Sean Hannity Show - Are Conservatives Are Winning? - 3.20

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 21, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:37:29

Are Conservatives Are Winning? - 3.20

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	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 Dow, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked why.
	From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	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 my pillow.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 go anywhere 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 Go Anywhere 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.
	All right, would you like to join me in holding Republicans accountable, especially on healthcare, because the vote is scheduled on Thursday.
	I'll give you the number, give you the switchboard number.
	It's 202-224-3121.
	Linda will put it up on our website so people can go right there and take a look at it.
	202-224-3121.
	This is not the bill that the Freedom Caucus and every conservative senator wants at this point.
	There was some progress made Friday.
	We'll get to that in the course of the program.
	Three big stories we are following today.
	Obviously, healthcare is one of them.
	The confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch have begun.
	In other words, the borking, the slander, the smearing, the high-tech lynchings in a way, begin again.
	Just like Democrats, this is the guy that was put on the 10th circuit voice vote, not a single voice of opposition.
	So it's just the Democrats doing what they do best, and that's obstruction.
	No answers, no solutions, not making the country a better place.
	So uh, but I want to begin with what happened with James Comey and testifying today.
	The most important part you need to know that nobody in the media seems to have gotten here.
	I mean, they're all focused on there's an investigation.
	I but what of what have we been telling you?
	That we've been telling you for 10 days clearly now that there's an investigation.
	We confirmed through circa uh news.com and John Solomon and Sarah Carter that there was a Pfizer warrant, and there was another warrant, and it was related directly to the FBI investigating Russia.
	And as part of the ancillary investigation, it also included a surveillance of the Trump Tower server, which happens to be off-site, but it is the server for Trump Tower.
	There's nothing new, shocking, surprising here, but nor is there any evidence.
	Now we also pointed out to you that James Clapper, National Director of Intelligence, said no evidence whatsoever in any way, shape, matter, or form that the Russians impacted the election or the vote tallies.
	Listen.
	Really what we're talking about is if they succeeded in changing the results of an election, which none of us believe they were, that would have to constitute an attack on the United States of America because of the effects if they had succeeded would have.
	Would you agree with that?
	First, we cannot say they did they did not change any uh vote tallies or or any anything of that sort.
	They did not change vote tallies of any sort.
	Here's what they're not focused on in the alt-left propaganda destroyed Trump at any cost media.
	They're focused in on, well, his tweet wasn't right.
	Well, that would also mean the New York Times headlines about wiretapping is wrong.
	That would mean McClatchy was wrong.
	That would mean CNN and all these others and MSNBC and MBC have been wrong.
	That would mean the BBC was wrong, but no, it's only Trump we're going to focus on, which shows you just how abusively biased it is.
	Trump was great that well, I've said I'm just citing media sources that said I was wiretapped by Obama.
	I mean, it's a very clever answer on his part.
	Now, so you just heard the National Director of Intelligence didn't impact the vote.
	Okay.
	Now let's listen to a part of the testimony that took place today, Admiral Admiral Rogers and James Comey and what they said about it impacting the Russians impacting the election.
	This is the most important aspect of this, not the collusion where there's no evidence.
	But listen to this first.
	I'm Rogers.
	I first want to go to you.
	On January 6th, 2017, the Intelligence Community Assessment assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections stated that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
	So my question uh as of today, Admiral Rogers, do you have any evidence that Russia cyber actors change vote tallies in the state of Michigan?
	No, I do not, but I would highlight we're in foreign intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization.
	So it would be fair to say we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer.
	How about the state of Pennsylvania?
	No, sir.
	The state of Wisconsin?
	No, sir.
	State of Florida?
	No, sir.
	State of North Carolina?
	No, sir.
	The state of Ohio?
	No, sir.
	So you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence that says suggests any votes were changed.
	I have nothing generated by the National Security Agency, sir.
	Director Comey, do you have any evidence at the FBI that any votes were changed in the states that I mentioned to Admiral Rogers?
	No.
	No vote tallies.
	We have been in the forefront of telling you yes, law enforcement, the FBI, even though Comey swears he doesn't talk about ongoing investigations, he confirmed the investigation is started in July.
	In July, it's eight months later.
	What have you found except no evidence whatsoever the election has been impacted?
	Your media will not focus on that tonight.
	They will.
	Well, Donald Trump tweeted out collusion and James Comey said or that Donald Trump tweeted out that Obama wiretapped him.
	James Comey said there's no evidence of that.
	Therefore, Donald Trump lied.
	Well, I would argue he probably read the New York Times.
	And he probably watched CNN and MSNBC.
	And he probably watched the Today Show.
	And all the left-wing biased destroyed Trump media because they made such a big deal about him being wiretapped.
	From Page Top Fold, New York Times, January 20th.
	There you have it.
	So there is uh there's that is not the focus here.
	All right, so they have an investigation.
	Now here's the other odd part of this.
	Comey then went on to say, well, we don't confirm or deny if there's uh an on we don't like to comment on ongoing investigations when he specifically asked by Trey Gowdy whether or not the intelligence leaks.
	Now remember, we have gone through these intelligence leaks in great detail, and they've been all over the place, and they've been significant, everything from from Mike Flynn on down.
	And they have been hurtful, and even in the course of today's testimony, they admitted all of this is very hurtful.
	Listen to Gowdy try to get some information from the FBI director on this.
	Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?
	I can't say in this form, because again, I don't want to confirm that there was classified information in the Newspaper.
	Would he have access to an unmasked name?
	In some circumstances, sure.
	He was the Director of National Intelligence, but I'm not talking about the particular.
	Would Director Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	In some circumstances, yes.
	Would National Security Advisor Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	I think any yes, in general, and any other National Security Advisor would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.
	Would former White House advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	I don't know the answer to that.
	Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	In general, yes, as would any Attorney General.
	So that would also include acting A. G. Sally Yates?
	Same answer.
	Do you understand the significance of this?
	You know, now the also goes on to admit it's illegal to leak intelligence.
	And has he found the people responsible?
	Will he find the people responsible?
	We didn't get an answer to that.
	Specifically, he wouldn't even acknowledge that there was an ongoing investigation because he doesn't comment on ongoing investigations, although he did comment and say there was an ongoing investigation only into what Russia was trying to do to influence the election.
	By the way, something Russia has done in the past, and Comey even said we'll be doing in 2020.
	But yet they did not do it successfully, which should be the big headline coming out of this.
	But it's not.
	I mean, I got to tell you the watching these hearings as closely as I have here.
	What's that?
	I can't see.
	Oh, Gowdy's up right now.
	Put it up for a real quick second.
	He's so smart.
	Influence, motive, our response, collusion, coordination, whatever your jurisdiction is, wherever the facts may take you, though the heavens may fall, go do your jobs.
	Because nature abhors a vacuum.
	And right now, you can't answer most of the questions, either by policy, by law, or because the investigation has not been complete.
	Therefore, a vacuum exists, which people in my line of work are more than happy to fill.
	So I need you to fill.
	I need you to do it with all deliberate speed.
	But Director Comey, I think it is also important for my fellow citizens to take note of why the system that you come from, the one that I come from is respected, and this system that I am in now is not.
	What is hearsay?
	He's so good.
	Information you don't know of your own personal knowledge, but learn from someone else.
	It's an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
	I was trying to be a little less lawyerly.
	Well, we'll go with your answer.
	And it is almost never admissible in court.
	How about anonymous sources?
	When you were in the Southern District, could you ever call an anonymous source to testify in one of your proceedings?
	No.
	You couldn't even use hearsay unless there was some widely accepted exception.
	And what I've heard this morning in some cases is quadruple hearsay.
	So it would never, a newspaper article would never ever be admitted as evidence in a courtroom.
	So the system we respect would laugh you out of court if you came in armed with a newspaper article.
	But in the political process, that's enough.
	Let me ask you this.
	Cross-examination.
	Why are you in a why are you able to cross-examine witnesses in trial?
	Why do we have a right to confront witnesses?
	Well, it is embedded in our Constitution, and the reason it makes great sense is it's the crucible out of which you get truth.
	It is the single best way to elucidate the truth, to test and to probe and to challenge and to test someone's personal exposure to the facts.
	Cross examination is the best tool that we have.
	How do you cross examine an anonymous source?
	How do you cross examine hearsay?
	I I hope that you go find every single witness that you need to talk to and examine every single document.
	People are counting on you two and your line of work to find the facts.
	And people are welcome to draw whatever conclusions they want from the facts.
	But when I hear the word evidence, as I've heard lots and lots this morning, let me ask you this, Director Comey, did you ever, are you familiar with any trials where one witness may have said the light was red and one witness may have said the light was green?
	Does that ever happen?
	Yes, that's why you have a trial.
	Does it ever happen where one bank teller said the uh the the assailant was 510 and one said the assailant was 6'2?
	Sure.
	So that's evidence.
	You got evidence he's 6'2 and evidence he's 5'11, he just can't be both.
	The light can't be red and green.
	So so the word evidence, while fancy and legal, the reality is you find facts and then the finder of the fact can draw conclusions and inferences from those facts.
	About leaks does not mean that they're not interested in all aspects of Russia, and vice versa.
	The fact that they may not have asked questions about leaks doesn't mean they're not interested in them.
	You have jurisdiction over all of it.
	So God bless you as you go on this journey for the facts, and then people can draw whatever conclusions they want.
	I hope that you will fill the vacuum that is created when y'all are not able to answer questions.
	With that, I would yield back to the chairman.
	Very simple.
	2022 4, 3121 for this week.
	I I just could watch Trey Gowdy all day.
	I mean, he's amazing.
	And uh I just if I was if I was James Comey, I'd be wow.
	You know, the hypocrisy and moral moral selective moral outrage that is out there today is it's it takes your breath away if you know this is my job.
	And so many of you are so busy like preventing yourself from gulping water.
