All Episodes
Previous Next
March 30, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show
01:25:18
Truth In The Surveillance Story? - 3.29
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
Normally.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
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.
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 download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Let not your heart be troubled.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
All right, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
And what's changed?
Just a pillow.
It's had such a positive impact on my life.
And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
I fall asleep faster.
I stay asleep longer.
And now you can too.
Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
Now you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two GoAnywhere pillows.
Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity, to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
You will love this pillow.
Wow, what a blockbuster we have for you today.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
You know, I'm getting tired.
Two big stories we're following today.
The first is the media's obsession.
Well, with the decline of health care, that means Trump's failing.
Number one, I think they're going to get a health care bill done.
It's a matter of when, not if.
I think that's going to happen.
And I just think it was poorly mismanaged.
And I think Republicans, maybe if you want to cut them slack, you can.
I'm not too into the slack cutting business these days to anybody.
But the slack would be, well, they weren't prepared to lead.
Sorry, that's just too weak for me.
You got the ball.
You got what you wanted.
Do your job and don't stop working.
You know, if I was in Congress, I'd keep them in session up till Easter Sunday.
I'd let them go home Saturday night.
That's it.
These people get more weeks off in their lives.
I'm like, yeah, I'd love a week off, right?
I'd love to go down to Naples, Florida, play golf, drink a Bloody Mary, and have a couple of beers with my buddies, okay?
Guess what, Hannity?
It ain't happening because I have responsibilities like all of you normal people like me have as well in your life.
It's only these people in Congress.
My God, these people are off half the year.
I've never seen anything like it.
Now, I'm going to, oh, wait till you hear this tape I'm going to play.
You're going to love this.
This is going to be great.
You know, but I just want the media that is hysterical about, oh, Trump failed on health.
He didn't fail on health care.
That was the legislative body's failure.
And I can tell you that there's a lot of work behind the scenes being done.
And while they're moving forward with tax cuts and with the economy and with changing the tax code and trying to fight the liberal courts that are hand-selected, you know, judge shopping and everything else.
The wall's going forward.
Gorsuch's vote is going to happen.
Everything's happening.
So all you people in the liberal media, he's failed.
No, he hasn't.
No, he hasn't.
And nobody ever said it proves he can't negotiate.
You're wrong.
It was not his job to rush this through.
He's also cracking down through his attorney general on sanctuary cities, number one.
Chicago and L.A. mayors.
Good.
We're going to defund them.
They're defending sanctuary cities.
Wait till you see what we have planned on Hannity about this tonight.
Rolling back these environmental executive orders is massive in terms of draining the swamp and making sure we can become energy independent.
This is awesome.
He's now also, the president is investigating Clinton's ties to Russia.
It's about time.
How did Vladimir get 20% of our uranium?
And why did Hillary sign off on that deal?
And how many millions through these surrogates went to the Clinton Foundation and went into Bill's pocket?
I don't hear anybody in the media talking about Ford and their factory expansion that's going to go on in Michigan.
Thank God they're building three new plants in Michigan.
Thank God for the people, the forgotten men and women of Michigan.
Last time I was there, it looked like Hurricane Katrina.
I mean, entire neighborhoods is just boarded up.
Street after street after street.
And it reminded me exactly when I went down and saw the devastation after Katrina.
I mean, you have, they've lost half their population.
They're talking about bulldozing entire neighborhoods to consolidate services in Detroit.
Well, now maybe we can rebuild those homes.
Maybe now it's worth a dollar investment.
They were selling those homes on eBay for a buck at one point.
Then, you know, we got Chuck Schumer's public meltdown.
The left doesn't know what to do.
So I'm not buying that everything's a mess now.
Yeah, there's going to be some infighting.
There's going to be some back and forth.
There's going to be some difficult moments, but that's part of a difficult process.
Well, I can't stand the sausage-making analogy anymore.
If you like sausage, don't watch how it's made.
Now, we're going to have on at the top of the next hour Sarah Carter and John Solomon.
Let me give you the background.
And I can't believe what I'm about to say.
Actually, Liberal Morning Joe did something good, except they were too stupid to realize it.
Now, it's not a backhanded compliment.
I mean, so he has this woman on, Evelyn Farkas.
You're going to hear a lot of her name today on the program.
Remember the name, Evelyn Farkas.
By the way.
This is an all-points bulletin.
If anybody knows Evelyn Farkas, the Assistant Defense Secretary, former Assistant Defense Secretary under the Obama administration, if you know Evelyn Farkas, tell her to get an attorney immediately.
I would advise her.
Sean Hannity advises her to get an attorney immediately.
Evelyn Farkas, are you there?
Get an attorney immediately.
Just my humble advice.
I'm just saying, and I'll explain why I think Evelyn Farkas needs an attorney as the program unfolds today.
Isn't that nice of me to try and give her a heads up?
Evelyn Farkas, before I tell the story, I would get the best attorney in Washington, D.C. available now.
Evelyn Farkas.
This is an all-points bulletin.
A Hannity Amber Alert, if you will.
Yeah, maybe Obama.
Call Barack Hussein Obama.
He lives in Washington, D.C., although he's probably playing golf someplace.
You're right.
I'm trying to help her.
If she's smart, she would follow that advice.
I'm just saying.
All right, so let's go backwards here.
Let's start at the beginning.
So remember the media, and they were all up in arms.
Donald Trump on a Saturday morning sends out a tweet that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration.
And how many times was he called paranoid, loony, crazy, a liar, liar, pans on fire?
Okay.
A million.
The mainstream media, for eight months now, they've been talking about Russia and Trump collusion, and yet there's no evidence that has been presented one time by anybody.
Then we've got James Clapper, James Comey, and Admiral Rogers all saying not one vote was changed as a result of anything Russia did in the election.
No evidence whatsoever.
Nobody's admitting that there's an investigation into the intelligence leaks.
Now, I want you to pay attention to three very important words throughout the program today: surveillance unmasking, you know, and I'll make it four.
Now I sound like Joe Biden.
Jobs, a three-letter word, J-O-B-S.
Jobs.
J-O-B-S.
So we'll say forwards.
Surveillance unmasking intelligence leaks.
Forwards.
Okay?
Pay attention to those.
Evelyn Frockas, get to an attorney now.
Sean Hannity alert.
Sean Hannity alert.
Somebody find Evelyn Frockas.
Trying to help the lady out.
You're saying, why am I doing this?
You'll see in a minute.
All right, so let's go back.
Everybody said he was crazy.
Then all of a sudden, we now have reports from John Solomon, 20-year veteran, AP, investigator, reporter, 20-year investigator of national intelligence reporter, Sarah Carter.
Then we have James Rosen confirming the same thing.
What did we learn from Solomon and Carter?
That, yes, Trump server at Trump Tower was surveilled.
There was a FISA warrant issued in October.
There was a criminal warrant issued in October.
And while in the course of investigating issues involving Russia, there was pings to the server of Donald Trump and Trump Tower, which is off-site, but it's the Trump Tower server that actually came from Russia.
Turns out, according to Solomon and Carter, they found nothing, but they did surveil the server.
Now we're finding out it goes even deeper, that the whole Russian narrative they pointed out in another article was directly linked to a Hillary operative and big Hillary donor.
Now we're finding out more information today.
Now, apparently, Liberal Morning Joe had on Evelyn Frockas, and Evelyn said the following.
Listen very closely, and then we'll break this down.
I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can.
Stop right there.
All right.
What information is she telling the Hill to get?
And by the way, she's not exactly a high-level individual.
She also served as an advisor to Hillary Clinton in her campaign, was up for a position in the Clinton administration at Hillary 1.
So she's a relative, former assistant defense secretary, not exactly a high-level position.
Anyway, so what is she trying?
What information is she talking about?
Let's continue.
Intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.
