Sean Hannity Show - Why March on Washington? - 1.5

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 6, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:28:13

Why March on Washington? - 1.5

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.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
	I want you to pay very, very, very, very close attention to the things that I am going to inform you about in this next hour because this is not going to be information that you are going to get anywhere else in the media because the media in this country, as we learn from WikiLeaks, is morally bankrupt, corrupt, and they advance narratives that are full of propaganda, misinformation, and outright lies.
	Now, I watched the hearings this morning.
	I watched little Johnny McCain, and I didn't see Lindsey Graham, Senator McCain.
	And I went, oh, can we believe Julian Assange?
	No.
	First question.
	Okay.
	And then I watched James Clapper, the director of national intelligence.
	This was before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier today, and he was asked about a major post-election Democratic talking point that the Russians hacked the election and handed the election to Donald Trump.
	And this is what he said.
	Really, what we're talking about is if they succeeded in changing the results of an election, which none of us believe they were, that would have to constitute an attack on the United States of America because of the effects if they had succeeded.
	Would you agree with that?
	First, we cannot say they did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.
	Okay.
	Now, let me interpret this for you because the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, today, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked about this talking point that the Russians handed the election to Donald Trump.
	And Clapper said, no, we can't say that.
	That's not exactly true.
	Now, let me explain and interpret for you what this means.
	Remember, this only came weeks after the election.
	This was not the initial point of controversy or talking point for the Democrats.
	They wanted a recount in Michigan.
	They wanted a recount in Wisconsin.
	They wanted a recount in Pennsylvania.
	But once that didn't work out, then they needed another talking point.
	The last thing they could ever admit is that the American people decided to put them out of power in a massive, loud way like they've been doing in government, state houses all around the country, governorships all around the country, the U.S. Senate in Republican hands, and it's probably going to grow in 2018.
	So let me explain what he's saying here.
	And this is important because everything you're hearing from your corrupt media, everything you're hearing from your dishonest president, everything you're hearing from a dishonest Hillary Clinton and her surrogates that are out there in the table world lying to you is false.
	In other words, this idea, the Democratic Party hacking by Russia, determined the outcome of the is not true.
	What do I mean by that?
	Now, did the Russians hack into our voting machines?
	Well, Clapper told us today, no.
	They, in fact, did not.
	Well, if they didn't do that, then what happened?
	All right, well, we know a few of them.
	Let me give you the following notes because nobody's going to tell you this.
	Now, I bet most of you don't know the following.
	That since Obama has been our president, hackers have attacked the U.S. electrical grid.
	Hackers have gotten into the Pentagon's joint striker fighter project.
	Hackers have gotten into NASA computers, the Department of Energy, the Federal Election Commission networks, the U.S. Postal Office.
	Why would you want to go into the U.S. Postal Office?
	But anyway, they've gotten into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
	Hackers have successfully, in the Obama years, hacked into White House computers.
	How many of you know this?
	Hackers have similarly hacked into the U.S. State Department.
	Hackers during the Obama years have gotten into the Department of Defense.
	They've hacked into the IRS.
	They've hacked into the Office of Personnel Management.
	Now, what you've got to ask yourself from here: if all of that happened, and WikiLeaks is 10 years old now and never been proven false in terms of the information that they have given out, why are the Democrats for the first time taking the idea of cybersecurity now seriously?
	How long have I been saying to you that if we look at Wikileaks from the right perspective, meaning, oh, they're showing us we don't have cybersecurity, Julian Assange, in a previous interview with me, at 16 was able to hack into NASA and the Department of Defense.
	Well, I don't care how brilliant a 16-year-old you might happen to be.
	That means we don't have cybersecurity as a country.
	So if we acknowledge the simple truth that we don't have it and we want to be a country that has secrets, because in a dangerous world, we need to be a country that has secrets, we would have decided to look at the truth that we have a vulnerability that needs to be fixed and we would have fixed the problem.
	Now, I want to get back to this whole thing.
	Now, let me give you one example.
	In 2015, hackers got into the Office of Personnel Management, and what did they get?
	They got sensitive information on over 23 million people, including my buddy Jonathan Gillum, who's going to be on the program later.
	His name was in there.
	23 million people.
	All of their private personal information.
	I think Buck Sexton was filling in for Rush.
	I think his information was in there.
	You know, in other words, it was all compromised.
	And the CIA at the time thought the breach was so serious that they removed agency officers that were stationed in China as a precautionary measure because now the Chinese had information on who the special agents, covert ops, corporate operatives were in China at the time, which posed a clear and present danger to them.
	That's how serious it was.
	Do you know how many times Barack, Hussein, Obama talked about this to the American people?
	None.
	Did he throw out any diplomats?
	None.
	Did he have any type of repercussions?
	None.
	Democrats didn't seem to care.
	Why?
	Because they can't score cheap political points.
	I'll give you another example of this, and we'll get into this story today as well.
	Like in Chicago, you've got this racial hate crime where you've got this one kid that apparently has some condition.
	I don't know what exactly it is, but he has a disability.
	They're scalping this kid's head.
	They're saying, F the white man and F Donald Trump, and they're beating the crap out of him.
	And it's a bunch of black teenagers in this case.
	This year alone, 762 dead in Chicago.
	Since Obama's been president, 4,900 plus dead in Chicago.
	Over 4,000 shot this year in Chicago.
	But over the years, when there are high-profile racial shootings where a narrative can be advanced, like the Cambridge police acted stupidly and in the Ferguson case or in the Freddie Gray Baltimore case or in the George Zimmerman case, we've got a president that, you know, an attorney, the president of the United States, he literally inserts himself with no knowledge, no evidence, no facts, no due process or justice provided.
	And he did it to advance a political agenda.
	But when you got 5,000 dead people in his own hometown, he barely utters a word.
	So if it's politics, we'll hear all about it.
	We're hearing about hacking now because it's politics.
	We heard about Cambridge and Ferguson and Baltimore and Trayvon because it was a political narrative.
	And my point here is there's a reason that after the State Department was hacked, NASA was hacked, the Department of Energy is hacked, the White House is hacked, the IRS is hacked, the Office of Personnel Management's hacked.
	None of you probably even heard that till today.
	That means it's the same thing.
	It's a political agenda.
	They didn't care about any of these hacking issues, which I have been screaming about.
	And now they're angry at me.
	Well, you interviewed Julian Assange.
	Well, at least I got on an airplane and flew eight hours on British Airways to London, was on the ground six hours for another eight hours back to try and get some answers.
	But they could have figured this out a long time ago anyway, because they had all the information that all of this hacking was happening, and they never lifted a finger to do a darn thing.
	That's Republicans, John McCain.
	That's Democrats.
	That's the media.
	Nobody cared.
	Now let's go back to the election here for a second.
	So what's important here is clappers are saying, well, they didn't hack into our voting machines.
	They didn't influence the election that way.
	What did WikiLeaks reveal?
	Now, there's a whole series of things.
	If we were really paying attention to WikiLeaks, and I did ask Julian Assange about this, you know, Wikileaks released a copy of the standard operating procedure for Camp Delta.
	They released the Army detention camp at Gitmo.
	They did this back in 2008.
	In 2010, WikiLeaks released classified U.S. military videos, one of a series of attacks in Baghdad by a U.S. helicopter that killed two journalists.
	They released that in 2010.
	In 2010, Wikileaks released the Afghanistan war logs.
	In 2010, in October, they released the Iraqi war logs.
	In November of 2010, they released U.S. diplomatic cables.
	In 2011, WikiLeaks released the Guantanamo files.
	Wikileaks in 2011 released more U.S. diplomatic cables.
	In July of 2012, WikiLeaks released the Syria files.
	And then in 2016, they released the DNC files.
	I bet you never heard about all the other leaks that they had.
	And that was my point.
	We need cybersecurity.
	I've been saying this forever.
	I've had more cyber experts on this program warning this country for years that we need to fix this problem.
	And in a sense, I'm going to say it again.
	Julian Assange, whether you like him or not, does not matter.
	He did the country a favor because he exposed an intelligent weakness that needs to be resolved.
	What is so difficult about this?
	Now, the Russians didn't hack into our voting machines.
	Now, I asked Julian Assange, I asked him every way I could.
	Did you get this information from Russia?
	No.
	Have you ever spoken to Putin?
	No.
	Have you ever spoken to his surrogates, any friend of his?
	No.
	Did you ever get it from any state, meaning any country?
	No.
	You ever talked to Donald Trump?
	No.
	The Trump surrogate?
	No.
	So do you like to talk about this?
	No.
	What is your real motivation?
	He gave me a pretty interesting answer.
	And I'm going to show that in part three of the interview with Assange tonight.
	But what really happened here, it wasn't about influencing the election.
