't want to be drawn on this.
	We have to protect our sources.
	Understood.
	I can't be drawn on it.
	Okay.
	Let me ⁇ when were you first alerted that someone had hacked these documents of Podesta?
	That's an interesting question.
	Trying to cast my mind back.
	They took a while to prepare.
	So did the DNC leaks.
	So do other publications.
	It's quite a lot of work verifying them, formatting them, indexing them, understanding them.
	But for the same reason of making it hard for authorities to track when our sources have communicated with us, we don't like to mention precisely when we've obtained things.
	Yeah, so there really is no evidence at all, and everyone's saying that the Russians has done this.
	Let me ask you whether you met you know in the Manning case, was that a Russian attempt at undermining the Bush presidency with war logs, giving liberals what they needed to erode in terms of the GOP and support and pave maybe the way for Barack Obama to win an election?
	Well, we're such sticklers for this kind of thing.
	We've never said that Chelsea Manning is one of our sources.
	At trial, they have said that they are.
	But even if someone is arrested and convicted, and even if they were to plead guilty, we still don't say whether they're one of our sources or not.
	Because someone in such a situation is under, you could argue is under some kind of form of duress.
	Let me ask you one last question.
	For those, especially in the media, that will be a good question.
	But there were allegations at his trial that he was working for the Russians.
	Let me ask you a question about your motivation.
	Because in a private conversation we once had, without divulging the nature of that conversation, you said to me, I am a journalist.
	I get information that you think the public needs to know.
	You said to me, you have no interest in information about private citizens, for example.
	Yes.
	And that you think what you have discovered exposes.
	For example, I think if there were any good reporters in America, they would have taken the WikiLeaks information that I put up on a TV screen every night and I read on my radio program on 550 stations every day.
	And they would have taken the issue of how corrupt our media is, how corrupt the Clintons were, and they would have made this, this would have been a case bigger than Watergate.
	But for whatever reason, they've gone into this mode where they don't claim you're a journalist, that you're a traitor, and that divulging this information was only political.
	But I do believe if it was a Republican, they would have been singing your praises day and night.
	What do you want Americans to know about what your motives are?
	Well, Wikileaks has been going for 10 years.
	We specialize in obtaining information which has been suppressed from the public that is of political or historical importance, understanding it, analyzing it, publishing it, protecting our sources, encouraging interaction with the public.
	And that educates everyone and they can decide how they want to live their lives accordingly.
	And we've won a lot of awards for that, a lot of journalism awards.
	I've won the equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize in my own country, Australia, the Walkley Award.
	Sure.
	Other journalists have won the top journalism prize in their country three times in the case of Kristen Hapson.
	So we're pretty good at this.
	We have a perfect record.
	No, I think you're pretty good at it.
	We have a pretty big impact, as you will have seen.
	I think you had a huge impact on this election, and it angers Democrats.
	Would you have published the same thing if it was about Donald Trump?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, no problem doing that.
	And presume, you know, if Donald Trump makes a lot of enemies on the inside in his time in office, then he could well face the same thing in four years' time.
	By the way, that is the best indication that this did not come from the Russians.
	I don't think you meant to say that.
	But listen, Julian, I do appreciate your time.
	I do think you had an impact, but I do think we got to see a glimpse of how corrupt the nature, the institutions of American government and our political system are.
	It's actually frightening to me.
	It is frightening.
	I think, I mean, I love our publications.
	They're so rich, and you can get a very direct understanding of the power networks that exist in D.C. and with the media and so on.
	At the same time, yes, they're disturbing.
	Once you know what's going on, then you can do something about it.
	And that was my argument about why I think America owes you a debt of gratitude for that and for the exposing that we have no cybersecurity.
	Julian, I've taken way too much of your time.
	Thank you so much for being with us.
	We really appreciate it.
	We hope you'll come on TV soon.
	Thanks, John.
	Bye-bye.
	Thank you.
	I think it's important to note that on election night, and we had our guard up for this.
	Our cyber experts at DHS had our crisis action team ready.
	On election night, we did not see anything that amounted to altering ballot counts or degrading the ability to report election results or anything, nothing out of the ordinary.
	There's always a certain amount of noise that goes on out there.
	And so on election night itself, we did not see anything that affected the ballot count.
	So I should ask in that context whether you can assure the country, based on what you saw that night and your analysis since that Russian hacking did not affect the outcome of the election.
	Are you confident of that?
	Well, we see no evidence that hacking by any actor altered the ballot count or any cyber actions that deprived people of voting.