The next thing she'll say is because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with senior people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.
Fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left.
So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.
Hidden away in the bureaucracy.
By the way, this happened on March 2nd.
This is how dumb they are at NBC.
NBC had this since March 2nd.
Nobody picked up because nobody watches their show, frankly.
But putting that aside, it finally got picked up on.
Now continue to listen.
Again, former Assistant Defense Secretary, why does she have this information and why is she telling her contacts up on the Hill in Congress to get this information?
Listen.
That the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods.
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, they would try to compromise sources and methods.
What are the three big words of the day that I just told you about?
Well, four big words.
Surveillance, unmasking, intelligence leaks.
So she's acknowledging that what Donald Trump tweeted out was correct.
So she's acknowledging the surveillance.
Again, I go back.
If they knew how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians.
So she's acknowledging surveillance.
So that means Trump's right.
Check that off in the box.
Now, she's also admitting tacitly here that, in fact, unmasking had taken place by saying, well, if they knew, I mean, this Trump staff dealing with Russians.
So that means the intelligence was unmasked.
Now the next question is, did they leak the intelligence?
Listen.
We would no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.
Stop.
Not enough was coming out in the public.
And I knew there was more.
First of all, did you have clearance to know?
Number two, you want to gather it, and now what do you want to do with it?
We know now that you are admitting to surveillance and unmasking.
Now the big question is, did you leak the intelligence?
We have very good intelligence on Russia.
So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
A lot going on today.
They were trying to get information to the Hill.
So she's admitting surveillance of Trump and his transition team.
She's admitting unmasking.
They know who they are.
She's admitting that they leaked intelligence.
Well, leaking of intelligence is a felony.
Now, am I saying that Evelyn, what's her name, Farkas, leaked it?
I don't know.
She's speaking as if she knows about leaking.
She's talking about leaking.
Did she have the authority?
Who are the people on the hill she wants to get this information to?
Now.
Evelyn Farkas, I do not know 100% if you've committed a crime.
I do not know.
But I would very strongly advise you to get an attorney.
This is a Sean Hannity alert going out to Evelyn Farkas.
We're going to get into this throughout the day here today.
This is major developments.
Surveillance acknowledged.
A masking acknowledged.
And talking about leaking intelligence acknowledged all in that tape.
This is massive.
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 Steele 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-STEAL.
It's not too late.
Call.
877-81-STEAL.
That's 877-817-8335.
Evelyn Parkus, a Sean Hannity alert, you may want to consult an attorney.
We do not know for sure that you may have committed a crime.
We're not saying that at all, but in light of the new developments of the tape that was actually nobody saw on March the 2nd, I guess it was Ti-Voed by one person in America that actually made this find from Liberal Joe.
We found it.
Let's play it in its entirety now.
Now, again, as I play this, I want you to pay attention to very specific things.
Surveillance.
She's admitting it.
Unmasking of names.
She's admitting it.
Leaking intelligence, sending it to Congress.
She's admitting it.
Listen.
I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people: get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left.
So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.
That the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff, the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.
We have very good intelligence on Russia.
So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
A lot going on today.
Yeah, Mark.
That's why you have the leaking.
Exactly.
People are worried.
Wow.
That's why you have the leaking.
By the way, leaking of intelligence is a felony.
That's why I was trying to get my friends in Capitol Hill and save this.
And really, why did she have access to it?
We'll find out very quickly if she had the clearance for it.
That's maybe not the issue here for her.
But certainly, you know, when she's talking about, yeah, there was surveillance of Trump and Trump's staff.
Well, that means not only surveillance is she acknowledging, but she's acknowledging the unmasking of names.
And then when she's saying, well, we got to get it to the people on the Hill because it might disappear.
Let's get it to our friends up there.
She's admitting it at least to the politicizing of intelligence.
And B, she probably is talking about leaking.
Who are the friends on Capitol Hill?
Well, we're just going to throw intelligence around like this.
And the type of intelligence we're discussing here, where you're surveilling a foreign country where you don't have a warrant for, quote, Trump's staff that you're surveilling.
Now, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not.
But all my background, instinct, and experience tells me if your name is Evelyn Farkas.
Evelyn Farkas, I might want to consult an attorney today because it doesn't sound good to me.
That doesn't mean any laws were broken.
We're not accusing you of breaking any laws in any way, shape, matter, or form.
We're just saying, based on our limited knowledge of the law, it might be advisable today to get a full staff of attorneys behind you.
Just a thought.
All right, glad you're with us.
25 till the top of the hour.
We'll get back to our top story here.
And we're just messing around with Elizabeth Farkas.
I can't believe this took place on March the 2nd, and she said Evelyn Farkas, rather.
I can't believe this happened on March 2nd.
Nobody picked up on it.
That's because nobody watches Liberal Joe.
I mean, this is how did they not pick up on it when she said all of this?
And who finally broke this out and actually saw this?
Do we know, Linda?
Who first busted this open today?
I mean, honestly, the first people to have it was a site called Grabian.
I know Grabian site.
I get their updates every morning.
They actually had it the day it happened.
They did have it the day it happened.
Well, they're forced to watch everything, so they're subjected to that show on a daily basis.
So they have to watch it for sadly for their part.
Well, I'm going to leave poor Joe alone.
Joe hates my guts.
What a sad thing when people hate you.
Such a horrible thing.
I mean, anyway.
All right.
So what you have here is a top Obama official discussing intelligence gathering on the Trump team.
I mean, that's the real headline here.
And they're not only discussing surveillance that took place, they're also discussing a masking that took place, and they're also discussing plans to get this to their friends and colleagues on the Hill.
That would be called, for my interpretation of things, leaking intelligence.
I cannot believe this woman said all of this.
I mean, and she said, and it's like she had no clue what she was admitting to.
It's crazy.
Anyway, so now the FBI needs to be on the hot seat over these allegations that they politicized this Russia Gate investigation.
I mean, you know, did the FBI director James Comey launch his investigation into the Russia Gate scandal based on this woman that Sarah Carter and John Sullivan have been talking about?
They'll join us at the top of the hour.
They'll join us tonight on Hannity.
And did they base it on anti-Trump research provided by Hillary's campaign?
Did they base it, you know, based on leaks that maybe Obama's people tipped him off to?
Now, this Evelyn woman, it's reported that she was going to go work for Hillary if Hillary had won.
Did she pass it on to the campaign that she wanted to win?
What did Hillary know?
When did she know it?
What did Obama know?
What did Valerie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes know?
What did Podesta know?
Who knew what, when, and where?
What did you know and when did you know it?
Now, you might say, Hannity, this is just political posturing.
Really?
Does anybody remember Watergate?
What was Watergate about?
It was about a break-in.
It was about a break-in to a political party headquarters.
It was about gathering information and stealing it.
And people went to jail for it.
And it ended up in the what would have ended up in the impeachment of a president had he not resigned.
Obviously, Obama's gone, but so we've got to see where this goes.
This is getting more interesting every second of every day.
We have another update, by the way.
We have more law enforcement officials calling for the arrest of Sanctuary City mayors.
Congress heard testimony.
Can you imagine Ram Rambo deadfish being taken out in handcuffs?
Comrade de Blasio?
That's going to be fascinating.
Maybe him and Andrew Cuomo can end up being cellmates.
That's pretty funny.
Has Andrew Cuomo gone on the record about New York being a sanctuary state?
I don't know if he did.
I've not heard it.
You can look that up.
Anyway, so Congress heard testimony earlier today from a senior law enforcement official from a heavily Democratic state who called for the mayors of sanctuary cities to be arrested.
Okay, well, they are aiding and abetting lawbreaking.
Why wouldn't they be arrested?
Makes sense to me.
Anyway, we can start with Comrade de Blasio in New York, and then we'll go to Rom Rombo Deadfish in Chicago, and then we'll go to the mayor of Los Angeles, and then we'll go to the San Francisco politicians.
