Sean Hannity Show - Remembering Alan Colmes - 2.23

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 24, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:43:12

Remembering Alan Colmes - 2.23

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	Okay, winner is on the way.
	And if you listen to this show, you know there's only one product that I absolutely rely on when I get a sore throat or a scratchy throat.
	And that's the delicious Pine Brothers Softish Throat Drops.
	Now, it's the only throat drop that is ranked number one in throat coating action, number one.
	And I mean, you can literally feel it, that coating of your throat with their gum acacia, their plant glycerin, and of course, the delicious natural flavors.
	Now, they're amazing.
	My favorite is wild cherry and licorice.
	I also love the honey and licorice.
	Now, I've turned a lot of people onto Pine Brothers.
	You want to know the first three things that come out of their mouth?
	One, they're delicious.
	I can feel them coat my throat, and wow, they're soft, almost like a gummy bear.
	Yeah, I know they're soft.
	That's why they're called Pine Brothers Soft-ish Throat Drops.
	Now, work with me, people.
	So this season, look, you're going to have some throat issues, and do what I do to soothe my golden throat.
	I use Pine Brothers Throat Drops.
	You will love this product.
	It's worth every penny.
	You can find Pine Brothers at CBS, Select Walmart, Target, ShopRight.
	Why?
	Because they are the best.
	Hey, everybody, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	It's Jay Seculo sitting in for my good friend Sean Hannity.
	But we've got to start this broadcast on a bit of a sad note.
	We have got a great program for you lined up today.
	We're going to talk about a lot of issues, but we cannot ignore the fact that a good friend, a great friend of Sean's, a good friend of ours at the American Center for Law and Justice, where I serve as chief counsel, passed away today, and that is Alan Combs, age 66.
	We've already shared earlier on some of our broadcasts our thoughts and prayers for Jocelyn Crowley and the entire family.
	Alan has been partners with Sean for a very long time.
	They go back a long way and they were very close.
	Sean is out today, but he's agreed to call us to talk about this.
	And I think we have to start the program, Sean, with acknowledging the fact that we've lost a great one.
	Jay, by the way, thanks for doing the show, number one.
	You're a good friend.
	You know what's amazing?
	And all these years we did this show together, do you know every single conservative friend of mine, you included, Laura Ingram included, Bill Cunningham included.
	I mean, I can't tell you the number of my friends that agree with me politically that just knew the guy that I knew together, that I worked with together, an amazing human being.
	And, you know, when we started this show, Jay, when Fox News went on the air in October 1996, nobody, I mean, nobody thought we had a shot.
	Neither one of us had a lot of TV experience.
	And every single day, you know, we were working on really just trying to hold our own and survive in those early years.
	And the amazing thing was that even though we had political disagreements, he got along with all of my friends.
	And, you know, he used to always say to me, you know, your friends always treat me better than my friends treat you.
	And maybe it was a tribute to him over me, but he was an amazing, amazing guy.
	He had a wit, a sense of humor, a quickness, and more importantly, I mean, he was...
	He was somebody that loved free speech.
	I'll tell you that.
	We had him when we're privileged to have him come down and join us at Regent University for a symposium where he was one of the guests.
	And he was just phenomenal.
	I mean, this was a guy that loved free speech and did not mind, as you said, Sean, speaking to an audience that didn't agree with him.
	And they walked away, maybe not agreeing, certainly not agreeing in most cases, but they loved the guy.
	And that was the magic of Alan.
	And he also, because he had the stand-up comedy background, I can't tell you how many times I've often said that the most difficult people to debate are comedians because they can switch on a time.
	You can think you've got him pinned up against the wall and you made all your great political points.
	And then all of a sudden, you know, he takes all of the air out of your balloon.
	And Alan would do that.
	I want to say that, you know, when we started Jay in 96, we never thought we were going to make it very long.
	And so we really collaborated and really worked hard behind the scenes together to make the show a success.
	And I know people may remember the fact that politically we disagreed, but the one thing that we always agreed on was that we wanted this show to work.
	And it really did.
	It became a huge hit.
	And we were both so very proud of that.
	And it was us working together as friends behind the scenes every day and trying to make this thing work.
	But the one thing that really stands out about Alan, you know how the political atmosphere is in the country right now.
	And he, you know what?
	The mics would go off.
	He believed everything he said.
	When he wrote in his book, it drove me crazy, absolutely insane.
	But he believed it.
	And we argue, and we'd argue, and we'd argue.
	And then after the show, we were discussing how we can do a better show the next day.
	And we were discussing.
	I'll tell you one other thing.
	You know, without devoting everything that I've known for a while, when he first was dying of his illness and he had a big fight ahead of him, and we actually were very hopeful that things would turn around for him.
	He said to me, he goes, you know, this is easy for me.
	I'm just worried about my wife.
	I don't want her to worry.
	I don't want her to be upset.
	And that kind of captures the Alan that I knew.
	Always thinking about somebody else.
	He was the most generous human being, the nicest guy to ever work with.
	If you've got to work with somebody that you don't agree with politically, he was the guy.
	And I was very honored all these years to work with him.
	I know people thought because we disagreed politically, we never got along.
	And that was never true.
	And I just have such a deep respect for him.
	It's a really tough day.
	I got like a hole in my heart.
	I talked to Monica Crowley, his sister-in-law, and she's heartbroken.
	His poor wife is devastated.
	They're both wonderful people.
	They did so much for him, and he did so much for them.
	And I'm very, very impressed with every, it really was a tribute to Alan to hear from every single major conservative that ever went on our show today how much they liked him and how much, even though they disagreed, what a good guy.
	What a great person.
	What a fun person to be around.
	And so it's a tough day.
	It's, you know, I deal with everything.
	The one thing I've always had the most difficulty dealing with is death.
	And, you know, I was hoping this day would never come.
	I was hoping for a miracle.
	And I can tell you this, he went out fighting.
	He went out with great courage.
	And even in his toughest, latest moments in life, he was thinking about everybody else but himself.
	And that's the guy that he was.
	Well, as you said, Sean, he's a great one.
	I spent a lot of time with him on your program for so many years, but also, as I said, we've had him in a number of events where he spoke in debates and programs.
	And even at the dinner table with students, usually I would have students from Regent University around him.
	And he was so engaging, so warm.
	People loved him.
	And we will not forget, and we will pray for and continue to pray for his family.
	And he had a wicked sense of humor.
	Yes.
	He was a sandbox.
	Wicked sense of timing.
	And he had a way of deflating tense moments with that sense of humor.
	And that made him, you know, we used to always say, Dallin's the lovable liberal.
	And he loved being called that because he felt should be compassionate.
	He lived out that life in his personal life.
	And so I have great admiration for him.
	I have a hole in my heart today.
	My prayers are so with his wife and Craig Browley.
	You know, they're devastated.
	They lost a husband, a brother-in-law.
	And we lost their friend.
	And I was very proud, very honored, and I feel very blessed to have had the opportunity to work with him because it was a collaboration.
	And we achieved more success than we ever dreamed of.
	When we beat Larry King and we became number one in that time slot.
	That was a big day.
	Yeah, well, and then we sustained it.
	And even when he moved on, by the way, even when he moved on, the sense of humor comes out.
	Well, I elected Obama.
	I did my job.
	Luck with that.
	That's what he said to me on air.
	Well, he was a true believer, that's for sure.
	He gave me the copy of the Communist Manifesto.
	That's Sol Allen, you know?
	Yeah, right.
	Well, he was a true believer.
	I mean, he believed what he said.
	He wasn't pretending.
	That was who he was.
	I think that was one of the real reasons for the success of the show.
	I mean, I think my audience knows, you know, me for a long time.
	You believe everything you say.
	I believe everything I say.
	And he believed everything he said.
	But he had an ability to turn it off.
	He had an ability to, he had the human side of him.
	He wasn't like these crazy people in the streets and marching and trying to silence conservatives.
	The one thing, you mentioned freedom of speech.
	The one thing we always, always, always agreed on was free speech issues.
	Because we both knew we made our living with freedom of speech.
	It didn't matter if it was politically incorrect, if it was controversial, it was over the top.
	He was the staunchest defender.
	And he didn't like, I can tell you this, he didn't like when conservatives were shut down on college campuses.
	He didn't like that his side was doing that.
	He felt it was a kind of liberal fascism.
	And he felt like, well, hear these people out.
	Let's have the debate.
	Let's make it free, open, fair debate and a dialogue, discussion, an exchange of ideas and principles.
	And I admire him for that, too.
	Jay, he died too young.
	I mean, he's such a young man.
	He had so much life in him.
	And that's the hard part.
	You know, if somebody's 90, 95, you get it.
	You understand.
	They've had a full life.
	And he was so full of life.
	The one other thing I want to add, he loved a microphone.
	And for his radio audience, and I know we share some audience, he loved every single solitary moment he spent on the air.
	It was his passion.
	It was his vocation.
	It was his hobby.
	It was his life.
	Even when he was really sick, and I would see him, He still was, he was, he was pushing through and doing his radio show.
	And I'm like, what are you doing here?
	I used to, you know, I'd argue with him about that.
	I'd say, you need to be resting.
	You need to be taking care of yourself.
	And he couldn't pull himself away from the microphone because he loved it.
	And he loved his audience.
	And he loved what he was doing.
	And he loved life.
	So, you know, just because we have disagreements sometimes, I can really see the good in a person.
	And he represented everything that I would want, you know, if going to live true to their ideology and their principles.
	This to me, you know, he embodied that.
	And we lost a dear friend today, Jay.
	We sure did.
	And a liberal in the classic sense, and the party that is now operating and the liberals that are now operating did not have the convictions of Alan Combs on free speech, that's for sure, and free discourse, as you said.
	He was a protector of it.
	He wanted to hear both sides.
	He'd argue.
	He'd argue intensely, but he would listen also.
	And that was, he'll be missed.
	And again, thoughts and prayers for his family.
	And Sean, thanks for taking time out today.
	And then thank you for giving me the time and our thoughts and prayers, really especially for his wife, Jocelyn, and Monica and the rest of his family.
	And they're having a tough day.
	Yeah.
	Our thoughts and prayers will continue for them.
	All right.
	Thanks, Sean.
	Appreciate it very much.
	All right, we've got a lot more ahead.
	Let me tell you what we're going to get into.
	And again, I'm Jay Sekula, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
	You can find out more about what I do at aclj.org.