	Now, what's also true, and this goes to something that we discussed in the briefing on Monday, there's ample evidence that was known long before the election, and even in most cases, long before October, about the Trump campaign in Russia.
	Everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent.
	It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent's campaign.
	That's why he was encouraging them to keep doing it.
	Trevor, I think what everybody has to reflect on is: what is it about our political ecosystem?
	What is it about the state of our democracy where the leaks of what were frankly not very interesting emails that didn't have any explosive information in them?
	The risotto was interesting.
	Ended up being an obsession.
	And the fact that the Russians were doing this was not an obsession.
	This was not a secret running up to the election.
	The president-elect, in some of his political events, specifically said to the Russians, hack Hillary's emails so that we can finally find out what's going on and confirm our conspiracy theories.
	You had what was very clear: relationships between members of the president-elect's campaign team and Russians, and a professed shared view on a bunch of issues.
	All right, there you have a follow-up to our hour-long interview in the last hour with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, joining us now to discuss Rich Higgins, Vice President, Intelligence National Security Programs, former manager with the Department of Defense, Combating Terrorism, Technical Support Office, and Irregular Warfare Support Program.
	Philip Haney is a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and author of the book, See Something, Say Nothing.
	John Idonasi is the founder and CEO of VizSense, a computer scientist, former Navy SEAL, who invented new capabilities in the special op community for the special ops community and central intelligence agency.
	Guys, I'll start with you, Rich Higgins.
	I mean, Julian Assange cannot be any more clear.
	Russia did not do this.
	They do have a 10-year track record of not getting anything wrong.
	Nobody has disputed the information that they released.
	And then When I asked Julian about Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, an associate of his, and what he told the Daily Mail that he claimed he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources that the leaker's motivation was the disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and tilting the primary election against Bernie Sanders and that the source had legal access to the information.
	I'm more inclined to believe that story than anything that Obama, Hillary, Podesta, the Democratic Party is trying to feed us and the CIA, which we know has politicized issues in the past, especially involving defending Hillary on Benghazi.
	Your thoughts, Sean, in one fell swoop we've seen as this administration has, on their way out the door, polluted the Department of Homeland Security, polluted the Central Intelligence Agency, delegitimized the election.
	The person with the most clear ties to the Russians that I know about is actually John Podesta.
	And if this isn't a case of the pot call in the kettle black, I don't know what is.
	Nobody still knows what happened to the DNC staffer who was murdered a couple of months ago.
	So you're talking about this guy, Seth.
	Right.
	Do you think that there is a connection there?
	I have to tell you, Sean, I have no proof of that.
	But I mean, we really, given the Assange statements, given the content of the information, given Assange's statements to the legality of their, you know, the person who actually had the access to the documents, I mean, there's a lot of stuff there that makes me question what's happening.
	Unbelievable.
	Philip, what's your take on this?
	Especially the track record of Wikileaks, the track record as of Assange, the clandestine handoff drop-off, which he did not want to discuss in any way and says it was an unauthorized interview.
	Who do you tend to believe here?
	And do you think that the CIA may be playing politics because there's no new information since the campaign?
	No new information.
	This is all stuff they had before the election that we were all aware of.
	Both the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, all say that they do not believe that there is not evidence that there's a WikiLeaks connection with Russia and the Russian hacking.
	Well, hello, everyone.
	Hello, Sean.
	For me, this is deja vu all over again.
	Just leading to listening to the lead-up interviews before we started.
	These are the same individuals that shut down cases that I worked on within the Department of Homeland Security.
	And reading Secretary of State Brian Kemp's comments about his inquiries into the hacking of the Georgia election computer, he wrote that since contacting DHS with these concerns, we have collaborated with the agency and provided extensive additional information.
	And then Jay Johnson's response was not specific as to the attack's intent or origin, despite the fact that many questions remain unanswered.
	That sounds like a Hollywood scriptwriter for what I went through.
	That's exactly the way they dealt with me every time I brought up a concern about national security.
	They would never answer the question directly.
	And now we see it on a macro big screen scale.
	And I also find it remarkable that for the first time ever, I actually agreed with James Clapper that he said there was no evidence that the Russians hacked a campaign so in favor of Donald Trump.
	Because even our, as Rich alluded to, our entire intelligence infrastructure has been corrupted and politicized so badly that our right hand doesn't know what our left hand is doing.
	Well, isn't that a perfect example of it?
	Yeah, right.