We can arrest them all.
Anyway, Bristol County, Massachusetts Sheriff Tom Hogson, told the House Subcommittee on Illegal Immigration that sanctuary cities have become magnets for illegal aliens, some of which have violent criminal records.
Quote, if these sanctuary cities are going to harbor and conceal criminal, illegal aliens from ICE, which is in direct violation of Title VIII of the U.S. Code, federal arrest warrants should be issued for these elected officials.
He said our citizens would be safer if we never stopped enforcing immigration law and if we never formed or turned a blind eye toward sanctuary cities.
By the way, if you listen to the liberal media, Donald Trump's not successful.
Oh, yeah, he's being pretty successful, and healthcare is going to get done.
All right, so what do we have on Andrew Cuomo?
Just pulling it up here.
Cuomo insisted that New York remains a beacon for immigrants as the federal government moves to ban travel from seven Middle Eastern countries for three months, the temporary ban, and halt refugee travel for four months.
We're all about immigrants, and we have programs and a culture that supports immigrants, he said.
Another bill designed to provide tuition assistance to undocumented immigrants also faces a similarly tough odds in the Senate.
Cuomo has once again included the measure known as the DREAM Act in his budget proposal.
The Senate has adamantly refused every year, he said of the bill.
It appears they'll adamantly have refused again this year.
Well, that doesn't say sanctuary to me, so we don't know.
That's the question.
Yeah, but we do know that Comrade de Blasio, he's all about it.
We know the L.A. Mayor's all about it.
We know San Francisco politicians are all about it.
We know Deadfish Emmanuel is all about it.
Anyway, this guy that was testifying, this Bristol County, Massachusetts sheriff, he said, took aim at a Massachusetts legislator who passed along rumors of a planned ICE raid in Brockton, Massachusetts.
And a Representative Michelle Dubois of Brockton warned her constituents in a Facebook post: if you are undocumented, don't go out on the street.
If there's a knock on the door of your house and you don't know who it is, do not open the door.
Now, the sheriff called those actions outrageous.
This is the most outrageous example of what is going on across the United States that is undermining my job and every other law enforcement officer in the U.S.
Well, they're aiding and abetting criminal actions.
I mean, I know if it was me, I'd be handcuffed, perp walked, mugshotted, and put in jail.
They'd throw away the key, and I'd be drinking bologna sandwiches with pink underwear on, like in Maricopa County with Sheriff Joe or Pio.
I mean, remember, they wanted to go after him.
They wanted to go after Jan Brewer legally.
So we're not going to go after those mayors that refuse to obey the laws of this country?
Is that how that's going to work now?
We have a Democratic prosecutor has indicted this guy that we've had on the program, David DeLeiden.
He's been on the program many times.
You want a lesson in the kind of political hardball the Democrats, they're willing to play to protect their vested interests.
You need no look no further than the latest development in Planned Parenthood's baby body parts for sale.
Remember that whole scandal?
Anyway, the AP is reporting.
California prosecutors yesterday charged two anti-abortion activists who made undercover videos of themselves trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood with 15 felonies.
They don't want to lie to ever get out of jail.
Saying they invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent.
Can you check and see if California or where were the videos made?
This story goes back many, many months.
I don't remember.
If I remember correctly, we did this before the election.
Some, like, for example, in New York, it's one-party consent.
You don't need two parties.
In other states, California is one party.
Or you're looking it up now.
If it's two-party, they may have a problem.
I think they were done in different locations around the country.
I'm hoping that they don't have a case here.
Because if it's one-party consent, you can record anybody you want.
If it's two-party consent, you have to tell people you're recording them.
Anyway, these charges against David DeLeiden and Sandra Merritt of the Central of the Center for Medical Progress came eight months after similar charges were dropped in Texas.
The state attorney general Xavier Bessiera, longtime congressional Democrat, took over the investigation in January, said in a statement that the state will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations.
By the way, this kind of fits in neatly to the whole thing about surveilling Donald Trump and the Trump organization.
And as Evelyn Farkas says, well, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, oh, how did you find out?
All-party consent in California.
Where were the tapes made?
California.
Well, so that means that you can maybe surveil on a presidential, a president-elect, a presidential candidate, opposing party.
You can unmask the members, and I'll use their words again, of the Trump staff.
They know who they were, and then talk about leaking intelligence.
Let's see if the same rules apply to David DeLeiden and the people that were surveilling Trump and the Trump transition team.
All right, hang on one second because this is important.
There is, hang on, let me go to California law here because I think this is pretty interesting.
All right, so California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation.
California Penal Code 632.
The statute applies in confidential communications, conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation, that no one is listening or overhearing the conversation.
They give some case law, Flanagan versus Flanagan.
A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well.
And they say, see California v. Gibbons.
That was another precedence case.
And if you're recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or a restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening or overhearing the conversation.
And the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances.
So there is some gray area there.
Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.
Well, I just hope for De Leighton, but this is a political witch hunt.
This is, you know, this is serious now.
So 15 felonies.
They don't want this guy to ever get out of jail again.
And meanwhile, Planned Parenthood is caught on tape violating, in my opinion, my legal opinion, sounds to me like they're negotiating the sale of baby body parts, which is illegal.
You know, you have the illegal immigrants released on the streets.
You know, I mean, think of how screwed up our criminal justice system is.
Just stop for a second.
Think of what we know.
Clinton LaRant saves his entire platoon because he sees two guys on a motorcycle, and the same tactics were used in the past to kill Americans.
So he orders the men on the motorcycle that wouldn't stop killed.
He's in jail for 20 to 30 years.
Then you've got Christian Saussier.
He took six pictures inside an old submarine for his own use.
He's got a year in jail.
Then you've got this guy, David DeLeiden.
Now they want 15 felonies, but nobody from Planned Parenthood is in trouble for negotiating the sale of baby body parts.
Is there anything more disgusting and gruesome than that and illegal?
Then you've got here the surveillance and unmasking and leaking of intelligence.
It'll be interesting to see if anybody goes to jail over that.
Leaking intelligence, by the way, that would be a violation of the Espionage Act and a felony.
Here you have Hillary Clinton avoiding congressional oversight, and she sets up an email server in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom closet.
And by the way, it has on it, which is also a violation of law.
She was violating law there.
She did it purposefully, and she withheld evidence, as far as I'm concerned.
They didn't want to hand it over.
And then, of course, she eliminates 30,000 emails.
That would be called obstruction of justice anywhere else if you were a conservative.
What, like with a cloth or something?
Yeah, like with a cloth.
It's called bleach pit, that cloth is called.
And then you've got, on top of that, then you've got this whole Uranium One gate, the Clinton Foundation, pay to play.
Here she gives away 20% of America's uranium to Russia and Vladimir Putin.
And the people all involved in the deal are paying her husband twice his normal speaking fee and donating millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
And the media in this country is worried about what?
Was there any conversations between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin?
Eight months in, there's no evidence at all.
You know what we've done in this country?
The left, they're willing to put anybody in jail that has political differences.
Why do you think, Linda, I've said all these years I've overpaid on my taxes?
I know I've overpaid.
I absolutely know.
And I did it on purpose because they would like nothing more than to come into this studio with you witnessing it.
God, you'd be going nuts.
You'd be cursing a lot then.
You would.
Yeah.
No, no, what are you going to do?
You can't assault an officer.
What are you going to do?
How are you going to?
I'm going to have the right to defend myself.
Okay, so you're going to sit there.
They're taking me out in handcuffs.
What are you going to do?
I'm going to defend you and me.
You're off the hook.
You knew nothing.
But they'd handcuff me and perp walk me.
They'd have cameras outside waiting for me.