	And I'd love to see what Obama says he has because the 13-page memo by the DHS and the FBI has a massive disclaimer saying, oh, none of this may be true.
	No evidence has been presented at all by anybody, and I'd like to get to the bottom of it more than anyone.
	I don't trust Putin as far as I can throw this idiot.
	I don't care about Putin.
	I care about America.
	I care about American defense systems.
	I care about American privacy issues.
	And if we're ever going to have a real national defense, we better fix cybersecurity because a country like America needs to have secrets, and we can't have the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese, and everybody else hacking into our system.
	And if I get attacked by one more imbecile out there in the media, they have no clue, these people.
	They don't even know what I just told you about everything that's been hacked.
	And getting to the bottom of it has been a goal of mine every single time we've talked about it.
	Anyway, but I digress.
	Now, what did WikiLeaks expose?
	That our media is corrupt?
	That they colluded with the Hillary campaign?
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, the media doesn't like that.
	Yeah, that wasn't good.
	Yeah, they made him look really bad.
	Trust in the media is now at an all-time low.
	Did it reveal some DNC staffers are anti-Semitic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and sexist?
	Yeah, Debbie Wasserman and Schultz lost their job.
	Did it reveal that the DNC, oh yeah, they conspired with Hillary to steal the election from Bernie?
	Poor Bernie.
	He's such a sucker, and then he ended up supporting her.
	Yeah, that happened too.
	Did it also expose how corrupt the Democratic Party really is and what a bunch of phonies they are?
	Yeah, it kind of did all of that too, Hannity.
	Yeah, you're kind of right there.
	I think, let's see, did she get questions ahead of time?
	Yeah, CNN did that.
	Did they get questions ahead of time from MSNBC and CNN?
	Yeah, they did that too.
	Was NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times political?
	Were they colluding with Clinton?
	Yeah, that happened too.
	On Clinton corruption, did they expose money from Cutter and Morocco $12 million and paying for Chelsea's wedding and let's see, donors being charged $100,000 for meetings?
	And yeah, that was all exposed too, and how much money they made on speeches.
	Did they expose how Democrats really felt about how bad Hillary was?
	That was exposed.
	Did they steal the election from Bernie?
	Yeah, that was exposed.
	They wanted to show a picture of him in a bathing suit.
	Did they plan to focus group Obama's father being a Muslim and ask questions about Obama's past cocaine use?
	Yeah, they did all that too.
	Yeah, that's what was exposed.
	And much more.
	This is not about cybersecurity.
	This is about them being exposed.
	Now, maybe that they're exposed, maybe they'll catch up with us and make the issue about cybersecurity.
	Director Clapper, how would you describe Mr. Assange?
	Well, he's holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London because he's under indictment, I believe, by the Swedish government for sexual crime.
	He has, in the interests of ostensibly, openness and transparency exposed in his prior exposures, put people at risk by his doing that.
	So I don't think those of us in the Tales Committee have a whole lot of respect for him.
	Director, I just have to, General Clapper, I just have to mention the name Mr. Assange has popped up, and I believe that he is the one who's responsible for publishing names of individuals that work for us that put their lives in direct danger.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, he has.
	And do you think that there's any credibility we should attach to this individual given his record of not my view?
	Not your view.
	Admiral Rogers?
	I second those comments.
	Would you agree with me that Radio Free Europe is outdated?
	I frankly not up on Europe.
	A lot of people don't listen to the radio like they used to.
	No.
	Okay.
	Well, actually, radio is a very popular mode in many parts of the world.
	Radio is big in your world?
	My world?
	Yeah.
	Not so much.
	Yeah, I don't listen to the radio much either.
	So the bottom line is: you're going to be challenged tomorrow by the president-elect.
	Are you okay with being challenged?
	Absolutely.
	Do you both welcome it?
	We do.
	Do you think it's appropriate?
	We do.
	Are you ready for the task?
	I think so.
	Good.
	Is there a difference between espionage and interfering in an election?
	Yes, espionage implies a, to me at least, a passive passive collection, and this was much more activist.
	So, when it comes to espionage, we better be careful about throwing rocks.
	When it comes to interfering in our election, we better be ready to throw rocks.
	Do you agree with that?
	That's a good metaphor.
	I think what Obama did was throw a pebble.
	I'm ready to throw a rock.
	Would I be justified as a United States Senator taking your information about Russia's involvement in our election and what they're doing throughout the world and being more aggressive than President Obama if I chose to?
	That's your choice, Senator.
	Do you think he was justified in imposing new sanctions based on what Russia did?
	I do.
	Okay.
	So, to those of you who want to throw rocks, you're going to get a chance here soon.
	And if we don't throw rocks, we're going to make a huge mistake.
	Really, everyone's talking so tough now.
	Lindsey, is it just me or is it the fact that neither Lindsey Graham, oh, Lindsay did make a promise.
	He doesn't listen to radio.
	He knows everything that's happening on talk radio.
	You know why?
	Because nobody on talk radio likes him.
	You know why they don't like him?
	Because he's a phony.
	That's why people don't care.
	He's not listening because he gets talked about in ways that are a little disparaging to his poor little precious ego, and so he can't handle it.
	But I have questions for McCain and Lindsey Graham because you guys have been there forever.
	Kind of like what Donald Trump was saying about Hillary Clinton.
	So if you're really upset about countries that try to influence the outcome of an election, I don't think I can find a single instance of either Senator McCain or Lindsey Graham,
	either one of them, investigating taxpayer money, American taxpayer money, $350,000 being spent by Barack Obama to help fund a group in Israel and also send his political operatives to Israel for the purpose of defeating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
	Now, they weren't successful, but they tried.
	So, with all the sanctimony that we're hearing from these guys, it's a little bit ironic.
	Now, if Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to throw a rock or a pebble back at us the way Obama did by kicking out 35 diplomats and whatever little baby sanctions, and he's being really tough, and he threw, he's putting troops near the border, wow, and precipitate some type of crisis.
	And all Putin is doing is laughing and mocking and just owning Obama as he has the entire time Obama's been president.
	Now, here's my question for Lindsay and McCain.
	Okay, so if you're all worked up about influencing elections and you're all worked up about cybersecurity and secrets, et cetera, et cetera, where were you 10 years ago?
	Where were you in November of 2007 when Wikileaks released the copy of the standard operating procedures for Camp Delta, the U.S. Army detention camp at Gitmo?
	You weren't worked up then.
	You know, where were you when Wikileaks released a classified U.S. military video from a series of attacks in Baghdad by a U.S. helicopter that showed a U.S. Apache helicopter killing 12 people, including two Reuters journalists during an attack in Baghdad?
	Now, by the way, I understand that in war these things happen.
	It's unfortunate.
	It really is.
	I don't like collateral damage, nor do I like sending people to war and 5,000 Americans fighting, bleeding, and dying because you guys sent them there, and then you allow the politicizing of that war, resulting in the very cities that they won-Mosul, Ramadi, Takrete, and Fallucia, ending up in the hands of ISIS and ISIS having access to all the money they want through the oil resources of Iraq,
	which was a pretty dumb thing that, frankly, Republicans in part are responsible for too.
	Although I give most of the blame to that on Obama.
	You know, where were you, Senator McCain and Senator Graham, when WikiLeaks released the Afghan war logs?
	Where were you calling for cybersecurity when Wikileaks released in 2010 the Iraqi war logs?
	Where were you in 2010 when Wikileaks released U.S. diplomatic cables?
	They're killing you guys, absolutely destroying you guys cybersecurity-wise.
	And here we are seven years later, and now you're all outraged.
	Maybe a coincidence that both of you hate Donald Trump and Lindsey Graham wouldn't support Donald Trump, and now you teamed up with a hack like Senator Claire McCaskill, and now you're trying to make cybersecurity the biggest issue that's ever been, but you've missed all these opportunities to reinforce cybersecurity in America, never made a big deal about it.
	Well, that tells me you're just as politically motivated as Obama and the Democrats.
	And I have no faith and confidence that you really give a rip about the issue because you sat back as all this happened.
	But you don't listen to the radio, Senator Graham, do you?
	I'm sure somebody will send you a copy.
	It's great to talk to you again.
	Anyway, let's see.
	2011, WikiLeaks released the Gitmo files, 779 secret files on Guantanamo Bay.
	Let's see what else.
	2011, more Wikileaks files, the diplomatic cables released.
	In 2012, Wikileaks released the Syria files.
	And then that leads us up to Hillary Clinton being so stupid and so dumb as to have a private server.
	Why did she have a private server to circumvent congressional oversight?
	That would be your job.
	That's what you do.
	So that she could do what she was doing in secret and then delete 33,000 emails and she's free as a bird.
	Didn't get elected, but she's free as a bird.
	And meanwhile, what's the damage that was done because of her stupidity by putting classified information and top secret information and special access program information on a private server that the world can get a hold of in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom closet?