	How are you gulping water?
	You work hard every day.
	You work your 10, 12, 14, 16 hours a day.
	You get your kids off to school, you get them to their activities, you get it, you try and get some healthy food in their bodies, you make sure that they study, you know, and getting ready for tests.
	I mean, it's nonstop.
	But all the outrage of Russia trying to influence the election.
	And Clapper and Ad and Admiral Rogers and Comey all say no.
	They had no impact.
	You know, but it's perfectly fine that President Obama tried to influence Benjamin Netanyahu's election with taxpayer dollars and his campaign operatives that he sent to Israel to do everything that Democrats are now expressing such outrage about.
	What phony hypocrites they are?
	Did any one Democrat ever show outrage when Obama promised flex it'll be flexible?
	Tell Vladimir's last election.
	Well, what is that is he colluding with Medvedev and saying I'll collude with Vladimir privately, but I can't say these things publicly.
	I have to wait till after I'm re-elected.
	You know, what do we learn today?
	Pretty much we learned today everything I reported on radio and TV the last two weeks.
	Yeah, there's an investigation.
	No, there's no evidence at all that the election was impacted.
	No evidence so far of any collusion whatsoever, not one thing.
	So everything we've been doing for the last ten days on this program with Sarah Carter and John Solomon has pretty much been confirmed.
	And yet, you know, on law enforcement, yeah, they've been investigating Russia's attempts to influence the election.
	We said that as an ancillary part of that investigation, they looked into the Trump servers.
	Maybe not exactly a wiretap, but pretty damn close.
	But by the way, I just blame the New York Times because that was their headline.
	And it happened, as James Clapper said, that had no impact on election results, corroborated today by both Admiral Rogers and by the FBI director Comey.
	And Comey said it's happened in the past and it'll happen again in 2020.
	More feigned outrage.
	The investigations have had found zero evidence of collusion.
	You won't hear that from the media today.
	So corrupt.
	Such fake news.
	Prices are for base buildings only.
	Do not include windows doors or accessories.
	Warning, don't let your business get left behind in what is likely to be the biggest economic boom in recent history.
	If you need to build to grow your business, call General Steel today.
	Steel prices are expected to rise, but you can still lock in your price on a General Steel building if you call now.
	For example, a 40 by 60 foot building is still less than 25,000.
	Even an 80 by 150 foot building is under 99,000.
	Imagine 12,000 square feet for under 99,000.
	This building is designed for your needs, no wasted space.
	And you get the general's quality and 50 year structural warranty at a price you can afford.
	You can still save as much as half the cost and time of conventional construction by calling General Steel today.
	As much as half.
	So don't let rising steel prices put your project out of reach and stop you from making your company great.
	Call now.
	877-81 Steel.
	It's not too late.
	Call.
	877-81 Steel.
	That's 877-817-8335.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
	All right, want to join us?
	You want to help hold them accountable?
	Repeal, replace, do it right.
	We'll give this out.
	They expect this vote to be on Thursday.
	And we're going to get an update on this, one of our top three stories today, and that is the health care bills expected to be voted on Thursday in the House of Representatives.
	Dave Bratt from the Freedom Caucus, Rand Paul from the Senate.
	Two critics up to this point.
	Freedom Caucus members still telling me they are not on board.
	Ram Paul is not on board yet.
	Obviously, it'll be a different bill in the Senate, then they'll come to the table and they'll reconcile the House and Senate bills, and that's more negotiation.
	Anyway, if you want to help us hold them accountable, it's important.
	202-224-3121 as for your representative.
	My advice is always be polite, but let them know how you feel.
	And that you're paying very close attention.
	And tell them what you want in the bill.
	Anyway, we'll have them on coming up in our next hour.
	Also, Sarah Carter and John Solomon of Circa News will get their take on the hearings today.
	That's really our number one story in James Comey's appearance today.
	And you know, Trump saying Democrats made up allegations of Russian interference.
	Well, he's right.
	That was in the liberal media and repeated by liberals on TV often.
	Oh, there's a wiretap on Trump Tower.
	Wiretap.
	Well, so they said it.
	Where did it come from?
	We don't know.
	There's no evidence of false vote tallies.
	Now, first it started James Clapper said it.
	Now James Comey has said it.
	And now we have Rogers, the Admiral Rogers, he said the same thing.
	That's three people.
	The FBI won't commit to investigating Obama officials over leaks.
	But then all of the people would have had access.
	And I thought that Trey Gowdy just did a fantastic job nailing down James Comey on this.
	They won't even admit.
	They're gonna, you know, here we have all of these people that had access to this unmasked information.
	In other words, the CIGnet intelligence that resulted in leaks.
	There's been a lot of leaks out there.
	Let's see.
	The draft executive order about black sites.
	That was a leak from within the intelligent community, intelligence community.
	President Trump's calls with Mexico and Australian leaders.
	That was an intelligence leak.
	A transcript of General Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador.
	Even Comey said it was unprecedented.
	Then you've got Trump associates, their contacts with Russia.
	Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador.
	All intelligence leaks.
	Rex Tillerson's anti-leak memo got leaked.
	Memo suggesting that National Guards could be used in cases involving illegal immigrants, illegal immigrant criminals out there.
	all leaked.
	I mean, it's unbelievable to me.
	You know, look at this.
	I've got a Washington Post story.
	Under the auspices of Chairman Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has released a report confirming allegations that an NGO with connections to Obama's 2008 campaign and use of taxpayer dollars attempted to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015.
	President Obama has had the worst relationship of any U.S. president with the elected prime minister of the Jewish state.
	Press release goes on to say that today U.S. Senators Rob Portman and Claire McCaskill and chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a bipartisan report examining the U.S. State Department's grants to one voice, a nongovernmental organization operating in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
	The group received 350,000 taxpayer dollars in grants from the U.S. State Department to support peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinian authority over a 14-month grant period ending in November 2014.
	In December of 2014, Israeli elections were called for following the collapse of peace negotiations.
	The subcommittee's investigation concludes that one voice Israel complied with the terms of the State Department grants within days after the grant period ended, however, the group deployed the campaign infrastructure and resources created in part using U.S. grant funds to support a political campaign to defeat the incumbent Israeli government known as V-15.
	Do you understand what they're saying here?
	The president used taxpayer dollars, State Department dollars, funded a group to take down the sitting prime minister of our closest ally in the Middle East.
	And you're going to feign outrage now that the Russians, who in the past and passed elections in this country, and Comey says guaranteed in 2020 in this country that they tried to influence the election.
	I don't know why they liked I really don't.
	I don't have no clue why they might have liked Trump better than Hillary.
	Maybe it's because they didn't like working with Hillary.
	Maybe they found her to be too partisan.
	Anyway, you had Trey Gowdy at an exchange on this line of questioning, and you know, Pfizer surveillance programs intentionally designed to preserve the privacy of U.S. citizens.
	I just gave you all the intelligence leaks.
	They're intentionally designed to ensure information that's collected is used only for legitimate national security and criminal investigative purposes.
	These are the statutory safeguards of privacy.
	Go back to Bill Binney, 32-year veteran, NSA, what he said on the program.
	Every phone call, every text, every email you send is being metadata stored probably somewhere in Utah, which is one of their biggest metadata facilities.
	Anyway, so it's a fun it's a felony.
	What they did to what they did to Michael Flynn, General Flynn was a felony, punishable by up to ten years in federal prison.
	If in fact, at the back end of this, somebody is identified.
	Violation of the Espionage Act.
	I don't know, Director Comey and the American people have an agreement with their government.
	We're going to give you the tools to keep us safe, even if it infringes on our privacy.
	We're going to give you the tools, and government in return promises to safeguard the privacy of U.S. citizens.
	And when that deal is broken, it jeopardizes American trust in the surveillance program.
	That was the biggest, most important thing that nobody I watched the coverage today.
	It is so they're so lazy.
	They're so rigidly ideological that they can't see a big picture on the in the general news media today.
	It's a bad day for Trump after all they said that no evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
	Well, that doesn't mean they didn't surveil Trump Tower.
	That doesn't debunk the story we've had for ten days that, in fact, as part of the investigation that we had corroborated two weeks ago on this program, that there was a what did Russia do in the election investigation, and we've been talking all about it.
	The ancillary investigation and into the Trump server found nothing.
	Not a thing.
	and Gowdy went through all of this.
	And Comey admitted that you can't do this to the American people.
	In February this year, the Washington Post reported nine current and former officials in senior positions at multiple agencies, you know, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, and that officials began pouring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications, diplomatic cables.
	The New York Times reported a U.S. citizen, whose name I won't use, discusses sanctions with a Russian ambassador.
	He's talking about General Flynn.
	In a phone call, according to officials who have seen the transcript.
	Then in February, the New York Times reported on a phone call involving a U.S. citizen, including significant discussions of phone records, intercepted calls, intercepted communications.
	They don't have a warrant to do this on the American.
	They do, as part of our national security, surveil Russian ambassadors.
	Russians are trying to screw with us, we're trying to screw with them.
	This has been going on for decades and decades and decades.
	You know, so the fact that a U.S. citizen intercepted calls and communications reported the NSA, and then you've got this whole mystery of why two weeks before he leaves office, Obama modifies Executive Order 1233 and allows 16 other agencies and all these other people to now have access to that sensitive intelligence that they never had access to ever before.
	That's the bigger story.
	Who knew what when and where?
	How do you get to the bottom of this?
	You know, I could also talk about the double standard.
	You know, I could tell you that I know the the whole story of the Clintons.
	Nobody asked today of what's going on with the Clintons, but Bill and Hillary Clinton got massive sums of money directly and indirectly from Russia and Russian officials.
	While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill Clinton was I was over in Moscow, gave a speech.
	My little pumpkin was back home doing whatever it is she does.
	This was a Moscow in 2010.