Then they'd take my mug shot and they'd put it all over the internet.
And then they'd bring me up on the maximum amount of charges possible.
And then they'd.
Well, you are bad for America.
I'm bad for America.
So they'll lock me up and throw away the key.
This is such a screwed-up country right now.
It's so messed up.
All right, John Solomon, Sarah Carter next on these new revelations.
This is interesting on surveillance, unmasking, and leaking intelligence.
Sean Hennedy.
All right, this is getting very, very interesting.
Pay very close attention to four words: surveillance, unmasking, intelligence leaks.
Now, the people who have been blowing this whole story wide open are Sarah Carter and John Solomon of Circa News.
They're going to join us next.
I think we're going to keep them for the full hour because there's just so much to get into.
And then we'll get their take on what this Evelyn Farkas tape is all about.
Is huge, an incredible development, admitting surveillance of Trump and his team, admitting a masking of Trump and his team, and admitting trying to leak intelligence, at least to people on the hill, friends on the hill, politicizing intelligence, it sounds like more than anything.
Wow, what crimes committed?
We'll delve into that in the next hour.
Don't miss it right here on The Sean Hannity Show.
Hour 2, Sean Hannity Show.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
And a fabulous, incredible, unbelievable development as it relates to the story of Sarah Carter and John Solomon of circa.com.
And their new report talks about how Obama's rule changes, 12333 and some of the others, opened the door for the NSA and these intercepts of Americans to reach political hands.
And then we get into the issue of, yes, Donald Trump was surveilled.
Did it happen before the election?
It appears it did.
Did it happen in November, December, and January?
It appears it has happened and is now confirmed.
And so we have issues of surveillance.
Why was there surveillance?
What was the investigation really supposed to be about?
Were they using national security as a ruse to really listen in on the president-elect or then candidate Donald Trump?
Who knew what, when, and where?
How many other Americans or transition team members besides the president, then president-elect, then candidate Trump were also unmasked, which should never happen.
And how many other leaks, intelligent leaks have gone on, like in the case of General Flynn.
Now, I want you to listen very closely.
Let's go back to last week, and this is James Comey, Admiral Rogers.
Then we're going to play a little bit of Julian Assange.
And then we've got a cut from Evelyn Farkas, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama, acknowledging, I don't even think she knew what she was doing, the effort by her colleagues to gather intelligence on Donald Trump and his team and ties to Russia before Trump ever took office.
Listen to this admission, but let's start with Comey, then Julian, and then we'll go to Evelyn Farkas.
First, we cannot say they did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.
Do you have any evidence that Russia cyber actors changed 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.
The state of North Carolina?
No, sir.
The state of Ohio?
No, sir.
So you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence 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.
There are numerous press reports in the New York Times and Washington Post, some in Politico, that people close to President Donald Trump had been monitored in a counterintelligence activity, possibly by some parts of the U.S. government, possibly FBI.
FBI had been mentioned, NSA had been mentioned.
On the other hand, it seems that many of the leaks to the media are coming from the Central Intelligence Agency based upon how they're described.
There are a number of collaborations that are evidenced by the material that we publish between the FBI and CIA, National Security Agency, and CIA.
So I think there's a real question whether that technology is being used or has been used in these types of investigations.
I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left.
So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.
That the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff, the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.
We have very good intelligence on Russia.
So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
There's an admission by the deputy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama, acknowledging, yeah, we were surveilling Trump and we were doing everything we could do to save that intelligence because the Trump folks, if they knew that we knew what we knew, they would probably want to get rid of the intelligence we've gathered on them.
Wow.
Joining us now, Sarah Carter, senior national security correspondent for circa.com, John Solomon, chief operating officer, circa.com.
Welcome both of you back to the program.
And John, because Sarah is far more available than you are, I'm starting with her to give her more time.
But Sarah, you're giving me a bad rap with my dad.
You've got to stop that.
Well, I mean, if you'd show up on the program once in a while, poor Sarah's working her tail off here, and you don't show up half the time.
She is a hard worker.
I have to know that.
Sarah, what do you make of?
John, believe me.
What do you make of Evelyn Farkas' comments there?
That is a plain admission to me.
Well, yeah, there's two things I make of that.
And I wish you would have played the very, very end of her comment because she kind of throws the Hill under the bus at the very end where she says, and then there were leaks, right?
And then there were leaks.
So she's explaining that the Obama administration, she, others were gathering as much as they could on Trump, trying to save as much intelligence and then, you know, running up to the Hill and telling people on the Hill about this.
Let's gather up all this information.
Let's make sure it's stored correctly.
Let's make sure we have this so that when the Trump administration comes in, they won't be able to try to hide it or bury it.
And then, of course, because we went to the Hill, that's where the leaks came from.
Well, then, wait a minute.
Why would she have access to all of this?
I mean, I assume we're talking about signet intelligence here.
In other words, while doing their job at the NSA or under the ruse, perhaps, of gathering information from adversaries or enemies, are they really using that as an attempt to gather intelligence, illegally surveilling the president or presidential candidate or the president-elect?
Well, I think it's very interesting.
She's an assistant Secretary of Defense.
I mean, was that her job to actually do this?
And what's even more interesting, it's like, so that opens up a whole new area to be looking into.
But it was also interesting that she was just very open about it.
And, you know, the fact that, remember now, remember that there is still a narrow scope of people.
And the reason I bring up the fact that she kind of threw the Hill and the leaks all in the same bus, kind of like threw the hill under the bus, right?
Is because there's still a very narrow group of people that would have access at that point in time to Blinn's name.
And this was under a FISA.
This was separate.
But with that with a FISA that they had taken out from Russia with the FBI.
So this is even before Executive 1233, which was two weeks before Obama left office, which allowed the expansion of this intelligence to 16 other agencies, correct?
Correct.
So then you'd have to be thinking, well, why would she make that statement?
I want to ask why did she know what she says she knows?
Would she be one of the people in the loop here, that type of intelligence?
Let's say they're surveilling a Russian ambassador.
And let's say that the Russian ambassador is talking to a Trump transition team member.
And let's say that they amass that member, they surveil that person.
Why is she on the list of people that would have access prior to the modification of 12333?
It doesn't seem like she's in a high enough position to be there.
I have the same question.
I have to say that.
Let me play this again.
John, you just stand by because you hardly talk to us anyway.
Let me play it again, and let me play it more completely the way that Sarah asked for it.
Here, pay close attention.
I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left.
So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.
We have very good intelligence on Russia.
So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
A lot going on today.
Yeah, Mark.
That's why you have the leaking.
Okay, John Solomon, the Trump folks, how we knew what we knew, get it to the Hill.
Isn't leaking intelligence like that to anybody?
Well, let's even wind it back a little bit further.
Intelligence has always, for the long history of our country, been something that was supposed to be nonpartisan.
And inherent in her comments today is a very clear political motive.
We're changing administrations.
We've got to get this information that could be damaging to Donald Trump, to people who could leak it.
That's the inference that she leaves in that comment.
And that's exactly why the people who protect our civil liberties and stand up for freedom of speech and privacy are so concerned about what Barack Obama did starting in 2011 and continuing all the way to the last days in office in January 2017.
He made it easier and easier and easier for people, not at the highest levels of government, but in mid-levels of government to get access to real super classified information.
Like, what are we spying on Russia today about?
That's super classified.
And the idea that someone could be on television talking about it as though it was a partisan effort shows why the danger of letting this.
All right.
Am I wrong in thinking what she's admitting to here could be the omissions of crimes?
In other words, let's really wind this down here.
We knew how we didn't want the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew, and that we needed to get it to people on the Hill.
And I knew there was more, meaning she knew exactly what was surveilled.
Now, let's look at the three issues we have in play here.
Surveillance, unmasking, and leaking of intelligence.
That's right.
Okay.