	I'm not normally hosting Sean Hannity's radio broadcast.
	Normally, I am spending my time at the Supreme Court or other courts around the country.
	But I've been a frequent guest on this broadcast, so it is great to be with you.
	I want to get into, when we come back from the break, the potential Democratic head, the DNC chair for the Democrats, a former Farrakhan member, could be the literal chair of the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison.
	I'll give you a little expose and a little background on him when we come back from this break, because, folks, you're going to want to know a lot about this.
	And again, if you want to talk to us, it's 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	We'll be back with more, including your comments in a moment.
	Didn't the IRS scandal and the NSA atrocities convince you you need a watchdog on Washington with insider sources?
	All right, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
	And what's changed?
	Just a pillow.
	It's had such a positive impact on my life.
	And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
	I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer, and now you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
	Now, you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two GoAnywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity, to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	Love this pillow.
	Welcome back to the Sean Hannity program, everyone.
	This is Jay Seculo.
	I am guest hosting today for Sean.
	I'm the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
	I've been on this program a lot as a guest.
	Glad to be co-guest hosting today for Sean.
	We'll be taking some of your calls at 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	You can find out more about what I do at aclj.org.
	So we've got a Democratic congressman calling for the impeachment and impeachment investigations to begin on President Trump.
	Well, that's not shocking that a Democratic member of Congress would already start 32 days into administration calling for the impeachment of the president.
	There's one issue here, though.
	This particular congressman, Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, is running to be the chairman of the DNC, the Democratic National Committee.
	They are going to be voting in Atlanta this weekend.
	And right now, according to a lot of sources, he is the leading candidate to be the DNC chair.
	Keith Ellison is a congressman.
	He is an anti-Semite.
	He was a devotee of Louis Farrakhan.
	He's also called for the impeachment of the president.
	Take a listen to this.
	This is Keith Ellison talking about impeachment.
	I think that Donald Trump has already done a number of things which legitimately raised the question of impeachment.
	32 days into the administration, and it already raises levels of impeachment, which, by the way, under the Constitution, to impeach someone, high crimes and misdemeanors, that's basically how it works.
	They don't like his policies.
	You don't get to call for impeachment.
	That's number one.
	Number two, he's got, look, Keith Ellison has a long history and a long history of anti-Semitism.
	I'm going to start with, though, the fact that his initial conversion to Islam, it's a free country, you can believe in whatever religion you want, was under Louis Farrakhan.
	That's one of the leaders, the leader of the nation of Islam.
	Here is some sound from a conference, the Nation of Islam, with Keith Ellison giving the famous Muslim chant of Ala Akbar.
	Yeah, well, there you go.
	That's.
	That's Keith Ellison.
	Ala Akbar could be the chairman of the DNC.
	He also, and I'm going to play this a little bit later, he also has made direct statements about Jews.
	In fact, one of the things he said, and I'll talk about this more with our next guest, who's going to be Jordan Sekulu, who's our executive director at the ACLJ and has studied Keith Ellison for a long time.
	This is a guy that says, why should foreign policy be dictated by a country of 7 million people and their diaspora?
	That, of course, is Israel.
	That's who he's talking about there.
	So he's making no bones about it.
	He's not hiding it.
	This is an anti-Semite.
	He's anti-Israel.
	He's anti-Semitic, which is the irony of this is you got an anti-Semite that may now end up being the head of the DNC.
	When yesterday, the Vice President of the United States, what was he doing?
	Cleaning up graves that were desecrated, Jewish graves that were desecrated by anti-Semites.
	Interesting time we live in.
	All right, we're going to be back with more, including your comments.
	Jordan Sekula will be joining us next.
	Back with more in a minute.
	Stay in touch with the Hannity faithful.
	Join the message board at Hannity.com.
	Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Program.
	This is Jay Seculo.
	I am guest hosting today for Sean.
	I'm Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
	Always love being a guest on Sean's program, and it's great to be able to host while he's out today.
	If you want to get more information about what I do, go to aclj.org.
	That's the American Center for Law and Justice, where I've served as chief counsel.
	We've got a great program lined up for you.
	We've already had a good discussion.
	Again, our condolences to Alan Combs' family and the passing of Alan.
	Much too young and a great defender of free speech and a great friend of Sean's and ours, I might say.
	Let me say this: we are concerned that you've got a Democratic National Committee chairman possible.
	Looks like the leading contender right now, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison.
	He is anti-Semitic, and that's being kind.
	That's an understatement.
	This is someone that has had a relationship with Louis Farrakhan.
	He is someone that has even deeper ties than that within the Islamic world.
	And again, it's free country.
	Believe whatever religion you want.
	You could serve in office.
	We don't have a religious test in our Constitution, but you need to know where people stand.
	Right now in the studio with me is Jordan Seculo.
	He's the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, but also someone that has, as a lawyer, has studied Keith Ellison.
	And there's some interesting things you know.
	Now, this is someone that's going to be, could be, and is the leading candidate right now, could be decided this weekend to be the leader of the Democratic National Committee.
	This is a big position with a lot of influence.
	But, Jordan, let's talk about who is Keith Ellison.
	Keith Ellison is one of the top two contenders to be DNC chair.
	So it's either him or Tom Perez, who was the former labor secretary under President Obama.
	We will know this weekend.
	447 Democrat National Committee members will select their new chairman.
	So either way, he will finish probably one or two.
	He's going to be someone with a lot of influence in the Democratic Party over the next few years.
	So he entered Congress in 2007.
	He was elected in 2006.
	His controversy started back when he was in law school as a defender of the Nation of Islam.
	And Louis Farrakhan actually worked to organize events for Louis Farrakhan.
	He converted.
	He was a convert to Islam.
	He was a nominal Catholic before that.
	And no problem there.
	He has the right to convert to whatever religion he chooses or not.
	But then the issues start right when he's in law school.
	He doesn't distance himself from Farrakhan.
	In fact, he is.
	Who is a known anti-Semite who spoke publicly about in a very derogatory way against the Jewish community.
	And Ellison's writings, Keith Ellison's writing, the leading candidate to be the chair of the Democrat National Committee, the head Democrat.
	In his writings on Farrakhan that started while he was in law school, he was defending Farrakhan as not being racist, as not being anti-Semitic, while he was spewing some of the worst rhetoric of the time.
	And that was back, again, a couple of decades ago.
	He did not distance himself from the Nation of Islam until he ran for the United States Congress.
	Now, and the controversy doesn't stop when he runs for Congress because what happens when he runs for Congress is he ends up getting investigated.
	Why does he get investigated?
	He gets investigated because he started engaging in activities with Saudi Arabia and others that raise serious concern.
	That's right.
	So he makes a 2008 trip.
	This is just a year after being in office.
	So he hasn't been up for re-election again yet at this point.
	He makes a 2008 trip to Saudi Arabia, which is paid for and organized by the Muslim American Society.
	Now, you can see photos of his trip and of the individuals I'm about to tell you that he met with because the Muslim American Society's chapter in Minnesota posted the photo.
	So none of this is hearsay.
	This is real evidence.
	This is congressional investigation.
	So first he meets with Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayay.
	Important because in 2004, that sheikh from Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa calling for jihad and the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq.
	So he is sitting down on the side with that sheikh as a member of the U.S. Congress.
	And the Sheikh is calling for the destruction of American troops and American civilians.
	Killing American troops in Iraq.
	But that's not all.
	He also met with Dr. Ahmed Mohammed Ali.
	Now, this guy, very interesting, president of the Islamic Development Bank.
	This bank established in 2000 the Al-Quds Intifada Fund and the Al-Aqsa Fund.
	What does it do?
	Provide money to Palestinian terrorist families who are killed, including suicide bombers, by Israelis after they carry out their terrorist attacks.
	So everybody needs to understand what happens here.
	The individuals that engage in terrorism, especially coming out of the Palestinian areas or Palestinian terrorists, are actually paid money by various pro-Palestinian leading organizations, including these banks in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
	You've got a member of the United States Congress who may well end up becoming the chair of the Democratic National Committee.
	I mean, this is Keith Ellison, is right now in the lead.
	If the vote was today, he probably would win.
	It may take a ballot or two, but he would probably win it.
	He has the support, from what I understand, of President Obama in this, although the president tries to stay neutral, but this is clearly an outgrowth of President Obama of where he'd like to be.
	And as a member of the United States Congress, and this is what the audience needs to understand, as a member of the United States Congress, he sits down with bankers who are funding and giving rewards to terrorists.
	To suicide bombers, and specifically the president of the bank, not just bankers, but the president of the Islamic Development Bank.
	You know, that fund, when it was started in 2000, which was during the first Intifada, the first uprising by Palestinians against Israelis' acts of terror, the fund started, this just tells you about the money being tossed around in that Islamic part of the world in this terror world.
	Started with $200 million to give out to families of terrorists.
	So that's how they recruit these people who are in bad economic situations to send their kids off to be suicide bombers.
	So you've got a member of the United States Congress sitting down with a bank that funds suicide bombers while he's a member of the United States Congress.
	At the very same time, you've got statements that he made that are not only inflammatory.
	By the way, they're not just, you know, Farrakhan and that ilk are not just anti-Semitic.
	They are anti-American.
	They're anti-Our values.
	But listen to this sound.
	This is, again, about 9-11.
	And the speaker here is the potential chair of the DNC.
	That is Keith Ellis.
	But for 9-11, I mean, you had it, but you didn't have it to the degree that we have it now.
	9-11 is this juggernaut event in American history.
	And it allows, I mean, it's almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire kind of reminds me of that.
	Does anybody know what I'm talking about?
	Who benefited from 9-11?
	Well, I mean, you know, you and I both know.
	But the thing is, is that, you know, after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it, and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.
	So this is a guy that may be chairing that's one of the largest parties in the United States.
	Now, you know, Republicans, conservatives will say, well, you know, that's where they want to go.
	Let them go there.
	This is not good for the country, though, that you've got a major political party in the United States that thinks that this may be a good way to lead the country down the road.
	You heard the comments in there, by the way.
	Who do you blame?
	And the audience member said the Jews and who benefited.
	Yeah.
	Does he distance himself from it?
	No.
	He's never really distanced himself from this because this is his worldview.
	This is really how he thinks.
	This is the way in which he engages.
	So, Jordan, you look at this guy and you see the nature of what he's saying, and yet he is the leading candidate to chair a major political party in the United States, one of the two largest, the Democrats or the Republicans.