	I thought after 9-11, and you know, because you were one of the founding members of the Department of Homeland Security, I thought one of the things that we were going to fix was our intelligence agencies communicating with each of us.
	And, you know, my argument is we know the CIA politicized the issue of Benghazi and the false story of a spontaneous attack.
	We know that they purposely never talked to people on the ground that had information that would be critical when they were editing the talking points, but they went with the political narrative that this was a spontaneous demonstration that was inspired by a YouTube video, and the people that were demonstrating just happened to have mortars and RPGs in their back pocket, which is totally and completely asinine, impossible, and insane.
	Well, sure it is.
	Especially in light of what came out afterward from the Defense Intelligence Agency's own report that was concluded in August of 2012 that said that the administration was shipping weapons from Benghazi over to Syria and backing the opposition groups, which then morphed into ISIS.
	And even though that information has been publicly available for some time now, this administration just keeps incessantly repeating the same false mantra.
	It's a perfect example of a domestic disinformation campaign.
	We know what the truth is, and yet they keep insisting that that's not what happened.
	It's really quite remarkable.
	Well, it's not, but when you look at it through a political prism, though, Phil, and I know you have two, you're such an innocent guy, and I know that you've liked to believe the best in people, but in looking at it, viewing it through a political prism, and you say, well, do they want to delegitimize Donald Trump and his election?
	Then it begins to make a lot of sense, doesn't it?
	Yeah, from a Machiavellian perspective, it's brilliant tactics.
	Machiavellian 101, absolutely.
	That's right, absolutely, right down the line.
	Let me bring in, if I can, for a second here, John.
	What about this was interesting to me, and I did ask Julian about this.
	The Georgia Secretary of State, the state of Georgia, confirmed 10 separate cyber attacks traced back to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security addresses.
	When you couple that with the WikiLeaks Craig Murray guy, who Julian did not want to talk about, who says he was not authorized to talk, and this handoff in a wooded area of the information that they got from Podesta, and it was all obtained legally, do you see any connection between these two at all, or no?
	I see connection in the trade craft, and let me just say thanks for having me on.
	We're entering a whole new realm here, and it's a perfect storm where an individual can yield strategic power through an internet connection.
	And relative to the Georgia website attack, it's very important to understand, unlike the other things that have occurred in history and where news can sort of embellish it unless your boots on the ground, there's forensics associated with every one of these attacks.
	They're digital forensics.
	Ten separate attacks all originated from the same IP address.
	For all the listeners, let me just unpack what that means.
	That means 10 separate times, all of the IP, which is, you know, think of it as a post office box, all pointed to the same post office box inside DHS, which is a static registration, which means that is the home base for DHS internet activity.
	The only way for that to occur is somebody is either spoofing the internet DHS IP address, which means that DHS has now been hacked, and it's unlikely, or two, somebody inside DHS is probing the Georgia website.
	So these forensics, Sean, are becoming increasingly important as part of the narrative, and that's what we're missing.
	And the Secretary of State, Kemp, isn't even able to get a clear, coherent answer from the very institutions that you and I rely on to protect our electrical grid.
	Wow.
	Pretty powerful stuff.
	How did you want to weigh in on that, Rich?
	And more specifically, how is it possible that they're advancing this false narrative, the CIA, that contradicts the FBI, that contradicts the Director of National Intelligence, that the media is running with?
	I mean, Julian Assange just said, no, we only have three pages on the RNC.
	We didn't hack into them.
	And it really wasn't relevant exactly what the FBI told Reines Priebus and exactly what Reins Priebus told NBC that NBC refused to accept.
	Well, I think yesterday when the congressmen had asked to be briefed by the intelligence community on what they actually know, the intelligence agencies refused to do it.
	I mean, that is a direct assault against the sovereign power of Congress enumerated in the Constitution.
	And the thing that really screens out to me is if this is a DHS probe of a state voter registration role, for example, or the identification of voters, or seeing how you voted.
	I mean, we're having states' rights sovereignty issues here.
	We have information warfare issues with the narrative adherents.
	I mean, I've got to say, Congressman Pompeo and General Kelly have a lot of work to do, a lot of work to do.
	What would you advise them to do?
	In what order?
	Well, right off the top, I would say they need to prioritize cyber for all the reasons Phil and John have enumerated here.
	Terrorist group, nation state actors, domestic political opponents are all playing inside of this space, and we need to take it seriously.
	I think for 15, 20 years now, we've been nibbling around the edges on how serious a threat this actually is.
	But this is a very significant domain of security.