Isn't she copying, admitting, Sarah, that she might have committed felonies here?
I don't know.
Because we don't have what she gave them, right?
We know she's talked about what they were delivering to the Hill.
But what did she look at?
I mean, this is going to be up to Congress.
This is going to be up to the Department of Justice to call the FBI for an investigation into this.
And even there, having to call the FBI, we don't even know what was going on within the FBI because they're the only ones that can subpoena, call on a grand jury, investigate who, what, where, when, and why.
But what we do know is that there was, as John so rightfully put it, there was this political movement to take what the intelligence community was capable of and use it almost by her own words against an incoming administration.
All right, but I don't see how a former deputy assistant secretary of defense in November and December at least, and that's the point of time we're talking about, would have access to this intelligence and then wants to spread that intelligence.
And she's saying it's so damning it needed to be protected.
And she's admitting wanting to leak it to Congress.
I'm sorry, it sounds to me like somebody that didn't have access to the intelligence had it and that this was being politicized.
Stay right there.
We're going to do this for the full hour, by the way, because we haven't even touched their column for today in the new news that they've been able to unveil.
If you're ready to get out of the media spin room, you've come to the right place.
This is the Sean Hennity Show.
All right, as we continue the latest developments as it relates to surveilling then candidate Donald Trump, then president-elect Donald Trump, and who knew what, when, and where, we've got this new development with Evelyn Farkas, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama, acknowledging, yeah, they did surveil Trump, and it was apparently widely known, and they were trying to politicize it by getting it to Congress.
John Solomon, I'm just assuming she's not on that list prior to the amendment to 12333 to get the type of intelligence we're talking about.
Why would she have access to that?
So that's a question that we don't know the answer to, but it is entirely possible, based on the reporting we've done and is in our story today, that in 2011, when they loosened the FISA rules the first time, that incidental intercepts of Americans overseas caught by the NSA, supposed to be kept away from the rest of the community, it made it a lot easier.
You could go in and just say, listen, I have a security clearance.
I'm reading some foreign intelligence, and I need to know who that American's name is and what they said, because it would help me better understand this report.
And that's how low the threshold is.
If you think of the evolution of the NSA, we went from the NSA will never gather information on Americans to they can gather it and store it, but only can be looked at in very rare circumstances to with a simple excuse.
This would better help me understand intelligence.
I now can unmask Americans and look what they were saying overseas.
I think that should trouble every American, whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
And that's what we found out about the 2011 rules.
So we don't know.
It could be that starting in 2011, people like her got access at a much lower level.
Sarah, what's your take on that?
I agree with John completely on this.
And I think that it may go further than what we ever imagined.
I mean, this is why we're peeling back the layer of this onion, right?
Just to see how far and how deep this went.
We don't know how and what she saw.
We can glean from what she said that she had access to this intelligence.
But how could you glean anything else but that?
Exactly.
She actually used the words, I knew there was more.
So she had to know, and she knew that she was so upset about it that she was worried that if they know how we know what they, what we know is they're going to try and hide this stuff.
So she's saying she knows it.
She's admitting she knows it.
I agree with you completely on that, Sean.
And this is the reason why so many in the intelligence community, the sources that have spoken to both John and I, people that we've talked to outside and inside those circles, are so upset about this because they feel that what has happened is the intelligence community has become politicized, especially in the media.
They are being targeted that the intelligence that's supposed to be used to go after foreign enemies, you know, hacking threats, fighting terrorism, counter-espionage, is actually being abused and used by politicians.
And this is why they are reaching out.
And I think that the more we look at this, the more we peel back that onion, the more we find out that it was being used for political purposes.
And I think, like John said, this is the reason why every American, regardless of Democrat or Republican, should be concerned.
Aren't you describing something that is massively bigger than Watergate?
We only have 20 seconds, and we're going to do this on the other side, potentially.
You think so.
I agree.
John?
Yep, I think there's a possibility.
We need a lot more facts to answer that question, but there is a kernel of deep.
You know what's going to happen?
You guys are going to get the Pullet Surprise.
And meanwhile, I'm out there every day with you trying to promote it and get my sources, and I get nothing.
I'll just get contempt.
I'll be told by Ted Koppel again that I'm bad for America.
It's awful.
You enjoy your Pullet Surprise.
I hope you'll invite me to the dinner at least.
All right.
More with John Solomon and Sarah Carter on the other side.
We've got to get to their blockbuster column today that takes this even deeper.
Unbelievable information.
Straight ahead.
Sean gets the answers no one else does.
America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
Toll-free, our telephone numbers, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
All right.
Let me go back, and then we're going to get into the article.
Sarah Carter and John Solomon are with us with circa.com.
And so we've been unveiling the layers of an onion.
They were the ones that got the ball rolling by saying, yeah, there actually was a Pfizer warrant issued in October as it relates to the influence of Russia.
And there was a criminal warrant issued about the same time.
And that as a result of that investigation, there was an ancillary investigation into Trump Tower and Trump Tower's server, which is off-site out of Trump Tower, but the server for Trump Tower, where the campaign was located, was actually being surveilled before the election in November.
Well, we've been sort of peeling those onions, layers of the onion.
We learned from both of them that the story got advanced by a Hillary Clinton supporter, donor, and operative.
And now what we heard from Evelyn Farkas, she's a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama, acknowledging that there was tons of surveillance that was being shared.
First question is, why is she even at this level in her position to even have access to it?
But she says, oh, we had to preserve it.
If they ever found out, meaning the Trump people, how we knew what we knew, you know, they would want to get rid of this intelligence.
And it is so damning.
And then she said, I know that there was more.
She's admitting she saw it and she's admitting she's trying to politicize intelligence and get it to Congress before they leave office.
Listen to this cut.
I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left.
So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff, the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.
We have very good intelligence on Russia.
So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
A lot going on today.
Yeah.
That's why you have the leaking.
Exactly.
We're worried.
Okay, so now it brings up three separate issues here.
Number one, the surveillance issue.
Was it legal?
Number two, was intelligence gathering a ruse to really spy on Donald Trump, either as a candidate or as a president-elect?
The unmasking of individuals like General Flynn.
And then, of course, what we know is illegal, which is leaking intelligence, even by the way, to quote people on the hill.
And we continue with Sarah Carter and John Solomon.
I personally think this is going to come back to bite her and a lot of people in the ass because I would suspect at some point she's probably going to get an immunity deal to tell everything she knows because she may have found herself with those comments on the other end of a district attorney somewhere that's willing and able to prosecute her because it sounds like to me the possibility of an admission of a crime.
Sarah.
Yeah, I think she is going to have to answer some questions and I think she is going to possibly be subpoenaed if an investigation is open.
And what I think is even more interesting, she's talking about all of this evidence on Russia that they were so terrified that the Trump administration would somehow bury or destroy or get rid of.
And yet for this whole time, they haven't said what any of that is.
And of course, the FBI admits to what John and I had written about, which was that there is an ongoing investigation into Russia's involvement in the election, that it extends to anyone, including Trump and his associates.
But everybody is bringing this up over and over again on television.
There's no crime.
The only crime that we know of is the leaking of Michael Flynn's name.
But she's talking about when she says get it to the hill, and I know there's more.
And this goes to the front of your article today.
As his presidency drew to a close, Barack Obama's top aides routinely reviewed intelligence reports gleaned from the national security agency's incidental intercepts of Americans abroad taking advantage of rules that were relaxed in 2011.
So she's admitting that she had access to the intelligence.
So she's acknowledging surveillance occurred.
She's acknowledging a masking occurred.
And she's acknowledging basically they're trying to leak it for political purposes.
Where are the crimes here, John?
Well, I think the first thing you'd have to know is did she have a security clearance?
Because that would put her information.
Do you think that's likely or unlikely?
