Sean Hannity Show - Rice Under Attack - 4.4

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 5, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:37:27

Rice Under Attack - 4.4

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
	Normally.
	On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	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, after cold, wet winter, it's officially tulip season at 1-800Flowers.com.
	And when it comes to surprising your friends and loved ones with the best blooms and the brightest colors, well, there's only one place to go, 1-800Flowers.com.
	Now, these gorgeous flowers have just arrived just in time for Easter and at a truly unbeatable price.
	Now, right now, 1-800 Flowers is giving you, my listeners, an exclusive 30 for 30 offer.
	30 assorted tulips for just 30 bucks and with a bright and beautiful mix of orange and yellow and pink blooms.
	Well, these assorted tulips are perfect for surprising anyone at Easter, maybe for a birthday or just because, because, because.
	Now, 30 assorted tulips for just 30 bucks.
	It's an amazing offer.
	It expires Friday.
	And when it comes to getting spring tulips, I don't settle for anything less than 1-800flowers.com.
	Now, to order 30 stunning assorted tulips for only 30 bucks, just go to 1-800flowers.com, click on the radio icon, put in my last name, Hannity, 1-800Flowers.com.
	Put in the promo code Hannity.
	Hurry because this offer ends on Friday.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Happy Tuesday.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
	It's 800-941 Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
	And our top stories today, we're not going to spend a lot of time on this.
	It does look like the nuclear option, constitutional option, is going to be used because for the first time in history, the Democrats 200 plus years are going to filibuster for partisan purposes a Supreme Court nominee.
	And so Republicans have no choice.
	They will go with 51 votes and they will bypass what is known as cloture and they will bypass the bird rule and they'll bypass all the BS that we're talking about.
	All right.
	So we're going to get to that.
	There is progress apparently on the issue of health care behind the scenes.
	And we're not sure.
	It doesn't seem like they're going to have something to vote on.
	But there is a possibility of a Thursday vote that is kind of sort of hanging out there in the background.
	And Congress then wouldn't be back until April the 24th.
	And we'll see what happens.
	So we'll wait, watch, and see.
	We do know that Representative from Tennessee, Scott Desajarlis, I don't know how to say his name, probably, he wants to know what's in it before he votes for it, you think.
	Anyway, Dave Bratt doesn't think there's going to be time for a vote this week.
	Mo Brooks of Alabama says states should have the right to set essential health benefits to be covered by health insurance policies sold in their states.
	That would be a huge improvement in terms of lowering the cost of health insurance.
	That would be a massive change to the bill that was originally put out and a major improvement.
	And if I'm reading between the lines there, there might be some breakthrough that is emerging.
	We'll have to wait and see if that happens.
	So we're going to get to all that.
	Look, our top story today remains everything that we have been talking about and everything we have been discussing, and that is all of this surveillance, all of this unmasking, and all of this intelligence leaking.
	And we have new information today.
	And, you know, news of Susan Rice wiretapping involvement actually first broke on my TV show on March 24th.
	It turns out that Susan Rice's possible involvement, you know, it turned out that both Sarah Carter and Rick Renell were on top of this from the very beginning.
	Anyway, Sarah Carter by far has been leading the effort.
	Now, I have in front of me, you know, where she said in March that among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice, his CIA director John Brennan, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and I'd have to add to that the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.
	So let's go back to Judy Woodruff a couple of weeks ago, and let's listen to Susan Rice actually say that I have no knowledge of this at all whatsoever.
	Because it totally, kind of like Evelyn Farkas, she's trying to walk back what she said because she knows.
	Look, let me explain this.
	If there is unmasking that takes place, in other words, if you unmask the names of citizens that were incidentally picked up in the course of surveillance of foreign targets like Russia, like China, like even an ally Israel or the Iranians, a staunch enemy, well, for that request to actually happen, for that to happen, they end up having to specifically request the unmasking of the American citizen.
	Because you have to understand, an American citizen has Fourth Amendment right, constitutional rights, First Amendment rights.
	You have a right to make phone calls, give texts, and send emails, and you have a right to privacy.
	And by the way, this is what's so hypocritical about the level.
	Oh, what about the right to privacy?
	You can't tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.
	How about the right to privacy that Americans have a right to privacy in their phone conversations, in their text messaging, and in their emails?
	What this is exposing here at a very high level is that they used the ruse of national security to spy on a political opponent.
	Why, to delegitimize the incoming president, number one, maybe they use the cover of surveillance of foreign states, but they really, by unmasking the names of Trump people and transition people and the president-elect and candidate himself, Trump, they're using national security as an excuse to go in there and spy on an entire opposition party campaign.
	Now, this is beyond anything that you'll ever hear probably in your lifetime.
	That is about as abusive a government intrusion as you'll ever find.
	And that would be the predicate for a police state where they would use surveillance, intelligence gathering for the purpose of shutting up, silencing, learning about, destroying political opponents.
	That's why this is so serious.
	This is not a game that we're talking about here.
	And it appears that it could have started as early in July of last year if Evelyn Farkas' comments are any indication of how far back it goes.
	You know, I think the real authority who's going to be with us in our second hour, Sarah Carter, who is, you know, been all over this, the senior national security correspondent for Circa, has been out there saying, well, a FISA warrant took place and a criminal warrant took place, but it had nothing to do with Trump.
	And, yeah, the Trump server was incidentally surveilled.
	And, oh, by the way, phone conversations were picked up.
	And now Susan Rice, in spite of what she said two weeks ago, is admitting that General Flynn was unmasked, but she claims not for political purposes.
	Really?
	Nobody in their right mind would ever believe that because there's no other reason than for political purposes to do such a thing.
	All right, let's, yeah, and by the way, yes, I know I'm getting pinged all day that there's chatter all over the internet about me.
	I have no knowledge.
	That's my answer.
	And I just tweeted it out because I know a lot of my friends here are trying to be nice to me.
	Are you seeing all this activity that you've been surveilled?
	And I said, I have zero knowledge of any surveillance against me, any unmasking against me by the Obama administration.
	But considering that's the same Obama administration that used the IRS to go after conservative groups, nothing shocks me.
	But do I have any personal knowledge of it?
	No, I don't.
	Am I worried about it?
	No, but I will sue the living pants off of anybody that did it.
	I promise you that.
	And I will stop at nothing.
	And I have the means to attack this for years, and I'll do it.
	And I'll do it on behalf of every American's right to privacy and right to, you know, be able to make a confidential phone call or send a text or an email to their friends and loved ones.
	Good grief.
	Anyway, and if I want to talk to somebody in the Trump administration, I ought to have the privacy that is afforded every American.
	And the fact that General Flynn had his whole life turned upside down because of illegal unmasking and intelligence leaking, that's why this is so important.
	You've got to understand you're next.
	You understand?
	This can happen to every American.
	This is an abuse of power.
	This is unconstitutional.
	This violates your right to unreasonable search and seizure in every regard.
	It literally stifles freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press.
	Remember, they tried to intimidate James Rosen back in the day.
	So Susan Rice, two weeks ago, I don't know anything about this.
	Listen.
	I know nothing about this.
	I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Yunes on that count today.
	I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been.
	The President of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign.
	Nothing of the sort occurred, and we've heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House can order the surveillance of another American citizen.
	That can only come from the Justice Department with the approval of a FISA court.
	So today, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was illegal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
	And I think it's important for people to understand what incidental means.
	That means that the target was either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation, and that the Americans who were talking to those targets may have been picked up.
	Notice everything she's saying in that answer.
	I don't know anything about this, but hypothetically, this and that could be the case, but this and that would need to be the prerequisite for this or that to happen.
	No knowledge at all.
	Okay, now Susan Rice pulls an Evelyn Farkas.
	Now she's trying to walk it back.
	And by the way, if this is not, I actually felt like it was a script reading between Andrea Mitchell and Susan Rice because it was so obvious that she was given the questions, in my opinion, ahead of time.
	But now Susan Rice admits that General Flynn was surveilled and unmasked, and then she claims, but not for political purposes.
	Why else would you unmask him?
	Why else would you leak that intelligence?
	You ruined this man's life.
	And whoever did it will be the subject of a civil suit.
	I'll tell you that.
	Anyway, listen to her now backtrack 1,000%.
	Did you seek the names of people involved in to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect?
	Let me begin.
	In order to spy on them, expose them.
	Absolutely not for any political purposes to spy, expose anything.
	But let me leak the name of Mike Flynn.
	I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would.
	But let me explain this.
	First of all, Andrea, to talk about the contents of a classified report, to talk about the individuals on the foreign side who were the targets of the report itself or any Americans who may have been collected upon incidentally is to disclose classified information.
	I'm not going to do that.
	And those people who are putting these stories out are doing just that.
	I can't describe any particular report I saw.