	Both domestic and foreign policy are impacted by it.
	And we need to make an appropriate level of investment institutionally in dealing with it.
	Rich, I'm sorry, Phil Haney, let me ask you.
	We had a thousand Muslims marching in Great Britain last night, and they want the caliphate advance there.
	And I want to ask you through the prism of everything that you knew and all your hard work of accumulating names that was deleted under the Obama administration.
	You know, how do we build this back up?
	And have you been contacted by anybody in the Trump transition team to go to work for them, of any of you?
	Yes, we're having background conversations, which are good indicators.
	What I'm looking for is restoration of our capacity to do the job that we took an oath to do.
	I have said publicly literally hundreds of times in the last few months as I've traveled around the country that just let us do our job and we can do it.
	We're capable.
	And restore the information.
	I'd also like to see, by the way, the creation of a whistleblower commission to create a safe pathway for individuals to come in and literally lay information on the table in front of a panel of experts and let us go through it, categorize it, prioritize it, and archive it because it's very important.
	These guys, whistleblowers, are forward artillery observers, and they can call in precise airstrikes because they know exactly where the targets are.
	And this information is historical.
	It's part of the country's history, and it needs to be archived.
	That's one of the things I'd like to see.
	So, yeah, I'm willing.
	Sign me up.
	We have had conversations.
	And Richard.
	All of this stuff is very predictable, meaning the marches in the UK, the fact that now they found out that the guy from the most recent attack in Ohio had not been correctly vetted.
	These kind of things just keep going on over and over and over again.
	It could have been in the information that Obama erased that you had accumulated since founding the Department of Homeland Security, but I hope you work for the Trump administration.
	Rich, I hope you get there.
	And John, I'm just getting to know you, but you sound like a guy that they could use too.
	Thank you all for being with us.
	You're welcome.
	Thank you.
	The last person anyone would need is me.
	Who the hell needs me?
	What do I know?
	What a fascinating day this has been.
	It's just amazing.
	Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you.
	As you know, our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
	An eminent degree.
	Someone who is highly qualified for the job.
	The Electoral College was created specifically to prevent an unfit candidate from becoming president.
	There are 538 members of the Electoral College.
	You and just 36 other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference.
	By voting your conscience on December 19th.
	And thereby shaping the future of our nation.
	I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
	As you know, the Constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person.
	Any eligible person, no matter which party they belong to.
	But it should certainly be someone you consider especially competent, especially competent to serve as President of the United States of America.
	By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency.
	I stand with you.
	I stand with you in support and solidarity with conservatives, independents, and liberals.
	And all citizens of the United States.
	The American people trust that your voice speaks for us all.
	And that you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself.
	What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president.
	He lacks the necessary stability.
	And clearly, the respect for the Constitution of our great nation.
	You have position, the authority, and the opportunity to go down in the books as an American hero who changed the course of history.
	And you have my respect.
	You have my respect.
	You have my respect.
	For your patriotism and service to the American people.
	Unite for America.
	Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking.
	Welcome aboard Trump Flight 1600 with non-stop service to Canada.
	We'd like to welcome all our celebrity defectors, and we'll get you out of America just as soon as the tower clears us for takeoff.
	Once we reach our cruising altitude, flight attendants will pass through the cabin, collecting your U.S. citizenship renouncement forms and serving complimentary beverages and disposable crime towels.
	And once I reach the drop zone, you'll be guided to the exit ramp at the rear of the plane, where you'll take a crash course on parachute folding and be jettisoned shortly thereafter.
	We'd like to thank you for choosing Trump Airlines and hope you have a soft landing.
	Bye-bye.
	Just last week, he confirmed to the National Review that he is again considering a run in 2016.
	Do it.
	I will personally bring you a count value check now on behalf of this country, which does not want you to be president, but which badly wants you to run.
	Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke.
	Is that people think that Donald Trump is a clown?
	Donald Trump is a clown.
	I mean, does anybody seriously think that Donald Trump is serious about running for president?
	Donald Trump.
	You know, he's a clown.
	Which Republican candidate has the best chance of winning the general election?
	Of the declared ones right now, Donald Trump.
	President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States.
	Exclamation point at real Donald Trump.
	Well, at real Donald Trump.
	At least I will go down as a president.
	Let's say basically, this is the beginning of the end for Trump.
	Be the beginning of the end.
	Beginning of the end?
	This is probably starting of the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.
	Donald, you're not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency.
	The strongest person usually isn't the loudest one in the room.