	Who put it put in the bill and investment firm in Moscow, called Renaissance Capital.
	Great reminder today by the uh the other day by Peter Schweitzer.
	Anyway, they boast of deep ties to the Russian intelligence community.
	Well, the Clintons are getting money right in their pocket.
	The Clinton Foundation took the money from the Russian officials and these Putin connected oligarchs.
	Rachel Maddow alert.
	Boop, boop, boop, boop, boop.
	No, that's right, MBC doesn't care about real news.
	Anyway, Victor Vexelberg, a Putin confidant who gave uh through his company and all these other people, they gave it all to the Clinton Foundation.
	Clinton Foundation also scored 145 million in donations from nine shareholders in a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One.
	Remember that deal?
	And then Uranium One was sold to the Russian government in 2010.
	And to make the deal go through, it required the approval of several federal government agencies, including Hillary Clinton State Department.
	The deal allowed the Russian state nuclear agency to buy assets that amounted to 20% of our uranium.
	What do we use uranium for?
	To build nuclear weapons.
	By the way, and that company, by the way, controls the Russian nuclear arsenal.
	Why would Hillary do that if she wasn't getting all these kickbacks?
	Oh, let's not bring that up.
	Hannity, you're just she lost.
	Trump won.
	Well, if we're going to deal with Russian connections, let's tell the whole truth here.
	Let's get the real perspective out on this.
	I'm so it's so embarrassing.
	These news networks have gone so deep, they have no desire to be honest with the American people anymore.
	None.
	Whatsoever.
	Let me go to another clip here.
	Where is my sheet?
	I lost my oh, here it is.
	And this is uh from earlier today.
	This is I think it's Congressman Wenstra.
	Two of the most uh what we read in the news is false.
	It is not a lie to lie to reporters.
	Listen to this.
	I know that if I tend to classified briefing and I receive classified information, and I go and tell someone that classified information, if I leak it or I release it, then I've committed a crime.
	But what if someone goes to a classified briefing, walks out of that briefing, and openly lies about the content of that briefing.
	Because it's unclear to me what happens then.
	And it's important because as you know, this committee and certainly both of you gentlemen have handled a lot of classified information and recently, more recently, um the purported classified information is put out in the press.
	The Washington Post, the New York Times reports information.
	And you know, and I know and we all know, having handled classified information, and that some of that information is not true.
	Are the sources of that classified information if they come out and lie about the content of classified information?
	I don't think so.
	If all they've done is lie to a reporter, that's not against the law.
	I I agree with you.
	I I think it's no crime.
	And so every reporter out there that has someone standing in front of them and saying, Oh, I'm taking this great risk of sharing with you U.S. secrets besides them uh purporting to be a traitor, um, are committing no crime if they lie to them.
	So all of these news articles that contain this information that we know is is not not the case are are being done so uh damage to the United States, but uh without the risk of a crime.
	My next aspect of your question to you, Mr. Comey, is this what is the obligation of the intelligence community to correct such falsehoods?
	Some of this information that we read in the Washington Post and the New York Times is extremely false and extremely incendiary incendiary, and it extremely condemning of individuals and certainly our whole system.
	What is your obligation, Mr. Comey, to be that source to say I can't release classified information, but I can tell you it's not that.
	Yeah, it's a great question, Mr. Turner.
	Because there's a whole lot out there that is false.
	And I suppose some of it could be people lying to reporters.
	I think that probably happens.
	But more often than not, it's people who who act like they know when they really don't know.
	Because they're not the people who actually know the secrets.
	They're one or two hops out and they're passing on things they think they know.
	Oh, by the way, that was Congressman Turner.
	I recognize his voice.
	And um listen to what he's saying there.
	But in the case of, for example, General Flynn, a felony was committed.
	You don't release that information.
	And it was done by somebody with intelligence connections at a very high level.
	And it was a felony.
	And that's the only crime to date that has been proven in this.
	In spite of all of the suggestions you'll hear if you're crazy enough to watch this fake these fake news outlets, because they're so bad.
	All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800 941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza, three big stories we are following today.
	The confirmation hearings of Neil Gorsuch, the slander, the borking, and high-tech lynching, I'm sure begins.
	Uh also our other top story is the moral selective outrage.
	Did the Russians try and influence the elections?
	We're getting to all of that.
	James Comey and Admiral Rogers and the push towards the health care bill.
	We have Sarah Carter and John Solomon standing by, investigative reporters for Circa News.
	But let's first go to, I think one of the key moments in today's testimony that nobody in the media wants to pay any attention to.
	It was uh Admiral Rogers and James Comey uh testifying, answering the question of Devin Nunez, whether or not there's any evidence whatsoever that the vote tallies were changed in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio.
	Anyway, let's go.
	Let's hit that.
	So my question uh as of today, Admiral Rogers, do you have any evidence that Russia cyber actors change vote tallies in the State of Michigan?
	No, I do not, but I would highlight we're in foreign intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization.
	So it would be fair to say we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer.
	How about the state of Pennsylvania?
	No, sir.
	The state of Wisconsin?
	No, sir.
	State of Florida?
	No, sir.
	State of North Carolina?
	No, sir.
	The State of Ohio?
	No, sir.
	So you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence that says suggests any votes were changed.
	I have nothing generated by the National Security Agency, sir.
	Director Comey, do you have any evidence at the FBI that any votes were changed in the states that I mentioned to Admiral Rogers?
	No.
	All right, Sarah Carter and John Solomon, both with circa.com, circa News and welcome both of you back to the program.
	John, what was your interpretation of not only that exchange, but I got the impression all morning that a lot of what you've been reporting the last what, eight to ten days is now coming out to bear fruit that you've been way ahead of the curve.
	Yeah, there's no no doubt about it, Sean.
	Uh the FBI director acknowledged that the primary focus of their investigation has been counterintelligence, whether the Russians were trying to influence the election as a small part of that.
	They've looked at some incidental contacts with Trump people, but to date, uh Chairman Nunez said at the opening of the hearing, there's been no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
	So I think that's all borne out.
	I thought the question is.
	Then why did the here's my question though?
	Then why did the FBI director, who's not never supposed to comment on ongoing investigations and wouldn't comment on an investigation, even acknowledge one as going into the leakers and national security and intelligence?
	Why would he comment only on the part that, yeah, we are looking into whether or not there was some collusion?
	Probably probably to explain why there have been these leaks, right?
	Why why there's some body of evidence that was leaked by certain certain people.
	I think that's the only reason.
	But the most important thing I think happened today, two chairmen, Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Nunez of the House Intelligence Committee both said they got private briefings last week and there's no evidence of collusion.
	That confirms what our sources have been telling us.
	Yeah, and Sarah, what was your take on it?
	I I found the double standard rather breathtaking today and seemingly political.
	It certainly, I think one thing that I took from it, it certainly is going to keep this question up in the air for quite a long time, right, as to what the answer is.
	Was there an inve you know, was there any evidence found?
	I mean, what we know is what John just said.
	Our sources have confirmed with us that they found no collusion between Trump administration, his his officials, the Trump team, and Russia to date.
	And we can say that beyond even the House uh intelligence uh Chairman Nunes statement and those made by others is that even the director of national intelligence, former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said publicly as well that he's seen no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.
	So that's something else that's very important.
	But I do think it goes to your point, Sean, that uh if anybody expected this to go away anytime soon, it's not going to go away anytime soon until the FBI wraps up its investigation and then reports back to Congress.
	Doesn't this seem like a rather long period of time when he admitted that in fact it started in July?
	And and one of the things you both of you were reporting is that, yeah, there was a Pfizer warrant, yeah, that it was related to Russia's attempts to influence, although both Code Comey and Admiral Rogers and James Clapper, as you point out, had all said that there's no evidence whatsoever that it impacted a single vote here in any way.
	But after what, eight months of investigations, they still can't get to the bottom of this?
	John?
	Yeah, well, the counterintelligence world is a complex world, right?
	And they often say what you first see in intelligence isn't often what is reality.
	And I think they want to button down and make sure that everything to uh that they finally report in the final report is accurate.
	But if they're this far along, the chances of finding something a smoking gun now are often pretty slim.
	I think there was a more important point in the hearing today, Sean.
	There was a moment where they both men were asked about could there have been political appointees inside the Obama White House who could see unredacted transcripts of Americans being intercepted by the NSA, and both acknowledged that that was possible.
	I think that's going to be a line of questioning and a line of more fa new facts coming out over the next few weeks.
	Who had access to what before all this stuff leaked?
	And I think that's going to become an intriguing part of the investigation.
	Well, that that issue, it's interesting you bring it up because if you let's go back to Trey Gowdy's questioning today, and I won't play it now, but we we played it in the last hour.
	But when Trey Gowdy went through the list of people that potentially would have knowledge of of the intelligence that ended up getting leaked, and and we have all the different examples of it that we have talked about at length on this program.
	I mean, at that point, one has to wonder.
	I mean, for example, the draft exact the draft executive order to reopen black sites or President Trump's calls with the Mexican and Australian leaders or the transcript of General Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador or Trump's associates' contacts with Russia and the Russians and memos suggesting a hundred thousand National Guard troops uh could be used on the issue of illegal immigration, Rex Tillerson's anti-leak memo, Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador.
	All of these are illegal leaks, and yet he wouldn't even acknowledge that that investigation is going on.
	Sarah?
	That that is correct.
	And I think that um you you brought that uh uh right to our point.
	You know, John and I just published a story on Friday with regard to that.
	And uh according to our sources, apparently uh the DOJ has not yet given authorization to the FBI to open that investigation.
	So that's interesting and in its in and of itself.
	And I think that the fact that the leaks came up is the most important point of this entire hearing.
	They both said, um, Admiral Mike Rogers as well as Director James Kelly that whoever leaked the information, particularly on Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and his conversation with the Russian ambassador, they violated the espionage act.