	He's the Democrat.
	He's a 9-11 truther.
	He's anti-Israel.
	I mean, he's still part of this area.
	Bush is responsible for 9-11, and this was just a reason why.
	I mean, comparing it to Hitler and the Reichstag.
	But he was congressionally investigated because, of course, as typical with Islamists, he didn't disclose the trip's cost to Congress, which these congressmen have to do.
	Now, it ended up he was forced to disclose that he received this trip cost over $13,000.
	It came from the Muslim Brotherhood founded, and they make no calms about this.
	And the United States still lists the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, certainly the aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood that's involved in Hamas, which is their military wing.
	That's right.
	And so, the Muslim American Society, which is founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, they paid for his trip.
	He gets congressionally investigated.
	They post photos of it.
	It's why we know all this about Keith Ellison.
	We're not having to figure this out.
	He's telling us.
	He's showing us in photos.
	He's meeting with the terrorists.
	He's meeting with the terrorist religious leaders in Saudi Arabia.
	He is then spewing the rhetoric of Islamic, kind of leftist Islamic rhetoric.
	What's unfortunate is he's got the endorsement of Senator Schumer, who is the Senate minority leader, the top Democrat in the United States Senate, who is Jewish and a very strong supporter of Israel, actually, is supporting Keith Ellison for DNC chair.
	I mean, it's one thing to have Bernie Sanders support for him, but another that Chuck Schumer is still, to this day, even with calling for this impeachment 30 days into Trump's presidency, that Chuck Schumer, who should be shamed into backing off this endorsement.
	Yeah, he really should be, but he's not.
	And let me tell you, the words, I like presenting evidence.
	When I'm in court, that's what I do.
	I present evidence.
	So I'm laying out some evidence for you.
	Let me lay out another piece of evidence here.
	This is a flashback to a 2010 speech of Congressman Ellison.
	Now, this is, again, let me kind of set this up for you.
	He is blaming a group of people on foreign policy issues, and that we're taking basically the wrong side.
	But listen to what he says, and I'm going to break it down for you.
	Here's what he said: the United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people.
	A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million.
	Does that make sense?
	No.
	Is that logic?
	No.
	Yeah, well, actually, it is logic, and it does make sense.
	It's logic because the country he doesn't name, but that he's talking about is Israel, a country of 7 million people, surrounded by the entire Muslim world of 350 million people.
	And he doesn't like the fact that the United States foreign policy is in sync with the state of Israel because, let's face it, it's the only democracy in the Middle East.
	Doesn't mean we, by the way, we don't have other allies in the region.
	We do the United States.
	So does Israel, Egypt, Jordan.
	There are a number of the Arabs, the Gulf states, that have very close relationships with the United States and with Israel.
	But the point is here: this individual, Keith Ellison, to be possible, looks like the leading candidate to be the chair of the DNC, has these views.
	This is the way he thinks.
	This is the way his mind works.
	And this is going to be the person leading a party.
	And that's what you've got to be thinking about here.
	One of the two major political parties in America.
	And though, if you're a Republican or a conservative out there and you think, that's great, because I don't think the Democrats are going to do very well with him as their leader.
	Remember, when you have a Republican president, the RNC chair is not quite as in the forefront on the news, not as much in the media, because the president is really the head of the party.
	President Trump is right now.
	But there is an RNC chair.
	There's actually this don't get as much attention.
	When Keith Ellison now is going to be, could be the leader of the Democrat Party.
	That means nationally, so anytime issues come up, he would be their spokesperson for all Democrats.
	I think if you're a Democrat out there, this is very concerning.
	Only 474, basically their superdelegates, get to vote, 447 this weekend.
	But he, again, I think win or lose, he's coming in first or second place.
	He's going to have, this is the trend of Democrats right now.
	Now, we've always warned about this move between Islamist and leftist.
	It makes no sense because Islamists are so against LGBT rights.
	They don't let women drive cars.
	I mean, they are anti-Semitic.
	They are, in a sense, they're racist, sexist, homophobic, everything the left doesn't like.
	They don't like free speech.
	They don't even like democracy or elected.
	Not even a word in their language.
	No, they believe democracy is evil.
	And yet we've seen this alliance between Islamist and the left.
	And I think Keith Ellison is the merger of that as one of their representatives on Capitol Hill.
	Yeah, I think what you've got to realize here, folks, is that this is a serious situation for the United States.
	And we may say, yeah, politically, let them do this.
	But the fact that a large part of the country is going in this direction should send shockwaves to the American people.
	That's why defending free speech is so important, because these are groups that want to shut down speech.
	They don't want you talking about this.
	They don't want the truth of a Keith Ellison coming out.
	That's why I'm so glad that Sean's on the air every day talking about this, because this is the reality of what we live in in our country right now.
	Is it very divided?
	Yes.
	But there used to be a unifying force, and that unifying force was free speech.
	That seems to be what's in jeopardy the most in all of this.
	I've spent 30 years in the Supreme Court of the United States arguing free speech cases.
	I will tell you that we are in a season of life for our country where free speech is in peril.
	And you look at a situation like this, where you end up with someone like Keith Ellison, and you say to yourself, this is not the way the country is supposed to be.
	All right.
	Thank you, Jordan, very much for that.
	We've got a lot more ahead.
	I'm going to talk about the shadow government when we come back from a break here.
	What do you mean by the shadow government?
	You know, when they're talking about intelligence leaks, we're talking about information getting out.
	We're talking about internal bureaucrats entrenched.
	You know what we're talking about?
	We're talking about a shadow government.
	We're going to get in-depth on that coming up.
	That includes, by the way, inside our intelligence agencies, which makes it even worse.
	All right, we're going to take more of your calls or more of your comments when we come back as well.
	1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean Hannity.
	with more in just a moment in a sea of government lies he's the beacon of truth This is The Sean Hannity Show.
	Hey, everybody.
	Welcome back to The Sean Hannity Program.
	It's Jay Seculo.
	I am sitting in today for Sean.
	I'm Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
	That's a law firm that engages in cases all over the country.
	I do a lot of work at the Supreme Court of the United States.
	I also host a radio broadcast at 12 o'clock noon Eastern Time, the Jay Seculo show.
	But I am thrilled to be sitting in for Sean.
	Coming up, I'm going to talk with Professor Harry Hutchison.
	Professor Hutchinson's the director of policy at the American Center for Law and Justice, also a law professor, was with George Mason University, now with Regent.
	But let me just tell you something.
	We're going to talk about the shadow government.
	It's getting a lot of news now.
	Talked about this last week when I was on with Sean, and that is when you look at these leaks that are coming out and you look at the difficulties the administration in the sense of kind of silencing these leaks.
	Whatever you thought about whether Michael Flynn, General Flynn, should have been the NSA director or not.
	The fact of the matter is this: there were leaks by the intelligence agencies.
	We're not supposed to do that in the United States of America.
	We're going to talk about this shadow government.
	Hey, if you're enjoying the music, by the way, that's the Jay Seculo band.
	I got to give a plank to a little plug to the bandmates there.
	We have a Facebook page, Jay Seculo Band.
	I've got a Facebook page as well, Jay Seculo.
	When we come back, I'll be joined by Professor Hutchinson.
	We're going to talk about what is serious: the shadow government, the bureaucrats entrenched inside even the current agencies.
	We'll talk about that when we come back from the break.
	We'll take more of your calls as well.
	We'll be back in a moment.
	Hey, welcome back, everybody, to the Sean Hannity program.
	This is Jay Seculo.
	I am guest hosting for Sean.
	We're taking calls at 1-800-941.
	Sean, that's 1-800-941-7326.
	I'm the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
	That's a law firm.
	I do a lot of work at the Supreme Court of the United States, litigating all over the country.
	I host a program also at noon Eastern Time called the Jay Seculo Show.
	And I will tell you that I want to start this off by acknowledging something very important and very important to Sean, very important to our team as well, and that is the passing of Fox News Channel's Alan Combs.
	We had Sean on earlier.
	And look, Alan Combs was a friend of mine, a very close friend and partner with Sean Hannity for many, many years.
	Of course, when it started, Hannity and Combs, they first launched on the Fox News channel.
	I've been on that program many times and had the privilege of getting to know Alan in a couple of different venues, including speaking at an event that I sponsored and hosted at Regent University School of Law.
	And he was not only gracious, but he was someone that understood free speech and the importance of civil discourse.
	I do want to take a call.
	We are going to take more calls as well at 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	Again, it's Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean today.
	Let me go to Randy from Colorado Springs, Colorado, who wants to talk a little bit about Alan.
	Then I'm going to be joined by Professor Harry Hutchison in just a moment.
	Randy, go ahead.
	Jay, hi, nice to talk to you.
	You too.
	I've been a talk radio junkie for probably 30 years.
	And the first time I heard Alan's voice, I was traveling in Portland.
	And I thought, geez, you know, I don't really agree with what the guy has to say, but I sure like the way he said it.
	Yeah.
	This was a guy who loved free speech and a guy that was true to his convictions.
	He was liberal in the classic sense of the word.
	And while we disagreed on a lot of issues, and I know Sean did as well, they were very close friends.
	I was a good friend of Alan's.
	And let me tell you, our thoughts and prayer really go out to Jocelyn, his wife, Monica Crowley, his sister-in-law, and the entire family at this untimely passing of a good friend and a great broadcaster.
	I wish you heard it.
	I've never called talk radio before, but this has.
	We appreciate it.
	And like I said, we lost a great one with Alan Combs.
	All right, folks, there is something that we have been concerned with in my work in the legal arena, and that is this issue of what we're calling the shadow government.
	You look at the situation with Mike Flynn and the leak of intelligence gathering.
	I look at headlines today.
	We started talking about this on Sean's program last week.
	I look at headlines.
	Obama's shadow government is organizing to undermine Trump.
	Now the Democrats call Obama's shadow government a problem.
	And that's because where normally presidents go away quietly, do their presidential libraries.
	President Obama took his Obama for America organization, converted it to Organization for Action.
	That's what he's doing now.
	And that OFA is basically got entrenched bureaucrats.
	We now find out that a law firm has been basically established by former DOJ and White House counsels of President Obama to challenge everything that Donald Trump does.
	I wrote a book called Undemocratic, where I talked about unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats taking our liberties one agency at a time.
	And this is an entrenched part of the problem.