	And by the way, I have no idea what reports allegedly are being described by those who are putting out this story.
	I don't know what timeframe they were from.
	I don't know the subject matter.
	And I don't know who they think was collected upon.
	The allegation is that in one case, they are alleging in the Daily Caller that there was a spreadsheet that you put out of all of these names and circulated.
	No spreadsheet, nothing of the sort.
	No spreadsheet.
	There will be a record because to get to this intelligence, you have to dig deep, deep, deep.
	Everything with raw intelligence, everything you've listened to, every request you made, every unmasking request, it all exists.
	And she now has been exposed as unmasking.
	And then later in the interview, she admits the pace of surveillance of Donald Trump increased after the election.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	But knock me over with a feather here.
	The same Susan Rice who lied about Benghazi five times on five separate Sunday shows is now denying she had anything to do with the unmasking of members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign being surveilled by the Obama administration.
	It's pretty unbelievable.
	As a matter of fact, I don't believe it.
	I don't believe it in any way, shape, matter, or form.
	Anyway, we're going to get back to this.
	We're going to play more of that interview with her.
	Then we'll have Sarah Carter.
	Then we'll look at the legal aspects with Jay Seculo and Joe DeGenova.
	I don't know the answer.
	Everyone's still writing me like a thousand times.
	I don't know if it's true or not.
	How would I possibly know if surveillance took place on me or unmasking of me?
	I don't know.
	I have no idea.
	So everyone that's trying to look out for my, I am not, no, I'm not worried at all.
	As a matter of fact, I'll be very rich if, in fact, it happened.
	And I'll sue Obama himself, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice.
	I'll sue them all by name in a civil action.
	You know what?
	I'm going to ask Jay and Joe if they'll represent me later.
	We'll do that.
	Still waiting to fly out all those libs who promised to leave if Trump were elected.
	The jet is ready.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	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.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show, I want to try and keep this because it gets complicated for people.
	It's like the health care bill.
	You know, when you explain, well, you've got certain, you have a certain process that the House needs to consider when passing health care because they've got to get to pass it through reconciliation because they can't get closure because there's no Democrat that wants to undo Obamacare.
	And then you start talking about the reconciliation process and then the difficulties of passing any bill through reconciliation because it has to do with finances, then revenue neutrality, and then the bird rule.
	Nobody knows what I'm talking about here.
	So I'm trying to keep this as simple as I can for you.
	What we have confirmed is surveillance of Trump Tower and their servers, and it's what appears to be the purposeful misuse of intelligence.
	In other words, legal intelligence gathering for the purposes of spying on a political opposition campaign and then an incoming president-elect.
	That's what appears to have taken place here.
	And so when I keep reminding you of the important words to understand here, everyone understands surveillance.
	Okay, fine.
	Now, there's legal surveillance.
	For example, I would hope and expect that our national security agency and our intelligence agencies are surveilling our enemies like Iran and China and Russia.
	All right, that would be in our best national security interest.
	In the process of doing their surveillance job, well, they may incidentally pick up innocent Americans that are in communication with the people that they're surveilling.
	Maybe me or maybe somebody that works in the Trump transition team, maybe the president-elect or maybe candidate Trump.
	Okay, that surveillance is illegal.
	We have protections.
	You're not allowed to surveil innocent Americans.
	The government is not, without violating laws because you need warrants to get permission to use surveillance techniques against Americans.
	Okay, so when incidental surveillance happens of Americans through the legal means of surveilling enemies, that's called incidental pickups.
	When that happens, Americans still are to be treated with their constitutional rights.
	And that means they're supposed to minimize the conversations, not unmask, remember the word unmask, the identity of the American involved.
	And if you leak it, that is a felony.
	You understand what's at play here?
	I'll explain more when we get back.
	25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean.
	All right, watching developments on the health care bill unfold.
	Doubtful about Thursday, possible but doubtful, but certainly progress is clearly being made.
	And I like the comments of some of the Freedom Caucus members.
	Our friend Jamie Dupree sent over earlier today that, you know, if giving states the right to set essential health benefits to be covered by health insurance policies sold in their state, that's awesome.
	That is a big change because that means that the cost, for example, if, like, for example, I shouldn't have a rate just because I'm a 50-year-old, 55-year-old guy.
	And some other 55-year-old guy, all right, he drinks a bottle of gin a day, smokes three packs of cigarettes, never exercises.
	Why should I be in the same rate poll as that individual?
	But if you can base it based on my health choices, which is, you know, pounding a heavy bag and doing mixed martial arts five days a week and not smoking cigarettes and drinking moderately, then what's the big deal?
	Anyway, you know, watching the media reaction to this is really fascinating to me.
	It just is for a variety of different reasons.
	I mean, because you just can't believe the desire of some in the media to just protect the administration.
	Now, this is the same media that colluded and helped try to get Hillary elected.
	Same media that never vetted Obama.
	The same media that never told you the truth about his failed record.
	I didn't watch last night, but apparently on one of the shows on CNN last night, they apparently started the program saying that they're going to ignore all the news about Susan Rice unmasking American citizens at all costs.
	And then what sounded like a pre-prepared interview with Andrea Mitchell today.
	I'm like, oh, okay, let's go all in on the idea that the former administration is surveilling, unmasking, and leaking intelligence on private citizens, and especially those associated with the candidate, then incoming president, Donald Trump.
	Let's totally ignore that, and that is meaningless.
	Meanwhile, Watergate about a break-in in an election that Nixon was going to win by a landslide anyway, and the cover-up leads to a president leaving.
	Where is Woodward and Bernstein?
	These are the people that are so concerned about the truth and just their hatred for Trump.
	That's why journalism's dead.
	That's why I keep harping on this.
	You know, it's even the Washington Post, somewhat to their credit, although the New York Times similarly tried to dismiss it, and Washington Post tried to dismiss it.
	Anyway, but the fake news Democratic media kind of throwing up a wall of silence around Susan Rice here and the story yesterday.
	But there's a little bit of a crumble with the Washington Post admitting that Susan Rice has some explaining to do.
	Explaining, of course.
	So, you know, but even at the same time, Rice's own comments about the matter lead to some legitimate questions.
	And then they're doing what we do.
	We just played for you what she said.
	She went into full denial mode when she was on PBS with Judy Woodruff.
	Now, to start, you got to start this last month where this begins here.
	Remember when President Trump sent out a tweet talking about wiretapping?
	Now, by the way, that wiretapping could have been gleaned from the New York Times or the BBC or McClatchy because they use those terms first and foremost.
	Okay, now we can get into some word parsing games and semanticle games.
	Well, was it really wiretapping or surveillance?
	It's the same thing, essentially.
	But anyway, it started last month because if you're recording the phone conversations of an incoming administration or a candidate, an opposing candidate, okay, you can call it wiretapping.
	You can call it surveillance.
	You can call it intelligence gathering.
	You can call it anything you want.
	It's pretty much all basically the same thing.
	But we have been, you know, what we've done on this program at On Hannity is we've been peeling away the layers of this onion here.
	And with the help, by the way, of Sarah Carter and John Solomon of Circa News.
	And, you know, what did we learn?
	Well, we learned the existence of a FISA court warrant in early October before the election.
	And another warrant.
	We also learned that as it relates to the investigation of a conspiracy between Trump and the Russians, that zero evidence was found, as confirmed by Clapper and Comey and Admiral Rogers and so many others.
	Anyway, but they still continue that investigation.
	And then Comey wouldn't even admit that there was an investigation into the leaking, even though we know that's a felony that's committed here.
	So anyway, so we discover all this prior to the president taking office.
	Then they reveal that high-ranking officials with direct access to President Obama, you know, that had access to the unmasking of federal surveillance of the Trump transition team members, and that it happened at a scale that we need to get to the bottom of, because now we know that Susan Rice was purposefully requesting that the names of incidental pickups.
	In other words, go to Devin Nunes' comment.
	Yes, they were legal surveillance, incidental surveilling of Americans who have Fourth Amendment protections with no warrant against them for the government to surveil them.
	In different times were, quote, legally picked up.
	The process of minimization, which is supposed to be applied, was not applied.
	And then the leaking of names, like in the case of Flynn, happened.
	So that's a real felony.
	Now, did it happen because of the unmasking requests of Susan Rice?
	Well, it may very well could have.
	Anyway, so when Devin Nunes revealed he had seen reports that Trump and members of his transition team were unmasked and the intel had nothing to do with Russia, and then we uncovered the video of Evelyn Farkas, this prominent Obama administration official who served in the administration, encouraging former colleagues and people on the Hill to get as much intelligence as they can about the Trump team before Obama leaves office.
	And she indicates it began back in July.
	And then Farkas admitted that surveillance took place, unmasking took place, and that she was hoping that her colleagues would leak the information.
	In other words, give it to our friends on the Hill, our colleagues on the Hill.