	Really, we're doing a great job with cybersecurity.
	You can't make this shh up.
	You can't.
	You can't make it up.
	They're so stupid.
	But they want to blame WikiLeaks.
	They want to blame Julian Assange.
	And that was a direct message to me.
	Do you trust Julian Assange?
	In 10 years, Senator McCain, 10.
	Not one bit of information WikiLeaks has put out there has ever been proven wrong or even questioned wrong.
	The only thing that's happened in 10 years is you allow them to keep doing it.
	Oh, maybe I'm getting a little bit close to the nerve center of what this issue is about here: is that we've known about it forever.
	People like me have been warning about it forever.
	And now that it's impacted you guys, now it matters.
	Now, all of a sudden, this is a big deal.
	This is an outrage.
	This must be fixed.
	This is unbelievable.
	Hillary lost because Lindsey Graham and John McCain didn't want Trump to win.
	And to be perfectly blunt, I don't even think Paul Ryan wanted him to win.
	And I keep, I've done entire monologues directed to Donald Trump.
	They are not your friends.
	None of them are.
	That goes for Senator McConnell, too.
	Hannity, you're going really rogue here.
	You're really losing it.
	No, I'm not.
	You know what?
	I actually love my country enough to say for 10 freaking years, WikiLeaks has been around here, and you idiots in Washington haven't lifted a finger to fix it.
	And I blame all of you.
	Don't blame me for talking to the messenger who's kicking your ass.
	It's like being in a street fight.
	And guess what?
	Julian Assange is kicking your ass.
	Now he's paying a price for it.
	He's in this little tiny Ecuadorian embassy, but he's winning.
	And you know why he's winning?
	Because you guys haven't lifted a finger to do your job.
	And your job is to protect American secrets, and you have failed and you have failed miserably.
	Now, do I know if Putin's involved?
	I have no clue.
	You guys should be answering that question, not me.
	I don't have access to top secret information.
	I don't have access to Hillary's private server in the bathroom of a mom-and-pop shot closet.
	You guys should have that information.
	That's your job.
	That's what you're hired to do.
	If we want national security, we better invest in cybersecurity.
	Donald Trump rightly said we're going to do a top-to-bottom change in this because if we don't do it, we're going to be hacked again and again and again and again and again.
	And if we don't have defense secrets, it's not just going to be Julian Assange.
	It's going to be Russia and China and Iran and North Korea kicking your ass next time.
	And that means kicking the country I love's ass.
	And I don't like to lose.
	And I blame all of you.
	Don't blame me because I asked Assange if he got the documents from Russia.
	Well, I don't believe him.
	Okay, don't believe him.
	I don't care if you believe him or not.
	The fact is, you can't prove him wrong because he's been proven right every time.
	The problem is you haven't, you have not taken the warnings every instant seriously to fix the problem.
	Fix it.
	And that's what I would advise Donald Trump to go and fix the problem.
	All right, I'm pretty ticked off about this.
	We have a segment on snowflakes coming up.
	At the top of the next, well, these snowflakes crack me up.
	I do enjoy talking about the snowflakes.
	They're losing their minds.
	Every day, I have a stack.
	You know what Sweet Baby James writes on the cover of the stack, snowflake stories.
	That's what he calls them.
	He calls them the snowflake stories.
	We got a whole stack today.
	We've got to deal with this situation that this horrible, horrible, horrific evil that has took place in Chicago and this poor kid, I guess he's challenged in some way.
	And it's just, it's evil on screen.
	Well, live screened on Facebook, live streamed.
	So we'll get to that in the course of the program today.
	You know, remember, I'll give you another story example of this.
	This morning, you'd have James Clapper.
	You know, he's treated in the Senate like by John McCain and Lindsey Cram, the great truth-telling, dedicated public servant, and he insisted to send an intelligence.
	No doubt Vladimir Putin's hackers torpedoed Hillary's presidential campaign.
	There's no evidence.
	Show us the evidence.
	I'll believe you if you show it to me.
	I didn't rush to judgment in the Cambridge case, the Trayvon Martin case, the Ferguson case, the Richard Jewell case, believe it or not.
	I was in Atlanta at the time.
	I didn't rush to judgment in Ferguson, Freddie Gray, the Duke LaCrosse team case, and I ended up being right all the time.
	Never got credit for it, but nobody never got credit for being right about Obama either.
	I never got credit for being right that Trump could win.
	Anyway.
	So anyway, they act as though he's a great truth teller, but am I the only one that remembers that Clapper was nearly charged with perjury for giving false testimony to Congress?
	I went back and I looked.
	U.S. News and World Report pointed out that lawmakers, you know, the director of national intelligence and he's getting his retirement.
	And anyway, three years hasn't cooled since in certain quarters Clapper's face changes for an adamantly false statement to Congress in March of 2013 when he responded, no, sir, not wittingly to a question about the NSA collecting any type of data at all on millions of Americans.
	And about three months after making that claim, documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that James Clapper was lying.
	Oopsie Daisy.
	Too bad my memory is like, you know, I actually impress myself sometimes that my memory works so well at my age.
	Anyway, Clapper later said that he considered the question akin to asking, when did you stop beating your wife?
	To his critics, he lied under oath and he got exposed.
	So of course he doesn't like anybody responsible for hacking.
	All right, these torturers, hate crimes, everything else we're going to get to coming up in the next hour, 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, we'll also get your calls in today.
	We have Jonathan Gillum.
	We'll get back into this issue also in the next hour.
	We'll get his take on it and some other experts as well.
	And we'll be debating the snowflakes and the latest stories of the day with them.
	All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	I'm going to play a tape that if I edited it, you would basically hear nothing but bleep, bleep.
	But I don't think we can accurately tell this story without giving you just a small sample of what this story is about.
	And it's one that we better pay very, very close attention to because it represents a level of violence, a level of human depravity that we need to know is existing.
	Now, we got the crime statistics, for example, from Chicago for the year, 762 dead people since Obama's been president, over nearly 5,000 people dead.
	And what we have here is a mentally disturbed white young man that was tied up and tortured in Chicago by a group of African Americans who were shouting, F. Donald Trump, as they sliced off a piece of this kid's scalp with a knife and broadcast this act on Facebook Live.
	Now, at least four of the victims' alleged captors have been taken into custody Wednesday after a man was found wandering a street Tuesday near the house where the police took him.
	They also forced this kid.
	They put his head in a toilet and made him drink toilet water and said, F white people and F. Donald Trump.
	And one suspect is heard telling the man in the video, which was live streamed for 30 minutes.
	Victim is pummeled as he sits on a floor, hands tied up, mouth taped.
	At one point, a man cut the scalp with a knife.
	My sister said, this is not funny, you all, said the girl behind the camera who can be seen puffing on a cigar and laughing.
	Well, it's funny to me, said one of the suspects.
	Tell Donald Trump it's not funny.
	Later in the video, someone urges the man to say, I love black people.
	Now, police said the victim is believed to be from a suburb of Crystal Lake around Chicago, and they added that he knows at least one of the attackers from school and may have willingly gone to the house, but that's neither here nor there.
	The man was treated for cuts and burns, and no charges yet filed.
	But here's the worst part: Chicago police, after you hear what I'm about to play, they will not refer to this as a hate crime.
	You know, they started out.
	It took public pressure to make that happen because initially it was so obvious.
	Just watch the tape.
	And they had the tape, but they were reluctant.
	Then a public outcry ensues, and then they finally do it.
	So, and then on top of it, you know, one has to ask the question.
	Most of you have probably seen this tape.
	We'll show it to you on Hannity tonight, but it's a torture tape of this special needs man live streamed on Facebook.
	And it is just so beyond the pale.
	You know, it does add credence to Donald Trump's tweet to Rom Rombo Deadfish.
	If you can't clean up this mess where nearly a thousand people are dying every year in your city and 4,000 are being shot every year, well, we'll come in and do it for you.
	Do black lives matter?
	Because 80% of the victims are black victims in this case.
	What is being done to protect human life here?
	And in this particular case, a racial crime and torture.
	So I am going to play this for one minute.
	And if you have kids in the car, if you don't want to hear it, don't blame me after because I'm giving you due warning.
	So stations around the Sean Hannity Show Network, you know, just beware.
	You may want to play music for one minute.
	It'll be one minute exactly.
	And then if you do tune out, you can tune it right back in.
	Donald Trump.
	Nigga, f***ing fine people.
	What?
	F*** out of you.
	That was a dick.
	Donald Trump.
	I should knock your ass out right now, niggas.
	Stand up.
	Hey, this nigga right here, he represents Trump.
	This PBG hothead.
	Hey, this PPG hothead speaking.
	Y'all see this nigga right here?
	We finna put this nigga in a trunk.
	And we finna put a brick on the gas and let that wash the Chicago news.