	And this is what even a president, as strong as Donald Trump, is confronting the entrenched bureaucracy and what we call this shadow government.
	Joining me right now is our director of policy at the American Center for Law and Justice and Professor of Law, Professor Harry Hutchinson.
	Harry, thanks for being with us.
	Let's define for our audience here: when we talk about shadow government, when we're talking about undermining, we see leaks coming out of intelligence agency.
	By the way, I'm going to be joined a little bit later with someone working for the CIA and is concerned about this very issue of leaks and intentional sabotage against the president.
	We'll talk about that coming up, but let's define terms first.
	We're talking about a shadow government.
	What are we talking about in the perfect term?
	That's a very good question, Jay.
	And thanks for the opportunity.
	We should note that a shadow government represents an ever-expanding, ever-ramifying network of individuals who wish to wield power secretly.
	In many instances, they appear to be invisible.
	The term shadow government, the term shadow government, arose initially because of a parliamentary system of government.
	In England.
	In England, they created what is called a shadow cabinet.
	So you'd have a foreign minister, and then you'd have a shadow foreign minister, and you'd have a Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would be like our Secretary of the Treasury.
	And they would operate independently.
	But here, Harry, these are individuals that were in lockstep with the Obama administration for eight years, inside these bureaucracies, deep, career employees, many of them, and they are the ones that are now causing this internal problem, this internal shadow government.
	Absolutely.
	They are also leaking information with the connivance of willing members of the press at CNN, at NBC, and at other networks who are spreading either misinformation or classified information which violates U.S. law.
	Yeah, you know, I don't want to talk about the law here for a moment, folks, because what got lost in the whole General Flynn situation was that there was a violation of federal law when that intelligence information was leaked.
	Now, think about this.
	Why in the world would an intelligence agency leak information?
	Well, they're trying to harm the person that is taking a position contrary to them.
	Who is that?
	In this particular case, they don't like the policies of President Trump.
	Now, take it a step further.
	The National Security Agency, the NSA, had in place since Ronald Reagan, when SIG Intel, signature Intel, that is like the phone taps, wiretaps, that information would come in.
	The raw intelligence would go to the NSA.
	They would decide where it would go.
	With 17 days left in President Obama's administration, 17 days left.
	He changes the rules, signed off by James Clapper, and then Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, on January 3rd, 2017, 17 days left to go, and decides that now 16 agencies can get this raw data.
	So now go find the leak.
	And ask yourself this question.
	Why in the world did they wait?
	Why in the world did they wait until there were 17 days left in their administration?
	If this was so important to share this intelligence information with these other agencies, giving more individuals access to it.
	But for eight years during their administration, they didn't want to do that, but they did that with an incoming president.
	You know what that is?
	Sabotage.
	That is a soft coup attempt.
	That is a shadow government being empowered.
	Absolutely.
	And so essentially, the Obama administration did not want to live under these new rules.
	On the other hand, they wanted to expand the network of people who would receive classified information pursuant to their own request, and then they could use that information to subvert the Trump administration and, to some extent, protect the Obama legacy.
	So I want to talk about the Obama legacy issue here quickly, Harry, and that is this.
	Normally, presidents go away.
	They do their library.
	They do humanitarian efforts, whatever it might be.
	Here, you've got a president that's sending out tweets, former president, sending out tweets, encouraging protests in the streets.
	And a lot of these protests, by the way, you're seeing at the Republican town halls, these are put-up.
	These are paid protesters or activists that these aren't people that are voting for these members of the United States Senate or have ever voted for the members of the United States Senate.
	This is the put-up.
	Okay, it's a free country.
	Say whatever you want to say.
	But when you look at the situation as it exists with this legacy attempt to protect, this president, former president, President Obama, former President Obama, is not going away quietly.
	Absolutely.
	So number one, he decided to set up residence in Washington, D.C. Second, he set up a new foundation, which he claims will be a startup citizenship foundation.
	Third, he initiated a partnership with Eric Holder, and this partnership is designed to create another political action committee.
	So when you have the new executive order that's rolled out next week on immigration, Eric Holder, and that's the former Attorney General of the United States, is going to be filing lawsuits or assisting in the filing of lawsuits with this whole cabal of groups.
	Listen, it's a free country, file lawsuits.
	But you need to understand, everybody needs to understand exactly what's going on here.
	These are bureaucrats that I always say it this way.
	You got to resist, you got to reform, and you got to revolutionize.
	And the revolutionary aspect of this is you've got to change these agencies because right now, firing these bureaucrats is almost, it's like they get life tenure, Harry.
	Notwithstanding the difficulty, I believe the Trump administration needs to launch an affirmative effort, a root and branch effort to remove many of these Obama loyalists, particularly from mid-level positions in the bureaucracy.
	And if he doesn't move quickly on this, this will impair or impede his agenda going forward.
	You know, I litigated that IRS case and that targeting that went on in conservative organizations.
	And, you know, everybody was looking at Lois Lerner, and she was certainly guilty of her involvement.
	But it went much higher and much deeper.
	And we found that out in the litigation where we ultimately won.
	But you need to understand that this is an entrenched bureaucratic machine.
	When we come back in a little bit, I'm going to be joined a little bit later in the program with a former CIA operative who's going to tell you, a Democrat, by the way, who's going to tell you how concerned he is about what is taking place right now in these intelligence agencies, how difficult this is.
	And coming up after this break, I'm going to be joined by Colonel Wes Smith.
	He handled classified information.
	We're going to talk about that as well.
	This is Jay Seculo.
	I'm sitting in for my friend Sean Hannity.
	I'm going to take some more calls when we come back as well.
	And again, our thoughts and prayers, condolences to the family of our friend Alan Combs.
	And again, if you want to talk to us, 1-800-941-Sean, that's 1-800-941-7326.
	It's Jay Seculo.
	be back with more in a moment.
	He's got solutions.
	America listens to The Sean Hannity Show.
	Welcome back to The Sean Hannity Show.
	This is Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean.
	I'm Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
	If you like that music, that is the Jay Seculo band.
	Most people do not know that in addition to being a Supreme Court lawyer, I'm a drummer and occasional guitarist.
	There you have it.
	Enough of the selfish plugs here.
	All right, here's what we're going to do.
	I want to talk about, we've been talking about the shadow government with Harry Hutchison.
	I want to talk about, we've got an executive order that's probably coming out Monday or Tuesday on the asylum immigration issue.
	We've been working on it.
	We believe the Ninth Circuit was wrong.
	But I'm going to tell you something.
	We are joined right now in the studio by our senior military analyst, Colonel Wes Smith.
	Colonel Smith, by the way, was the presiding officer when the remains of Ambassador Stevens were returned to the United States.
	There's a famous picture of Colonel Smith between the president, President Obama, the Secretary of State, as he offered a prayer for Ambassador Stevens.
	So this is someone that knows government knows material.
	But I want to, you know, Wes, there's one thing that, you know, we talk about this Ninth Circuit case and the district court judge, and I've argued in the Ninth Circuit, it's, you know, it is a court that if you win there, you're going to lose at the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Let me just put it generally that way.
	I mean, I think I've had one case out on the Ninth Circuit that I won at the Ninth Circuit and actually won it, the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Won.
	That's rare.
	But you talk about classified information, but you talk about information not getting out.
	There have been, and this judge in this case involving the initial immigration order, and by the way, Washington State, they're all going to file a lawsuit again, even though the president's order, I believe, is going to be airtight.
	I believe the Ninth Circuit was wrong this last time, but this is going to be airtight.
	But you talk about what's happened in the United States with prosecutions of ISIS from these countries of concern, which, by the way, this judge said there were no incidents.
	The judge was absolutely wrong.
	Yes, he was.
	Whenever he asked Michelle Bennett, who was one of the lawyers for the Department of Justice, how many citizens of these seven Muslim-majority countries have been arrested on domestic terrorism charges since 9-11, she said she didn't know.
	And his response was, well, I do know, and I can tell you it was zero.
	Yeah, he said it was zero because he read it in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
	Yeah, that was his evidence.
	Go ahead.
	But in fact, 72 people from those seven countries, according to the AP and other sources, have been arrested since 9-11 on terrorism charges, 72 of them.
	So, you know, I deal with courts.
	I deal with evidence.
	The government did not do a great job on that hearing, let's be honest.
	I've been critical of the performance of the Department of Justice.
	That was before our friend Jeff Sessions became the Attorney General of the United States.
	A different world now.
	And I believe as this case goes, as the order comes out and the case goes forward, we're going to see a very different response here from the Justice Department.
	I have no doubt about this.
	And we will win this.
	It may take it going all the way to the Supreme Court to win it because I still think the Ninth Circuit could easily get it wrong because they generally get, like I said, everything wrong.
	But, Wes, you were a colonel in the Army, and you served in the Middle East, and you've served, and you've handled classified information.
	These leaks that are going out right now, which I'm concerned, the president's supposed to get a report from the generals about their plan to eliminate ISIS.
	The president, President Trump said he's going to do it.
	I believe he's going to.
	But there are going to be those inside the Department of Defense, the State Department, that are going to be opposing this.
	This classified information mishandling that's going on, if you were to do it, and when you were on active duty as a colonel in the United States Army, what would happen to you?
	I would go to prison.
	Absolutely.
	I handled classified information, and we were read the Riot Act about the proper way to handle it.
	And it is illegal, and those kinds of leaks are against federal law.
	And in all seriousness, people in the military that have done this, they go to prison.
	So when you're looking, the president's going to get this report about how to deal with ISIS, how to deal with this Islamic threat that we're dealing with in a group called ISIS.
	There are going to be people inside the agencies that are entrenched that are not going to like the way the fact that the president calls it radical Islamic terrorism.
	You have to be concerned.
	I am as an American and as a lawyer, I'm concerned.
	And you, as a former military officer, have to be concerned that there will be those inside these agencies trying to undermine exactly what the president is trying to do here.
	Right, right.
	And it is really alarming because it becomes a real threat to national security when these kinds of things are compromised.
	And it undermines what we're doing as far as keeping the nation secure.
	So that was my last question because we're going to a break.
	The nation's security is at stake here, both with the executive order and with the president's plan when he gets it from the generals on ISIS.
	Our nation's security is at stake.
	Absolutely.
	That's the bottom line.
	It was famously said at the Supreme Court of the United States that the Constitution, folks, is not a suicide pack.
	We need to operate under that understanding.
	I'm Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean Hannity.
	We're going to be taking some calls.