	Well, that would be passing on intelligence.
	That's why I go back to the key words, surveillance, unmasking, intelligence leaking.
	This is the core of this issue here.
	And then yesterday, all the reports that Obama's national security advisor, Susan Rice, requested that members of the Trump transition team be unmasked in these intelligence reports.
	Why?
	What is the possible reason for this?
	And she goes on TV today and says, oh, it wasn't political.
	Oh, I'm really going to believe the lady that lied to us on five separate Sunday shows about Benghazi.
	Five separate shows.
	But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.
	But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are unfortunately readily now available in Libya post-revolution, and that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
	Oh, that's right.
	A spontaneous demonstration where they had mortars and RPGs in their back pocket, and they just happened to pull them out because it just started to escalate.
	That's what she'd have you believe.
	And then you've got Dr. Farkas then trying to walk back everything she said.
	Now you've got Susan Rice trying to walk back everything she said to Judy Woodruff.
	This is what she said to Woodruff.
	She denied, again, I'll play it again, knowing anything about this two weeks ago.
	I've never seen nothing about this.
	I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Yunes on that.
	I was shocked.
	She's lying.
	Why?
	Because she went on today.
	She goes on NMSNBC with Andrea Mitchell in what seemed like the most scripted interview I think I've ever seen in my life.
	But she goes on to say, oh, nothing political in the surveillance of Trump, nothing at all.
	And then she admits the unmasking of Mike Flynn, but it wasn't done for political purposes and the leaking of Mike Flynn's calls, which is a felony that she can't get into specific reports because the information's classified, how convenient.
	And she admitted, listen to this part where she admits the pace of surveilling Trump increased after the election.
	Now, keep in mind, she just said two weeks ago she knew nothing about it.
	Did the pace accelerate during the transition?
	Perhaps in early December, perhaps when the president ordered an investigation into the hacking, the Russian hacking.
	Did the pace of unmasking requests, of your unmasking requests, accelerate toward the end of the White House tenure?
	And I can't say the pace of unmasking requests would accelerate, but if you're asking, were there more reports provided to senior U.S. officials after the president requested the compilation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January?
	Yes, what happened was as the IC went about the business, the intelligence community, the intelligence business of following up on the president's order, fulfilling the president's request for such a report, they went back and scrubbed more reports.
	They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself.
	Wow.
	Well, for somebody that knows nothing, she certainly knows an awful lot.
	And that's only two weeks in the process.
	By the way, we do have an update.
	I found out information.
	This was on Breitbart.
	On October the 26th, Evelyn Farkas made remarks as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump's removal from office pretty quickly.
	I really believe we need a landslide for Hillary Clinton.
	We need an absolute repudiation of the policies that Donald Trump has put out there.
	And I'm not afraid to be political.
	I'm not hiding who I'm rooting for.
	Actually, if Donald Trump were elected, I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government.
	And I am not even joking.
	Well, what intelligence that she had that she claimed she had, she admitted to knowing about surveillance, unmasking.
	So, I mean, it's, you know, there's a lot going on here, and it appears widespread, and it appears like a systematic effort to spy an outgoing administration spying, surveilling, unmasking, and leaking on an incoming administration.
	That's what it seems like to me.
	Now, some are in Capitol Hill, like Devin Nunes, God bless him.
	I mean, he's getting hammered for it.
	are trying to get to the truth of what happened with this surveillance and this unmasking.
	And Rand Paul wants Susan Rice to testify before Congress under oath.
	Rice wasn't exactly jumping at that request when she was on with Andrea Mitchell today.
	So she's clearly dodging.
	She clearly has been caught up in a lie again, especially when you compare what she said back in two weeks ago.
	And the mainstream media is doing everything they can do to bury the story for Obama.
	What did Susan Rice know?
	What names did she request to be unmasked?
	Who did she share it with?
	What did Ben Rhodes know about all of this?
	Did he get shared intelligence and information?
	Did the president himself know?
	What did he know?
	When did he know it?
	What did the CIA director Brennan know?
	What did the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, know?
	And what other low-level people, or relatively low-level people like Evelyn Farkas, why did she know so much about it?
	And who else has information about it?
	I mean, who went into, you just can't get intelligence like this, raw intelligence, without signing in and out in a secure area, which is why Devin Nunes, when he was contacted by the White House counsel, that in fact there was information that showed that the Trump transition team was surveilled, had to go to a secure area.
	In that case, the White House.
	It wasn't the White House giving him the information.
	It was the intelligence community passing on the information.
	Why, as I expected and suspected at the time, is because we have good people in the intelligence community.
	Not everybody's happy that this intelligence process of gathering is being misused and abused by political operatives for the purpose of discrediting, delegitimizing, and hurting on every level possible an incoming administration.
	Where are civil rights activists in this country?
	Where's the ACLU?
	Where are liberals in this country that believe in privacy?
	They don't believe in privacy.
	They don't believe in constitutional rights.
	Nobody cared when Obama acted unconstitutionally all the times that he did.
	Immigration, laws he said he didn't have the ability to change with executive order.
	He changed it.
	Nobody cared.
	Or all the other instances Obama abused his power or the use of the IRS as a weapon to silence conservatives leading up to the 2012 election after the emergence of the Tea Party in 2010.
	This is huge.
	I don't care what they tell you at CNN and the New York Times.
	I am telling you, this is a scandal of monumental proportions.
	I have no idea about myself.
	Everybody keeps asking me.
	None.
	So I can't comment on that which I don't know if I was surveilled or unmasked.
	I don't know.
	I know you're all trying to be nice.
	Every person on earth that I know is sending this to me.
	I don't know.
	How would I possibly know that?
	I have no idea whatsoever.
	But if it happened, I will tell you, I will stop it nothing.
	Nothing in terms of legal action to protect my rights as an American citizen.
	I can tell you that on behalf of every American.
	All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show, as we continue our top story, and that, of course, surveillance of then-candidate Trump and then President-elect Trump and his transition team, and then, of course, the unmasking story.
	Susan Rice even admitting in an interview earlier today that unmasking occurred.
	Here is her earlier today admitting the unmasking of General Mike Flynn.
	She claims not for political purposes.
	And she's saying there was no spreadsheet of unmasked names.
	I'm not so sure that's true because a week ago, Sarah Carter said among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, the CIA director John Brennan, and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
	Anyway, let's listen to Susan Rice say, oh, unmasking Mike Flynn was not political at all.
	Did you seek the names of people involved in, to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect?
	Let me begin.
	In order to spy on them, absolutely not for any political purposes to spy, expose anything.
	But let me leak the name of Mike Flynn.
	I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would.
	But let me explain this.
	First of all, Andrea, to talk about the content of a classified report, to talk about the individuals on the foreign side who were the targets of the report itself, or any Americans who may have been collected upon incidentally, is to disclose classified information.
	I'm not going to do that.
	And those people who are putting these stories out are doing just that.
	I can't describe any particular report I saw.
	And by the way, I have no idea what reports allegedly are being described by those who are putting out this story.
	I don't know what timeframe they were from.
	I don't know the subject matter.
	And I don't know who they think was collected upon.
	The allegation is that in one case, they are alleging in the Daily Caller that there was a spreadsheet that you put out of all of these names.
	Absolutely freaking.
	And circulated.
	No spreadsheet, nothing of the sort.
	All right, the person that has been the lead investigative reporter on this, Sarah Carter, along with her partner John Solomon over at Circa News.
	She's the senior national security correspondent.
	All right, Sarah, let's start with the interview today.
	And I got to give you credit.
	I didn't even realize it because it was a long article you put out.
	This was the March 29th article.
	And in it, you said among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan, and then the Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
	Now that we know that Susan Rice is admitting that she unmasked people, she's admitting that Mike Flynn was unmasked.
	Mike Flynn should have at least a civil action because that's not supposed to happen, although you seem to think that they altered the law enough to justify this.
	Well, we certainly know, Sean, that leaking Mike Flynn's name, whoever leaked Mike Flynn's name, violated the Espionage Act.
	Felony.
	Now, as that report stated, in 2011, the one that we published last week, where we named Susan Rice, where we named John Brennan and Loretta Lynch, as well as Director Clapper, we know that the laws were changed in the FISA courts legally in 2011.
	This was not for public consumption.
	People did not realize this was happening.
	So the Obama administration was able to get those.
	Slow down.
	How is the law revised without Congress's approval?
	You're saying by executive action?
	Yeah, I'm saying by executive action and through the FISA courts.
	So what they were saying is for now for quite a while, you know, U.S. intelligence, maybe FBI was saying, look, NSA is intercepting all of these phone calls, picking up all of these phone calls, and we don't know who in Indiana, for example, is talking to a terror cell leader in Yemen.
	We can't wait months and months to try to unravel this, so we need access to this.
	So there were some people within the intelligence community that were really wanting this ability to unmask.