	I mean, they are punished.
	This is a felony.
	Uh this is prison time for whoever did this.
	And when you look at the narrow scope of people that would have viewed this, it is not going to be that difficult for them to retrace those footprints and start asking the right questions and finding out who actually leaked this information, whether it was one person or multiple persons.
	And I think that is the one fact that came out of this hearing.
	The fact that, well, that they know for for a fact that somebody leaked this information and that they violated the law and that this is a felony.
	That that is a fact.
	You know, all right.
	So then let's go to the other reports that you had last week that this whole Russia narrative could have been fed to law enforcement by supporters of Hillary Clinton and donors to Hillary Clinton.
	The media's run run roughshod with these wild conspiracy theories, one right after another.
	And I guess the the question is at this particular point.
	Um, if there's no evidence, is this a political thing that's happening?
	And why didn't they acknowledge, you know, Donald Trump, for example, is getting beaten up today by everyone in the media because he said that there's no evidence that that wiretapping by Obama took place.
	But he never said that there wasn't surveillance of Trump's servers, which you guys have been reporting.
	That's correct.
	I mean, we we did see with with the Trump server, um, it was a separate investigation.
	Remember, John and I both reported that this was a traditional investigation uh by the FBI into the Trump server after they had been notified and after they had seen reports that there were these pings between the Trump server, which is located outside of Trump Tower and the Russian bank, Alpha Bank.
	And when they investigated these pings, it was a very short-lived investigation.
	They found nothing of criminality uh between the servers, and they shut the investigation down immediately.
	So there was an investigation by the FBI, a traditional investigation that was not part of the overall investigation into Russia into these, maybe connected, but not to the big FISA investigation.
	They looked in there with the traditional, traditional investigative FBI techniques, and they found nothing.
	And you're right, we did discover that uh the people that were uh pushing this investigation, uh, one of them in particular, Professor L. Jean Camp, who's very well respected, by the way, and is an internet expert, uh, was pushing the FBI to investigate this and was disappointed that they did not continue to investigate this.
	And she's a big supporter of Hillary Clinton.
	Why was this able to show that?
	Well, I mean, this was a great piece put out by Peter Schweitzer in a column today.
	You know, the Bill and Hillary Clinton got large sums of money directly and indirectly from Russian officials while Secretary of State Bill Clinton was given a five hundred thousand dollar fee for a speech that he gave in Moscow.
	Well, who footed that bill?
	Well, an investment firm in Moscow called Renaissance Capital, which uh b boasts of their deep ties to Russian intelligence.
	The Clinton Foundation itself took money from Russian officials and Putin connected oligarchs.
	So the glaring fact that the Clinton sc Foundation scored a hundred and forty-five million in donations from nine shareholders and a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One that was sold to the Russian government, and the deal required the approval of several federal agencies, including Hillary's State Department that was granted.
	And that gave up what, twenty percent of our uranium or plutonium.
	That's right.
	Yeah, no, there's no doubt.
	Listen, the Russians have tried to show goodwill anywhere they could in the United States, gain influence any way they can.
	And Democrats and Republicans alike have have been targeted over the years, and I think a lot of that gets lost in this narrative when we focus just on one campaign and one candidate at the exclusion of others.
	All right, stay right there.
	I think journalism is going to look back and not be very proud of the moment of reporting it's had over the last couple of months.
	So all the breathlessness that you're you're seeing today based on your deep dive into this is these guys are all gonna have egg on their face.
	Well, unless unless the facts change, right?
	Unless something gets turned up at the last minute.
	I think at the end of the day, I think we're gonna end up probably where Clapper ended up a few weeks ago and where our reporting indicated, which is there's no evidence of criminal collusion.
	Yes, the Russians tried to influence yet another election.
	They've done it in the past and we'll do it again, as people said today.
	But I don't think the breathless breaking news water gate comparisons that we've had are going to stand up unless the fact based changes.
	All right, we'll take a break.
	We'll come back more with Sarah Carter and John Solomon, 800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
	Bringing jobs back to America and getting America back to work.
	All right, as we continue with Circa News reporter Sarah Carter and uh John Solomon.
	All right, I wanna where do you both think this is going next?
	I think this is the most important question.
	Where are we going next here?
	Well, I think that part of it, Sean, is going to be having to look into where the leaks emanated from.
	I think that's um huge.
	I also think the scope of the FISA is very important.
	How many people actually saw or had access to the raw unmasked phone conversations between Russian officials and whoever, uh, whatever American in the United States?
	I mean, are are we going to see more of those calls?
	Um, did people have access to names on you know, unmasked?
	That means not hidden from their their purvy, and could those be potential leaks in the future.
	I think all of these questions need to be answered, and it's something that uh I think lawmakers as uh as well as law enforcement, federal law enforcement agencies, including the intelligence community are probably gonna want to know.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Where John, if you had the look into your crystal ball, and maybe based on a little bit of where you know your investigation is going uh in the future, where do you see it?
	Yeah, I think Sarah has it exactly right.
	Apps in a bombshell last piece of evidence coming in, finding some magical connection between Trump and Russia.
	What I think this is all going to turn on is what has happened over the last six years to allow super secret intercepts by the NSA and FBI uh FISA wire taps to end up in and in hands where it can get leaked so easily.
	And I think that that that thread, what rules have been changed, what laws have been changed, what sort of carelessness has occurred in allowing people to look at unredacted Americans' intercepts and then possibly have them leaked.
	I think that's going to become the storyline.
	And I think uh uh Democrats and Republicans alike are sort of concerned about what they're hearing in these private briefings about who had access to transcripts, who had access to unredacted Americans' intercepts.
	And I think when we get to the bottom of that question, we're gonna learn a little bit more about privacy and civil liberties and maybe the the loss of some privacy that we've got.
	Well, Trey Gowdy got very specific answers on very specific names, maybe with the exception.
	Uh so that would tell me that if this all got leaked out, I mean, how do you how do you determine where the leaks come from?
	And why didn't the FBI director admit those leaks were going on when he admitted the FBI was probing, you know, Russia Trump associate links, which by the way, you and all all three of us has been have been reporting now for almost two weeks.
	Yeah, I think that's right.
	Comey did say one thing, though.
	He said it was such an extraordinarily rare moment in the intelligence world to have ever seen a FISA or 702 NSA intercept leak like what we saw with Mike Flynn.
	And I think his acknowledgement of that was was a a very important moment in the hearings, and I think that when we get to the bottom of who leaked that and how that leak became so easy to happen, we're gonna learn a lot about some sloppiness.
	How do you respond to the media's cover?
	Oh, bad day for Trump today.
	Because I didn't see it that way at all, Sarah.
	Yeah, I you know, I uh I I don't make opinions either on this, whether it was a bad or good day for Trump.
	I haven't actually spoken to President Trump to make that to make that opinion or to get that story out.
	I mean, it's uh it's kind of like assuming, right?
	I think what here is it's very revealing.
	And I think John brought up a very good point.
	You know, even though it was a very rare moment when we when we saw this leak go public, I think the bigger concern for me as an investigative journalist is not so much what's just already been leaked, but how wide of a scope has it has have people had access to these unredacted documents?
	What could they be used for?
	I mean, imagine this.
	If people within the intelligence community within federal law enforcement are looking at this, if they're politicizing this, and this is something that that is very concerning if they're politicizing intelligence and if they have information that no one else has because they're able to see phone conversations, they're able To pass those messages along.
	I mean, this could be very, very dangerous.
	And this is something that you don't want.
	I mean, this is stuff that you would see probably in Russia, right?
	You such a good point.
	We have protections.
	Uh we have protections to our private.
	I've got to run, but we'll have both of you back on handy.
	Are you gonna join us tonight, John, or do you gonna make Sarah do all the work for the circuit news team?
	But I'd love to join you, as you know, any time.
	Well, Sarah, I at least look forward to seeing you tonight.
	And I appreciate you will definitely see me tonight, Son.
	You're beginning to sound like James Comey, Solomon.
	That's all I can say about that.
	Uh just kidding.
	All right, eight hundred nine four one Sean.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	We'll check in with Rand Paul and Congressman Dave Bratt next.
	Holding them accountable.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
	All right, the Republican health care bill scheduled as of now for a full floor vote next well, this Thursday.
	We'll see if in fact that happens.
	Some uh very uh divisive stuff has happened.
	We've had we've had ads being run in the districts of some of the more conservative members of Congress that have not been sold on this bill, like some of the Freedom Caucus members and others.
	We know how badly the CBO blew it on Obamacare.
	Why anybody uses them in any way, shape, matter, or form is is beyond anything that makes sense to to me.
	Um and we had some apparent movement on Friday when the president meant with the Republican study group.
	Now they're they're conservative, but not as conservative as the Freedom Caucus members.
	And anyway, at the end of the day, they apparently agreed to give states the option to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients and to block grant Medicaid.
	Now that's something specifically I know that the Freedom Caucus wanted in their bill, and also in addition to the Medicaid agreement with the Republican study group, the White House and House leaders are also eyeing increasing tax credits in the bill, something that I guess would bring more of the left on board and the centrists on board or whatever you liberal Republicans on board.
	Anyway, here to get a status update on this, two staunch critics of the bill up till now.
	Uh and they both have an alternative bill that they've been pushing, one that I prefer myself, Senator Ramp Paul of Kentucky and Congressman Dave Bratt of Virginia.
	And uh Senator Paul will start with you, considering you are in the upper chamber, sir.
	Um where's the status of this?
	Uh, you've been very gracious in your comments about the president being willing to open his mind and negotiate with you.
	Where are you now?
	You know, I think that the bill as is can't pass.
	Conservatives across the country don't want Obamacare Light.
	As conservatives, you know, I was elected in the first Tea Party title wave in two thousand and ten, and I was elected to repeal Obamacare, you know, not to replace it with Obamacare Light.