	So right now we have Hillary's about a 75 or an 80% favorite.
	We have different bursts of portfolios.
	The whole has Hillary Clinton up by double digits nationally, 12 points, 50 to 38 in four-way race.
	Clinton leading in Florida.
	Clinton leading in North Carolina.
	Clinton leading in Ohio.
	Clinton leading in Nevada.
	I could go on and on and on.
	I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president.
	And so, right now, Mr. Trump, to answer your call for political honesty, I just want to say you're not going to be president, all right?
	It's been fun.
	It's been great.
	I love you.
	But come on, come on, buddy.
	We have a major projection right now.
	Donald Trump will take OHI.
	That's in that project.
	Donald Trump will carry the state of Florida.
	Huge win for Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump, while we project, will win in Kentucky in Indiana with its 11 electoral votes.
	Yes, Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, North Dakota with its three electoral votes.
	And South Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, the state of Montana, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Utah, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas with its six electoral votes, Nebraska with its five electoral votes, and Wyoming with its three electoral votes.
	Sorry to keep you waiting, complicated business.
	A lot of people have laughed at me over the years.
	Now they're not laughing so much, I'll tell you.
	All right, there you have it.
	I think the funniest part of this is a group of these Hollywood celebrities.
	Now, they were so powerful.
	I mean, what did Hillary Clinton do at the end of the campaign?
	She brought in Beyoncé, and who's she married to again?
	What's that guy's name?
	Jay-Z cursing, dropping F-bombs, N-bombs, every bomb possible.
	And that didn't work.
	Then Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen, that didn't work.
	Let's bring in, you know, people one step out of the Hollywood, you know, Hall of Fame, which is like people like Martin Sheehan.
	Anyway, they're trying now to encourage electors in the Electoral College to disregard their state's voting results and deny Trump the president.
	We're not telling you to vote for Hillary.
	Anybody but him.
	Well, that's what elections are about.
	That's what the American people decided, and that's what's going to happen.
	I don't even know half of these people.
	Deborah Messing, I guess I know.
	Richard Schiff.
	You know who B.D. Wong is?
	I have no idea who these people are.
	Anyway, they don't want Trump to reach the magic number of 270.
	And so they're trying to encourage basically a coup d'état.
	They prefer the United States not be a Democratic Republic.
	They want a dictatorship, and they want to be able to decide.
	And they want electors.
	Well, at the end of the day, it's not going to happen anyway.
	But with that said, you know, the fact that they want to, such crybaby, sore losers, I've never seen it in my life like this.
	And the very thing they all lectured us, Donald Trump should never do.
	All right, let's go to Shelly is in Nashville, Tennessee, WLAC.
	What's up, Shelly?
	How are you?
	Hi, Shelly.
	I'm Shelly.
	Hi.
	John, I'm very excited to talk to you.
	I loved listening to Julian Assange talking.
	I loved what he had to say.
	One of the things that bothered me most about the last couple of days is how everyone's been talking about how Russia may have hacked and then turned this information over with the intent to change the election.
	And yet the emails that no one is disputing show that our own media was intentionally trying to change this election.
	And that's just considered normative.
	They were intentionally handing questions to Hillary early.
	They were, you know, the fact that Russia might have had a hand in it, but our own media did, and that's okay, that just bothers me.
	Look, it should bother you because the very thing they're acting all upset about is the very thing they were actively involved in.
	You know, that was part of my opening monologue the other night on TV and I was saying, oh, now all of a sudden WikiLeaks matters.
	All of a sudden, now hacking matters.
	Never mind that 99% certainty exists that five foreign intelligence agencies have all of Hillary Clinton's emails, which would have made her compromised or would have compromised her from day one.
	It didn't matter then.
	I mean, we've known about WikiLeaks over 10 years now.
	Over 10 years.
	And if they really cared, why didn't they stop it?
	Now, if the information didn't change, why did Obama say everything was fine?
	Nobody could impact our system even if they wanted to.
	Well, why all of a sudden the change when there's no new information except that this is all political and this is all an effort to delegitimize Donald Trump and his victory.
	And as I've been saying, they're going to spend the next number of months and years trying to destroy this man.
	I've watched this happen before.
	I was there when Newt Kingrich Kingrich was elected Speaker of the House.
	I watched how in five years, within minutes after winning, remember, he won in November of 94.
	By December, he was the gingrich that stole Christmas on the front cover of Newsweek and Time, taking poor tiny Tim's crutch and breaking it.
	I mean, so it's, this is basically, you know, standard operating procedure for Democrats.