	So in 2011, but it wasn't just them.
	What happened was the rules were relaxed so much that even with the FISAs, even now, I've talked to sources just recently in federal law enforcement who are terrified, well, mainly because of what's happening right now, but even before, they were terrified of unmasking American names because of the implications that that would bring.
	But in 2011, we saw those laws relaxed through the FISA courts.
	Then they relaxed once again in 2015, where it was relaxed so much that the only thing you needed to put down, if you were not, you know, if you were not doing this through a FISA, but you were a high-level official like Susan Rice or John Brennan and you wanted to see information, all you really had to do was say, the need to know would just be national security purposes.
	I need to know.
	And they would unmask it and hand it over to them.
	So this was the issue.
	And it's not that it was illegal, but what U.S. intelligence officials are telling us and the concern, why the concern was so great and why these documents got declassified, these documents were not supposed to be declassified until 50 years in the future.
	I mean, these documents that John and I reported on, but the reason that they were declassified and they were looked at was because there was concern within the intelligence community that abuse was taking place, that people were abusing this law.
	And that's why it was so important.
	All right.
	So under the guise of national security intelligence gathering, there seems to be way, way too much interest in the Trump transition team at the time and then even candidate Trump.
	And it seems that this is going way beyond what normal standard operating procedures would be.
	In other words, unmasking is never supposed to happen for the most part.
	And Susan Rice kind of haphazardly is just admitting, yeah, she did ask for the unmasking of certain individuals.
	Now, how can she claim that it's not political, that this has nothing to do with politics, not for political purposes?
	I'm using her words here.
	If in fact it deals with Donald Trump and the Trump campaign and the Trump transition, how could she possibly claim that?
	What other possible reason could there be?
	Sean, this is all about word games, right?
	They're being very, very careful wordsmiths here.
	There are spreadsheets and logs that are kept of people who go into these SCIFs, these secured compartmentalized facilities.
	It's not like these reports are unmasked and then they deliver them in a folder to the White House or to the National Security Advisor or that she, you know, to someone else like John Brennan.
	They have to go into a secured facility to view these documents.
	And when you go into a secured facility to view these documents, whether you're at the secured facility, which has been disclosed at the White House, or whether you're at the NSA, you have to log in.
	Those logs exist.
	So they know what the person that went in there was looking at and to, you know, to an extent who, and of course, who was looking at it.
	So she knows those logs exist.
	It's not like they keep a lot of money.
	So she's definitely lying when she said that she did not log on to this or ask for any logs.
	There's no history of that.
	You're saying that's impossible.
	I'm saying that's impossible if she read those documents.
	Just as we have seen, and our sources have told us, that she required the unmasking of these names to understand these intercepts, and she reviewed these intercepts, which is what she said.
	She reviewed these intercepts, and then she didn't understand it, so she had to request the unmasking of these names.
	She would have to view them inside a secured facility, and that facility would log her in.
	It's not like you can just go willy-nilly into the NSA and just pull out whatever document you want.
	So that would mean any unmasking she requested, there would be full-on records of it, and we would know exactly what it is she saw.
	Correct.
	Somebody would.
	Because remember now, those intercepts are highly classified.
	And like I've said before, and I know she said that these, you know, she tried to point out that reporters are reporting on classified stuff.
	We have never once reported on anything that was classified within those documents, those intercepts, because those intercepts, all we know, were foreign to foreign and American to foreign.
	So phone calls made by Trump or his associates to overseas persons or Angela Merkel of Germany talking to Teresa May of Great Britain about Trump or about Jared Kushner or about somebody connected to them.
	That's what we know.
	We don't know exactly what she saw because those are classified.
	Let's go over what she said today.
	She said that there's nothing political about surveilling Trump, which I don't believe.
	And she explained in her way the process or surveillance of unmasking, admitted the unmasking of Michael Flynn did take place, but she claims not for political purposes.
	She's lying when she said, or playing word games and semantic games and parsing of words when she said there's no spreadsheet of unmasked names.
	But on the leaking of Mike Flynn's calls, she said she can't get into the specific report because the information is classified.
	Well, that was the whole point.
	They should never have unmasked him, number one.
	And number two, they should have minimized it.
	Number three, it should never have been leaked, which it was.
	And here's what she also says.
	I want you to listen to this cut four, where she admits the pace of surveilling Trump increased after the election.
	Did the pace accelerate during the transition?
	Perhaps in early December?
	Perhaps when the president ordered an investigation into the hacking, the Russian hacking.
	Did the pace of unmasking requests, of your unmasking requests, accelerate toward the end of the White House tenure?
	And I can't say the pace of unmasking requests would accelerate, but if you're asking were there more reports provided to senior U.S. officials after the president requested the compilation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January, yes, what happened was as the IC went about the business, the intelligence community, the intelligence business of following up on the president's order, fulfilling the president's request for such a report, they went back and scrubbed more reports.
	They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself.
	Give me a quick take on that.
	When she said not the pace of the unmasking, wouldn't a record of every unmasking request be logged in?
	Well, yes, and I think that, of course, it would.
	Of course it would.
	Like I said, this is systemic.
	I mean, they have a process to this.
	They know how to do this.
	And I'm talking to the NSA.
	I'm talking any type of request.
	Stay right there because why would they be surveilling Trump at this point?
	What gives them the legal right to do so?
	That's my next question for Sarah Carter as we continue.
	This now is becoming a full-blown scandal and I believe a cover-up of monumental proportions.
	This is only going to get bigger, I promise you.
	Don't listen to CNN.
	They don't know what they're talking about.
	They're so ignorant about it.
	All right, as we continue, Sarah Carter is, I guess, senior national security correspondent.
	We're continuing our investigation into the surveillance, the unmasking, Susan Rice's admission.
	All right.
	So she admits in that cut I played, the pace of surveilling Donald Trump increased after the election.
	She didn't say unmasking.
	So again, we're getting into word games here.
	What would have given them the authority to surveil Trump at that point beyond incidental spying on legitimate targets?
	Meaning, let's say they were surveilling the Russian ambassador, the Chinese ambassador, the Israeli ambassador, the Iranian ambassador.
	What would have increased the pace, the fact that they're talking to these individuals in a lead up to their new job?
	This is where the spin comes in, right, Sean?
	This is where we need an investigation by Congress, a serious investigation.
	And I know Trey Gowdy, I know Rand Paul.
	I've heard other people saying Susan Rice needs to testify.
	I don't know what's going to come out of that testimony, but I want to go back because Susan Rice, she was very explicit.
	It was right with our story.
	I mean, our story talked about how they were pulling records all the way from July all the way through January after the election.
	And I've been hearing this spin now from some folks, even some senior GOP intelligence connected officials that, you know, possibly, and this is a spin, right?
	Because it's not a fact, but we have to throw it out there.
	Well, maybe they were just monitoring what world leaders were talking about when it came to Trump.
	And I'm like, what gives them the right to access that to monitor what?
	To quell world leaders' fears, they said that, you know, that we're nervous about Trump coming into the presidency.
	Now, I couldn't believe it when I heard that spin.
	And as a reporter, I don't buy it one bit, one bit at all, and that wasn't their job.
	I mean, the focus of the national security aspect of unmasking American citizens, unmasking them, is very, very significant.
	It stands on all of our civil liberties, all of our rights as Americans to not be searched, to not be seized without warrant, and to have the right to privacy like the First Amendment guarantees.
	So there needs to be an investigation because we can only go so far.
	And maybe there's information in those classified documents, in those dossiers, in those intercepts, that obviously there was something that really affected Chairman Nunez when he saw it.
	And then even Representative Adam Schiff didn't come out and say, oh, that was just a bunch of malarkey.
	I took a look at it and it was nothing.
	He never said that.
	In fact, he remained very quiet on it.
	So there is something going on and there needs to be an investigation.
	And people need to know what and for what reason the Obama administration was unmasking names of President Trump and administration officials and into what capacity and what for.
	Because until those questions are answered, it is a dark cloud.
	And I'm sorry to say that the rest of the media has been trying to squash this story since last week.
	I mean, I know CNN has, and now even Susan Rice has come out and admitted that she, you know, had unmasking and was looking at these intercepts.
	Stay right there because when we come back, I'm going to compare the words of Susan Rice from just a couple of weeks ago on PBS with what she said today because she's directly contradicting herself, sort of like Evelyn Farkas.
	And then we'll go back to the Evelyn Farkas issue.
	By the way, did you hear, I keep getting pinged all day long that, Hannity, somebody's saying that you may have been surveilled.
	Have you heard that at all?
	Well, I'll tell you what, answer that when we get back.
	You have heard that.
	Yeah, I did hear that.
	Oh, boy.
	It's on the internet, Sean.
	Yeah, if it's on the internet, it's got to be true.
	That would be an interesting thing.