	So I'm not for keeping the subsidies.
	The most recent movement this week has been to increase the subsidies to people uh to what we call refundable tax credits, but really it's just another name for Obamacare subsidies.
	This bill keeps some of the Obamacare taxes.
	It also keeps the individual mandate that says you have to pay the insurance company instead of the government.
	So I just think uh Obamacare lights.
	So you are you you have not seen any significant movement at all, and you got you didn't like any of the changes they made Friday, for example, imposing work requirements and block renting versus top-down government?
	I would say tweaks around the edges that are marginally good, but at the same time they may have made the Medicaid expansion less expensive.
	They also added to the expense by adding the uh increasing the refundable tax credit.
	So they may have marginally improved it, but they also made it worse by increasing tax credits that we have no, you know, we have no money in Washington.
	We're 20 trillion dollars in debt.
	We borrow a million dollars a minute.
	We don't have money to give people money when we have no money up here.
	Congressman Bratt, the two changes on Friday, I remember specifically were two changes you personally told me you wanted to see, especially the block granting side of it.
	Yeah, that's right.
	And uh the the important part of block granting is it gets the federal government out of the health care uh equation.
	But unfortunately, last week National Journal, one of the tabloids we get up here, both conservative think tanks and liberal think tanks both agree.
	They both one hundred percent agree that all of the architecture and all of the structure of Obamacare stays with us.
	And so what is that architecture that contains the insurance regulations that uh Senator Paul was just talking about?
	Uh the regs make sure that the federal government can mandate the type of insurance product you will buy.
	So a young kid cannot go out and buy a low uh price product.
	And so what Senator Paul just said is uh the bill gets rid of some of the tax uh revenues but increases cost, and so the main thing we have to focus on is there's no free market here yet, right?
	President Trump wants shopping across state lines.
	We have to have a market emerge for health care, or President Trump in two years is going to be stuck in a death spiral of his own.
	When you take in less money and costs go up, and we're not expected CBO scored it.
	So that we're not our costs are not going to go down for another three years.
	There's no premium reduction for three years.
	Uh so we have an election coming up, President Trump has an election.
	It's not about elections, but you have to start with the Rand Paul bill.
	You've got to start with free markets.
	And then everybody agrees we got to take care of those folks with uh pre existing conditions.
	Uh they're five percent of the people with over fifty percent of the national national health care costs.
	That's a real problem.
	But that that is a target on the side.
	They're uninsurable.
	So that should not impact the insurance market.
	We have to have free markets for insurance, for hospitals, so you don't get twenty dollar aspirin.
	You cannot start with a socialist program and then get promised that we're gonna try to work in a little bit of free markets later.
	Is there any doesn't work that way?
	Is there any Freedom Caucus member that you know that's supporting this bill?
	Uh there's a couple guys that are on some of the relevant committees that have made commitments, uh, but we got a strong number there, and then there's some moderates that are already no out on the record, and there's a bunch of the moderate uh, you know, folks who are in tough states up in the northeast who have more uh liberal leaning uh constituencies, they're no.
	And a lot of these people are just being quiet right now.
	But I think it's it's it's you know, 40 or 50 no's that we know of, and and those are the folks that have you know gone gone out on the record.
	And then for what what Randy said and Tom Cotton and Lee and Cruz or the Senate's gonna vote no.
	So you got the Republicans are gonna put themselves on the record voting yes for the structure of Obamacare.
	The Senate's gonna vote no, and then they got to go back home and uh face the face the music.
	That's the thing that's the right.
	Well, this goes back to to my original criticism and comment here is in the weeks leading up to the rollout of this bill, Senator Paul, it I kept telling people in high places that you don't have support for your bill.
	I said you're not showing it to them, you don't have support for it.
	Why don't you build consensus?
	Why don't you throw everybody in a room and why don't you get the bill right first before you roll it out instead of this public, you know, brew haha, an intramural fight and civil war that's broken out here.
	And I think it was really unnecessary because everything I predicted would happen did.
	And I guess the question is, where are you uh senator in terms of you know you you praised the president in terms of being willing to listen to your ideas, as he implemented or accepted any of them?
	You know, I think the real problem is Paul Ryan went around the country and continues to go around the country saying we all ran on his repeal and replace bill.
	Well, none of us ran on his repeal and replace.
	We ran on repeal.
	Every one of us ran on complete repeal, similar to what we voted on a year ago, and then Paul Ryan pops out with this thing that's a replacement that's uh sort of half a.
	Well, Brian said even the twenty fifteen bill was not a full repeal bill.
	And it uh it was much more complete in the sense that they didn't add in new things that are Obamacare light.
	It didn't repeal the insurance regs, but my goal all along was to have a companion bill.
	So about two months ago I wrote a replacement bill.
	It's a companion bill to the Yeah, I've got it in front of me, as two Senate 222, right?
	Yeah, and so the thing is is there still is unity on repeal.
	We could vote on the 2015 bill this week and it would pass unanimously, and then what we would do is we would separate out and we'd vote on replacement the same day, and maybe we'd vote on the conservative version, the Obamacare light version, and maybe a Democrat version, but we'd see what would pass on the replacement, and then really whoever passes or fails, that's where the next argument comes for you know what happens with health care in the future, because I think we have the votes for repeal, we just don't have the votes and the unity for replacement.
	You know, the the one thing I've been trying, I'm trying to offer constructive criticism to these guys.
	Number one, if I was the leadership, I would have you and Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and and Marco Ruby, I'd have and and Senator Mitch McConnell in a room, and then I'd have Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price in a room,
	and then I'd have at least the Vice President, Mike Pence in the room, and then I'd have Ryan Sprevis, Steve Bannon, and other others in the room, and then I'd have the Freedom Caucus and the study committee in the room and even those moderates in the room, and I'd I take every everybody's phone away and not let any one of you leave that room until this was done.
	Well, the real the real negotiation, Sean, begins if the vote uh if the House Freedom Caucus sticks together and they're able to stop the vote on Thursday, then that's when the real negotiation begins.
	Right now is the pre-negotiation.
	There's not going to be any significant change to this bill unless they don't have the votes.
	If they don't have the votes on Thursday, then conservatives will have earned a seat at the table, and that's when push comes to shove, and that's when we're going to work on repeating are you confident that you have those votes, Dave Brett?
	Yeah, yeah.
	We're we're holding tight, and there like I said, Rod Whitman's not in the Freedom Caucus.
	There's several like Amash and Thomas Massey from Kentucky.
	Uh, there's some other great guys that are gonna be no votes, and then there's some more liberal members, three of them that have committed to no.
	How many no votes are as of today without changes that you guys are insisting on?
	And I know you gave a list of five specific things.
	As of today, how many members do you have locked in against the bill?
	Uh thirty-seven no's and you need twenty-one.
	And I don't want to emphasize the no part.
	We're trying to get to yes, but it's it's like Senator Paul, it's yes on our promise.
	We promised to repeal uh Obamacare.
	That was the initial, and then repeal and replaced with free market solutions.
	And so we want to get to yes, but we promised free market solutions to actually solve this.
	We don't want to put in place what Obamacare did eight years ago, which was an exclusive attention on coverage.
	And CBO now it's all on coverage and nothing on price, nothing on price discovery, nothing on reducing the cost of innovation in medicine and et cetera.
	And so that that's the key piece the American people need to focus on.
	Well, all right, so let me let me go here.
	What one of the things that I've talked a lot about, not only the health care savings accounts, but these cooperatives, health care cooperatives, uh, Senator Paul and I told you about Dr. Umber and Wichita, Kansas, and how he's duplicated that model, fifty bucks a month, an adult, ten bucks a month, a child, and you pay pennies on the dollar even for an X-ray or an MRI.
	And I'm just wondering, you know, wouldn't that be the smartest way to go?
	And I don't hear anybody else talking about it.
	Well, here's the problem.
	You have House leadership, they're insufficiently confident in the marketplace and in capitalism.
	So instead of saying how we're going to get the price down, what they're talking about is how we're going to subsidize the price for those just before retirement age.
	So they're adding to the subsidies.
	And here's the point I make.
	If you let everybody in the AARP, 37 million people, you let them join a health co-op and have one person negotiating for them, we'll we'll drop the prices in half in an in a single instance.
	Once you give that power and that leverage to big groups to negotiate, I was at the Chamber of Commerce today in Louisville.
	Chamber of Commerce across the country could have leverage by letting all of their members be part of a health care association.
	That's what we should be talking about.
	That should be part of the debate now.
	And Ryan and the others don't disagree with us, but they say, oh, we're going to wait and do that in bucket three, you know, uh six years from now.
	And it really needs to be this is the debate.
	There's not going to be a debate in six months.
	This is the debate.
	It's the only debate on Obamacare, and we ought to be talking about the good things that we're for for insurance.
	And then we've been doing a lot of that on this program, and I know that that a lot of it is in the bill, which I liked a lot that you guys have put out, and we'll see what happens by Thursday.
	If they don't have a vote, that means they don't have the votes.
	All right, guys, stay right there.
	Uh when we come back, I want to ask you, you know, why is there a rush, number one, and and why aren't these alternative plans being discussed?
	More with Dave Bratt, Senator Rampall.
	All right, so the health care bill, there is talk of a vote in the House on Thursday.
	And all right, so why is there a rush, Dave Bratt, considering there's still a lot of opposition out there, and what has been the outreach from A, the leadership in in the House, and B the president.
	Yeah, well, why is there a rush?
	And let's get back to the debate.
	If you look at an eighth grade civics class, where has been the debate?
	Where's Rand Paul's bill been debated on House floor?
	Right.
	And so there is a rush.
	Our side says we're doing regular order.
	Uh the eighth graders looking for a debate.
	And so now we pass forward.
	Trump now is getting ready to do tax reform.
	So that's why there is urgency now.