	Brick on the gas.
	You feel me?
	I'm going to let her talk to y'all. Yeah.
	I'm going to let her talk to y'all. Yeah.
	No.
	Where this nigga is.
	Why is it gas?
	So why is it not tied then, nigga?
	Why Donald Trump?
	All right, that's just a small snippet of the torture this kid went through.
	Joining us now is the Reverend Jeff C. Lee Peterson.
	He's the founder of Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man, author of The Antidote, Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.
	Also, Pastor Charles Christian Adams, presiding pastor of the Hartford Memorial Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan.
	Welcome both of you to the program.
	And Pastor Adams, is there any doubt in your mind that this is a racial hate crime?
	It is.
	By the legal definition, I am not sure.
	I'm not asking.
	I asked you.
	It is certainly one that is driven by a culture of hatred and intolerance.
	Well, let me ask you, if it said F Barack Obama and F black people, wouldn't that be a racial hate crime?
	It certainly is driven by.
	I don't want to say that.
	Why are you reluctant to say what is obvious?
	Or whether the prosecutor will apply.
	I'm not asking you though.
	But, Pastor, please.
	I'm not asking you for the legal definition.
	I'm asking if you hear these words, F Donald Trump, F white people, this is a white kid.
	He's treated this way.
	Racial incendiary language is used throughout the entire episode that they covered in 30 minutes.
	And I'm asking, do you not see this for what it is, which is a racial hate crime?
	Do you personally?
	Race definitely is playing a part in this.
	Intolerance is playing a part in this.
	There is no doubt about it.
	And it is intolerable.
	The crime is intolerable, and we cannot put up with it.
	They must be held accountable for their actions.
	Absolutely.
	Jesse Lee Peterson.
	Hey, Sean, this is definitely a racial hate crime.
	And for the last 26 years, I've been writing about these things, talking about these things, screaming about these things, and that white Americans are under attack.
	There's a race war happening, and it's been happening against white folks for years.
	We saw it in the knockout game where young black thugs were going around and knocking white people out, killing them, robbing them, and raping them in some cases.
	The media and liberals would not say anything about it.
	And this is an example of face to come if we don't start dealing with it.
	You know, Dylan Roof went into a black church, I believe, in South Carolina, and he killed black people there.
	And right away, the Department of Justice, Barack Obama, and others call it a hate crime.
	And that was true.
	That was justified.
	But whenever it's a black-on-white situation, such as we see in this situation, they refuse to call it a hate crime.
	And the reason that they're not calling it that because they too hold grudges against white folks, and they want black people acting out like this.
	My concern is that if we don't call it what it is, and these boys and those girls who were involved in this situation are not punished, it's only going to get worse because they do not fear authority.
	You know, I want to add one thing.
	Or the cops or anyone.
	You know, you're both pastors.
	And look, I'm not a pastor.
	I'm not a man of the cloth.
	I'm one of the imperfect Christians that needs forgiveness.
	So I don't want to quote the Bible and scripture too much here, but I do believe this.
	If every man, woman, and child on this earth is created by God, which I believe, and they're all built inside of every child is innate God-given talents.
	And the word education goes to the root of that in the Latin, which means to bring forth from within.
	And you've got over 4,000 people killed in Chicago during Obama's presidency, close to 5,000 people killed during Obama's presidency, and hardly ever a word out of him.
	But if it's the Cambridge police acting stupidly and it advances a political narrative, well, the president was wrong there, or the Ferguson case where he jumped in and weighed in against the officer in that case, even though Michael Brown is the one that robbed the store, intimidated the clerk,
	fought a cop for his gun, and charged at an officer, and black eyewitnesses are the ones that told us that, or a one-eye witness in the Trayvon Martin case that saw Trayvon Martin grounding and pounding George Zimmerman's head into a cement, or the Freddie Gray case, a known drug dealer in the neighborhood in Baltimore.
	So my question to you, Pastor Adams, is, you know, why doesn't the president weigh in when you've got nearly 5,000 dead Americans in your home city and you don't utter a word?
	But if it's a high-profile racial case, even though you don't have any facts, you speak out about it as a lawyer and as the president, and you politicize it through a racial prism?
	Don't you think there's something wrong with Obama here?
	Sure.
	Well, I'm sure that the president will weigh in on it when the folks are in.
	But he didn't weigh in.
	He's going to blame Obama as if he is the only one that can have an impact on the quality of life in Chicago.
	It really doesn't help at all.
	First of all, he's not the only one who is governing the national policy.
	Reverend, Reverend, this is an—he would weigh in on every high-profile racial case, and we've watched nearly 5,000 people die in his home city and nary a word out of this president about the carnage in his home city.
	Why?
	But, Sean, not only did Obama ignore what was happening in Chicago in the last eight years, he has created the Ferguson effect in that officers are now hands-off, per se, because they're afraid of losing their lives.
	They're afraid of losing their careers.
	They're afraid for their families.
	And so now they can't even go into that area there in Chicago and really take care of the situation by arresting the criminals and protecting the good folks in those areas.
	Barack Obama and other liberals, they want these things to be happening in the inner cities because as long as they are happening, they could cry racism.
	They can intimidate white Americans.
	They can get power and wealth from this.
	Black people voted for Barack Obama twice in the hope that he would make their lives better, even though the government is never going to do that.
	But they thought that he was going to clean up the mess.
	They thought that he was going to rebuild families and that he will help bring jobs back into the communities.
	He has not done any of those things, and he is not taking responsibility for not doing anything.
	And for the Reverend to say that Barack Obama could not have done this, he could have.
	Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
	He's black.
	He could have easily gone into the urban areas and cleaned this mess up before leaving office.
	But you know what?
	I find it interesting that we want to blame Barack Obama for what is wrong in America, but you didn't want to give Bill Clinton credit for the murder rate going down in New York when he was president.
	You want to give Rudolph Giuliani.
	Well, Rudy Giuliani.
	Even when Stop and Pastor, Pastor, I struggled.
	Pastor, I was here in New York.
	Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Stop and Frisk.
	Going into the most dangerous areas with the highest crime rates was the mission of Mayor Giuliani, and thousands and thousands of lives were saved because the murder rate was cut dramatically more than in half by like 100% almost.
	I was a student, a graduate student in New York in the 90s.
	Well, then you should know that's true.
	I was there, too.
	I know that Stop and Frisk did not lower the murder rate arising of the city.
	You do not know that we hadn't seen in the history of Harlem.
	Pastor's glory days.
	I have no idea what city you were living in at the time, but I can tell you, because I was living here, that is absolutely false.
	Stop and frisk policing in areas with the highest crime rates resulted in a murder rate going from $2,300 a year, eventually down to $300 a year.
	When it was struck down, the murder rate also continued to go down.
	And what you saw was prosperity that was not only helping New York and not only lowering the murder rates in New York, but lowering murder rates throughout the whole country.
	You know, Obama could have done.
	Reverend, another thing Obama could have done, he could have helped rebuild black families.
	These boys and girls who are committing these crimes in their own communities, where they shouldn't be doing them anywhere, but they're committing these crimes because they feel unloved.
	They don't have their fathers and mothers there to guide them in the right way to go.
	They feel helpless in life.
	They're angry.
	And so they're being told that the white man is their problem, that white people are discriminating against them.
	And they are taking that anger out on white Americans when it really starts in the homes.
	And I had hoped that Barack Obama would do something about that.
	Barack Obama is married.
	He has two daughters.
	And he's there for his family.
	The number one thing that should have been a part of his agenda is rebuilding the families, encouraging black men and black women to get back together and raise their children in the right way to go.
	Then they would be better off in life.
	These kids are hurting because their parents are not together, and no one is really dealing with that issue, but we are.
	If you go to rebuilding the man.com, you will see we are doing it for the last 26 years.
	But the primary issue is that we got to give these boys and girls fathers and mothers to guide them because that anger start there.
	And then the race hustlers tell them that it's a white man.
	There is no reason for young black people to be hating white folks in the manner that they're hating them in 2016 or 17.
	This country has come together as much as they could concern the race issue.
	This is insane.
	It's not the cops' fault.
	It is the family's fault.
	I gotta leave it here.
	I will tell you this: that if we care about these young men and women that are getting killed every day, we better do something fast.
	And if stopping Fris is gonna save all those lives, that's a good start.
	Anyway, thank you both.
	Happy New Year to both of you.
	When we come back, we'll give you more of the instances of hacking of our government that was ignored by the Obama administration during the Obama years, including 23 million individual hacks by the Chinese government, and Obama never said a word.
	Why are they politicizing the Russian hacking?
	Which, by the way, Podesta's emails, DNC, it wasn't a government agency.
	Maybe Hillary should have gotten real security for her email server instead of using the private one in a bathroom of a mom-and-pop shop.
	Do governments regularly lie, propagandize, manipulate the minds of their citizens.