You know, Deputy Assistant Secretaries, depending on their responsibility, some have low-level clearance, some have high-level, depending on their responsibilities.
We don't know.
Would we be able to date when and if she had one?
We should be able to.
We should be able to report that out.
And if not, the intelligence committee should certainly be interested in her conduct and be looking at that.
But that's the first thing you need to know.
If she did and she transferred information that was classified through improper channels, she certainly is at risk of some sort of prosecution.
That's a big if.
We've got to figure this out.
We don't know if this is someone that's bragging and making a more grandiose story or if there was a complete operation to do this.
What's interesting is she talks about two things.
She uses the word intelligence.
She uses the word Russia.
She uses the word Trump.
She uses the concern that Trump's going to be in charge and maybe this won't get out anymore.
She talks about getting it to the Hill.
And then the last question before she's cut off is, is that why there was all this leaking?
And she says, yes.
So the purpose of getting it to the Hill by her own mission was to leak classified information.
If you take her argument all the way through, that ought to concern the FBI.
That ought to concern the Pentagon if she had a Pentagon security call.
Well, and by the way, isn't it also a confirmation?
It's not the same word that Donald Trump used in his tweet when he said he was wiretapped.
But it's not really wiretapping anymore because we all use cell phones, right?
Isn't it surveillance?
Wouldn't a proper term for him to have used?
And isn't she corroborating his claim?
So here's what I think.
And again, there's a lot of unknowns.
There's things that we just, Sarah and I don't know yet, and they never get to know.
But the likelihood that wiretapping means someone intentionally targeted you and wanted to intercept your phone call.
They thought you were up to something bad, and they wiretapped you and listened in for a period of time to find out if that's true.
What's really going on is that there's one giant wiretap.
Every American who ever makes a call overseas is recorded, almost likely to be recorded by the NSA.
Any American who emails texts overseas is likely to be captured by the NSA.
It's supposed to sit segregated in the NSA files, and it's supposed to be the crown jewels.
No one should look at it unless there's a really good national security interest.
Now what you have is the ease that Obama allowed to have that you could access that American information very easily for the very simple excuse, I might want to, this might help me better understand my job or the intelligence I'm reading.
If it's that easy to get intercepts after the fact, it's basically a new form of espionage, right?
And it puts Americans the relaxing of rules in 2011 began the process of making it very easy to surveil Americans legally.
Is that a fair statement?
It is.
It basically did it after-the-fact surveillance.
So in other words, they may not be in trouble for the surveillance part.
Right.
But if it's done for a political reason, is that a problem?
I think that's what Chairman Nunez was trying to get across last week, which is this was perfectly legal surveillance, but if accessed in the wrong way, it could be used and misused and abused.
So in other words, he was saying very troubling.
I was bothered by this.
This is what he's referring to.
Okay, now let's go to the...
That's exactly it.
Let's go to the next step, Sarah, and that is the unmasking.
Because she's basically acknowledging they did unmask it.
If the Trump team, let me go through the article just verbatim here.
She said, you know, that they would, if I fear somehow the information would disappear with senior people who left and it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.
If they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, well, that they would try to compromise the sources and methods, meaning that we would no longer have access to the intelligence.
And so she's admitting an unmasking process has certainly taken place.
Is that a potential crime, Senator?
I think it's going to be a very serious, deeply concerning, I mean, just like John had said, this is about surveillance.
This is about civil liberties.
If the rules were relaxed by the president, which we reported and which they were in 2011 and the USA.
But that's the surveillance.
What about unmasking?
Were the rules for unmasking?
They're unmasking the names, yes, because they could go in and they could see this and they could ask for these names to be unmasked.
I mean, it goes all the way back to 2011.
But aren't there any laws that prevent the unmasking?
That's what happened.
It changed, Sean.
It changed.
So we go back to 2011.
We see what happened with the laws and how they became more and more relaxed so that people could go in and say, you know, I need to know who this American is because I really can't understand the intelligence unless I see who it is.
And that's when they start unmasking the names.
And that's when they start looking at this full conversation.
And, you know, John made a very good point.
I mean, this is a massive wiretap, right?
I mean, if you want to talk about wiretapping, that's different.
But this is like we're going to look, we're going to collect everybody's information, and then we're going to go back if we need to and look at it.
But they're specifically targeting Trump and his transition team.
That's absolutely right.
And so the big question here, Sean, is who authorized that?
Who authorized in the Obama administration the unmasking of names on Trump's team on his campaign and why was the authorization given?
Was there a real reason or were they using this?
And this is the big question.
Was this just sounds to me like she was using it for political purposes, which is why, quote, she wanted to get it to the hills.
So now that we've dealt with the surveillance, okay, they relaxed the rules, which allowed more unmasking, at least under the guise of national security reasons.
But then she can't get away with the idea of leaking to the hill.
How do you get off of that?
That is a definite violation of the Espionage Act, if I read it correctly, no.
Well, yeah, especially if you think about it this way.
If what she is saying is, hey, don't look at us, we went up to the hill and delivered all of this information, this classified information, maybe to people who also had the capability, which I'm assuming, to collect that information on the House Intelligence Committee or others, and we wanted them to hold on to it.
But guess what?
Once we went to the Hill, then it leaked, right?
Because people were afraid.
Well, it's a violation of the Espionage Act.
It doesn't matter.
If you're afraid, then you take it to a committee chair.
There's other ways of reporting.
But that's not what she's saying.
That's not what she said.
And with all of that said, there's still, eight months later, zero evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
All right, we've got to take a break here.
Stay right there.
Our final moments coming up.
Final hour roundup is next.
You do not want to miss it.
And stay tuned for the final hour free-for-all on the Sean Hannity Show.
All right,
as we continue our final moments with Sarah Carter and John Solomon, I think this has become the biggest blockbuster day as it relates to these issues of surveillance, a masking and leaking of intelligence.
Where do we go from here and what are you guys looking for?
What do you want answered next?
And where do you think this is going?
Yeah, I think the next set of questions are.
We've established now that Obama set up a process where top political aides like Loretta Lynch and Susan Rice and John Brennan could come in and look at intercepts after the fact and have the Americans' names unmasked and know whether it was Donald Trump talking to someone else or a congressperson.
We've focused a lot in our reporting about Congresspeople being intercepted.
We're going to be doing some reporting of that.
We need to know who requested it.
What was their justification?
And did it meet the tenets of the law?
And I believe that's what the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are trying to get access to right now.
That's why they're gaining these new documents.
And we're going to learn in the next few weeks whether there's a justification for the sort of spying that was going on after the fact, after the fact collection, unmasking of names, or whether it was a problem.
Why don't we know now, considering what Clapper and Wacomey and what Admiral Rogers say?
I think one of the hardest things is we don't know what the Obama administration was looking at, right?
Were they looking at the possibility that Russia was about to do one last disruption?
We just don't know their intention.
Once we know their intention, their justification for why they were looking at this stuff, if it doesn't have a serious national security interest, I believe the other day Bob Woodward, my old colleague at the Washington Post, said, if people unmasked things and there wasn't a serious reason for it, they should go to jail.
And I think that that's what hangs in the balance, this question.
If it's serious and real, maybe justify it.
Let's say that that would justify the surveillance and the unmasking, but nothing is going to get the people involved, whoever leaked the intelligence.
That's still a criminal.
The leaks are definitely criminals.
And there were felonies committed, no doubt, correct, Sarah?
Oh, yes, absolutely.
There were felonies committed.
And someone, if there is an investigation, if there is some ongoing investigations right now, but a criminal investigation into this, they will be able to find this leaker.
It will not be that difficult.
And as John said, I mean, I think, and so eloquently, I mean, this could be one of the bigger stories that we've seen in our time with regards to civil liberties.
But we do need the answers to those questions.
And that's something that I know the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is looking at.