	Uh, but we didn't create this urgency, right?
	We all ran on a 2015 repeal that all the Senate voted on, all the House voted on.
	It's a note brainer.
	And so Rand is right.
	We ought to return to that one, get the repeal vote done.
	So the regs, it all goes through in the bird rule.
	Uh you got Harvard scholars who have said there's no problem getting a vote on this reconciliation piece over there.
	Have you heard from Ryan McCarthy, Brady Scalise?
	Do you guys talk to them?
	Uh here and I mean we bounced ideas off as best we can.
	Mark Meadows was down at Mar a Lago with Lee and a couple other senators, I think, this weekend.
	And our guys agreed to stay in a room like you suggested until we knock this thing out.
	And so our leadership is in a rush.
	They want to get this plan through for some reason.
	Ran getting urgency on this plan.
	I guess Rand Paul's fortunate in that the Senate majority leaders is from his home state, and I know you guys have supported each other a lot over the years.
	It's not like you and Senator McCain, by the way.
	I thought that exchange was hilarious this week.
	Uh uh accusing you of colluding with Vladimir.
	I almost died laughing.
	Uh but anyway, what's what's up in the Senate and how contingent is it going to be there on the bill of the House?
	Or does that is that irrelevant?
	Well, the interesting thing is through the years, you know, repeal has brought us all together.
	But the idea of replacing Israeli separating us, I would say at least uh half of our caucus or a third of our caucus wants more subsidies.
	And they also want to keep the Medicaid expansion.
	That's uh that's kind of where our Senate Republican caucus is.
	And then there's five, six, seven conservatives who think, you know, we promised to repeal it.
	Let's repeal it, and let's replace it with a marketplace that'll bring down prices.
	And let's not subsidize a floor for insurance rates.
	Let's not subsidize the insurance companies.
	Let's actually work at empowering the consumer to bring prices down.
	But we are really divided on the replace.
	That's why the only way I think we get this done is vote on repeal, and then the same day we can begin voting on a host of different replacement strategies.
	There's a conservative replacement, there's Paul Ryan's Obamacare Light, and then there could be a Democrat version.
	There could be portions of each of the pro of the each of the replacements could come forward.
	But I don't believe sticking them together and insulting us by saying that we actually ran on this when every conservative in the land knows we ran on repealing it, not replacing it with Obamacare Light.
	All right, we're going to hold them accountable.
	I want this done and done right.
	The president needs this win, and not getting this bill done is just not acceptable, especially because they've had eight years to prepare for this, and then they're not prepared.
	All right, thank you, Rand Paul Senator.
	Appreciate it.
	And Congressman, uh, we really appreciate it.
	Dave Brad of Virginia, 800-941 Sean, our number.
	You want to be a part of the program, news roundup information overload.
	Straight ahead.
	All right, news roundup information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity Show.
	Three top stories we are following today, the confirmation hearings.
	Neil Gorsuch has all started.
	A push to get a health care vote on Thursday, and of course, James Comey in his testimony on Capitol Hill earlier today, uh, which we will get to all of that.
	I want to start with the issue, though, of uh of the hearings that nobody's really paying attention to.
	And we got Pat Lahey believing that Gorsuch being an originalist is outside the mainstream.
	By the way, the guy got not a single vote of opposition by any Democrat when he got to the Tenth Circuit.
	And then we got Dick Durbin saying that Republicans' handling of Merrick Carlin was political.
	So this is going to be political.
	Listen.
	Judge Gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive original philosophy.
	The approach taken by jurors such as Justice Clea, Justice Thomas, former Judge Bork.
	Well, it has gained some popularity within conservative circles.
	Originalism, I believe, remains outside the mainstream of modern constitutional jurisprudence.
	It's been twenty-five years since the originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court.
	Given what we've seen from Justice Clear and Justice Thomas and Judge Gorsett's own record.
	I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy and it becomes an agenda.
	We know that conservative groups have vetted Judge Gorsett and the millionaires who fund them have a clear agenda when this anti choice, anti-environment, pro-corporate.
	And these groups are obviously confident that Judge Corsit shares their agenda.
	President Obama met his constitutionally required obligation by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to fill that vacancy in March of 2016.
	Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced that for the first time in the history of the United States Senate, he would refuse Judge Garland a hearing and a vote.
	He went further and said he would refuse to even meet with the judge.
	It was clear that Senator McConnell was making a political decision, hoping a Republican president would be elected.
	He was willing to ignore the tradition and precedent of the Senate so that you could sit at this witness table today.
	In May of September of 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump released a list of twenty-one names, including yours, that he would consider to fill the Scalia vacancy.
	Your nomination is part of a Republican strategy to capture our judicial branch of government.
	That is why the Senate Republicans kept this Supreme Court vac seat vacant for more than a year, and why they left 30 judicial nominees who had received bipartisan approval of this committee to die on the Senate calendar as President Obama left office.
	All right, one thing that uh Dick Durbin kept out of that was the fact that this was the Democrats' rule.
	This was invented by them that in the final year that it should become a referendum, Chuck Schumer and company, that this is what they did.
	This is what they decided.
	Republicans were just following what Democrats had done in the past and stated publicly should be the way to handle the last year of a of a presidency.
	Anyway, here to weigh in on this and much more, a lot of news going on today.
	Danielle McLaughlin, attorney constitutional expert, who wrote co-wrote the Federalist Society, how conservatives took the law back from Liberals.
	Jay Seculow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
	So basically it's an opening opening statement posturing day.
	Um do you see any Democrats, maybe besides Manchin and a couple of others that would uh vote for cloture and allow an up or down vote?
	How many do you count?
	I I'm I'm telling Sean, I think this is a party line.
	I think Manchin will be uh probably the exception, maybe one other.
	Um I don't think they'll let it go to a filibuster, though.
	I think they'll eventually allow closure to take place only because they want to save that uh for another nomination, which is likely to occur this summer.
	But uh the idea that you had uh Patrick Leahy say that originalism is out of the mainstream of judicial thought is absurd.
	And if you look at the Supreme Court decision from the last, you know, let's say three decades, there's a lot of originalism in there because at and and a m much of that time a majority of the court were originalists.
	So the it's only been this last go round with the four-four that it really hasn't.
	I mean, uh you could argue about Justice Kennedy, but generally there's an originalist philosophy, and I I think that this is if this is what they have against Judge Gorsuch, they've got nothing.
	You have anything, Danielle, or should he be approved?
	I mean, he's got the highest rating from the ABA, which is not exactly a conservative group.
	He uh all of his colleagues say he's a deep thinker.
	He has all the credentials to be a Supreme Court justice.
	Why wouldn't the Democrats at least allow a fair up or down vote?
	I suspect that they will, Sean.
	Um you know, good afternoon to both of you.
	I agree with Jay.
	I see this as a party line vote, uh, and I suspect that they won't be a forced filibuster because we do have a couple of other um jurists, uh, specifically uh Justice Ginsbury and obviously Justice Anthony Kennedy, who may be coming towards the end of their term.
	And the nomination of uh Justice Well, Judge Gorsuch would restore the balance that we saw prior to Scalia.
	To the point about originalism, you know, Jay, your point is well taken, and I think this sort of thirty-year period is is pretty fair to say at the point at which originalism has really wro risen into the jurisprudence of not only the Supreme Court and what we're hearing from judges there, but you know, throughout uh judiciary.
	Um, it means who is obviously a longtime uh faithful uh uh you know man who worked alongside uh Reagan in the White House and obviously in California, um started talking about that in about 1985.
	And it I wouldn't consider it to be outside the mainstream.
	I think that Democrats uh try and talk about originalism at that way today, Carol, because it's real, uh, people believe in it.
	I think we should have, you know, informed discussions about the idea of a living constitution against originalism, but to call it out of the mainstream, it's really not, and I think that's a political mistake.
	It's a political mistake, but now things have gotten very personal.
	Now that Harry Reid has changed the nuclear option rule on judges and other appointees, then uh you got to imagine that what's good for the Democrats is now going to be good for the Republicans, and a push comes to shove, they would use that nuclear option that Harry Reid opened and and they would go forward.
	I think that's right.
	And the fact is, Sean, Judge Gorsuch, in about two to three weeks is going to be Justice Gorsuch.
	It may be through a nuclear option, it may not have to be through a nuclear option, we'll find out.
	But this judge is going to be confirmed unless there's something that nobody knows.
	And we've done an exhaustive hundred-page analysis of every decision of significance that he's rendered.
	They are within the judicial mainstream.
	I've had the uh privilege of having a case before Judge Gorsuch at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit where he sat.
	So look, I think that this is an imminently well qualified individual.
	I think that these are really statements that were made today are really aimed at the uh Merrick Gartland situation.
	It's not aimed at Judge Gorsuch.
	He's the nominee.
	You're right.
	It was the Biden rule that said in the last year of the presidency, you don't confirm someone to the United States Supreme Court, and they're the ones that also changed the pilibuster rule.
	So the precedent is against them.
	Uh uh without any question here, and I think they're gonna they're gonna pay for that.
	If they if they do try to filibuster, they're gonna lose.
	At the end of the day, he'll be confirmed.
	All right, let's move on uh both of you.
	Let's let's go to the Comey testifying, test the testifying from earlier today.
	Let's play a little bit of Trey Gowdy, because I thought he was probably the most effective Republican.
	I was not actually, and this is holding Republicans accountable.
	I was not that impressed with the preparation of some of these Republicans, Jay.
	And you know what?
	It's like what do these guys do for a living?
	They weren't prepared for the health care bill after eight years of arguing.
	And they had all this lead up, but knowing that the FBI director is coming, I have at least 15 questions I would like to ask that haven't been asked yet.
	Anyway, let's play Trey Gowdy.
	Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen um that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?
	I can't say in this forum because again, I don't want to confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.
	Would he have access to an unmasked name?