	Just like every election, Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, blah, blah, blah.
	Same thing.
	If a Republican wins, they try and tear him down limb from limb.
	And I think in the case of Trump, it's going to be the media establishment, the Democratic establishment, and at some point down the line, the Republican establishment will all pound on him and try and take him down.
	That's it.
	To hell with what the people think.
	Natalie is in California next on the Sean Hannity show.
	What's up, Natalie?
	How are you?
	Hey, Sean.
	Kind of along the same lines, I've had a lot of people come up to me and just discuss their concern that Hillary.
	By the way, is this Natalie the one that I know on Twitter, Natalie?
	Oh, dear.
	Friend of the friddle?
	Yes, sir.
	Oh, boy.
	Thanks, Joe.
	How are you?
	Did you fix your school problem?
	Yes.
	So it's all good.
	And you go on?
	I wouldn't use those words, but it's going to be okay.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So what's your question?
	Okay, thanks.
	I've had a lot of people come up to me, actually at school, and express concern just with this election, and they think that Hillary is going to somehow swoop in at the last minute and take back the presidency.
	And I've told them, absolutely not, you know.
	But it's difficult in this day and age when there is a lot of social media and there's all this talk online.
	And I would argue that you would agree that Trump is going to be elected president and it's going to be fine.
	But the point is, you see these ads being run and they're so clear about saying conservative first and then they say liberals and they include everybody.
	Would these ads be run if Hillary, if Hillary had, let's just flip the situation.
	You know, you put Hillary as the president-elect and Donald Trump winning the popular vote.
	Would they still be running these ads, you know, claiming conservatives are on board with this and liberals are on board with this?
	I don't think that they would.
	So I don't think they would either.
	I think it's so evident that this is politics.
	But look, just take this for what it is.
	If sore loser recounts don't work, if Russian hacking doesn't work, well, then let's go out and we'll influence the electors.
	Anything we can do to delegitimize the victory of Donald Trump, which they never saw coming and they can't believe happened.
	And they're in a state of shock and anger.
	It's sort of like the stages of grief.
	What's the first, you know, you go through an angry stage, a denial stage, you go through, when you get to the angry stage, that's going to be the stage that lasts the longest.
	I don't think they ever get to the acceptance stage unless Donald Trump so fixes the economy and makes things so much better so fast that it makes people's heads spin that they have to even liberals acknowledge that it worked.
	Great, great.
	All right, Natalie.
	Thanks, Sean.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	All right, back to our busy telephones here as we check in with Deborah's in New Mexico.
	Deborah, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hi, Sean.
	I think that everybody is trying to influence the election.
	Just like you said, and we heard in that clip, they're all trying to influence it.
	Just like you said, they're trying to influence now our electorals.
	Everybody's trying to influence the election.
	But here's the issue.
	WikiLeaks, Julia Assange, is influencing maybe with the truth.
	That's what the American people want.
	They want to make a good decision when they go to that voting booth on the truth.
	But what the media is doing is using this narrative, it's a false narrative, as a smokescreen to take our focus off of the lies, the theft, that they're stealing our election with all of these illegal votes, the dead votes, the multiple votes.
	That's the problem, and that's where we need to be focusing.
	I totally agree with you, and we will.
	You know, if Julian Assange had gone after Trump this way, he would be, this would be Watergate 2.
	He'd be Woodward and Bernstein all over again, all the president's men.
	Darlene, Birmingham, Alabama, W-E-R-C.
	How are you, Darlene?
	Glad you called.
	I'm good, Sean.
	How are you?
	I heard you interviewing Kevin yesterday, was it?
	Yeah, Kevin Sorbo.
	Yeah, about Let There Be Light is the name of the movie that I'm the executive producer.
	I'm swear because some of it was filmed here in Alabama.
	I know.
	Thank you for bringing some work here, and it's a beautiful state, and I appreciate it.
	Listen, we thought long and hard about where we really did.
	We spent a lot of time thinking about where we need to film this, and we were going to go to Georgia.
	We ended up going to Alabama, and it worked out really well, and everybody was so helpful.
	We hired a lot of people down there, and you know what?
	I was glad to be a part of it.
	But more importantly, I think you'll love the message.
	Look, this isn't coming out until next November.
	I know, but I think it's a message everyone needs to hear and it's a message of faith, redemption, a love story.
	It is contemporary.
	I think it'll take you on an emotional ride that I think you'll find very meaningful.
	I hope you really like it.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, thank you.
	800-941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	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.

▲