	Then we'll get Joe DeGenova and Jay Sekulos take 800-941 Sean, a toll-free telephone number.
	We'll continue.
	All right, bad for America, really?
	All right, we continue our investigation now, what I think is now becoming probably the biggest political scandal in our lifetime, and I think the media in this country is going to end up with a lot of egg on its face, and that has to do with a candidate, opposition candidate, being surveilled by a sitting administration, then a president-elect and his transition team being surveilled, then the unmasking of individuals by Susan Rice and others.
	Why would she ever want to unmask the identities of Americans if, say, it was even legal, the surveillance that was taking place?
	If it was, okay.
	Incidentally, Americans are picked up.
	They're supposed to minimize and protect the Fourth Amendment rights and First Amendment rights and Fifth Amendment rights of Americans.
	And apparently, that didn't happen.
	And it appears that numerous requests were made to unmask people associated with the president-elect and probably the president-elect himself in terms of phone conversations that were picked up?
	Then it raises the question: were legitimate surveilling, was legitimate surveilling use used to really spy on the Trump administration?
	That appears to be a strong possibility.
	And then, of course, we know it's a felony if you leak the names of individuals or leak the raw intelligence of conversations that were picked up by the NSA of Americans that you did not have a warrant to surveill in the first place, which is why we have these supposedly these protections of minimization and not naming and unmasking these people.
	Sarah Carter continues with us from Circa News.
	She is the senior national security correspondent.
	All right, so let's go back two weeks to PBS, and I'm going to intersperse Susan Rice and what she said to Judy Woodruff and what she said today, earlier today, to Andrea Mitchell, and see if you hear contradictions, all right?
	Let's play it.
	I know nothing about this.
	I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Yunes on that count today.
	I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been.
	The President of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign.
	Nothing of the sort occurred.
	Did you seek the names of people involved in to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect?
	Let me begin.
	In order to spy on them, absolutely not for any political purposes to spy, expose anything.
	I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was illegal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
	And I think it's important for people to understand what incidental means.
	That means that the target was either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation.
	But the fact is that the president did request back in December that the intelligence community compile all of the information that it had on what had transpired during the campaign with respect to the Russians involving themselves in the presidential campaign.
	And that report was provided to the American people in unclassified form and to Congress in classified form in early January.
	Did the pace accelerate during the transition?
	Perhaps in early December?
	Perhaps when the president ordered an investigation into the hacking, the Russian hacking.
	Did the pace of unmasking requests, of your unmasking requests, accelerate toward the end of the White House tenure?
	I can't say the pace of unmasking requests would accelerate, but if you're asking, were there more reports provided to senior U.S. officials after the president requested the compilation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January?
	Yes, what happened was as the IC went about the business, the intelligence community of following up on the president's order, fulfilling the president's request for such a report, they went back and scrubbed more reports.
	They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself.
	This is not anything political has been alleged.
	The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes.
	That's absolutely false.
	All right, Sarah Carter, what's your reaction?
	Do you see the contradiction that I see?
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	I think, like, the first, first of all, when she first spoke to PBS, it was like this complete shock of like, I have no idea what he's talking about.
	I mean, what could he be talking about?
	And then she goes on to explain a little bit more about, well, you know, the unmasking was incidental collection, and then they go into all of that.
	I think what my biggest question is, Sean, and this is, you know, not only coming from sourcing and being able to, you know, hear what Ms. Rice is saying, but it went far beyond Russia.
	Everybody keeps spinning it to Russia.
	I wish people would just ask Susan Rice direct questions, you know, direct questions, because spinning it back over to Russia, spinning it back over to the broader investigation, not all of those documents, according to the sources and according to what we've reported, were Russia-related.
	Remember, some of those documents, according to sources, and even according to Chairman Nunez and others who have seen them, at least that have the authority or the capacity to see them, said they went far beyond, far beyond a necessary intelligence collection.
	That means that there was intelligence in there that was imperative, that they needed to have for intelligence or national security purposes.
	And there was also that statement, that very basic and broad statement made by Chairman Nunez at the time that it went beyond Russia.
	So then my question is: what were they looking at?
	What were the conversations and why?
	And what was the need to know for unmasking their names in these intercepts, in these incidental collections?
	Why was the NSA authorized?
	Why did she go to the NSA and say, I need to have these unmasked?
	And what was the reason?
	What was the reason on that document?
	What was the reason she gave for unmasking them?
	I don't think, well, this is where now I think we get into a very, very sort of, how do you say this?
	The law is not really clear, is it?
	I mean, because she's going to use some phony, trumped-up, no pun intended, excuse to justify the unmasking she's involved in, right?
	So she, in other words, but you still have to, Sean, but you still have to explain why, because this is fundamentally a right.
	This is our rights as citizens of the United States.
	I mean, and this is why even the ACLU, which was a huge supporter, you know, of course, of Obama in many cases, has come out against this and said, okay, what's going on here?
	I mean, this is about civil liberties.
	So you can't just come up with these excuses.
	I mean, I guess you can now that the law has been changed, but I mean, there's going to be a review of this.
	This is going to go back.
	This is section 702 of the FISA, which says that, you know, Americans should not be unnecessarily unmasked.
	I mean, they have to be protected.
	Now, are we going to have to roll back to that?
	What has to change in order to push forward with this?
	And I'm telling you, if they do their job, if the FBI, if the Congress does their job as well, not only will the FBI be able to find the leaker, it should not be that hard.
	It really is.
	It's a narrow group of people.
	So basically, you're saying if we look at the group of people, tell me where I'm wrong here.
	It would probably either be Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, James Clapper, Brennan, Podesta, who?
	Yeah, well, you're looking at a number of people, right?
	But hang on one second.
	I want to answer my question.
	Because how did Evelyn Farkas know?
	I mean, she's out of the administration, so low level, but she seems to know.
	So somebody had to be talking about all this process going on, right?
	Well, she certainly knew about the process.
	Whether she overexaggerated, now I've talked to sources that have worked closely with Evelyn Farkas in the past when she was at the Defense Department.
	I've talked to people who know her.
	It appears she's a very wonky, very smart person.
	She wasn't that smart on television.
	I didn't know about Russia.
	But it looks like she really, I mean, she disclosed a lot of information on TV.
	She did, about the process that everybody was trying to gather all this information on the Trump administration.
	What I could tell you, too, Sean, is that people within the DOJ also had access to these unmasked names.
	Now, remember, under the FISA for Mike Flynn, that was an FBI FISA warrant, okay, on the Russians.
	They were consistently collecting information on Russians in the United States overseas intercept calls because of counter-espionage reasons, counter-intelligence reasons.
	So that FISA came from there.
	And who has to approve when that gets signed off and that unmasking as well?
	Well, the Department of Justice has to do that.
	So we have to think of them as well.
	So when that leak came from Flynn, it could have come from a number of sources even within that spectrum, that spectrum of people.
	See, you're saying when you're looking at the unmasking, that's different.
	You're saying that on the one hand, it's easy to find the person or persons responsible, but on the other hand, it may be a little more complicated, especially in light of the expansion of Executive Order 12333.
	But if we look at the timeframe, and you say this happened to have started in October, and there's even a report yesterday that this could have started in July.
	Well, Executive Order 12333 wasn't amended at that point to share with 16 agencies.
	And at the time Evelyn Farkas is talking about it, she's talking about July.
	She knew about it in July.
	That's right, because what we do know is that in July, that's when they started to look at these intercepts.
	We know that it went all the way back to July.
	Now, you don't need to have a FISA in the same sense like the FBI had on the Russians.
	I mean, if you're looking at national security issues, you could still look at these reports.
	I mean, there's a process by which they gather those FISAs and they report on them.
	But there's a different process in October when you're thinking about moving all the way towards Flynn.
	I mean, unmasking of Flynn's name would still have to be signed off by certain people.
	And I'm going to tell you this, Sean.
	It's narrow.
	So we might never find out what the motives were behind all the unmasking because they may be able to play word games or they may be telling the truth.
	We don't know yet why they unmasked all these names, why they were looking at it far beyond Russia, why they were looking at things that were far beyond the national security spectrum, according to sources.
	But we should be able to find out who leaked Flynn's name as far as we know that only a narrow group of people had that name and there were people that had to sign off on that on that FISA and on that investigation.
	So that is going to be possible.
	And that's just one more door, just one more layer of the onion that people need to peel back in order to get to the truth.
	And the truth is what's important here.
	All right, stay right there.
	I didn't want to turn this into me, but I want to, because you're all over the story, my name's been all over the internet today, and I want to get your thoughts on that, whether or not I was surveilled in this process, which is what reports say.
	I have zero knowledge of that, by the way.
	None whatsoever of me being surveilled or unmasked by the Obama administration.
	But, you know, after they use the IRS to go after Tea Party groups and conservative groups, nothing would shock me.