	We've got Doug Schoen coming up, also a former CIA operative that is as concerned as we are about what is developing right now.
	And this is, folks, look, these leaks are undercutting our constitutional republic.
	And all I'm doing today is laying out this evidence for you so you understand exactly what we're facing as a country.
	That's 1-800-941-Sean.
	I'm Jay Seculo.
	Back with more in just a moment.
	Breaking news straight from the source.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
	It's Jay Seculo, guest hosting for Sean.
	We'll take calls at 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	You can follow Sean on Twitter at Sean Hannity.
	You can follow me at Twitter at Jay Seculo.
	And you could like the band page.
	If you like the music you're hearing, so some of these breaks, it's Jay Seculo Band.
	We have a Facebook page, and we sometimes broadcast live on Facebook our concerts and jam sessions.
	So we encourage you to do that and follow the ACLJ as well.
	I've got a page, Jay Seculo at Facebook, and so does the American Center for Law and Justice.
	And Jordan, who was on earlier, also has a page.
	Well, we've talked about this shadow government.
	We've talked about concerns about leak.
	I read a fascinating piece up at Fox News yesterday.
	And this is by Brian Dean Wright, former CIA operative officer, member of the Democratic Party.
	He says, I'm a Democrat, an ex-CIA, but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control.
	He says, over the past few months, America has lurched from partisan warfare to the cliffs of what, this is what Brian says, is an existential crisis.
	Joining us on the Sean Hannity program is Brian Dean Wright, author of this article.
	Brian, thanks for being with us.
	Absolute pleasure to be here.
	Let me ask you about this.
	Former CIA operations officer, you're a registered Democrat.
	I'm concerned about these leaks.
	I don't like leaks, period, no matter which party.
	I don't like the way the Justice Department handled the whole situation during the election with Hillary Clinton for or against her for whatever back and forth.
	I don't like leaks that are going on against, I don't like the leaks that were going on with Mike Flynn.
	And I was a government lawyer in the beginning of my career a long time ago.
	You're a former CIA operative.
	Tell us what you're concerned about here.
	What is it that you're seeing and hearing that has you so concerned?
	Well, two things.
	First, the vast majority of American spies are incredible people doing amazing things.
	But there's also an equal amount of fear that I have or concern that is bordering on this existential crisis.
	There are clearly folks within the national security apparatus, whether it be the CIA or FBI, et cetera, who are leaking information.
	We saw it this fall with the dossier.
	And then we've seen it once again in terms of the leaks in the last six weeks to the New York Times and CNN and Washington Post.
	And then there have been additional reports of the intelligence community withholding information from the president.
	Now, the president, whoever it may be, cannot defend this nation if they don't have all the information that one needs.
	That's the first big piece.
	The second is, what happens when we start making our military or our intelligence services partisan or political, right?
	Because today, you know, maybe liberal spies might think, hey, great, we can bash this Trump and get him out in 2020.
	Well, what happens in 2020 if, let's say, Warren or Sanders should win for the Democrats?
	That becomes a problem if the conservative spies want to start creating problems for the liberals.
	Let me ask you this.
	Brian, there's a constitutional oath that you took in the CIA.
	It was the same oath that I took as a lawyer for the Treasury Department that I'm going to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, defend the Constitution of the United States.
	When I was sworn into the Supreme Court, it was the same thing.
	And I take this oath of office.
	You took the oath of office.
	Your fellow agents took this oath of office.
	But basically, what I'm hearing from you is that there are people, now we're not talking about all the people, we're not even talking about a majority of the people, but there are some entrenched within these agencies, including our spy intelligence agency.
	These are agencies that conduct counterintelligence, deal with terrorism, that disagree with the policy and operate, as you said, I know what's best for foreign policy and national security.
	Now, I'm going to act on that as if they had the right to do that.
	That's just the concern, right?
	So you've got a group of people with tremendous power.
	And trust me, I had it, and it is an amazing power to have.
	It can also be wickedly seductive, right?
	So they've got this tremendous power.
	And if they start engaging in this partisan warfare, they forget their oath not only to the agency, you mentioned the Department of Treasury, et cetera, as a civil servant, but to your Constitution and ultimately to your commander-in-chief.
	And that is the piece that starts to get extraordinarily dangerous for the Republic.
	And that's a huge concern that I have, regardless of the fact that I'm a Democrat.
	I mean, before being a Democrat, I'm an American.
	And I think that that's the most important thing that most spies understand.
	But clearly, there's a group that aren't.
	And in fact, one journalist recently quoted a member of the intelligence community as saying the IC or the intelligence community is going full stop on this guy, and we are going to make sure that he dies in jail.
	That is horrifying.
	All right.
	So you've got a policy, a president of the United States that's putting forward policies that he thinks are best for the country in consultation with his cabinet.
	That's how it works in a constitutional republic.
	So that's usually a given.
	What is not a given is that you've got, and I know there has been, this is not the first time in our history where we've had leaks.
	But what I hear from you, and then reading your really well-done article, and by the way, this is up at Foxnews.com, and I encourage people to get it.
	It's by our guest, Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer, and as he said, proudly, a registered Democrat.
	And this is not a Republican-Democrat issue.
	This goes to the heart of our Constitutional Republic.
	So if there's disagreement, Brian, in an agency on an intelligence matter or the way something should be approached, there's normal conversation, I would expect, that people talk about their differences.
	That's very different from then acting on it.
	So what is it typically without disclosing information that would be confidential?
	When you were engaged in your activities with the CIA, you had discussions.
	Because I've represented agency officials before.
	You had discussions where people might have disagreed on an approach.
	What was that supposed to look like when you disagreed?
	It was a real conversation.
	Well, I'll tell you from what I understand, what has already happened, and this is not only sort of open source, but I'll give you a sense with this piece of Russia and the ties to some of the cadre that surrounds President Trump, right?
	So the investigation, there is one.
	Right now, the Department of Justice and its counter-espionage division are working with the NSA and the CIA to make sure that there are no nefarious connections as had been alleged.
	That's where this should happen, right, within the system that is classified in nature and use all various kinds of tools to make sure that that isn't, in fact, happening.
	That is his connection between President Trump and some of his advisors and the Russian government.
	All of us should stand up and say, listen, that is a good thing.
	Let's make sure that there is nothing to this.
	And if there is nothing, then this investigation dies.
	It does not be prosecuted.
	It should not be prosecuted in the open press.
	That is not good for the country because clearly it's being done for partisan reasons.
	So I have absolutely no objection.
	I don't think any reasonable person would have an objection to making sure there's no funny business going on between the current president and the Russian government.
	But for Pete's sake, it cannot, it must not be prosecuted in the way that it currently is in the open press.
	You wrote in your piece, and I want to quote this exactly, you said, for reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, talking about these that are leaking and causing these issues, they've taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner.
	They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion with like-minded media outlets, and you point out CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post.
	But we're talking about our nation's spies, our intelligence gathering capability here.
	So what you're writing about, Brian, is a very serious statement.
	And when you first heard of the leaks and first saw the leaks, what was your initial reaction to this?
	Well, when the dossier was leaked in the fall, I got to tell you, my jaw hit the ground.
	Because here's the thing, you do not brief unvetted rumors, right?
	There's something called a presidential daily brief or the PDB.
	And when that goes to the president, obviously usually every day, there are a variety of different pieces of information about what's happening in the world.
	Well, they included this dossier, which was completely, apparently unvetted, right?
	And just rumor.
	That doesn't happen.
	I can't emphasize how bizarre that is to be done.
	And in fact, President Biden at the time, Vice President Biden rather, said, well, this is strange.
	Why the heck are you guys including this?
	He's on the record of saying that, right?
	And then, of course, the CIA, Brennan at the time, who was director, said, well, hey, it's not our information.
	We just included it just in case the next president should be aware that this was out there.
	That's garbage.
	That doesn't happen.
	So clearly, they did this for a political purpose, knowing that it would be leaked and thus smear President Trump.
	Again, I did not vote for Mr. Trump.
	The president was not my choice, but I understand that he is my president, and he's his country's president for at least the next four years.
	And this kind of stuff that happens in terms of this politicization is so incredibly dangerous.
	Well, you know, I've got a good action, bad people.
	Yeah.
	Brian, I've always taken the position that, look, I mean, elections come and election goes, but the Constitution and the Republic that is represented by that Constitution, the United States of America, we've endured really difficult times in our history.
	But when you've got this kind of partisan bickering, or even worse here, leaks and attempts to sabotage, the election's over.
	There's been an election.
	I mean, that's what happens.
	Now, you wrote, again, I like pointing people to evidence and to hard facts.
	You wrote, if you're not convinced about this difficulty, imagine the consequences of letting spies decide not just Trump's fate, but other political winners and losers too.
	Imagine how they might treat our candidates next, talking about Democrat candidates.
	So I look at the situation with Mike Flynn, putting aside the fact, which is hard to put aside, that he made a misstatement to the Vice President of the United States.
	So you get terminated for that.
	But the fact that that information was leaked, there was lack of minimization, which is within the own law on how you deal with that, the fact that information is leaked and letting spies decide the fate of these.
	I feel like that with Mike Flynn, they figured they got one.
	Now those that are opposed to what Donald Trump, what the president wants to do, are looking for the next target.
	Am I overstating that?
	I think that's fair.
	And I think that you are getting to that conclusion because you're looking at the evidence, and it's a pretty reasonable one to say, well, who's next?
	And that's the ultimate fear that I have is once this can get opened about partisanship within our intelligence agencies, it's incredibly difficult to shut it because when the culture starts to embrace, even to a small degree, if people get away with it, then what's to prevent the next generation of spies to try the same thing?
	So that's the concern is we end up like a Pakistan or an Egypt that where the intelligence agencies really control those nations, even though there is a quasi-democratic process in each of those countries.
	That's the fear.
	Yeah, and of course, Egypt, Pakistan, they're not constitutional republics.
	We're more than, as you say, we're more than a democracy here.
	We're a constitutional republic.
	We have rules.
	We have laws.
	We have a constitution that impacts how the branches of government operate.
	So bottom line here, and this is, you know, you served our country honorably in the CIA.
	How serious of a threat is this for our national security and for our republic?
	I think we should all be watching this very closely.
	I don't think that it is at any breaking point, but boy, oh boy, the fever is increasing.
	And we have to be watching these kinds of stories that are coming out, referencing these intelligence officials.