	In in some circumstances, sure.
	He was the director of national intelligence, but I'm not talking about the particular Would Director Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	In some circumstances, yes.
	Would National Security Advisor Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	I think any yes, uh, in general and any other National Security Advisor would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.
	Would former White House advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	I don't know the answer to that.
	Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen's name?
	In general, yes, as would any attorney general.
	So that would also include acting H. E. Sally Yates?
	Same answer.
	I do understand that you cannot ordinarily confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
	But you did it this morning, citing DOJ policy given the gravity of the fact pattern.
	Would you not agree that surveillance programs that are critical, indispensable, vital to our national security, some of which are up for reauthorization this fall that save American lives and prevent terrorist attacks also rises to the level of important.
	I think those programs are vital and leaks of information collected pursuant to court order under those programs are terrible.
	And as I said, my opening statement should be taken very, very seriously.
	What I don't ever want to do is compound what bad people have done and confirm something that's in the newspaper.
	Because sometimes the newspaper gets it right.
	There's a whole lot of wrong information about allegedly about classified activities that's in the newspaper.
	We don't call them and correct them either.
	That's another big challenge.
	But we just don't go anywhere near it because we don't want to help and compound the offense that was committed.
	I understand that, Director Comey, and I'm trying really hard not to get you to discuss the facts at bar.
	But some of the words that appeared in this public reporting include the word transcript, which has a very unique use in the matters that you and I are discussing this morning.
	That is a very unique use of that word.
	Wiretab has a very specific meaning.
	The name of a U.S. citizen that was supposed to statutorily be protected is no longer protected.
	So some of this reporting, let's assume 90% of it is inaccurate.
	That other 10% is still really, really important.
	And to the extent that you can rely on the dates in either the Washington Post or the New York Times, we are talking about February of this year, is when the reporting first took place.
	So we are we're a month and a half or two months into something.
	I'm running out of time here.
	You get the point, Jay.
	Really quick response, then we'll pick it up on the other side.
	Yeah, first, and this is the clearest one is that the FBI director won't acknowledge that there's actually an investigation of the leaked information, which I thought was the whole purpose of this.
	That he doesn't acknowledge, but he does say that there's an investigation of Donald Trump associates in Russia.
	But doesn't say that there's an investigation of the leaked information because he doesn't want to acknowledge that that information may well have been secret or classified.
	This is absurd, Sean, and the American people need to be alarmed.
	Right, left, or center.
	This is outrageous.
	Real quick, do you agree with that, Daniel McLaughlin?
	I think the focus of this these hearings has to be on Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
	Today we have confirmation that the FBI is investigating.
	That's the biggest takeaway for the American people.
	Okay, but why didn't he do it if he if he would confirm one investigation, why not another?
	Well, as we all know, it's the DOJ and the FBI practice not to concern.
	Okay, but that's my point.
	You can't say you have one and then say I can't tell you about the other.
	Well, he did this with Hillary Clinton eleven days before the yeah.
	All right, I gotta take a break.
	As we continue, of course, three big top stories that we are covering on the program today, not the least of which is James Comey's testifying on Capitol Hill, and then of course the Gorsuch confirmation hearings have begun, and we're hitting that today, and the health care bill is moving forward, eight hundred nine four one Sean, J. Seculo.
	Let's go back to what is n why wouldn't the FBI director mention another ongoing investigation.
	For example, you know, and by the way, if it's so bad that foreign countries are influencing our elections, well, why didn't anybody care about Obama openly trying to influ influence the election of Israel?
	Well, because it didn't serve the narrative.
	But you you gotta look at two things here.
	Number one is uh the interesting comment, the opening comment by the chairman, Nunez, who says while there's no evidence of wiretaps, this does not mean that there was no other surveillance going on.
	Then you have the admission by the FBI director that in fact there is an ongoing criminal investigation of uh Trump associates and Russia, which means there's obviously some surveillance that's been going on.
	Then you have the uh statement that he's not gonna talk about whether there's an investigation of linked information because he doesn't even want to acknowledge that whether that's classified or not.
	He follows that up, and by the by the way, this is to me all of this is absurd in the analysis, and he paints a narrative, and and the fourth takeaway here is and I think everybody needs to know this one too, it there's not any evidence that one vote was impacted by this alleged Russian engagement.
	And I am no fan of Russia, as you know, but there was no evidence that anything in the election was impacted by this Russia engagement.
	And then when he was filed, close with this.
	Then he was asked about the Hillary Clinton matter and and favoritism, he said, Well, everybody knew that the Russians hated Clinton and they wanted Trump to win.
	This is from the director of the FBI.
	Sean, this is this is beyond the pale of acceptability.
	You think he needs to go.
	He does.
	I agree.
	It's hard to make him go.
	That's the problem.
	Well, why is it so hard?
	Because you'd have to if they serve at a take.
	Ten year term, I know, but it's got to almost be like a high crime and misdemeanor.
	And that's the problem here.
	But James Comey has engaged himself in partisan politics going back to the election and continues to do it even today.
	I agree with that too.
	Uh Danielle McLaughlin.
	You know, I'm a believer in process and institutions.
	And just like when many of my friends who are liberals who are democrats were up in arms when uh James Tony uh Tommy supplemented his testimony and opened a huge can of worms eleven days before the election.
	You know, I think he did what he felt was right.
	Generally speaking, he's not going to talk about whether an investigation ever even exists or not.
	But what we did get from these hearings are some really important things that the American people need to like really absorb.
	Number one, there is an ongoing investigation into Trump associates campaign to be.
	All right, Danielle, let me ask you one question.
	Can you name one specific bit of evidence that proves that the Russians and the Trump campaign colluded in the election?
	I don't know whether that exists or not, and that is James Comey's job.
	The second point is.
	But then why if he doesn't have any proof?
	Why is he saying, well, we've been investigating it since July, and here it is what, eight months later, and we have nothing, and he goes out and says we're investigating still?
	Look, these things can take years as we well know.
	So we'll he's not gonna come out and give classified information of the case.
	James Comey went out there and made a political statement.
	That's what this was all about, Sean.
	At the end of the day, this was all about politics.
	Whether it was the Clinton statement that he made, which was not very professional, or whether it's the fact I'm gonna talk about this investigation but not talk about that investigation.
	This is ridiculous.
	And he did acknowledge no votes were impacted here.
	So a lot of this is much ado about nothing.
	Again, if the Russians were engaged, go investigate it.
	Great.
	It didn't impact the election, but I will tell you this not acknowledging that you're criminally investigating the leak of information.
	All right, I've got to read.
	All right, I agree.
	That's a double standard.
	That is uh I don't see how we can get over.
	All right, thank you both for being with us.
	When we come back, wide open telephones, 800-941 Sean.
	You want to be a part of the program on this busy newsday.
	We will continue.
	All right, holding them accountable, everybody, doesn't matter who it is.
	They make promises, they gotta keep them.
	That's our that is where we do our best work.
	They made promises, now keep them.
	800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	What a insane day this has been today.
	You have the Neil Gorsuch hearings, the confirmation hearings that have begun today.
	We got now movement on the health care bill, maybe a vote as early as Thursday on this bill, so we're watching that very closely, and whatever concessions are made to conservatives and whether or not they get enough on board to make this a viable bill.
	Looks like it's gonna go down to the last minute here.
	And then of course, James Comey, ridiculous testimony before the House Intelligence Committee today, and you know, I I it's just pretty mind-numbing to me on so many of these, you know, the the selective moral outrage of the left is so on display.
	What outrage.
	Russia tried to influence the election, but they didn't do it.
	They didn't succeed.
	Clapper said it.
	Admiral Rogers said it, Comey said it.
	That's not the headline that is on the news all day today.
	But if they really cared about foreign governments influencing elections, nobody seemed to care that Obama did it to our close friend and ally Israel.
	Not his close friend and ally Israel, America's close friend and ally Israel, and he used taxpayer money to do it.
	You know, also did any one Democrat complain about the flexibility.
	Hey, I tell Vladimir.
	Listen, tell Vladimir.
	Yeah.
	I transmit this information to the legend around the standard.
	Tell Vladimir I'll have a lot more flexibility after the election.
	And we'll do things that I could never tell the American people.
	Okay.
	So we'll have a special deal.
	Just tell Vladimir to stand down.
	As if the Russians haven't tried to influence our elections before.
	Well, that's everyone is saying, yeah, they have.
	And Comey said today, and they will in the future.
	Question is what are we doing to stop it?
	The fact that he would acknowledge that that investigation's going on, but not the investigation into who's leaking our intelligence.
	And why is this all of a sudden happening only since Donald Trump became the president of the United States?
	You know, so now you have Clapper, Admiral Rogers, and James Comey all saying had no impact on the election results whatsoever.
	Naming the specific states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida.
	Any impact?
	None.
	Zero evidence of collusion.
	Not one thing.
	The only thing that they're we have been telling you for two weeks that there's an ongoing investigation.
	Uh where's the investigation into the leakers, and why wouldn't Comey admit that was happening?
	It makes absolutely no sense.
	This is what you have here is a double standard.
	Either he's gonna comment on ongoing investigations or he's not gonna comment on ongoing investigations.
	Because the one into the leaks into intelligence is probably more dangerous at the end of the day than anything else.
	So this started in July.
	It's eight months late later.
	What do we have?
	No evidence, innuendo, eight months of conspiracy, and Comey seems incapable of finishing any investigation.
	Is he done with the Hillary Clinton server, foundation, hard ties to Russia, which were extensive and line the pockets of the Clintons personally and the Clinton Foundation?
	I don't know that Trump got anything out of them.
	Anyway, 800-941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Uh Dorley is in San Angelo, Texas.
	Dorley, how are you?
	I thought it showed get along with them, you know.
	But then it's just like, oh man.
	What's up, Dorley?
	It's so funny.