	Fairer statements?
	Yes.
	You want to expose that truth to people.
	Yes.
	Regardless of whether it's Republican, Democrats.
	Absolutely.
	No political agenda.
	Absolutely.
	Question then goes back to the fourth estate.
	This is the biggest media story.
	Why won't the media do it?
	If I have information that Hillary Clinton is colluding with the media, that Hillary Clinton is benefiting.
	You just answered the question.
	Why won't the media do it?
	Because four-fifths of the media in the United States felt that it was part of the same system that Hillary Clinton was part of, the same social strata, benefiting politically and socially and financially, as far as the media owners are concerned, from that system that Hillary Clinton most represented.
	Let me ask this question.
	You're taking on the big, the mighty, the powerful.
	I don't censor political agenda because you're telling me if it was Donald Trump emails, you would have released those.
	Well, look, we did release Sarah Palin's emails.
	Right.
	We released it.
	We did release Norm Coleman's donor information back in 2009.
	So my question then is: so you really don't have an agenda except to tell the truth that with regularity, bureaucracy, government entities lie and prevent the people they represent from hearing the truth.
	Fair statement?
	Yes.
	Not only lie and act in a proper, duplicitous manner and do things that are harmful to the population inside the country and out, but they act in an incompetent manner.
	They're full of incompetent people.
	And the more secretive the area is, the more incompetent it becomes because there's no proper oversight.
	You can't go, this guy did a good job.
	This guy did a bad job because you can't compare.
	You're saying transparency will lead to competence.
	Exactly.
	And governments don't by their very nature.
	Now, what about?
	They hate transparency.
	They loathe it.
	But do you believe that?
	Because they have to work harder.
	All right, 24 now till the top of the hour.
	That was part of my interview with Julian Assange.
	It's fascinating to me as I watch the hearings today, which we were discussing earlier in the program today.
	I'm watching this, and I watched John McCain.
	So we can't trust Julian Assong.
	I'm thinking, okay.
	So we have all of these incidences where our government is hacked.
	Now, I'll give you the list in a second.
	What have I been saying about WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, hacking?
	I said there's two things if we're smart, we'll learn from.
	Because Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has now been around for 10 years, 10 years.
	All right, this is not something new.
	And so, if we would learn that we don't have cybersecurity and admit the truth to ourselves, well, then we could fix a problem that has been exposed.
	The second thing is, you know, liberals are only angry about this case.
	Now, did the Russians hack into our voting machines?
	No.
	Did WikiLeaks reveal how corrupt our media is?
	Yes.
	You know, for example, everything that you've heard from Obama, Hillary Clinton, about the campaign and the Democratic Party about hacking, the Russians want to out, you know, want to determine the outcome of this election.
	Well, what did we learn from Wikileaks?
	Well, we learned how corrupt the DNC is.
	We learned how corrupt Hillary Clinton is.
	We learned that the DNC staffers made anti-Semitic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and sexist comments.
	We learned that.
	WikiLeaks did reveal that the DNC tried to sabotage at a very high level poor Bernie Sanders and rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton.
	We learned that.
	So it really isn't about Julian Assange in as much as this is just another excuse to delegitimize Donald Trump and his presidency before he gets in office.
	Now, Assange has admitted on this program last year that he hacked into NASA and the Department of Defense.
	We've known about WikiLeaks for 10 years.
	And here's what we do know.
	Now, if they cared about hacking and Obama cared about hacking, well, why in 2009, since 2009, we know that hackers have attacked the U.S. electrical grid.
	We know that hackers have attacked the Pentagon's joint strike fighter project.
	We know that they have hacked into NASA.
	We know they've hacked into the Department of Energy.
	We know they've hacked into the Federal Election Commission networks.
	We know they've hacked into the U.S. Postal Service.
	We know they hacked into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
	We know they've hacked into the Obama White House.
	We know they hacked into the Obama State Department.
	We know they have hacked into the Department of Defense.
	We know they've hacked into the IRS.
	We know they've hacked into the Office of Personnel Management.
	So if the Democrats were all so serious about hacking, this has all happened under their watch and they haven't lifted a finger, haven't done a thing to fix what is obviously a huge national security issue.
	And Sean Hannity has been saying we need to fix the problem.
	Do I trust Vladimir Putin?
	You know, no.
	Who trusts Vladimir Putin?
	Did he try to influence our elections?
	Show me the evidence and I'll believe it.
	Stop hiding whatever evidence you say you have from the public and congressional oversight that has been demanding it now since after the election when this narrative began.
	You know, you look at all of this, for example, in 2015.
	Let's look at one example: China.
	In 2015, they hacked the Office of Personnel Management.
	Sensitive information on 23 million people was compromised.
	And the CIA, by the way, at the time, thought the breach was so serious to remove agency officers stationed in China as a precautionary measure.
	And by the way, Obama never said a word about it publicly, not one thing.
	Then you had Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden leaking all kinds of classified government information.
	Democrats, well, they didn't care because they couldn't score cheap political points.
	Anyway, here to talk about this, Jonathan Gillum, Navy SEAL, former FBI, host of the experts.
	Bill Benny is with us, former technical director of the NSA World Geopolitical and Military Analysis and Reporting Group.
	And Kurt Wieby is with us, former senior analyst for the NSA.
	Now, you guys know how ridiculous these claims are, but if they really cared, Jonathan Gillum, about hacking, there were plenty of opportunities to dig into this and protect this country.
	Listen, again, you know, we were talking earlier before the show that this isn't even government institutions or government organizations or agencies that were hacked.
	These are two private companies, or private company organization, the DNC.
	This is important.
	The DNC is not government agencies.
	That's right.
	But all these government agencies that I mentioned were hacked.
	Exactly.
	Okay, so they didn't care about the government agencies or the White House hacked.
	Right.
	Okay, I'm just making sure.
	And then, you know, I'm one of the people who there are millions and millions of us that had our information stolen from our DD214s or from the SF-86s that we fill out for government service.
	All that information has been stolen.
	They never really made a big deal about that.
	And really, on the whole, when you look at what Julia Assange is saying, when you went and talked to him, Julia Assange is what we call in the government a reliable and credible source.
	His history says that even though you may not agree with his information, it's almost in him releasing it, it's always been correct.
	And secondly, that he's somebody that does have access to sources that give him reliable information.
	So they're completely skipping over him.
	They're completely skipping over what he's brought to the table.
	And all they're doing is trashing and going Donald Trump and going after this whole hacking thing.
	It bothers me because these executives in the intelligence community do not represent the agents on the ground and they represent special interests of the administration.
	And that's a problem with these political appointees.
	All right, Bill, let me ask you this.
	Now, we knew about Assange, and this is why I was critical of him back in the day.
	You know, WikiLeaks released classified information of the U.S. military video of a series of attacks in Baghdad by a U.S. helicopter.
	They did that in 2010.
	Then we could even take it even further.
	In July of 2010, they released the Afghan war logs, 77,000 of them.
	In October of 2010, they released the Iraqi war logs.
	In 2010, WikiLeaks released U.S. diplomatic cables.
	They released Gitmo files.
	They released more diplomatic cables.
	They released Syria files.
	They released DNC files in 2016.
	WikiLeaks isn't new, but in all this time, Obama's president, what has he done to fix it?
	Well, as far as I can see, it's done absolutely nothing.
	But it's even worse than that, though, Sean.
	Inside NSA, the Tailored Access Office had, and Martin was the fellow who was arrested.
	He worked in the TAO office in NSA.
	He took out source code for all the attacks that, or I guess most of the attacks anyway, terabytes of data on source code that showed all the different attacks that NSA had and knew about in weaknesses of firewalls, operating systems, servers, networks, and everything.
	So that's now been compromised.
	But the point is that NSA has known about these and the operational side, these weaknesses, but never moved to fix them.
	I mean, that's so why all of a sudden this interest in hacking when every government agency has been hacked?
	All of this has been done before, and now this is the only case that seems to wake them up.
	Well, it's because it's all political, that's all.
	It's just a political ploy.
	Yeah.
	You know, let me play this cut here.
	And this is James Clapper, by the way, testifying earlier today that the U.S. didn't retaliate against China when they stole 23 million of Americans' files.
	Listen to this.
	So let me just ask the final question.
	Did we retaliate up the costs against China after an enormous cyber attack against our nation?
	We did not retaliate against an act of espionage any more than other countries necessarily retaliate against us for when we conduct espionage.
	But isn't that answered just part of the problem that we're showing that we're not going to make it costly for them to come in and steal the files of 22 million Americans, including many intel officers?
	Well, it's, as I say, people living glass houses need to think about throwing rocks because this was an act of espionage.
	And we and other nations conduct similar acts of espionage.
	If we're going to punish each other for acts of espionage, that's a different policy issue.