	And if it continues to happen, we have all got to be deeply concerned because I think President Trump will understandably react very angrily to the intelligence community.
	And he will start, one could say understandably, shutting different entities down, different operators down.
	And that's not in the best interest of the country.
	Do you sense there is tension?
	I mean, the media is talking about this tension between the intelligence community and the president.
	When you got information being leaked, I'd have some tension too.
	What's your sense of the relationship, what you're hearing from your former colleagues?
	What's your sense there?
	At the end of the day, all of them that are my friends salute the man.
	They understand that he's their commander-in-chief.
	I think that there has been some pretty profound frustrations, if I can just be real honest, around the rejection that President Trump or Kennedy Trump had that the Russians were monkeying around in our election.
	Listen, I don't believe that they ultimately convinced Americans to vote for Trump or against Clinton.
	I think that the American people made their choice.
	But what people in the intelligence community were very frustrated with is, listen, we did our job, Mr. President.
	We gave you very good information, an excellent assessment with multiple sources of information that the Russians were doing this business, and you just rejected it.
	That was the first frustration I think a lot of us had, both former and, from what I understand, current.
	The second piece is, you know, on his first full day, he did try to go to the agency.
	In fact, he did go and stood in front of the wall of fallen comrades and said, hey, I want to address you all, man-to-man and man and woman.
	And he turned into a bit of a candidate at that point.
	He talked about how smart he was and how much he disliked the media.
	It just was the wrong place at the wrong time to have that kind of conversation.
	But of course, as you said, though, Brian, none of that justifies.
	If there's tension, none of it justifies this leaks.
	All right, Brian Wright has a great piece up at Fox News as an op-ed.
	It's called I'm a Democrat and X CIA, but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control.
	Brian, I really appreciate you coming on the Sean Hannity program, and I appreciate your insight on this.
	This is a big topic, and I'm with you.
	We've got to keep our eye on this.
	I am very concerned about where this could go, and I'm very concerned about the next aspect of this.
	So we are keeping our eye on this.
	We're going to be back with a lot more conversation.
	I'm taking some calls.
	We'll be joined by my friend Doug Schoen.
	Talk about some of the politics of all of this.
	Believe it or not, folks, even in the intelligence agencies, it's politics.
	You know, at the end of the day, that's what we're dealing with.
	We're going to talk to Doug Schoen.
	I'm going to talk to him about Keith Ellison.
	I trust Doug.
	I like Doug.
	I don't always agree.
	See what he has to say.
	So we'll take more of your calls at 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	I'm Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean Hannity.
	back with you in a moment.
	Stories of the day with solutions to help move America.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hey, program, everybody.
	This is Jay Seculo.
	I'm guest hosting for Sean.
	We'll be taking your calls at 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	Coming up, our friend Doug Schoen, I want to ask him about the Democratic National Committee Chairman race, where Keith Ellison, congressman that has said provocative things to say the least.
	I call him an anti-Semite.
	He is the leading candidate right now.
	We'll get Doug's perspective on all of this.
	We've had a fascinating conversation about what we're calling the shadow government, and that is this whole issue involving the entrenched bureaucrats.
	They're unelected.
	They're unaccountable, but they're running these agencies.
	How do you root them out?
	We've talked about that.
	You got to take action.
	I think this president's going to do it.
	All right, we're going to come back from the break again.
	Jay Seculo, you can follow me at Jay Seculo.
	Also get information at aclj.org, and we've got a radio broadcast at noon.
	Be back with more in just a moment.
	Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show, everybody.
	This is Jay Seculo, guest hosting for Sean.
	We're taking your calls at 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	I am the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
	Spend a lot of my time dealing with cases at the Supreme Court of the United States.
	I've been litigating in front of the Supreme Court.
	I thought about this the other day for three decades, 30 years.
	And actually, had a case in front of Judge Gorsuch, who I am very hopeful will soon be Justice Gorsuch of the United States Supreme Court.
	We had a case involving a Ten Commandments display out of Utah.
	That case ended up at what's called an en banc proceeding.
	That is, the entire 10th Circuit heard it.
	He, although we lost in the district court, won in the district court, lost in the Court of Appeals, we won unanimously at the Supreme Court, 9-0 in our favor.
	Judge Gorsuch joined an opinion by Judge McConnell, which really served as the basis of our religious liberty claim and our free speech claim.
	And I was very pleased with that.
	And I'm looking forward to Judge Gorsuch becoming Justice Gorsuch.
	Those hearings set for March 20th.
	So, this pretty much the Supreme Court term this time is probably going to be gone, but we will have him for the next term.
	We'll be back to a full complement of nine justices.
	I've had the experience, by the way, of having eight justice members, eight justices at the Supreme Court, and have had to re-argue cases before.
	It's not fun for the lawyer, I'll tell you that, someone that does it.
	I also host a radio broadcast on noon Eastern Time called the Jay Seculo Show.
	And you can follow me at Jay Seculo on Twitter and follow the ACLJ at aclj.org.
	I'm going to go ahead and take some calls.
	Let's go ahead and get Paula up from Hamilton, Ohio.
	Paula, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hi, Jay.
	Hey.
	How are you?
	Great.
	I have been watching you and listening to you for years, and I truly respect you.
	I'm feeling older by the moment when you said that, but go ahead.
	I appreciate that.
	I truly respect you.
	I've watched you for years, and I've prayed that you would be able to give wise counsel to President Trump.
	But my question was about Hillary and Obama and Loretta Lynch.
	And I was just wondering why hasn't any of them been brought to justice yet?
	Well, here's what you happen.
	Yeah, so here's what you've got.
	And this is a look, this is a decision that when President Trump became president, he had to make.
	Was he going to allow the Justice Department to reopen the investigation of Hillary Clinton?
	The president wanted to move forward.
	He wanted to look forward.
	So going, looking back can drag the country into something that sometimes is just not that necessary.
	So with President Obama, look, I mean, I didn't like the policies.
	I didn't like the IRS targeting.
	And there was a whole host of issues.
	I didn't like the way we handled the war on terrorism.
	But that's the past now.
	And I think what we've got to do is look forward.
	And what we've been talking about on the program today, and it's something I'm very concerned about, is this undercurrent inside these agencies.
	It doesn't mean, by the way, that everybody has to agree on every policy on every issue.
	But this idea that you've got leaks going on right now by the intelligence agencies themselves should be sending chills up Republicans and Democrats.
	We should all be concerned about that because it's not simply a problem.
	It goes beyond a problem.
	This goes to the heart of our constitutional republic.
	And it's one thing to challenge a president's policies.
	And, you know, you know, we challenge a lot of those policies in court.
	I was involved in a lot of the litigation on that, on those issues during the Obama administration.
	But at the end of the day, now you got to look forward.
	You got to close these leaks down.
	I think you have to have wide discussion in any of these situations, but you have to go forward.
	And I think the president made the decision we're going to move forward.
	We're not going to concentrate on the press.
	But look, President Obama's not going away.
	I think that is very, very clear.
	He's going nowhere.
	He set up his organizing for action, which was the previous Obama for America group.
	He's already tweeting about various protests going on right now and encouraging a lot of that.
	He's a citizen.
	He's a former president.
	He has the right to do it.
	But I think we have to be aware of what is going on internally, and that's where this real fight comes in.
	I appreciate your call, Paula.
	I'm going to go.
	Let's take Mike's call out of Los Angeles, California.
	Hi, Mike.
	Hey, Jay, how are you, brother?
	Good, sir.
	Go ahead, please.
	Listen, this has just been bothering me ever since it occurred.
	Why didn't President Trump just tell the Ninth Circuit to stick it?
	You know, I'm the president.
	You're only the Ninth Circuit.
	You can't.
	Yeah, because we're a country of laws, and even presidents will respect the law.
	And I think, look, the president made very clear he disagreed with the Ninth Circuit opinion.
	He's going to be reissuing an order.
	I think it's going to moot that entire case out.
	But we're a country of laws or co-equal branches of government.
	That's what we're talking about.
	So a president shouldn't ignore the courts.
	I mean, I think that's a mistake.
	I mean, you've got to fight when you get.
	Listen, I don't like losing, and I like getting, you know, famously in the Supreme Court case I had, we had lost it in lower court, came up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist said to me, he goes, Mr. Seculo, exactly what would you like us to do here?
	And I said, somewhere in the opinion, I'd like it to say reversed, because that means we would have won.
	So the president respected the court, disagreed with it, but moved on by issuing, I believe, the new order that'll come out Monday.
	Hey, good news.
	Doug Shoan is joining us.
	I've been on this program, both on radio and TV with Doug for many years, of course, a regular with Sean.
	Doug, I want to get your impression and your sense.
	You're well-connected, pollster, political analyst for Fox.
	I appreciate you coming on.
	This whole situation with Keith Ellison, and he, you know, a lot of people think he is going to be the chair of the DNC.
	This is a guy, and I'm just laying out the evidence, and I'll play it for everybody again if we need to.
	He has made some very anti-Semitic statements.
	He has a former relationship with Louis Farrakhan.
	He was investigated by the Congress for a meeting with the Saudis and groups that were sponsoring terrorists.
	You're a Democratic pollster.
	You're a pollster.
	What do you think?
	Tell me what is happening here with your party.
	Well, I don't know, Jay.
	I can't answer the question because this is abhorrent.
	This is somebody who has never renounced his support of Farrakhan, denounced Farrakhan.
	He has made comments that I consider hostile to Jews, if not anti-Semitic.
	And, you know, I will not be the same type of Democrat I am now and have been for 40 odd years if Keith Ellison becomes the DNC chairman.
	I can say that with certainty.
	What do you think is going to happen there, Doug?
	I mean, a lot of people think if it goes more than two rounds in the vote in Atlanta, then maybe not him, but if it's in the one or first or second, it probably goes to him.
	What do you think?
	What are you hearing?
	I think he's the frontrunner going into the multi-candidate process.
	I think it'll be close between me and Perez on the first ballot.
	I don't know what will happen thereafter.
	But all I can say is if he's the frontrunner, having the support of our senior senator Schumer here in New York, it's calamitous.
	Horrible.
	Explain to me, Doug, how did the party, how did the DNC, because I've said, this is what I said, Republican or Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, whatever your political position is.
	We have two major parties in the United States, Republicans and Democrats.
	The idea that one of the major parties in the United States would be not only aligning themselves with, but supporting and nominating and putting in as the chair of the DNC Keith Ellison, that has me concerned as an American on where that party is going and what it means for our country.