	Here is Jeff Sessions.
	You've got to look it up.
	Hey, Dorley.
	Anyway, but we had a Larry Stay laughing at um Dorley, it's Shaw Dorley.
	I knew.
	I knew that I noticed it.
	Yeah.
	Sure enough she didn't.
	Yeah.
	Hey Dorley Dorley.
	I'm here, yes, sir.
	Welcome to the show.
	You've been on for three minutes.
	No, sir.
	Yeah, who are you talking to, by the way?
	Who you I'm talking to my assistant Lauren.
	Oh man.
	Well, she was getting an airful today.
	All right.
	What's on your mind, Dorley?
	We're we got thank you.
	I all right.
	What I'm saying is this.
	My concern is that when with the with the allegations of wiretapping, sure, most Americans can see that, you know, there's a lot that goes on we don't know about.
	Okay.
	There's a lot of things that go on that we don't know about and that we may not know about for a long time.
	With the allegations and him sitting up there and saying, No, there's no there's no proof of this.
	Well, that's a concern.
	The only everything else, the Russian stuff, I I under I think everybody can, you know, realize that that that the Democrats have been very two-faced on that.
	I'm my only concern is that he's at a place of uh a real place a fork in the road of how he's gonna handle continuing you know this wiretap allegation, whether it's true or false or not.
	I I'm not saying it is that it is false, but how will he continue to maintain himself as a president with this continually you know backlashing against him, especially from the intelligence community?
	Well, I mean, eventually this comes to an end.
	Eventually we get this resolved, eventually they're either gonna indict somebody or they're not.
	So I mean but what our reporters are telling us, investigative reporters that I think have the best sources of anybody, which is why I keep putting them on, is Sarah Carter and John Solomon.
	And they're saying that this is gonna they're saying their sources tell them yes.
	Listen, for two weeks I've been telling you on this program, yes, there were two warrants issued.
	Yes, there's been an investigation.
	No, they haven't found a single thing.
	And so, you know, eight months later, I assume if they found it, they would have told us about it.
	All right, Dorley, go back to yelling at your assistant.
	Now, Linda, have I ever yelled at anybody that way?
	And let me tell you this, and let me t you know what.
	Are you asking me to respond to this?
	Yes, ma'am.
	Have you ever yelled at anyone?
	Well never.
	Absolutely not.
	Maybe once or twice.
	I'm not a yeller, though.
	You have to admit.
	No, only if my computer breaks.
	Pretty much that's the biggest I've seen you in some heated monologues.
	You you're yelling.
	In fact, I do my best to tick you off just to give you the chance at a better monologue where you're angry Oh boy.
	I don't think people no, I don't I think people want answers and people want facts.
	I don't th and by the way, with passion, passion is not anger.
	I'm not an angry person.
	I didn't say you were an angry person.
	Just because you have a moment of anger doesn't mean you're an angry person.
	Well, I mean, you could listen, pot, kettle, black.
	I'm talking about talking about me right now.
	Okay.
	And when you get mad, God help everybody, the tornado in that the tornado in that room is like a a category, whatever.
	I'm not shy about my temper.
	I'm fully aware.
	All right, thank you.
	Uh all right, let's go to David in Cincinnati 55 K R C. What's up, David?
	How are you, sir?
	You're you're a great American, David.
	I want a full report.
	You're a great American, Sean.
	What's going on?
	I'm a big fan, and you're calling it exactly right on this uh wiretapping and Russian uh it's it's just mud they're swinging against the wall.
	You know, they were they were saying uh we had a wiretap in December and uh nobody seemed to care then.
	So uh why why should we care now?
	Look, I'm just saying it's the everything we have said here has now been proven in this hearing today.
	The only thing I don't like about it is the length of time the media has as usual the only focus on the negative that they want about Donald Trump.
	Yes, there's investigation.
	Well, we've been saying it for two weeks.
	You know the the they're out to paint him in the worst possible light, and they keep going back to the same dog and pony show that they run out every other time.
	So I don't think the American people care at this point.
	I think we just want something to happen.
	I agree.
	The same thing with this Gorsuch.
	When they confirmed him the last time, did anybody even vote against him?
	Nope, it was a voice vote, not a single opposition.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, more more just trying to throw mud and see what sticks in hopes that they can get, you know, somebody riled up about something to to go out and have another riot in New York or or Baltimore or or Ferguson, Missouri, or wherever.
	Well, I mean, the sad part is is Clapper, Comey, Admiral Rogers now have all said that there was no impact on votes in this election.
	And that yeah and they confirmed that as in past elections, yeah, the Rush the Russians tried to influence the division.
	It is the belief of Comey that they preferred Trump over Hillary.
	Well, maybe they saw Hillary as pathetically weak and incompetent and having no clue how to how to manage on a world stage.
	There could be valid reasons for it.
	Okay, so what?
	You know, Sean, the the the legacy that Obama's going to leave us with, and it's the only thing that's gonna last of Obamas is is division politics.
	And and and not only has put it in place at uh the national level, it it's it's at the local level.
	You see it everywhere now.
	Yeah, I agree.
	It's uh listen, it's a very divided country right now, and our job is to try and cut through all of this clutter and get you facts, news, information, and frankly, answers that are gonna help get the country back on the right path.
	Because we've got we've got to stop the precipitous decline.
	The last thing they want on the left is for the president to be successful, and the forgotten men and women in this last election cycle, I I I guarantee you that they don't care less about this stuff because all they want are their jobs.
	Let's get health care done, let's move on to the economy, and and all of this can go on, and it's just gonna be noise, so left wingers can you know it's clickbait and it's ratings, conspiracy, hype numbers.
	That's basically what you you can say about it.
	All right, back to our phones.
	Uh Mike in Springfield in Illinois.
	Mike, how are you?
	Glad you called you're on the Sean Hannity show.
	Hey, Sean, great to be on the show.
	Long time listener.
	Yes, sir.
	Hey, uh I just want to bring up a point that nobody is bringing the FCC in on the uh whole conspiracy of fake news and everything like that.
	They should have investigators looking into this.
	You know, what are we gonna do with that?
	If you eat we have freedom of speech, and we have a free press, and I guess that also with that freedom comes responsibility.
	They've chosen not to be responsible.
	And what we've got now is I guess we've got a press that is agenda driven that poses as fair, balance, and objective.
	They're lazy, and they really don't seem to have any interest in in getting to the truth.
	And as I've been saying, you've got a bunch of lazy, ideological, overpaid, liberal hacks that have a lot of jobs, and they they own most of the media, and with the exception of talk radio and blogs and the internet and and Fox News, that that's it.
	They own everything else.
	And they just won't admit they're ideological.
	Yeah, I mean, I I understand that and everything, but I mean, with the new administration, you think they would be able to revamp the whole system.
	Well, I mean, what are you gonna do?
	You're gonna say that, all right, if they lie that they're gonna lose their license.
	I mean, you know, who who's the who determines what's the truth and what's a lie in their case?
	Fine 'em, uh g uh hire people from each state within the union.
	I'll give you let me give you an example.
	You know how they're all saying today the headline is, oh, no info supporting Trump's tweet on the wiretap claim.
	Okay.
	Is anyone anyone gonna call out the New York Times for reporting on wiretapping?
	Is anybody gonna call out McClatchy?
	Is anybody gonna call out the BBC?
	Is anybody gonna call out CNN?
	No.
	I it's it's as bad as it's ever been, but you know, it's kind of what I've been saying for a long time, maybe because I'm so close to it is that journalism's dead.
	These people the the good news for all of us that are conservative, even if you follow the news, maybe not as closely as I do, because that's my job, because my job is to make sure you get the information you need every day and and present it in a fun, entertaining way if I can.
	But I've seen this clear as day, it's so obvious, and I've been a victim of it even in my life.
	Now I think people are hip to how bad they are.
	People get it, they see it, they identify it, snap their fingers.
	All right, that's that's biased, that's fake news, that's not true.
	And so I I don't think they're gonna get as far as they want to get with this, but we'll see over time.
	All right, my good call.
	Appreciate it.
	800-941 Sean is our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Ben in Colorado.
	Ben, we have a minute.
	What's up, sir?
	Hey, Sean, uh, I know you're frustrated, but I think we can win this if uh if if you listen to me.
	We conservatives are the majority.
	We've always been the majority, and we always will be.
	Forty percent of this country doesn't even vote, and they're not fed up liberals.
	But since the left controls the media and the colleges and the schools, they've convinced us that we're split down the middle.
	It's a lie, Sean.
	We outnumber them by two to one.
	They're the minority, we're the majority.
	And second, since we're the majority, if we would switch from preaching conservatism to proving conservatism, we can win this deal.
	We're not going to convert any more unbelievers by arguing our case.
	We don't need to, we're the majority.
	We've got to convince establishment Republicans that this country is not split 50-50.
	The conservatives are the majority, and this may be our one chance to prove it.
	We've got two or three generations that have never even experienced true conservatism, and we're gonna have to prove to them that it works.
	And we've got the majority to do it.
	And you're the man.
	If you will preach this for a while, people will figure out if it's not 50-50.
	Ben, there's only one way to stop America's precipitous decline.
	And I'm not saying this in a mean way.
	People may take it that way.
	It's to defeat liberalism.
	There are too many.
	What frustrates me right now, when I hold these Republicans accountable, they seem ill-prepared for this moment.
	The president seems prepared so far.
	He's checking off his list of promises.
	That to me, we're gonna actually make on my website all the promises Trump made in a campaign, and we're gonna put checks next to all the ones he keeps.
	And we're gonna hold them accountable.
	And we're gonna hold Congress accountable too, and then we'll put their checklist up there.
	But at the end of the day, if if they would have been more prepared, this everything could be that much easier.
	We could have passed healthcare and moved on already by this point.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	Now I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	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 a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
	Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
	From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

▲