	The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
	Hang on for Sean's Conservative Solutions.
	All right, as we continue our final moments with Sarah Carter, Circa News, who has really, to her credit, she has been really at the forefront of breaking all of these stories regarding surveillance, unmasking, intelligence leaking.
	Look, I'm not thinking a whole lot about this personally.
	I mean, I've been pinged all day on email and text and Twitter.
	And, you know, apparently people are talking about, well, Hannity's been surveilled.
	There's been articles written about it, et cetera.
	How would I know?
	I have no idea whatsoever.
	Do you think that's possible or is it ridiculous?
	Oh, I don't think it's ridiculous.
	Like, everything's stored.
	I mean, we know that.
	I can go to various reporters.
	I mean, look what Edward Snowden leaked.
	We see the stuff on WikiLeaks.
	We see things right now, even with Dennis Montgomery and 600 million documents that supposedly he walked out of the NSA with, and different types of programs that allow people to store information that we could dip back into and look at.
	What I think is like, you may not ever find out the truth.
	You could try to FOIA that and see if you were ever surveilled, Sean, you know, under this.
	I mean, you did have communications, I'm assuming, because you interviewed then-President-elect Trump, now President Trump a number of times.
	And I'm assuming if you had communications with him, possibly.
	But we don't know that.
	What we know for sure, what we know for sure is that it was foreign to foreign and American to foreign.
	Remember how difficult it is.
	So there would be no, let's say if I was talking to then President-elect or candidate Trump on a phone call, there would be no incidental surveillance in that case.
	That would be illegal.
	Absolutely not.
	Yeah, absolutely not.
	That would, unless there was a warrant to actually wiretap or intercept your phone calls that are in the United States, which I mean, which would require so much evidence of criminality.
	There should not be, there should not be any way that anybody could have been surveilling if you were making a phone call from, legally surveill you, if you were making a phone call in the United States to an American citizen, including President Trump.
	Well, maybe I did talk to Julian Assange twice on the phone.
	Could that be an incident when I was working on getting him on the air?
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	But even then, even then, that would not be.
	Julian Assange is wanted.
	Well, and I would not be guilty of anything by talking to him and trying to get an interview, which I did get, and I did air.
	Correct.
	Correct.
	Because Julian Assange is wanted, because Julian Assange is, you know, I mean, himself, I mean, has been has been in confinement because he is wanted.
	I mean, that that that is a very.
	But even then, if they were if they were monitoring him, they would have no they should have minimized me and never unmasked me.
	Right.
	That is correct.
	Okay.
	That is correct.
	All right.
	Well, I'm going to ask the lawyers, Joe DeGenova and Jay Seculo, and thank you so much.
	Appreciate it.
	Sarah Carter, Circa News.
	When we come back to legal aspects of this, laws that could have been broken on unmasking and intelligence leaking.
	Joe DeGenova, Jay Seculo both think this could be bigger than Watergate by a long shot.
	We'll explain next.
	All right, News Roundup Information Overload Hour here on the Sean Hannity Show.
	Now, multiple sources, all reporting that Susan Rice, the former NSA advisor, national security advisor under then President Barack Obama, did in fact unmask the names of Trump transition officials that were caught up in incidental surveillance.
	So obviously sounding lawyered up to me goes on with Andrea Mitchell today.
	Oh, there's nothing political about surveilling Trump and unmasking the Trump people.
	I just needed to understand who they were.
	Really?
	I don't believe that for a minute, but here's what she said.
	This is not anything political has been alleged.
	The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes.
	That's absolutely false.
	Let me explain how this works.
	We receive from the intelligence community a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us on a daily basis to give us the best information as to what's going on around the world.
	I received those reports, as did each of those other officials.
	And there were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to.
	Name not provided, just U.S. person.
	And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that U.S. official was.
	Let me give you just a hypothetical example.
	This is completely made up, but let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb-making equipment.
	Now, if that came to me as national security advisor, it would matter enormously.
	Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have?
	Or is this a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology, perhaps to an adversary?
	That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was was necessary to assess the information.
	So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence community would go through its process, and there's a long-standing established process, to decide whether that information as to who the identity of the U.S. person was could be provided to me.
	So they'd take that question back, they'd put it through a process, and the intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me.
	That is what I and Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, DNI, would do when we receive that information.
	We only do it to protect the American people, to do our jobs in the national security room.
	That's the only reason.
	The only problem is that the story about the asking of unmasking all dealt with Trump and Trump transition people.
	Now, this is beyond serious.
	Joining us now, Joe DeGenova, founding partner of the D.C. law firm, DeGeneva and Tunsing, and Jay Seculo, he's the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
	Welcome both of you to the program.
	Can either one of you think of any reason at all to unmask anybody in the Trump transition team?
	And she admits, by the way, that they unmasked General Flynn.
	Now, she said she didn't leak it.
	So I think what happened here, and you guys stay with me on this, I think that there was surveillance and incidental pickups of the Trump team were regular because they were reaching out to their counterparts around the world and that this information then was being used by Susan Rice and other Obama administration operatives to spy on Trump.
	That's what I think happened, Joe.
	Well, I don't think there's any doubt that the explanation that Susan Rice gave today was, shall I call it fluid?
	I think she misrepresented the circumstances under which the overhears of the Trump people occurred by using a false example involving the sales of arms.
	You notice the example, the so-called fake example she gave to show why she was suggesting, but not saying that there were nefarious reasons to go after the Trump people.
	Now, Susan Rice is no dummy.
	She's a good liar.
	She is a studied liar.
	She is a professional liar.
	She has proved that by the lies that she told about Benghazi on five National Sunday Network shows.
	The explanation she gave today was that people were not unmasked for political reasons.
	I do not want Susan Rice defining what is political because I think it would be quite that it would be quite narrow in its scope.
	I think it's quite obvious that Susan Rice was a party to unmasking, to A, spying on Americans under the cover of allegedly listening to foreigners.
	And second of all, she was a party to unmasking those names ultimately.
	Whether or not she was involved in leaking them is another question, and only time will tell and being given testimony under oath.
	But I don't believe she said today.
	Well, she's also the woman that went on five Sunday shows online about Benghazi.
	But Jay, I agree with what Joe's saying, and I've been saying it now for a couple of weeks.
	I think under the guise of, quote, national security pretenses that they, in fact, were using that as a ruse, and the real general purpose of the spying was to spy on the Trump administration, maybe then candidate Trump, and then later transitioned president-elect Trump.
	Your thoughts?
	Yeah, I think it was using the statute as a basis to spy on a political opponent for the purpose of ultimately not only discrediting that opponent, but delegitimizing that opponent's administration now that he's president of the United States.
	So what they did in a calculated way, and I think, Joe, and you're absolutely correct, they used the cover, if you will, of surveillance, which sounds appropriate if you're worrying about all these nefarious situations.
	And now, you know, you've got to watch all this.
	Despite the fact, by the way, that the agencies that have said it showed there's no collusion between the Russians and the Trump administration or the Trump transition team or the Trump campaign.
	There's been no evidence of that.
	They use this stuff.
	And then, of course, I go back to what I've been harping on for three weeks, and that is, but for now, Susan Rice, now that we know who did the unmasking, but for Susan Rice's unmasking, these leaks wouldn't have happened.
	So she is the causal beginning of what may well end up being a criminal case.
	Does that individual liability is a good question?
	But for her, this went to happen.
	But I'd like to know what her history of asking for unmasking was in the past.
	In other words, with this new development that Sarah Carter and all these people were discussing and breaking yesterday.
	With all this new information that she requested the unmasking and that they have a record of her asking that transition team members and the president-elect himself be unmasked.
	Well, has she done that over the years or was this a new practice?
	Wouldn't we be able to ascertain that?
	Maybe able to ascertain that from the logs.
	There are records of that, Sean, maintained at the National Security Council, at the NSA, and at the CIA.
	Any requests for specific intelligence reports are there is a specific record, which is part of a top-secret code word filing system, which you cannot access other than by being physically present and on a very special network that exists only with NSA.
	So the answer is if the committees want to know who did what, they can find out very easily.
	And in fact, you will notice that when Adam Schiff went out to the NSA to look at these documents, he came back.
	Notice he didn't say anything about Nunes being wrong.
	Never.
	Yeah, and now he's actually saying Nunes he's looking forward to cooperating with Nunes as the investigation goes forward.
	And that's because he got his eyeballs on the information.
	And all of a sudden, guess what?
	The president was right.
	Can I ask a selfish question to both of you?
	I have no idea about the accuracy of any of this.
	My phone has been blowing up all day, and apparently it's like trending on social media someplace.
	I don't know where, and I haven't really had time to do a deep dive into this yet.
	That I have apparently been surveilled.
	I mean, I'll actually read it to you if you'd want me to.