	You know, and that's the fascinating thing about this, Kirk.
	Didn't we also, didn't Obama try and influence the elections in Israel, spending State Department money, $350,000 to unseat B.B. Netanyahu?
	Didn't he send his own political operatives to Israel to defeat BB?
	He sure did, Sean.
	And thank you for having me on the program.
	It's good to be here.
	He sure did.
	And it's not just political.
	It's also financial.
	There's a lot of money interest flowing beneath Congress into the intelligence community.
	In fact, I would make the statement that the United States intelligence community is the most infected component of government because it hides behind secrecy by law.
	And it makes it convenient to hide all the undercurrents of financial interest between people, organizations, and major corporations.
	So it's political and it's financial.
	And it's there in spades, the military-industrial intelligence complex that Eisenhower warned about in 1961.
	Jonathan Gillum, I want America to have the best spies in the world.
	I want America to have the best hackers in the world, but I also want to protect not only the American people, but our government.
	I mean, we cannot have national defense if we cannot protect our data.
	No, and listen, we do, Sean, but what the gentleman just explained there, those people are the buffer between the experts and the administration.
	Those are the people that have been put into place over years and years of cronyism.
	Look at Clapper himself.
	That guy has been around forever, and he's offered no solutions.
	There's been failures under his watch, but yet he still exists.
	Why?
	Because he does what he's told by the administrations in which he serves.
	He does not do what's best for the American people.
	It may be money, it may be political, but these are the types of people that are the biggest national security threats in this country that we have.
	It's not the Russians.
	It's not ISIS.
	It's political operatives like this that have infiltrated and are everywhere in our government.
	It's unbelievable to me.
	And I mean, that's the point.
	You know, I made the statement.
	I'd love your take, Bill, on the interview that I had with Assange, and especially knowing his history going back, you know, the entire Obama presidency.
	So it's nothing new here.
	They ignored every other thing that he has released over the years.
	And you know what?
	He's right.
	He has released things on Republicans and on Democrats.
	And, you know, as I stated earlier, there's no evidence whatsoever that they hacked into our voting machines.
	There's none whatsoever.
	You know, this was not even about a government agency.
	This was about a stupid Secretary of State trying to flaunt the law and bypass co-equal branches of government.
	And literally setting up a server where she never should have set it up.
	Yes, and I also look at the track record of the intelligence agencies and how they lie to us consistently over time, whereas all the material from Julian Assange has been basically the truth every time.
	No one has contradicted it in any way.
	So, you know, how can we trust people who tell us that they're not taking in millions records on hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens?
	How can we trust them with weapons of mass destruction or the Tonkin Gulf affair or any of those kinds of things when in fact they're doing it for political reasons, primarily because people want wars or want conflict, which is equally bad?
	Well, let me ask a last question to Kurt.
	Kurt, am I right in my analysis that if we look at WikiLeaks, that Assange did us a favor by exposing that we have no cybersecurity, and did he do America a favor by showing us how corrupt government is?
	I only have about 10 seconds.
	Yeah, absolutely, Sean, he did.
	I believe in Julian Assange.
	I believe he's telling the truth just as you do, for sure.
	All right, appreciate it.
	Apparently, John McCain doesn't believe it.
	Mr. Gillum, we love you.
	You're a great American.
	Got it.
	John McCain.
	You're not a fan of John McCain or Lindsey Graham?
	Listen, he went over and met with the quote-unquote rebels over in Syria.
	John McCain just needs to go away.
	He should have been put out the pasture a long time.
	Ouch.
	All right, news roundup information overload.
	Well, we have snowflake updates of the day, and they never seem to go away.
	All right, so the Washington Post has launched the hype of the women's march as a huge inauguration protest of Donald Trump.
	And I'm thinking, oh, well, nearly more than 100,000 people have registered to go to a women's march in what is expected to be the largest demonstration linked to Donald Trump's inauguration.
	Organizers say they may have 200,000 people there, men and women, responding to the march.
	What are they marching for?
	What is the march about?
	Why are they so upset?
	You got one Democratic congressman comparing Donald Trump to a third world dictator, Representative Stephen Cohn of Tennessee.
	You got this lefty columnist, Leonard Pitts.
	Trump is like Hitler and ISIS, so balance is immoral.
	And yet, Goldman Sachs, they were confronted by protesters inside their New York headquarters because some Goldman Sachs people know Donald Trump.
	CBS was spotlighting the anti-Jeff Sessions protest at his Alabama office.
	They're going to try, oh, he's a racist.
	He's done more to help black Americans than any other senator on record.
	And you got the New York Times at Wardo Porter, you know, victory of authoritarian Trump may put the U.S. on Venezuela's path.
	You got the CNN panel fretting the racial amnesia, Jim Crow mentality of Trump voters.
	And then you got blue state Democrats attempting to block access to the ballot for Trump in 2020.
	They're having a very, very difficult time adjusting to what's happening.
	Anyway, joining us to discuss this is DC McAllister.
	She's with the Federalist and PJ Media and Danielle McLaughlin, an attorney, a left-wing lunatic, a constitutional expert.
	She wrote the Federalist Society, How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals.
	So what is your great fear?
	What is women's great fear about Donald Trump Danielle?
	The women's march, Sean, and thanks for calling me a lunatic.
	I take that as a compliment.
	Well, I mean, you are a left-wing nutjob, but I still like you.
	I am a left-wing.
	We'll decide about the nut job at the end of the segment, perhaps.
	What this march is about, I'm not going to disagree with the idea that it started as an anti-Trump decision.
	And one of the founders, there were three women founders, one of the founders in Hawaii, woke up the day after the election and had this idea.
	But this has morphed into something that is not specifically anti-Trump.
	This is about women and people who have been disenfranchised over the years, people with immutable characteristics that relate to their gender or their race or their sexuality or where they are on the gender spectrum.
	Basically standing up and saying to Congress, and that is to the president, and this is to Democrats and Republicans and independents, to elected representatives, that we are not going to go back.
	We are not going to go back to a place where interracial marriage was criminalized.
	All right, let's stop right there.
	What indication do you have that Donald Trump is against interracial marriage?
	Oh, no, and I'm not saying specific.
	Okay, so two things.
	So, why would you mark, if there's no indication, why would you march over support for interracial marriage when Donald Trump has said nothing to the contrary?
	I'm talking about interracial marriage is one of the things that through the course of this country's history, minorities and certainly women, you can talk about interracial marriage, you can talk about same-sex marriage, all sorts of things that relate to the civil rights movement.
	We are moving forward.
	What has Donald Trump said about any of these issues that frightens you to the point you need to march?
	Well, here's one example.
	And I actually think that Trump in his personal life and what we've seen over the years, I think he's much more socially moderate than many Republicans.
	Well, then what you're not answering my question.
	What are you fearful of about women under Donald Trump?
	What we're saying is we're going to move forward and not backwards.
	Make America Great Again was a slogan that many people felt.
	You're not answering my question.
	You're a very smart woman, Danielle.
	What are you afraid of that you feel the need to march?
	Here's one, the First Amendment Defense Act, which is reminiscent of laws in North Carolina, I think it's HB2, which allows for discrimination on the basis of even having sex outside of marriage.
	This is something that Donald Trump dated more women in New York than probably any other bachelor in New York.
	Really?
	You think Donald Trump cares about people and what they do in their private bedrooms?
	Well, this is my point.
	I think my point to you earlier, Sean, was I think actually in his heart and in his past, I don't think he's very socially moderate.
	So then why are you protesting?
	You're making my point.
	The protest is against what Trump has threatened to do, and he has said that.
	What does he threaten to do?
	Tell me what he's answer.
	He has said he will punish women for having abortions.
	He has said he will not have to do the American Defense Act.
	And this is not just a Trump defense.
	Women will be heard and we will not go backwards.
	D.C. McAllister, help me out here.
	Yeah, there's no threats to women under the Trump administration.
	And she really hasn't answered your question.
	As far as HB2, to use that as an example, it's very odd.
	First of all, Trump is pretty supportive of it, which really made a lot of conservatives angry.
	But also, that is not a threat against women.
	HB2 is actually protecting women from having men in women's bathrooms.
	And so this litany of tagging on to the civil rights movement as if we're still having a civil rights movement today for women is ridiculous.
	And I'll tell you what they are afraid of, Sean.
	They are afraid of Trump, and they have a legitimate fear of Trump.
	And I'm going to tell you what that is.
	If he does what he has promised, he will roll back the size and scope of government and government intrusion and government dependency by individuals on the state.
	Really what we're seeing in motion are statists, statists who want to expand centralized power and have people more and more dependent on government, redistributing wealth, you know, having everyone have their health care be dictated by the state.
	I mean, these kind of things.
	This is about statism.
	It is not about feminism.
	And it's about the 2020 election and about getting another status in office.