	How did he get here?
	I don't know.
	I mean, the left has taken over the party.
	Israel has been delegitimized to a very large extent.
	And as part and parcel of that, somebody who has views that I think are outside the mainstream, certainly on Israel, the Middle East, and Louis Farrakhan, is emerging as a frontrunner, if not the frontrunner.
	And, Jay, I'll tell you this.
	I spoke to some non-Jews today, and they couldn't believe me when I didn't believe me when I explained who Ellison was and who Farrakhan was.
	You know, this is in large measure faded from our consciousness.
	But those of us who are culturally, politically, and socially aware Jews and Democrats, this is almost a revival of the Holocaust.
	Let's be clear.
	Well, I mean, the things that he said, I want to play some of the sound here.
	You know, I'll get to the impeachment one in a moment, but I want to play, I mean, you've got, this is, look, it's a free country.
	You can believe in any religion you want.
	And we have no oath of office.
	Well, you can, but there's a difference between believing in a religion and preaching hate.
	And Ellis and Farrakhan have preached hate consistently with never, never an apology.
	Here's what I don't understand.
	And I've got a lot of family members that are Democrats.
	They're coming from a Jewish household.
	It's part of the politics.
	My family wasn't, but a lot were.
	All right, so let me play this soundbite because I think this is the most anti-Semitic of all of them.
	And this is the bite where basically what Ellison lays out is this issue of 7 million people controlling the foreign policy.
	And basically, he doesn't say Israel, but this is the reference, obviously.
	Let's go ahead and play that one.
	The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people.
	A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million.
	Does that make sense?
	No.
	Is that logic?
	No.
	Well, it does make sense, actually, because Israel is our ally.
	But, you know, Doug, he's talking about 350 million people.
	Now, by the way, not all of them, not all of them are not allies.
	There are Egypt, Jordan.
	We've got allies in the region, the United States, and the Gulf states.
	But, you know, in that region is also Iran and Syria.
	So how in the world is, and what does this mean for the Democratic Party if it goes in this direction, Doug?
	What do you think the future holds?
	It means that we are throwing in with the worst sort of anti-Semites.
	And I call it racism because you just can't ascribe political views and social views to people based on their religion and creed.
	It is horrific.
	And look, Jay, you and I have differed on politics, sometimes vehemently.
	But that, to me, is the American way.
	This is rank, gross, offensive anti-Semitism that cannot be countenanced, whatever your views are.
	If I was a leftist Democrat, which I'm not, I would still find this abhorrent.
	So the question, of course, it begs a question, Doug, and that is, right now he's the leading contender.
	So inside that party, and I mean, I don't know if this is the Bernie Sanders wing or it is.
	Okay, so is the influence of that part of the Democratic Party that significant right now?
	I mean, he's leading.
	Yes, it is.
	And it means that our only stable, consistent Democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel, is at risk.
	Let's be clear.
	You know, there's this, Doug, there's an area, and we both agree on this.
	And I've done a lot of work for the state of Israel.
	I've done a lot of legal work at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, defending Israel's positions on a variety of things.
	And we've talked about this before.
	There's this whole movement to delegitimize.
	You said a delegitimize Israel.
	It's called BDS, boycott, divest, sanction.
	To me, this feeds into the worst of that by encouraging this kind of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish fervor inside the party.
	That's absolutely right.
	And that's what so scares me because this hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.
	Only courageous people like yourself and Sean have brought it out.
	But this has calamitous, calamitous potential impact on the state of Israel and indeed on our relations, as you suggest rightly, with other states, radical states in the Middle East.
	At the end of the day, if Keith Ellison is the chair of the DNC, what do you think the reaction within the party will be?
	I think sadly, in most cases, it'll be a big yawn.
	The Senate minority leader is his most prominent supporter, who is a Jew who has been a strong supporter of Israel, opposed the Iran nuclear deal.
	I don't know how he can back Ellison.
	I couldn't back him ever, just ever.
	But I think it's going to be bad for Israel, Jay, and we've got to keep speaking out.
	We appreciate it, Doug.
	Thanks for coming on.
	I appreciate your insight in this.
	There's areas like you said where Doug said, we agree, we disagree.
	This is one we agree on.
	This would be disastrous for the country.
	That's what I'm saying about Keith Ellison as the DNC share.
	Disastrous for our country, disastrous for the state of Israel.
	And I think that we as Americans have to understand that.
	All right, it's Jay Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
	I'll be back with your phone calls in just a moment.
	It's just not real.
	Every single day.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	Come back to the Sean Hannity Show.
	It's Jay Seculo 1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	Let me tell you what we're looking at Monday.
	I'm already looking to Monday.
	New executive order is probably going to be released from the president on Monday.
	That executive order is going to deal with the issue of asylum, immigration from seven countries of concern.
	Now, they may expand that out somewhat.
	These seven countries of concern were the countries that the Obama administration labeled as the most dangerous, the place we could not verify who was coming in and coming out of the United States.
	Now, we went to work when the first case came out, when the president unrolled it back in January, and then the Ninth Circuit came out with their decision.
	We looked at that Ninth Circuit decision, which, by the way, fundamentally was incorrect as a matter of law, in our view.
	The Ninth Circuit is generally incorrect as a matter of law, most reversed circuit in the country, always in the top one or two.
	But I looked at the holes, if you will, that were in the order, and those holes, I believe what you're going to see on Monday or Tuesday, are going to be filled.
	The president has the authority to determine who comes into the United States and who does not.
	There is not a constitutional right to migration into the United States.
	There's not a constitution.
	And I'm looking, I'm the grandson of a Russian immigrant, so I believe in legal immigration.
	And I think we need immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform.
	But I got to tell you, we need to know who's coming in and what they're up to.
	So I believe what you're going to see in the new order that the president's going to put forward is going to be a clarification of exactly that.
	The seven countries of origin will be named.
	There'll be due process for those that are green card holders, those with visas.
	That doesn't mean, by the way, that when you come into the United States, even if you have a valid visa, that you can't be questioned, for instance, if you were in Chechnya.
	The Sarnett brothers were here legally.
	They went to Chechnya.
	Our immigration officials could have questioned them significantly about what they were doing in Chechnya, even though they had a visa.
	So part of that is just the law as it is.
	So I expect that order to come out on Monday.
	So that'll be, I think, a pretty big day for the president again as he rolls out this new immigration order.
	When we come back, I'm going to take more of your calls.
	This is Jay Seculo, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice for Sean Hannity today.
	1-800-941-Sean.
	That's 1-800-941-7326.
	We'll be back with more in just a minute.
	I appreciate Linda playing that song for my bandmates.
	That's J Seculo Band.
	A great tune.
	We have a Facebook page, by the way.
	J Seculo Band on Facebook.
	That's that simple.
	All right, we're going to take your calls.
	1-800-941-Sean, that's 1-800-941-7326.
	Let's go ahead and start with Dan in Buffalo.
	Go ahead, Dan.
	You're on.
	Yes.
	Hi.
	Hey.
	Tom, thanks for having me on.
	You're doing a great job.
	Thanks.
	I'm really enjoying the show today.
	My pleasure.
	Living here in Wyoming, you probably know that Wyoming is the largest energy producing state in the country.
	And we've lost thousands of jobs in the last two years under the last administration and the EPA.
	And my question is, and I'll just listen to your answer offline.
	What do you know about Pruitt and who's been appointed by President Trump?
	Yeah.
	And I know that he was an attorney general, I believe, for Oklahoma, and he's been fighting against the EPA for years.
	But I'm wondering if you have any inside information.
	Yeah, I actually, we've worked with Scott Pruitt in a variety of capacities as the Attorney General of the State.
	And I think the president made a great select.
	The EPA regulatory process, and you could be in favor of environmental protection.
	I get it.
	But some of these rules and regulations are so, number one, outdated.
	Some of these don't even make sense with the technology we have now.
	But also, what you saw in Wyoming and what you've seen and elsewhere in the country is it has stopped our ability for energy independence.
	And I think eliminating these unnecessary.
	I love what the president's doing about for every new regulation, two've got to go.
	And a great way to start that is right there in the Environmental Protection Agency.
	I think that's a great place to start.
	So I think Scott Pruitt was a great choice.
	We'll do a great job.
	Randy from Cincinnati, Ohio.
	Hi, Randy.
	Hi, Jay.
	How are you doing?
	Good, sir.
	Hey, I have a question about the executive order you were just talking about.
	Yeah.
	Coming out Monday, we're coming out Monday.
	Yep.
	You know, and I know that a liberal group like the ACLU is going to job shop this and challenge the constitutionality of it.
	My question is this: why can't an organization or group like yours the minute he signs that, you guys challenge the constitutionality of that law in front of a judge that would be more favorable to the choosing rather than getting it in the area of the Ninth Circuit?
	Yeah.
	Let me tell you how it works, though.
	And I appreciate that.
	I appreciate the call.
	So here's how it works.
	It's called forum shopping.
	By the way, it's not illegal.
	You can go to a forum that is hospitable to your viewpoint.
	And that's precisely why Washington State and Minnesota joined them in this.
	That's why they went to the Ninth Circuit, because it is the most liberal court in the United States.
	The Ninth Circuit not only ignored the law, 1182F, that gives the president the authority to make these determinations on asylum and immigration and coming into the United States, they didn't just ignore it.
	They didn't even cite it as if it doesn't exist.
	But the way you have to beat them, and this is what we did while it was this first round, the initial executive order, we filed what's called a friend of the court brief.
	So the American Center for Law and Justice, our organization, ACLJ.org, we filed a brief on behalf of millions of our members putting out the legal position that established the president's authority.
	So how you engage the litigation when you're not a party is through these called amicus curio friend of the court briefs.
	That's what we did.
	So the administration can't file what's called a put-up lawsuit.
	By the way, there were times when the Obama administration would do that.
	They would encourage groups to go file lawsuits to establish their right to do something, even though they were in cahoots with each other.
	It was a fake plaintiff, fake defendant.
	I wrote about it in a book called Undemocratic.
	This was a very typical practice of the Obama administration.
	But the way it's supposed to work in our republic is you get a lawsuit, you respond to it.
	Now, I think there will be an executive order Monday or Tuesday.
	I think it will be challenged immediately.
	I have no idea what the Ninth Circuit will do.