	It actually says, breaking news, Obama administration spied on Sean Hannity and Eric Prince per Chuck Johnson.
	What is that all about?
	How could that be an incidental pickup by anybody?
	Wouldn't that mean that every phone call to the Trump Tower was then being surveilled if I was picked up?
	And I don't even believe.
	I don't even, is that possible?
	That's not even possible, right?
	No, it's possible.
	I mean, it's possible, but I'll let Joe answer this particular part, but let me just kind of set the parameters.
	I would be very interested to see what Joe has to say.
	But here's the thing.
	So in that situation, you were both surveilled, unmasked, and leaked.
	I mean, by the way, you have civil cause of action on that.
	50 U.S.C. 1810.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	If that's true, then I have civil cause of action.
	Unmasked and leaked, and they didn't minimize, which obviously they did not.
	What's their defense going to be, Joe, that he was really a party in interest here?
	I mean, I don't see it.
	Joe?
	I think that actually Jay has hit upon something that I've been talking to people about over the last several days, and that is one way to supercharge this entire investigation is for people who have been overheard to file a series of lawsuits in U.S. District Court in D.C. or in the Eastern District of Virginia claiming constitutional violations, violations of the FISA statute, violations of the wiretap laws.
	There are many people.
	General Flynn has a huge lawsuit, gigantic lawsuit against the people involved in the leaking and the people involved in the tasking of him.
	So I don't think there's any doubt that what we are seeing here is one of the grossest violations of the Constitution in the history of the country by the Obama administration and by the President Obama himself personally.
	Because there's no way he did not know this was being done and he did not know of it.
	All right, I want you guys to stay there.
	I'm asking this very seriously.
	When we get back, I'm going to ask both of you to represent me.
	So we'll take a quick break.
	I have no idea if it's true or not.
	You guys are getting the same thing, right?
	Your phones are blowing up, too.
	All right, as we continue our top story today, and that is the surveillance, the unmasking, and the intelligence leaks that have been going on and Susan Rice's admission that she specifically asked for the unmasking of people involved in the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, and the president, well, then candidate, then president-elect himself, and we continue with Joe DeGenova and Jay Seculo.
	All right, so all this stuff is, guys, I have no idea if it's true, but it's all over the internet, as I told you.
	If in fact that happened, that I was surveilled, unmasked, and they leaked this, what would I want to hire both of you to represent me?
	Would you do it?
	I would.
	And I can't speak for Joe, but I'd be thrilled to work with Joe in the case because this is the only way that stops people starting to be held accountable.
	Joe, what do you think?
	It would be an honor, Sean.
	It would be an honor.
	Do you think they really did this to me, or is this just maybe fake news?
	No, no.
	Listen, Sean, they overheard so many calls.
	They tasked for so many calls to be overheard, which is why the people who have looked at the product, which, and by the way, what Nunes and Adam Schiff have seen is only part, only part of what the White House is requested. is tip of the iceberg stuff, right?
	They have not seen the mother load of spreadsheets that exist of the total.
	So the answer to this is notwithstanding the Democrats' insistence that there's no there there, there is so much there there that the Democrats are going to have to finally cave in on this.
	They're not going to have any choice.
	And you watch Schiff.
	This is going to be shifty shift from here on in.
	Do you think that this is bigger than Watergate, what we are beginning to unfold, what's beginning to unfold here, Jay?
	Yeah, no, I think, look, I think you've got a, you have a scandal in Washington, D.C. right now that dwarfs Watergate because it is going to go way beyond, way beyond anything we're seeing right now.
	So when Joe and I talk about, we're seeing the tip of the iceberg, but look where the tip is starting.
	The tip is starting with the former president's number one and most trusted aide, Susan Rice.
	This is where it's, and we've just seen the tip of this, and that's where it's starting.
	Then we've got the information that's being circulated about you as we speak, literally all over the internet, everywhere, that if true means a private citizen who also is a media personality, so you have a whole host of First Amendment issues now, was surveilled, at least this is what we're hearing, surveilled, unmasked, and leaked.
	But it couldn't even be.
	But how could it be incidental?
	In other words, like if I don't believe any of this is incident.
	I think they're saying incidental, Sean.
	They're using that as the cover of we're going to get this information and they'll allege something that makes it incidental.
	I don't believe any of this is incidental.
	Now, remember, it's very important for everybody to remember.
	This president and Attorney General Holder issued more subpoenas to news organizations for telephone records and emails than any administration in history.
	They called James Rosen in a warrant, in an affidavit in support of a warrant, a criminal co-conspirator.
	It is absolutely within the realm of reason, Sean, that you were targeted and you were specifically asked to be spied upon.
	Right.
	And Sean, here's the thing.
	As a private citizen and as a media person, and what Joe just said, they went after our friend James Rosen, remember?
	I mean, so this was not an administration that had the same thing view of the First Amendment.
	If you're the enemy, you're not part of the team.
	All my friends are writing me saying that I should be worried.
	I must have a missing chip because I'm not worried at all because I'm just a fighter.
	I don't care.
	I don't think you have to.
	I think it's good that you're in the middle of the day.
	I don't think we need to be worried are the following people.
	Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Brennan, John Brennan, and Barack Obama.
	And James Clapper.
	And all the people who knew about this, who knew about this surveillance, and who read the product.
	I can assure you that all of those people read the spreadsheets that were produced by the intelligence community about all the people who were unmasked.
	Jay, you have 15 seconds.
	I think what Joe said is absolutely correct.
	I think this goes very deep.
	I think it went right to the top, and that includes President Obama because he was the top commander-in-chief.
	And I think any actions or causes of actions that you might have or others need to be taken, including those individuals as defendants.
	Unbelievable.
	Guys, I'm glad you're on my side.
	Thank you, Joe DeGenova.
	Jay Seculo.
	We'll have more on this all night tonight.
	We're going to devote a full hour to this surveillance, this admission, this unmasking, these intelligence leaks tonight on Hannity as this scandal now grows by the day.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll hit the phones when we get back.
	800-941-SHAWN.
	You want to be a part of the program, and we'll continue.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941-SHAWN.
	Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	All right, so much news that we have been talking about today.
	We have certainly the surveillance issue, the unmasking issue, the intelligence leaking issue, the Susan Rice issue, and it just never ends.
	My whole team in there is giddy today over, you know, what's, I guess, making the rounds all over Twitter.
	What would I possibly know about this?
	How do I know if I was surveilled and unmasked?
	But there's a Twitter guy out there that put out, and I've heard of the guy.
	I just don't know anything about him.
	And so I know he was on 60 Minutes, featured on 60 Minutes, and they were trying to accuse him of being a fake news guy.
	But I don't trust anything 60 Minutes ever says anyway, because, of course, that's edited fake news.
	So what's the point?
	Anyway, the headline is, Obama administration spied on Sean Hannity, Eric Prince, per Chuck Johnson.
	Well, I mean, did they spy on me?
	This is going to be interesting where this goes.
	It's going to be very interesting.
	Now, some are saying, Hannity, can you confirm this?
	I'm getting emails from these.
	I'm like, how would I know?
	How would I possibly know that my government would be illegally surveilling me or illegally unmasking me?
	And if they leak it, illegally leaking whatever they surveilled because I was not the target.
	That's pretty interesting.
	Well, I did talk to Julian Assange when we did that interview.
	You think they're after that?
	I'm pretty sure that Julian Assange is smarter than them when it comes to surveillance.
	It's probably true.
	He did break into NASA and the DOD and the Pentagon at 16.
	He's a pretty bright guy.
	That's alleged, Sean.
	It's allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	He's never been prosecuted for those crimes.
	Well, the statute of limitations, I think, have long passed on those things, but it shows you how we have no cybersecurity in the country.
	All right, let's get to our busy telephones here.
	Jonathan is in Wells, Minnesota.
	Jonathan, hi, how are you?
	And you are on the Sean Hannity show.
	I'm doing well.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Thank you, sir.
	What's going on?
	Well, I've just been listening to you a lot lately and all this surveillance stuff and thinking about it a lot.
	And I'm wondering, are we really surprised that the Obama administration or even in a larger sense, the Democratic Party, would use government agencies to influence politics and to go after their opponents when we saw this right off the bat when he was elected president in the first place, using another government agency, the IRS, to go after the Tea Party and completely stall out that movement that was really threatening to take him out of office on the midterm elections.
	Listen, I put nothing past any of these Obama people.
	And Susan Rice, basically just trying to shove it off that, yeah, she did the unmasking.
	Well, but it wasn't for political purposes.
	She's on with Andrea Mitchell today, and she defends requesting the unmasking of names in general, and she was really only, from what we can tell, unmasking intelligence gleaned from Trump people.
	Now, that tells me, and then she has the nerve to say this is not anything political.
	Well, what other reason would you be unmasking only those people from Trump?