	That's what this is about.
	And they do have a legitimate fear of Trump on that point.
	So is that what it's about?
	You want bigger government, Danielle?
	Which I know you do.
	I mean, you pretty much want government everything, right?
	Government health care, daycare, government nanny care, government cars, government housing, government health care.
	What do you want that's not provided by the government?
	That's absolutely not the case.
	And as someone who studied the Constitution pretty in depth, I understand what the institutional limitations are on federal and state governments.
	You supported Obamacare.
	I never heard you once criticize Obama's $10 trillion in debt.
	Yeah, but these—I mean, every president creates— I mean, going back to Reagan, we saw debt increase, increase, increase.
	We're at $20 trillion now.
	Reagan tripled the debt.
	I mean, this is what has happened in the modern era.
	It's not something that progressives or Democrats will recover.
	Excuse me.
	Nobody has done what Obama has done.
	Take on more debt than all 43 presidents before him combined.
	Nobody comes close.
	D.C. You know, dictating to private companies their work leave policy is not bigger state involvement.
	That is beyond the bounds of the federal government.
	Redistributing earnings the way that we have now begin to do it is not right.
	That is not the role of the federal government.
	Putting the safety of Americans at risk by ignoring immigration laws.
	Taking over health care decisions from individuals and families, that is not the role of the government.
	Demanding use of public restrooms by the opposite sex is not the role of government.
	Pushing for violation of Second Amendment rights is not the role of government.
	Suppressing free speech on college campuses is not the role of government.
	Violating religious liberty and the guys of same-sex marriage is not the role of government.
	These are the agenda.
	This is the agenda of these people who will be marching on January 21st.
	I mean, I think about you.
	I know, but hang on.
	One second.
	But, D.C., I'll go to the question I initially asked Danielle.
	What is their fear here?
	Because I have not heard anything from Donald Trump that is going to threaten women's rights in any way.
	Now, those are the rights that they want.
	They want those big government benefits.
	But I can tell you, DC, I've been around this man.
	I've been a Trump power.
	I've been to his business years before he ever decided to run for president.
	There are more women working for Trump than men.
	No, you misunderstand.
	He is not threatening women's rights.
	I get it.
	I understand.
	I understand.
	Not at all.
	He is threatening their dependency on the state.
	And that's what they're really upset about.
	They don't want their abortion taken away.
	They don't want their free contraception taken away or their free medical care.
	They don't want any of those things taken away.
	And that is what he is actually, if he keeps his promises, he's actually threatening their status agenda.
	This is not about feminism.
	It is not about women.
	It's not about marginalized groups.
	It's about the government.
	It's absolutely not.
	There are not 200,000 women and men, by the way, coming to D.C. on January 21st to ask for more government from their country.
	They are absolutely not.
	You're absolutely wrong about that.
	I'm sorry, you're absolutely wrong.
	What we are saying is that there is still progress to be made, and we're not asking for legislation to make this happen, but we want the people who we've put in power as public servants to understand that we do not have pay equity.
	You know, 4% of Stan and Poor's 500 CEOs are women.
	More than half of people in poverty are women.
	20% of the U.S. Congress are women.
	We are not there yet.
	Women got the vote about 100 years ago.
	We've been a country for about 238 years.
	We're not asking for something specific.
	We're not asking for anything from the federal government.
	But what these people are saying is this is what we think we stand for.
	We stand for diversity, inclusiveness, and equality of opportunity.
	Stop right there.
	Is there anything that indicates Donald Trump does not support any of that?
	Well, my last example, this idea of the First Amendment Defense Act is extremely problematic to us.
	First, I want to say it again.
	The what?
	The First Amendment Defense Act, which wants to put into federal law the basis would be that you can discriminate within federal employers against people who are in same-sex relationships, who have same-sex marriage.
	And that would be a rolling back of the government.
	I have never, listen, I have interviewed Donald Trump as much or more than anybody.
	I've never heard him once talk about it, and I've watched more of his speeches.
	I've never heard him once address this at all.
	So he has talked about equal pay, and I just want to make a comment about that.
	When you made your litany about what you want to have done and equal pay, you put in there.
	That is not the role of government.
	And talking about women being in public offices, what can government do for that?
	You want government solutions to normal human problems and normal human disparities.
	You're willing to sacrifice your liberty for equality, for an egalitarian mindset that is not American.
	We are for liberty.
	We're for equality before the law, which we have.
	We are not for this kind of egalitarianism or government intrusion into issues that it cannot fix.
	I'm going to have to end it there with a good note from D.C., who makes more sense than Danielle.
	Danielle, you're not mad at me, are you?
	Never, Sean.
	Never.
	Okay.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	Appreciate it.
	Happy New Year to both of you guys, okay?
	Wish you all the best.
	Thank you.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, toll-free telephone number.
	We always love to have your voice on this show, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Let's go to Tracy.
	Tracy's in Houston, Texas.
	Our affiliate there, K-T-R-H.
	What's up, Tracy?
	How are you?
	Not too bad, Sean.
	Not too bad.
	What's the matter?
	You sound down.
	You all right?
	It's a new year.
	Be happy.
	In 15 days, Obama is gone.
	It's all good.
	Well, we've got a crazy man for a president who don't know how to stop.
	But he's gone in 15 days.
	I'm telling you, he's gone in 15 days.
	Let not your heart be trouble.
	We're getting the monster in 15 days.
	Oh, you mean the guy that's not going to give us the debt, the guy that's saving jobs, the guy that's focused on national security, that guy.
	Okay, yeah, I got it.
	Okay.
	Wait, I'm going to hit you with two issues.
	Let me ask you, before you go any further, let me ask you a question.
	What's so crazy about Donald Trump?
	What policy that he proposes do you think is crazy?
	It's not so much his policy.
	Here's what I don't like.
	One, I do not like a man who cannot shut up.
	He does not know the flexibility of his power.
	He will not shut up.
	He's such and too much getting attention.
	All right, so stop right here.
	So you say he's crazy, and I ask you what specifically you think is crazy about him.
	He won't shut up.
	All right.
	Now, what is there any one policy that you think he's proposed that's crazy?
	Yes, two of them.
	First, you want to increase our nuclear, and then you want to disarm our intelligence agency.
	Why would you brought it?
	He's not talking, no, he's talking about rebuilding our intelligence agencies, which obviously are in.
	Look, I want to be very careful here because I admire the people in this business, but our intelligence agencies have sat back under the Obama years and have not, not fixed the problem of cybersecurity.
	Now, it might be a matter of resources, manpower, and whatever it is, Trump is saying he's going to revamp it so we can fix it because our vulnerability is worse now than it was eight years ago.
	Okay, Sean, you got to stop that.
	You got to stop this.
	This is inovert racism towards Obama to act like he did negative.
	We wanted to bring up this.
	We were really heading downward.
	So stop with this all this Obama.
	All right, hold on, but let me tell you.
	No, no, Tracy, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	You just accused me of racism because I said that Donald Trump is going to beef up cybersecurity.
	How does that, how does, how in any way, shape, matter, or form is that racism?
	You keep acting as if, look, eight years ago, we were on a downslope.
	But I don't want to talk about that.
	Tracy, wait a minute.
	No, no, no.
	You're not going to call this show.
	You're not going to call this show and accuse me of being a racist without giving me an example.
	Give me an example so I can apologize because I think being a racist is morally repugnant and evil.
	So what is racist about saying we need to beef up cybersecurity?
	No, here's what I'm saying.
	Do you want an overall opinion?
	Hold on, Sean, let me answer the question.
	I'm doing the prosecutor put me in a corner.
	One thing that you made it, you made it like as if Obama made our intelligence system bad.
	First of all, Trump didn't want to even acknowledge that we were hacked.
	Now Obama has made it weak, so we need to correct it.
	It's one thing if you said these two.
	Okay, how is that racist?
	Because I've been listening to you for a long time.
	It's not so much racist, but overt, because every single thing you said is the man has been doing bad.
	So you're saying covertly I'm racist.
	I don't, I doubt that.
	I mean, I saw when you gave the guy the fourth.
	So why don't you just apologize to me?
	Why don't you say you're sorry for saying that?
	I'm not going to do that because I believe in what I believe in you.
	Well, then give me an example.
	If you're going to call somebody a racism, I find racism repugnant and morally corrupt and evil.
	And if you want to suggest that me saying cybersecurity is not improved under Obama is racist, I think I have a right to challenge you to specifically.
	Now, when I talk about the labor participation rate, the lowest since the 70s, when I talk about 13 million more Americans on food stamps under Obama, 8 million more in poverty, he doubled the debt, lowest labor participation rate, all these things, the lowest home ownership rate in 51 years.
	And I give you facts and you say facts are racist.
	Is that how your twisted mind thinks?
	Now, can I speak?
	Let me speak.