And those are questions that we're looking at as well.
Let me ask you both this question.
If either of you were Evelyn Farkas, and now you hear both Sarah Carter and John Solomon's take on all this, and now that we've had an opportunity to take really examine this statement, would you get a lawyer, advise her to get a lawyer?
John?
Yeah, anytime you're talking about intelligence, and if you had a security clearance, it's probably a good idea to consult a lawyer.
And again, there's a lot we don't know about her yet.
There's a lot to read into this, but we need to be careful, let the facts shake out.
But I do think that's a good question.
She is directly talking about getting information to other people for political purposes.
You use the word intelligence.
Intelligence, yeah.
I think she's got herself a big legal problem.
My own opinion as a non-lawyer.
What do you think, Sarah?
Yeah, I think as John said, anytime you're talking about intelligence and you have a high-level TS clearance or you don't, you better have a lawyer on your side to answer some of the questions that might come afterwards.
This story gets more interesting day by day.
I am blown away that nobody in the media is getting this story.
Last question, both of you.
Do you think this will blow up in the media's face, this Russia-Trump collusion story?
I do think that the media is going to look back at its early breathless reporting and see a little bit element of McCarthyism of making leaps that aren't necessarily there yet.
One quick point: because I think that right on John's, right on John's statement there, I think that they should be chasing down this story and they should not be partisan and they should be looking at both sides of this.
You know, a lot of it's pretty evident that a lot of them don't like Trump.
They don't respect President Trump and so therefore they're ignoring really potentially important civil liberties stories.
Unbelievable reporting by both of you, fascinating developments today.
And I'm going to put this all together for my opening monologue and both of you will join me tonight on Hannah.
Sorry, thank you both.
800-941-SHAW.
News Roundup Information Overload is next.
This was an unfolding catastrophe.
The numbers of new cases and deaths are still rising.
Ebola is the world's most dangerous virus.
The disease is out of control in West Africa.
Action was needed immediately.
Altogether, the family member I lose 17.
God has called us to care for the dying, to care for those that are suffering.
We can't say we're smart in this purse and not help.
I was confident that what we were doing was the right thing to do.
I don't think I was scared yet.
I should have been very scared.
As the epidemic escalated, we were just desperately trying to stay one step ahead.
My phone rang, and Ken Isaacs said one of our doctors, Kent Brantley, has a wall up.
David looked at me and he said, You too have Ebola.
And then Barbara was diagnosed with Ebola.
There was a high likelihood her team members were going to die.
I don't know how to describe how afraid we were.
But we still went in hour after hour taking care of the Liberians and taking care of Ken and Nancy.
We're there to save lives.
We're there in your name.
why despite the fact that things were out of control we knew that god was in control My greatest fear is that I would have to raise my kids alone.
I felt broken.
Who is going to take care of my children?
God puts you in places and supplies the strength to deal with.
If they're on our team, they are our blood.
No matter what it took, let's get them out.
Time is ticking.
Jesus Christ didn't run.
We run to the farm.
We don't run away from it.
All right, glad you're with us.
It's 24 now till the top of the hour.
Toll-free, our telephone number is 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
That is from the movie called Facing Darkness, a true story of faith, saving Dr. Brantley from Ebola in Africa.
And the voice you heard there should be familiar to you.
It's our good friend, the Reverend Franklin Graham, a far more decent human being than I'll ever be.
Son of, although you did give your dad a hell of a time growing up, did you were awful?
I was terrible.
I always say I was incorrigible.
I'm still incorrigible at this point in my life.
But let me get into this.
So you're doing this movie, but it's like a one-night thing, and then you're going to do an encore night.
That's right.
It's on in theaters this Thursday.
And if people want to know where to go, they can go to facing darknessmovie.com and put in their zip code, and it'll show you the theaters that it's in the area.
But close to 700 theaters around the country join this.
Why aren't you just doing a regular release?
Well, we may do something later.
This is called a fathom event, and it's something that a lot of people have done.
And we're encouraging church groups to go.
We're wanting Sunday school groups to go and buy tickets and go as a group.
This is the story of how God, not Franklin Graham, but how God saved the life of Dr. Kent Brantley and Nancy Reitbull.
These two people were working.
He was working for me when Ebola came into Liberia.
And he wasn't there to fight Ebola.
He was there working in a hospital.
I had a team of people.
We've been there since 2003, working doing agricultural projects and women's projects and this kind of thing.
Ebola came.
We stopped everything we were doing because nobody would fight Ebola.
The U.S. government wasn't there.
The Liberian government couldn't do it.
The World Health Organization, nobody.
Nobody.
World Health, UN, EU, nobody.
And so they asked, when I say, hey, the UN asked, would we take on the lead in trying to fight Ebola?
And we said, okay.
And Sean, I had no clue what to do.
And none of us did.
But the only organization that knew anything about Ebola was Doctors Without Borders or Medicine San Frontier.
They came in, they helped us set up an ETU.
We got it going, got it running, and then my two people get Ebola the same day, and we don't know how they got infected.
Oh, so scary.
And why don't you describe to people just the violent attack if you get Ebola?
It basically eats your organs out from inside out.
It's a hemorrhagic fever.
And what happens, when you first get Ebola, you feel a little tired, like you're coming down with the flu.
And then it begins to attack your organs, and you begin to bleed out of every orifice, out of your nose, out of your eyes, out of your ears.
And you've seen this up front.
Yes, people are just melting.
It's like your organs are melting inside of you.
It's like a horror movie in real life.
It's true.
I mean, it's a real deal, and it's the world's most dangerous virus.
And Sean, God saved Dr. Brantley.
I was in Alaska working on one of our projects when the phone rang.
He's got Ebola.
I came home.
I couldn't get an airplane to go get him.
The airlines wouldn't get him.
We had an insurance policy that a plane would go anywhere in the world if one of your team got sick.
We called him up.
Yep, glad to do it.
Where's the patient?
Liberia.
Okay, fine.
What's the patient got?
Ebola.
We're not going to go get him.
Well, you had an insurance policy that if any of your Samaritans personnel got sick, you'd get them back to the States.
By the way, that was very nice of you to provide that.
I'm sure that wasn't cheap.
No, but we've been paying on that for years.
And we remind them, hey, we've been paying this policy for years.
They said suicide.
We're not going.
We're not going to pick up an Ebola patient.
And so we had no way to get this guy back.
No way.
Until God opened up a door.
And that was one man at the State Department, a lower-level person.
I'm not talking about the Secretary of State, just a lower-level guy.
When someone said, call him, he might be able to help.
We called him.
He said, there is an asset that the government has.
Well, what's that?
Well, there is one airplane that can carry this kind of infected person.
Who do we need to talk to?
The guy said, you're talking to him.
And he sent a U.S. plane.
We had to pay for it.
He said, I cannot pay, I cannot use this plane with taxpayer dollars.
Care.
Didn't care.
We sent him a check.
We wired the money that day.
And so they went from the United States to Liberia.
Not quite.
They went from the United States halfway across the Atlantic.
Okay.
Had to turn around and come back, had a pressurization problem.
And the night that the plane was to arrive, Dr. Brantley began to die.
And there was nothing that we could do, Sean.
He was dying.
And we had prayed, we had worked.
We had the plane coming out.
The next day it was delayed, and he started to die.
But somebody showed up.
A scientist showed up with this thing called ZMAP.
It said it's been used on primates.
It's made from mice blood.
It's cultivated on tobacco leaves.
I never heard of it.
No.
Listen, it sounds like an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
They said, try this.
It might help him.
And as he began to die, we put this ZMAP in him and he went into rigors.
I mean, I'm talking about violent shaking on the bed, so much so we thought he's going to fall off the bed.
Were you there at that point?
No, but we had two of our doctors there.