	It has to be political.
	And then she says, well, I didn't leak anything because, again, going back to Sarah Carter and John Solomon's reporting, is these rules about unmasking and having access to intelligence were, I mean, they almost made it legal to do what she did.
	And so she knows the unmasking.
	She probably doesn't have a criminal issue.
	That's why she's denying she leaked anything.
	So she's being very clever in her wording here and parsing her words, and she is all lawyered up.
	Trust me.
	She did not go.
	She's not Evelyn Farkas.
	She went in there very prepared today to give her talking points to Andrea Mitchell and NBC.
	But the reality is this.
	You know, there were occasions when I received a report in which U.S. person was referred to, no name, sometimes in that context, to understand the importance of the report.
	It's necessary to request who that U.S. citizen was.
	What she's admitting there is that if anybody is picked up incidentally, that's not a target.
	She is now basically saying all past precedents as it relates to surveilling individuals that have Fourth Amendment protections, that she destroyed them.
	Now, that to me is a huge story.
	That to me is she is justifying using a ruse of national security importance to surveil Trump and his transition team, and then in the hopes of understanding more, unmasking who the innocent citizens are that are on that line, which means that privacy is dead.
	Now, you're going to say, well, Hannity, are you worried?
	Are you worried?
	They may have surveilled you.
	And the answer is, no, I'm not.
	I have always assumed all throughout the Obama years that I was a target.
	Right, Linda?
	I can produce tax returns that will prove I overpaid.
	I did it on purpose.
	I did it because I knew that every single tax return was gone over with a fine-tooth comb.
	So, you know, maybe I'll just have to redo those taxes for the last three years and get a big fat refund now that, you know, there's an allegation out there.
	I have no way of knowing if I was surveilled, but I would not at all be surprised at all.
	Anyway, and I'm not worried in the least.
	Anyway, let's get to our busy phones.
	Anne is in Rahway, New Jersey.
	Ann, hi, how are you?
	And welcome to the show.
	Glad you're here.
	Hey, Sean, my good old friend that I've known for years and years and years and calling your show.
	How are you?
	I'm good.
	How are you, Darla?
	What's going on?
	Oh, my God.
	Listen, isn't it funny?
	We've known that we've been spied on for decades, right?
	We've, you know, we said, oh, my God, we're being spied on, and people would shut us down.
	There is an unmasking.
	I'll talk about unmasking.
	There's an unmasking going on.
	There is a continual unmasking of the liberal corruption in government.
	We have seen it before our eyes.
	We are at a head.
	The head is being popped.
	The liberal pus is everywhere.
	Okay, but now here's the thing, Sean.
	We as conservatives, especially, have known, we have been connecting the dots with all this.
	What we have to do now is, especially the conservatives, need to get on board with this because we do have a Republican establishment, right?
	So conservatives need to start holding people accountable in every aspect of, you know, national security.
	National security, to me, Sean, is the most conservative, important, vital thing in our nation.
	It is.
	Now, I just wanted to, can I quickly say one more thing, Sean?
	Is that okay?
	Go ahead.
	Oh, my gosh.
	About the health care.
	I want to say one thing about the health care.
	And it shouldn't be, you're a conservative if you are against the bill.
	And if you are for the bill, you are for the establishment, Karl Rove and Paul Ryan, and you're not a conservative.
	I want to move forward with this health care bill.
	We as conservatives and the good Republicans in our government, they need to sit down with this president.
	Once again, they need to sit down with him and come up with a bill that's going to work because at the end of the day, I came up with a phrase, Sean, we have to put on our conservative negotiating skills now.
	And that means we don't have to give up our conservative principles.
	So I'll be wanting to get...
	Listen, I am just assuming...
	Look, if you're a critic of a liberal Democrat, you are, you're always opening yourself up.
	And look, I interviewed all of these people.
	Remember Catherine Angelbreck, who was with that Tea Party group?
	And remember everything that happened to her?
	And I know things that have happened to other conservatives that I know over the years, and they've been targeted for one IRS audit after another.
	I mean, don't think it's by accident that Donald Trump was audited all of these different years.
	I've had my own issues with the IRS.
	I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
	So, you know, it is, it's, I guess, a price you pay.
	I mean, but I knew full well what I was getting into, and my job is to tell the truth, and it doesn't really matter.
	To me, this is all it is, it confirms everything I've known.
	The government and is corrupt.
	And you've been a friend of this program for two decades.
	I'm sure you're not surprised either, right?
	Oh, my God.
	I've been living with this with you, you know, and Linda and Lauren and your whole crew.
	And, you know, the crew of conservatives that have banded together for decades, years, and now we need to just come together because there's this thing that is so big and so culminating throughout the years.
	It is called liberalism.
	Liberalism in our government, in our academia, in our social life, in our schools.
	It's just, you know, the corruptiveness and the things that they have been getting away with throughout the years.
	And I don't want to put blame and you don't want to put blame.
	And, Sean, you are one of the most, I don't, I'm not trying to, just, I tell the truth.
	Well, Ann, you're a spirit.
	If I'm going to say something about a conservative radio host, you are.
	You have been one of the best, and I just can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
	Listen, I appreciate all of you in this audience.
	You give me this microphone every day.
	And I absolutely take it as a great honor and privilege and with a seriousness to do the best job I can every day.
	And thank you so much for your kind words, love, and support.
	We love you too.
	Thank you, Anne.
	Brad is in San Antonio, Texas on WOAI.
	What's up, Brad?
	How are you, sir?
	How are you, Sean?
	Pleasure and privilege to talk to you.
	I'll say this fast because I know you're short of time.
	Listen, these guys, all this healthcare stuff, they've all got it wrong.
	They're all just, they're missing the point, the whole thing.
	They're trying to worry so much about how many people are getting insured.
	So many people aren't insured.
	So many people aren't insured.
	It doesn't make any difference if you're insured, if the doctors won't take your insurance.
	And that's rampant throughout this.
	Either they won't take your insurance or the insurance companies, and I'm in health insurance.
	I should have prefaced it.
	I'm in health insurance.
	They either don't take the insurance or insurance companies won't take the doctors.
	And they find reasons to not take the doctors to let them in, or they don't want to pay them.
	And this is just rampant.
	San Antonio, the major doctor organizations, orthopedic, urinary, that kind of stuff, they all jumped off for the local carrier that's available for this.
	Stuff like medical treatment.
	I had a heart cap last year.
	It was $38,000, and I was number nine that day.
	If you're charging $342,000 a day for a piece of equipment, that's going on throughout the country.
	The costs are exorbitant.
	Of course, healthcare is going to be up there.
	If people are being told they have insurance and can't use it, or the doctors can't get on it, or the doctors won't get on it because they don't get paid.
	The guys are all there in Washington worried about, well, we're going to have so many people.
	And before all this stuff happened, if you didn't have insurance and you got hurt and went to the hospital, Medicaid paid for it.
	All they did now is they make everybody pay for it, and they've increased everything else.
	I got the solutions to these problems, but nobody wants to listen to a little guy like me.
	Listen, there are a lot of good solutions.
	From what I'm gathering from the intelligence I've got, is they finally, it seems, and this is what I'm able to pick up from my friends in D.C., my inside sources.
	It seems like they did finally do what I was suggesting: bring in the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, and different Tea Party groups, for example, that they've now had input into the bill.
	The Freedom Caucus has been taken seriously.
	And by the way, and they've got to work with the moderates.
	I get it.
	I understand it.
	It's a coalition party, and the study group, and the Tuesday group, and the Saturday night drinking group, and the Sunday brunch group.
	I mean, it's ridiculous, but at the end of the day, if you come together with the goal of eliminating a top-down health care system and you're replacing it with free market options and solutions for individuals where you get the care and the plan and you're scored, for example, let's say you smoke, drink, or 500 pounds overweight.
	I shouldn't have to pay for the fact that you've chosen a lifestyle that I don't choose.
	You know, I do martial arts five days a week, and I box and I fight and I punch and I'm exhausted, but I'm in good shape.
	And according to my doctor, I have the heart of a 35 or 40-year-old.
	Can I give you one example?
	Yeah, real quick.
	I got to run.
	Okay.
	You get a premium when you're 20 years old, and your premium never increases.
	And as long as you keep your insurance to stay the same, and after a certain number of years, 15, 20 years, anything you didn't use if you were sick, you get back.
	Well, what's even better than that, though, is you get to put into your own health savings account money that is just meant for your health, and you do it tax-free, and you do it in all your young years, and you build it up and build it up and build it up.
	And let's say you die of a car accident one day, then all that money you save will go to your family.
	I mean, or if you need it, you have it, and you have the catastrophic plan to back up whatever you cannot afford yourself.
	That's a very inexpensive model that will now be the law of the land if we can get this thing ever finished.
	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.
	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.
	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.

▲