	I've been letting you speak.
	Let me speak.
	I am.
	Most of the times what you do, you put a little twist on something.
	You want to throw Obama's name.
	And someone, like Pavlov's dog, sometimes you can say Obama's name and it invokes the hate because a lot of people have not been really adjusted to the fact that there was a black man that was a president.
	They hate that idea.
	This whole, like, for instance, just, and you throw that twist on it.
	Now, let me show you something.
	Just like the health care bill that's about to go down right now, they want to underestimate it.
	Are you saying that I'm doing this?
	I'm saying you're tweaking, not so much to be racist, but you're tweaking to get the hatred out of it.
	No, no, no, no, you know what?
	No, no, you know, then you don't understand me at all, and we're going to have a very hard time communicating because all I wanted in this election was to reverse a course where more millions of Americans are in poverty, millions more on food stamps, fewer people had a home ownership rate, or it's the lowest it's been.
	We're stealing from our kids.
	We've doubled the national debt.
	I can't name a single place on the globe that is better off under Barack Obama being president.
	And I'm just a little sick and tired.
	I mean, is your feeling of dislike towards Trump racist then, too, or anybody who disagrees with you?
	Because this is a waste of our time.
	You know, you started it out, you know, talking about Donald Trump, and you can't give a specific policy that you even disagree with.
	And, you know, you basically say he's crazy and unhinged.
	It's a waste of time.
	You're wasting my time.
	Why did I even give you so much time?
	I did it to make a point.
	That's why I did it.
	Steve in Arkansas.
	Steve, how are you?
	What can I do for you?
	Did you get a good Christmas break?
	I really did.
	I'm refreshed, energized, ready to go.
	I mean, I'm chomping at the bit here every day.
	Yeah, I pictured you recall a kickback in the Black Sea resort town, a Sochi, hanging out with Vladimir, Karate, and each other.
	What?
	Whoa, whoa, slow down.
	Slow down.
	I did not understand a single thing you said.
	Go back and start over.
	Okay, I said I pictured you hanging out in the Black Sea resort town of Sochi.
	Oh, in Russia.
	Okay.
	In Russia.
	Opening up the brand new gold-plated AK-47.
	Hanging out, Karate and Asian.
	Me and Vladimir Karate.
	I'm going to be doing a little ninja now that I've got my brown belt and street martial arts.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, first of all, let me set the record straight.
	I don't trust Vladimir Putin as far as I can throw him.
	Vladimir Putin and the Chinese and the Iranians and the North Koreans and everybody else.
	What I'm concerned about is America defending against cyber warfare that's being waged against us.
	And I've been saying it more loudly than anybody else that I know of in the public arena because I've been saying all of these instances happened and we don't do anything about it.
	And if Julian Assange, starting 10 years ago, doesn't wake us up, I don't know what will.
	So, you know what?
	I don't know.
	I don't know any conservatives that trust Putin.
	I don't know any conservatives that want America to be hacked.
	And I'm saying that's our fault that we have done nothing to fix it.
	You can't blame the hackers when we keep leaving open their ability to hack us.
	At some point, a few times shame on them.
	Now it's shame on us for not defending.
	It's a big mistake on our country's part.
	Does that make sense?
	You want to add anything else?
	Sean, we are defending.
	That's why we're expelling diplomats.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Do you have any evidence?
	Do you have any evidence?
	Because I'm waiting for the president to hand over to Congress that has been requesting for weeks and weeks and weeks the evidence that, in fact, the Russians did it.
	The 13-page report from the FBI and DHS had a major disclaimer saying, well, we can't say that any of this is true.
	They just think that there's a possibility the Russians may have been involved in giving it to WikiLeaks.
	And all I could do was ask Julian Assange if that was true.
	He said no, but I'd like to see proof.
	If you have it, do you have it?
	Yeah, like I have it, Sean.
	You think I've got it at home on my computer?
	Oh, so you don't have it?
	No, I don't have any.
	Well, neither do I.
	And apparently neither does Obama because he's never given it to us.
	Oh, really?
	Then how about just exposing it and saying this is proof positive that they hacked into the DNC to influence our elections?
	Now, as I pointed out earlier in this program, and I want to reiterate this because this is a very important point.
	If you want to know about it, since Obama's been president, hackers have gotten the U.S. electric grid.
	They have attacked the Pentagon's joint strike fighter project.
	They've hacked into NASA, the Department of Energy, the FEC networks, the U.S. Postal Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
	They have hacked into the White House.
	They've hacked into the State Department.
	They've hacked into the Department of Defense.
	They've hacked the IRS.
	They've hacked the Office of Personnel Management.
	So now I ask you, the Chinese hacked in.
	They got 23 million people private information on that we knew in 2015, not a peep out of Obama.
	So if we've known this has been going on and WikiLeaks has been around for 10 years, why haven't they fixed it?
	Didn't the federal government indict some shinies a few years ago over this OPM hack?
	Excuse me.
	I'm asking, why are we still vulnerable to hacking?
	Now, you could blame Hillary Clinton for having a secret server in a mom-and-pop shop in a bathroom closet.
	You could blame the DNC for not having a secure system themselves.
	And you can blame that dope John Podesta for falling for a stupid phishing scam.
	Sean.
	What?
	The Russians did it.
	Okay.
	All right, give me a call.
	I don't know who did it.
	No, no, no.
	Give me the proof, and I'll say, you know what?
	I didn't rush to judgment early in my career on Richard Jewell.
	I said, wait for the evidence.
	I didn't rush to judgment like the president that the Cambridge police acted stupidly.
	I didn't rush to judgment in the Ferguson case and I was proven right and everybody else was wrong.
	I didn't rush to judgment in the Freddie Gray case and I was proven right everybody else was wrong.
	I didn't rush to judgment in the Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman case.
	I was right and everybody's wrong.
	I actually wait for facts and information and I'm in the process of doing investigative work that nobody else in the media cares to do because I got my ass on a British Airways flight and I flew eight hours to London.
	I was on the ground for six hours and I flew eight hours back in a 24-hour period or a little bit more.
	What's that?
	8, 16, and 4 is 2.
	22 hours.
	In a 22-hour period.
	I flew there, did the interview, and flew back.
	And I asked questions.
	I asked every question I could think of.
	And he denies it.
	He said there's no evidence of it.
	He said he never spoke to Putin.
	He never spoke to a Putin surrogate.
	It wasn't a Russian or state source that gave him the information.
	He never spoke to Trump.
	He never spoke to a Trump surrogate.
	Did Russia give you this information or anybody associated with Russia?
	Our source is not a state party.
	So the answer for our interactions is no.
	But if we look at the most recent statement by the U.S. government, which is on the 29th of December, we had five different branches of government, Treasury, DHS, FBI, White House, presenting their accusations to underpin Obama's throwing out 35 Russian diplomats.
	What was missing from all of those statements?
	The word WikiLeaks.
	That's very strange.
	If the U.S. government is accusing WikiLeaks of having received these materials from Russia, and you say it's false, it did not come from Russia, and the President of the United States is advancing the narrative.
	Is the President of the United States lying to the American people?
	Well, he's acting like a lawyer.
	If you look at most of his statements, he doesn't say that.
	He doesn't say Wikileaks obtained its information from Russia, worked with Russia.
	He said Russia is trying to influence the U.S. election.
	Yes, so he, and you also note that he doesn't say, from the statements that I've read, he doesn't say that Russia was trying to influence the election for Donald Trump.
	So I asked all the right questions.
	Whether you believe them or not is up to you.
	I'm not telling you who to believe.
	I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, which is more than most other people in my industry are doing because they can spend 22 hours of their vacation sitting on a British Airways flight like I did.
	But they're too lazy.
	You know, I want to get to the truth.
	And I've been saying, I have been saying, what can we learn from Wikileaks?
	And I even said this to Julian Assange.
	I said, you've actually done us a favor because you have exposed we have no cybersecurity.
	Now that we know it and we don't fix it, we're making a big mistake.
	Now, WikiLeaks has been around the entire Obama presidency.
	Did we fix it in the intervening time?
	No.
	I also said, you know, even though I don't like the method by which the information was gathered, somebody hacked into the DNC, I kind of liked what was exposed because I've always known the government is corrupt.
	I've known it.
	We learned about how the media colluded with the Clinton campaign to screw you, the American voter.
	We learned about Clinton corruption and the money she got from Morocco, the money to pay for her daughter's wedding, all the money that was given in speeches, the money, the million dollars Bill Clinton got from Cutter.
	We learned how Democrats really feel about Hillary.
	We learned how they cheated Bernie Sanders and so many other examples.
	They were strategizing how to show that Obama's father was a Muslim, how Obama used cocaine.
	Those are Democrats.
	I got to take a break.
	And by the way, your password should not be password.
	That's really stupid.
	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.

▲