	I believe this is going to be airtight, and the Ninth Circuit still, I will not be shocked if they rule against the president.
	Having said that, that goes to the Supreme Court of the United States the way we've recommended with due process rights, with it very clear on who's covered and who's not covered.
	I don't believe this religion argument that this is a Muslim ban is going to carry that.
	I've argued a lot of establishment clause cases.
	That's where the religion clauses come out of the Constitution.
	I've argued a lot of establishment clause cases at the Supreme Court.
	I would be happy to take that one.
	There is no way that they're going to be able to say seven countries that happen to have majority Muslim populations, and that establishes a religion in the United States or shows harm to a religion when 85% of the Islamic world is not covered by this.
	So I think it's going to be a bogus argument, but we're going to find out soon enough.
	John, Michigan, go.
	Hey, John.
	I just had an idea about term limits.
	Wanted to get your opinion on it.
	Right now, you know, just a simple majority gets you in, right?
	Right.
	What if we limited it to two terms like that, and then on the third term, they had to win by like 5%, you know, fourth?
	Well, that would take a constitutional amendment.
	I mean, John, that would take, you've got to have a constitutional amendment to put that in place.
	And I mean, look, I think there's a lot of valid reasons.
	I'm a lawyer, so I argue both sides of issues all the time.
	I think there's a lot of valid reasons for having term limits.
	And that is the idea with our founders was not that you'd have this extended, always-serving United States Congress.
	In fact, it was really deemed at our founding to be quite a burden.
	You got to remember, look at the founding of our country.
	And then the first Congress has set, or for that matter, when the first Supreme Court sat, you had no transportation capabilities.
	You didn't even have trains at that point.
	Nothing.
	People were going on horseback or in carriage.
	So they would go to Washington, D.C., which was like the swamp of Washington, D.C.
	It was uncomfortable.
	And there was this sense that you did this out of a sense of calling and duty, but you didn't want to do this for the rest of your life.
	Many of them wanted to get back to their careers, get back to their families.
	You didn't hop on an airplane and get back to Alabama or to Texas in two and a half hours from Washington.
	I mean, these were day-longs, week-long drives on, you know, on horseback.
	So the idea was never to have this, you know, continual legislative body that would be the same people all the time.
	But again, founders would have to, you'd have to do a constitution.
	There is an amendment process in the Constitution.
	It would take a constitutional amendment to do that.
	Adam is calling from Michigan.
	Go ahead, Adam.
	Yeah, I was calling because I'm really sick of the hypocrisy.
	During the election, everybody, all they wanted to talk about was that the leaks came from Russia.
	Nobody wanted to talk about what was in the WikiLeaks revelations.
	And now with the administration, all they want to talk about is what was leaked and where it came from.
	My question for you is, as the people, what can we do to ensure that what happened during the election doesn't happen again?
	And how can we hold those people accountable for what they did?
	Well, look, I mean, the difference with WikiLeaks, and you've got to put WikiLeaks and the Hillary Clinton email scandal on one side.
	That is, people internally leaking information or access to computers through servers that were not secured enabled these nefarious groups, and they're out there, and there's lots of them.
	That's why you have software protections and all this.
	And that's why what Hillary Clinton did was so dangerous by going to a server that was not protected, not controlled by our government.
	That's different, and it's bad, by the way.
	I don't like those either.
	I think that what these individuals did is treasonous if they came from inside the United States.
	But what you've got going on right now with leaks is internal leaks.
	In other words, Adam, these are leaks that are happening by people that are working in the United States government right now in the intelligence community.
	And that has to happen.
	I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, or you never voted.
	That in our Constitutional Republic is very, very dangerous.
	And it sets a horrendous precedent.
	It puts our people at risk.
	It puts our country at risk.
	And it puts our Constitutional Republic at risk.
	Look, are we there now?
	Are we on the cliff of danger?
	I don't think we're on the cliff of danger.
	We live in the greatest country in the world, period.
	But you can't allow this stuff to go unchecked, which means when you find out through the Department of Justice with a real investigation who did this, you hold them accountable.
	These are felonies, 10 years for each act.
	You put a couple of these bureaucrats in jail for doing this, for violating the law.
	Give them due process.
	Have a trial.
	They're found guilty.
	They serve time.
	Guess what doesn't happen so frequently?
	It's very easy to be this, you know, undercover information going out when you're not held accountable.
	And we can't have that anymore.
	I mean, we saw that with the IRS case.
	We won that, by the way, in the Court of Appeals.
	But look, the fact is the lowest learners of the world, they got away with it.
	And that's just, you know, it's unfortunate, but that's a fact.
	So you've got to deal with the system you got.
	You do the best you can with what you got.
	And that's exactly what we're going to do.
	Let me go to Elvie in Jackson, New Jersey.
	Elvy, go ahead.
	Yes, Jay, I'm really on the same subject.
	With Lewis Reuter and Obama and Hillary, they have to be held accountable.
	That's the biggest mistake we made.
	Because if the situation were reversed, they'd go after us.
	Well, look, I don't disagree with you on that, but let me tell you, they were held accountable.
	Hillary Clinton's not the president of the United States.
	Donald Trump is.
	I mean, they lost an election.
	Now, if there were violations of the law, I mean, that whole scenario with the FBI engaging, unengaging, we found no violation.
	Now we've got to reopen it.
	There's new evidence.
	Then we close it again.
	The FBI should not have done that.
	I thought that what James Comey did was inexcusable.
	That was not professional.
	It wasn't right.
	I think he should have resigned, frankly.
	But the FBI director does not just serve at the pleasure of the president.
	It's a 10-year appointment.
	It overlaps administrations, and that's done on purpose.
	It makes sense.
	But the holding them accountable was you all at the ballot box.
	That's how you hold people accountable, Republican, Democrat, Independent.
	That's, at the end of the day, how you're holding people really responsible.
	Tony from Orlando, Florida.
	Go ahead, Tony.
	Earlier in that segment about, you know, the shadow government mentioning a coup and everything.
	Isn't that illegal, and what could be done about it?
	Well, it is illegal to engage in a shadow government when you're leaking information.
	We talked about this.
	You could, with Professor Hutchinson, you could hold your beliefs.
	That's very different than acting on them in this way.
	So, yeah, leaking information is called a crime.
	We don't just call it a leak in the United States.
	It's a crime, and you shouldn't be able to do it, and you should be held accountable.
	And I believe that the FBI, under Jeff Sessions' leadership, will get to the bottom of this.
	By the way, it won't be overnight.
	It's going to take some time, but I am very encouraged to say that this is something we move.
	All right.
	Jerry from Texas, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hi, Jay.
	Hey.
	You said that we should let Hillary Clinton go in the past, but I got two points.
	Okay.
	First of all, it's not fair to the Marine spending a year in jail for taking six pictures on the submarine.
	I know that.
	Second, based upon the logic that it's in the past and we should forget about it, then that means we should never open a cold case.
	Well, look, that's not what I said.
	What I said was the president made a determination because it's the Department of Justice that would have to bring any action against Hillary Clinton.
	Remember, President Obama didn't give her a pardon.
	There was no pardon there.
	So it would be the president making the determination whether he would proceed with prosecution.
	He decided not to do that.
	And he decided not to do that because he wants to look forward.
	There's enough on the plate for the country.
	It is not fair to those Marines.
	It's not fair to other people that have had horrible, real sentences for doing violations of this.
	Look, you disclose classified.
	We talked about that with Colonel Smith.
	You disclose classified information.
	Guess what?
	You're held accountable.
	She wasn't in the criminal sense.
	She was in the political sense.
	I don't know if that's sense.
	I don't know if that's solace for anybody, but that's the way the law is.
	And the president and the Department of Justice would have to initiate this.
	And I just don't think they're going to do it.
	I think they're, as I said, I think they're looking forward.
	Steve, Utah, you're on the air on the Sean Hannity show.
	Go ahead.
	Jay, you have done stuff.
	I want to be like you when I grow up.
	Well, then you'll be an old guy because I've turned 60.
	I'm almost 61, actually.
	I should say that very clearly.
	But then you get to have grandchildren, and it's a great thing.
	And I've got four of them in our business.
	I love it.
	Let's get any pictures.
	Hey, so here's the deal.
	First of all, I'm one of the newly underemployed who did not get to keep his doctor or a plan that's counted as a success by the Obama.
	Let's see.
	Secondly, Maxine Waters on the scumbag thing.
	Yeah.
	She's got street credit on that.
	She may be believable because back in, I think it was 2012, there's a New York Post or New York Times article on this at that time.
	A few years before that, before the artist.
	Let me tell you what that is.
	This political grandstanding and calling names, let me tell you who does not help anybody.
	In the body politic, I don't believe that helps anybody.
	I think that we've got to be clear.
	That kind of language, that kind of disgust.
	I mean, it's a free country.
	Maxine Waters can say whatever she wants, but that's just not the way it's supposed to be in the United States of America.
	I'm Jay Seculo.
	I am been sitting in for Sean Hannity.
	What a pleasure it has been to do this.
	We've got more ahead, but I want to tell you something.
	This has been an honor for me to sit in for my friend Sean Hannity.
	I have tremendous respect for Sean and the entire team that produces great radio broadcasts every day.
	So it's been a pleasure for me to sit in.
	I've got more to talk about when we come back from the break.
	Again, 1-800-941-Sean.
	I'm Jay Seculo, ACLJ.org or at Jay Seculo.
	And again, you could follow us on Twitter or Facebook.
	We'll be back with more, including some more closing comments in just a few minutes.
	Yes, people of contradiction.
	Wait, no.
	We're all doing what we can.
	Sean's got more behind-the-scenes information.
	More contacts than anybody.
	More friends behind the curtains.
	Sean Hannity is on.
	Jay Sekulow in for Sean Hannity.
	Let me thank Sean for this opportunity to come to you today on the broadcast.
	I have been a fan and have been pleased to be a guest so many times on this broadcast.
	I want to thank Sean, thank Linda, and thank Linda for playing some of that Jay Seculo Band music.
	You can follow that, by the way, at Facebook, Jay Seculo Band.
	Follow me at Facebook as well and at J Seculo on Twitter.
	And again, our thoughts and prayers for the Alan Combs family and the loss of him and loss to our country of an advocate for free speech.
	Like I said, didn't always agree politically, but he was a great guy and we sorely missed.
	Thanks for having me.
	Thanks for listening to the Sean Hannity program.
	You're the one that can't be.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