And within 35 minutes, that shaking quit, and he got up out of bed and went to the bathroom, hadn't been out of bed in three days.
It was that quick.
It was that fast.
It's like God showed up right then.
I'm blown away.
This is kind of giving me the chills because this, you know, I don't know why we're fascinated as human beings with horror flicks, but we are.
And I've seen those movies where, you know, contagion, for example, where something like Ebola takes place.
Remember the one movie with Dustin Hoffman and I forget the outbreak.
Outbreak.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I mean, and all the lengths they went to find the monkey to get the serum to stop the Ebola-like symptoms.
And his girlfriend at the time or ex-wife got the symptoms.
So this chronicles the story.
It's a movie.
It's a movie about what happened.
These are no, it's a documentary.
These are not actors.
This is the real deal.
This is the real deal.
And, Sean, it's a team of young people that stood up and said, we will go and we will fight.
And I hope this will encourage other young people to get up and do the same thing.
Because this film is all young people fighting the world's most deadly virus.
And God shows up and saves Dr. Brantley's life, saves Nancy Reitbull's life.
Sean, when he came back to Emory University and that ambulance boat, he walked out of the back of that ambulance.
They didn't carry him on a stretcher.
It's so funny because I'm now remembering he was the guy that we said, oh, now that we helped him, we can help all these other people.
That's so amazing.
I didn't put it together until just now.
And where are we with Ebola?
Well, first of all, we learned a lot.
When Ebola outbreak came, I asked the CDC, what are the protocols?
I've got 25 people I'm bringing back from Africa that might have been exposed to Ebola.
What are the protocols to integrate them back into the world?
Dr. Anthony Fauci or.
And you know what they said to me?
We have no.
Tell them to go home, take their temperature twice a day.
And if they get a spike in their temperature, go to the local health department.
Yeah, so they can infect other people.
No, but can you imagine going into your health department saying, I think I have Ebola?
They're going to run out the back door.
I would.
And they'll call the SWAT team.
When did you first see Dr. Brantley in this process, yourself?
Right when he got out of Emory University.
So, I mean, this is an amazing story.
Look, a lot of people don't know.
I mean, I've known about your work with Samaritans Perse.
I think most people know you for Operation Christmas Child.
Christmas Child.
And I actually had the honor of going on one of those trips with you, and it was really eye-opening.
And that's where people fill shoeboxes for boys, little boys, little girls, and you giving out, giving them out to poor kids all around the country.
And how many did you give out?
$13 million this year.
Oh, my gosh, $13 million.
And I'm too lazy to make one, so I just cut you a check.
At least I think that's the only thing that you can do.
We like that too.
We like that too.
The check is all right.
I'll let somebody else build the shoebox.
I really wouldn't do a good job for you.
But I watched these kids.
But you're also, I went with you and we flew over Haiti together.
And you've been in Haiti, and the devastation after that earthquake still exists today, and you're like the only organization.
And Sean, right now we're working right outside of Mosul in Iraq.
We have a trauma hospital.
I've got 80 doctors and nurses 11 miles from the front line.
And this is the only trauma hospital in all of northern Iraq.
And these people are shot.
They're blown up.
A lot of women and children trying to get away from ISIS are shot in the back by ISIS snipers.
Does ISIS try and go after the hospital?
They've had threats.
We've gotten warnings from ISIS that they're going to try to blow it up.
But we have got pretty good protection.
But we're right there, Sean, and people are getting blown up every day.
But I've got doctors and nurses.
They're saving lives.
We even have ISIS fighters that get sent to us.
We treat them the same as we would invite us.
Now, when they get ready to leave, we don't turn them loose.
We give them to the Iraqi government.
You do.
And how do you know that they're ISIS?
They're beards, and they come in, and we've been told by other people, those are ISIS, those are ISIS.
And so we operate on them, we take care of them, but we segregate them and put them in a separate ward, put a guard on them, and then when they're able to leave, we call the government to come to the market.
Now, for somebody who's so incorrigible as a child, your dad has to be so proud of you at this point in your life.
I think you've made up for all the drunken rumbles you've had on your motorcycle back in the day.
Well, God's a forgiving God.
That's what I keep hearing.
You know, this is an amazing thing what you do at Samaritans Perse.
Now, I know, like, my former colleague and my good friend Greta Van Sustran, she travels with you and her and her husband John.
And she was almost going to leave television just to work for you full-time.
She's so gratified in the work that she had done with you.
Well, she has been a part of our work in a number of areas.
And what I enjoy about Greta, she's not afraid.
And neither is John.
John Cole, her husband, went with me back in January to northern Iraq.
We went for the opening of this hospital, the dedication of it.
In Mosul.
In Mosul.
And so John was there with me.
That's when Mosul was under heavy fire.
Oh, and it still is.
It's very dangerous.
Did you fly in with the military?
Did you fly in your own plane?
No, I chartered a plane to go in.
But it's very dangerous.
No, we don't fly into Mosul.
We fly into Erbil, which is about two hours away.
Okay, but you still got to drive.
Oh, you drive right up to it, and you have to go through a lot of checkpoints, and you're right there at the front lines.
All right, so let me make sure I get this all out here.
So this movie, which is really a documentary, is going to be airing.
It's one night only, but there might be a second night added.
There's a second night, and it's going to be on the 10th of April.
And the first airing is this Thursday, the 30th, tomorrow night.
Now, if people want to go see the movie, you've set up a website.
It's facingdarknessmovie.com.
Correct.
One word, facingdarknessmovie.com.
700-plus theaters around the country.
Correct.
And can I get a DVD?
Can you give me a copy?
I don't know if I can get off work to go, but I really want to see this.
I mean, you've whet my appetite.
And the incredible story, it's called Facing Darkness, a True Story of Faith, saving Dr. Brantley from Ebola.
He was in Liberia in Africa.
You know, you've become a dear friend.
There's many people in life that not a lot of people that I admire a lot.
And you're just one of the guys that I admire a lot.
Thank you, Sean.
And you've been very kind to me.
Your family has been kind to me.
You and Jerry Falwell Sr. and Jr. have been really nice to me.
And I'm like, why do these people even like me?
I'm like, you know, I'm a piece of dirt compared to these guys.
But I know you're a good man.
I know your heart's in the right place, and you do good work, and you're also courageous and taking the positions you've taken.
But I would urge everybody, it's tomorrow night.
Find out the theater near you, FacingDarknessMovie.com.
One word.
It sounds like a phenomenal movie.
We're going to actually show a little clip of it tonight on Hannity and give a preview.
So we'll see you there.
Reverend Graham, it's good to see you.
How's your father doing, by the way?
He's doing okay, Sean.
He's just old, 98 years old.
He just doesn't talk much anymore.
He's kind of quiet.
I ran into your buddy Larry Ross the other day.
And for me to do the one interview I ever had with your dad, he put me through the ringer.
I think it's like an FBI background check, a CIA background check, an NSA background check on steroids to get to your dad.
I mean, what did he think I was?
I'm not the Satan for crying out loud.
All you have to do is call me.
Oh, now you tell me.
Well, why was he being such a jerk?
He doesn't know any better.
All right, 800-941, Sean.
We'll see you tonight on Hannity.
Bad for America.
CBS-TV edits the news like nobody else.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm going to wrap things up for today.
Full, complete coverage of Evelyn Farkas' comments about as it relates to surveillance of Trump and his team, as it relates to unmasking of Trump and his team, as it relates to passing up the information to Congress.
Any laws broken, we'll raise that questions.
John Solomon, Sarah Carter, they'll check in tonight.
Also, Jay Seculo and Tom Fitton will be on tonight.
We'll talk to them about all of that.
Also, Herman Kane will join us on the issue of illegal immigration.
10 Eastern tonight.
Thanks for being with us.
Back here tomorrow.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
What 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.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection