Sean Hannity Show - 100 Days - 4.14

April 15, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:35:58

100 Days - 4.14

The Best of the Sean Hannity Show revisits President Trump's first 100 days and measures the best and word successes of the term. Is Justice Gorsuch more conservative than Justice Scalia? Will ObamaCare be repealed? The Sean Hannity Show is live weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	All right, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
	And what's changed?
	Just a pillow.
	It's had such a positive impact on my life.
	And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
	I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer, and now you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
	Now, you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two GoAnywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity, to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful, 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.
	Tuesday, Syrian dictator Brashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians.
	Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children.
	It was a slow and brutal death for so many.
	Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack.
	No child of God should ever suffer such horror.
	Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched.
	It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.
	There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council.
	Years of previous attempts at changing Assad's behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically.
	As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.
	Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.
	We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world.
	We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed.
	And we hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will in the end prevail.
	Good night and God bless America and the entire world.
	Thank you.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Happy Friday.
	That was the president making a statement last night after, in fact, 59, some 59 Tomahawk missiles were fired at the very launch pad of where these chemical weapons were used by Syria against men, women, and children earlier this week.
	You can hear a very effective, very different President Trump there, just like we heard when he was meeting with the king of Jordan Abdullah earlier this week, and that issue came up and the issue of a red line came up over and over again.
	You know, I've got to say, it was a pretty powerful statement here: no child of God should suffer such horror.
	And the president said that.
	And I'm following the comments and the commentary, and everybody said, Well, the president tweeted out that Obama shouldn't do it.
	Why is he doing it?
	Okay, that's a fair thing, but that's a fair criticism.
	He changed his mind after seeing dead children that had been gassed.
	But if we're going to be fair and talk about changing minds and listening to things that are said to us by politicians, why don't we start the program?
	And I want you to think about this in the context, especially of the Iranian nuclear deal, which allows the Iranians to continue to spin their centrifuges 25 days before we give them inspections and they get heads up on it.
	We don't even get to have American inspectors, nor do we get to inspect everything we want to inspect and the billions of taxpayer dollars that he forked over to this radical Islamic regime that has declared over and over again that they want to destroy America, destroy Israel, and they want a worldwide caliphate.
	That has been their goal from the beginning.
	How right is Obama in his assurances that, well, the Iranians now, they're limited in getting nuclear weapons.
	Well, if we're going to talk about Donald Trump, he changed his mind on the issue of whether or not there should be retaliation in the case of the use of chemical weapons against men, women, and children.
	You know, I'm having a hard time understanding the opposition to this.
	He did everything that Trump said he would do in terms of he didn't telegraph the move.
	There's no desire clearly to occupy, but it's a message: stop using chemical weapons against innocent men, women, and children.
	That there is a line that the world cannot tolerate, which is a it's bad enough.
	This ridiculous civil war has gone on for seven years with no resolution at all, being fomented, by the way, by Putin.
	Oh, for all the talk of the conspiracy, Trump and the Russians, he went dead set against Vladimir Putin last night and what the Russians wanted, because they have been propping up the Assad regime this entire time for their own political benefit.
	But if we're going to take the words of politicians, which this is all that CNN and NBC is fixated on, I flipped, I can't believe this is it.
	Okay, let's listen to both, well, let's listen to President Obama, and then we'll listen to John Kerry, and then we'll listen to Susan Rice, and we'll listen to their words assuring you, the American people, that Obama's lying in the sand got Syria and Assad to give up their chemical weapons, which clearly isn't true because he used them again this week.
	Listen.
	I think it was important for me as President of the United States to send a message that, in fact, there is something different about chemical weapons.
	And regardless of how it ended up playing, I think in the Beltway, what is true is Assad got rid of his chemical weapons.
	And the reason he got rid of them is 90% or 95% of those chemical stockpiles were eliminated.
	That's a lot of chemical weapons that are not right now in the hands of ISIL or NARA, or for that matter, the regime.
	The president made his decision to strike.
	He announced his decision to strike publicly.
	And the purpose of the strike was to get the chemical weapons out of Syria.
	That's the purpose.
	We achieved a deal with the Russians that didn't wind up in two days of strikes that would have sent a, quote, message, but would not have removed the weapons.
	We struck a deal to get all of the declared weapons out of Syria.
	Never before in a conflict has that ever happened.
	That during a conflict, weapons of mass destruction are taken out of the zone of conflict.
	And thank God we did that, because if we hadn't done that today, ISIL would have those chemical weapons in large parts of the country.
	Because in the meantime, we were able to find a solution that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished.
	Oh, the use of.
	They just, they're wrong.
	Now, let's assume they're as wrong about Iranian and the Iranian deal as they are about what happened in Syria.
	Now, I understand the argument that Ram Paul, I like Ram Paul.
	Ram Paul is a constitutionalist, and if there's going to be further escalation, you know, I understand the War Parrots Act, but, you know, using military force is not a declaration of war.
	I think the hope of the president is this message gets sent, gets sent loud and clear.
	I think the first thing that you've got to recognize what happened last night is the president sent a message to the entire world.
	And Pyongyang and North Korea and certainly the Iranians and certainly the Russians, you know, outside of them and the Syrians, meaning Assad, you know, who is really upset about what happened last night?
	Is the world going to sit back and watch a modern-day Holocaust where children are gassed before our eyes with the images being shown to the world?
	And I guess we're just going to sit back and not let and just let that continue to happen and not try to stop it.
	I don't want America to be the world's policeman either.
	I don't think we have an ability as a country anymore to fight wars because they always become politicized.
	But we certainly have the military technology and the ability and the strength and hopefully the moral commitment that if we see dead kids from chemical weapons, maybe we have to do a little something to stop it, especially considering we were promised, oh, there's no such thing as chemical weapons inside of Syria.
	That, of course, by Obama and Rice and Kerry, they lied.
	Now let's assume they're just as wrong on Iran.
	Oh, great.
	Now we've got A squared, B squared equals C squared, because you've got radical Islamic terrorists that believe in a worldwide caliphate now having nuclear weapons in their arsenal and a promise, a pledge, and a commitment to destroy Israel in the United States.
	That's not going to work.
	And by the way, you know, with all the talk about Russia, you know, the biggest question coming out of last night's missile attack was, well, why did Russian forces on the ground fail to deploy this state-of-the-art missile defense system that they had at that base, at that very airbase?
	They could have at least tried to blunt the attack.
	And I suspect when Trump, you know, we had an agreement where a military-to-military agreement that if we're about to hit something, we give them a heads up so their soldiers don't die.
	We were committed by treaty and agreement to do that last night.
	People say, wow, they gave him a heads up.
	No, that's not what happened.
	But I think when Trump, when our military talked to their military and Putin got that heads up that a launch was imminent, that the attack was taking place, wasn't aimed at Russian personnel, wasn't aimed at Russian assets on the ground.
	Well, Putin didn't want a confrontation in spite of all the rhetoric coming out of Russia today.
	And I think for obvious reasons.
	Now, you know, Kim Jong-un congratulates Assad just hours before Trump's missile strike.
	I wonder if he's congratulating him now.
	He sent a letter of congratulations to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the 70th anniversary of the country's ruling Bath Party, according to Pyongyang's news agency.
	Well, that was sent just hours before President Trump ordered the airstrikes.
	You know, the world sees a different America here.
	This is not America leading from behind.
	This is not America seeking the U.N. approval.
	This is America acting.
	This is America taking a moral stand.
	Nobody wants a long-term conflict.
	Why?
	Because it'll be politicized anyway, and we don't have the stature or the stamina.
	Not stature.
	We don't have the stamina, you know, the stomach in Washington to see through any military conflict a victory.
	Prime Minister Netanyahu praised Trump, backed Trump on the strike, as he always is a loyal and fierce ally of the United States.
	I don't think it's by accident that the president recently met, and very, very little attention was paid to his meetings with the king of Jordan Abdullah and the president and General El-Sisi of Egypt and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and, of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu.
	And I've been saying that maybe the one good thing that ever came out of the Obama years in this ridiculous Iranian deal was the fact that a new alliance was created.
	Sunni Arab nations now aligning with the Israelis and partnering to stand up against possible Iranian hegemony in the region, which, of course, is their goal.
	And, you know, Vladimir Putin wants his stew, just Assad, to stay alive.
	He probably needs to get him out of Damascus and get him, as my buddy Ollie North wrote me last night, make him Eddie Snowden's roommate in Moscow.
	Anyway, well, the latest on this.
	Look, on this Friday, we've got a lot of news.
	We have Judge Gorsuch praise to Republicans.
	Not something I do often on this program, but they actually did the right thing.
	And indeed, he will be on the Supreme Court.
	He'll be sworn in on Monday.
	We'll have an update on that today.
	Also, we are following the latest discussion, debate, and negotiations going on.
	They continue as it relates to health care in Washington.
	We had an attack in Sweden, five dead now, and a terror attack.
	I thought that wasn't supposed to happen in Sweden.
	We'll get to that today.
	And all the other news of the day, and of course, the latest on Susan Rice.
	So we've got a busy news Friday here today.
	Hannity Headline, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you anywhere you go.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	We'll take a lot of calls today.
	In the next half hour, we'll get to some phone calls too.
	Some of the other news, there are ongoing negotiations as it relates to health care.
	If we get any developments on that, we'll let you know.
	I got to give praise where praise is due.
	I have been very critical of Republicans in Washington.
	I'm still pissed off that they're going away on a two-week vacation, although that might change.
	And they still haven't got a health care bill done after eight years, which annoys the living daylights out of me.
	But they did in the Senate, and I've been critical of Mitch McConnell at times, but he did hold strong as it relates to not giving a vote on Merrick Garland, the number two.
	You know, today's Senate confirmation vote, Neil Gorsuch, the final vote was 5445.
	It wouldn't have happened had Mitch McConnell not invoked the constitutional option.
	Now, he had no other choice.
	There was no choice, but he could have caved, I guess.
	But the rules don't apply equally, and there's no reciprocity from Democrats.
	So he really didn't have a choice.
	Anyway, the Republican Senate votes gave every Obama Supreme Court nominee the up or down vote.
	Everyone, every time.
	Sonia Sato-Mayor, 68.31.
	Elena Kagan, 63, 37.
	Gorsuch, 54, 45.
	But for the first time in a couple of hundred years, for partisan reasons, they filibustered Neil Gorsuch.
	Neil Gorsuch will be on the court as of Monday.
	So I got to give credit where it is due.
	I did take a little shot on Twitter today against the Never Trumper people because, you know, they were so adamant that Donald Trump is a liberal.
	Well, I don't think the wall is liberal.
	I don't think his economic plan is liberal.
	I don't think vetting refugees is liberal.
	I don't think Neil Gorsuch is a liberal based on his background and his history.
	And the Washington Post even said in an article they put out that they think his track record shows he's more conservative than Scalia.
	I can only hope and pray.
	Sometimes you don't know.
	David Souter was probably the biggest disappointment in our lifetime.
	And probably, you know, my favorite justice on the Supreme Court now is Clarence Thomas by far.
	And I hope that Neil Gorsuch gets into that category.
	And Clarence Thomas and Justice Kalia, I mean, what they did for this country is just an enormous service that is immeasurable in terms of the damage that otherwise would have been done by people that don't have the originalist philosophy that actually believe in separation of powers and co-equal branches of government and not citing foreign constitutions and legislating from the bench or, you know, coming up with crazy ideas to justify insane decisions.
	All right, we'll continue your calls on the other side.
	When we come back, more of the best of the Sean Hannity show, stay tuned.
	We know you never want to miss the Sean Hannity Show.
	And now you never have to.
	Just sign up for Hannity Headlines, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you on your laptop, your mobile phone, everywhere you go, even to your liberal-in-law's place in Vermont.
	So, yeah.
	And after a few hours of that, you'll be glad you brought Sean along to sign up today for Hannity Headlines.
	Go to Hannity.com.
	Yeah, they're lazy and they're going on vacation soon.
	Everyone in there thinks they're funny because they all put their feet up on their desk and they're acting like they're drinking beer and relaxing and not doing their job.
	Listen, play any game you want, but you don't do your job around here.
	You don't last.
	I'm just thirsty.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	You know, what have I always said about firing people?
	I don't fire people.
	No, I always say people fire themselves.
	I don't fire people.
	People really end up always in my universe firing themselves, those people that get fired.
	And there's very few because I'm not stupid in the people that I hire.
	And I just want people that care about their job as much as I do.
	And I wish that Congress cared about their job as much as all of you in this audience care about yours.
	And the difference is they're not likely to get fired.
	And, you know, 90% because of gerrymandering, these people get reelected.
	And it's sad that there's no sense of urgency, real-life urgency.
	Let's say you're an emergency room doctor.
	What do you get to go away for Easter?
	No, you got to work Easter Day.
	You know, if you work in the restaurant business, you're working Easter Sunday or Palm Sunday or Christmas Day or Thanksgiving Day.
	And all those waiters and waitresses and everybody in between, by the way, that didn't come through the way you wanted it.
	It came through gibberg, you know, gibberish.
	And I'm just like, I'm so frustrated that they can't get this health care bill done.
	Beyond words.
	And, you know, and then they're going to go away.
	You know, stay and do your work till you get it done.
	Stay.
	Stay and do your job.
	And if that means working this Saturday and this Palm Sunday like average people, like real people, like all of us in the real world that care about our jobs, I can't imagine not caring about work.
	I mean, I think back to every job I've had in my life.
	I mean, when I was washing dishes, they piled up unless I moved.
	And they weren't going away until I cleaned them.
	That was my job.
	You know, when I was a cook, those, you know, sheets that line up in front of the boiler, they need to get fulfilled.
	And they line up fast.
	You got to move.
	I used to run inside these kitchens I worked in.
	I'd be running back and forth like a, and I loved it, sweating and loving it.
	When I was a kid, I was making money.
	I loved it.
	Nice St. Pauli girl at the end of the night was perfect.
	For a 13-year-old kid, that was heaven.
	Sometimes they give us two, and that was really heaven.
	Two St. Pauli girls.
	I know.
	When I was a bus boy, I remember I worked at this place in Florida Park to Mary Pedler.
	I would run being a bus boy.
	Run.
	I remember when the bar got busy, I was running across the bar.
	Had to make every pina colada, banana, strawberry daiquiri by hand at the time, every margarita by hand and blend it.
	What a pain in the you know what.
	Thank God they've streamlined the making of pina coladas and daiquiris.
	How about a shot in a beer?
	Good grief.
	I was like, oh, great.
	Yeah, that's on the house.
	Take the shot in the Budweiser.
	Just for not making me work that hard.
	Used to have to make every single one by hand.
	And now you've got a full restaurant, a full bar, five deep.
	Nobody wants to wait for their drink.
	Move.
	Can I have a pina colana, a banana daiquiri, and I'll take a regular daiquiri, and I'll take a strawberry daiquiri.
	I made the best strawberry daiquiris.
	Take real strawberries, you fill it up halfway in the blender, then you put in a little bit of heavy cream just so it goes from a dark red color to a little lightish pink color.
	It really makes a big difference.
	Then you put in a ton of sugar to sweeten it up.
	And then you put in your rum and your strawberry liqueur, pile it on with ice, and mix it, and it comes out.
	You put an umbrella in and you're done.
	That simple.
	Maybe that's missing from the healthcare meetings.
	Maybe they need some booths.
	Maybe I'll send over a case of Jameson, see if they can't get these guys moving.
	Maybe I'll lock them in the room with pizza, Jameson's, Bud, Cora's Light, whatever they want.
	And they can't leave the room until I'll keep sending in food until they can't take being around each other anymore.
	And they get the health care bill done.
	That's what I've been saying.
	Bring in all the different think tanks because these guys are smart.
	The Heritage Foundation is full of smart people.
	Club for Growth, smart people.
	Bring in the Tea Party Patriot people.
	Bring in the Cato Institute.
	Let them advise them on the best bill that's going to lower premiums and give people better care, more choices, and more options.
	Let's see what's so hard about this.
	They had eight years to prepare for this moment.
	Eight years.
	All right, I want to move on.
	The president said to the New York Times today that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice may have committed a crime by asking for the names of people who were mentioned in these intercepted communications.
	In other words, the unmasking.
	He says, I think it's going to be the biggest story.
	I agree with the president.
	This is Watergate on steroids and human growth hormone at massively high doses and levels.
	It's huge.
	Anyway, that's what he said.
	He declined requests for evidence.
	It's not the president's job.
	Media research points out, Brent Bozell points out, the liberal media, there's nothing to see here.
	That's their approach to Susan Rice's politically motivated unmasking of Trump and his associates as both a candidate and as a president-elect.
	Oh, that's nothing.
	Do you not understand?
	We're weaponizing and politicizing intelligence gathering in the country.
	We're absolutely wiping and stomping on the Constitution and our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
	Our First Amendment rights for freedom of expression.
	This is the beginning of a police state if this takes hold.
	That's how dangerous this is.
	But you notice we never get to the bottom of anything, and that's Congress's fault again.
	Why has Hillary Clinton gotten away with her email server in the mom and pop shop bathroom in a bathroom closet and all the lies that she told?
	How did she get away with giving 20% of America's uranium by signing off as Secretary of State at the exact same time and leading up to the time where she signed off on it when all this money is being funneled through surrogates of these companies into the Clinton Foundation?
	And her husband's getting double his speaking rate in Moscow.
	And we've had eight months of no evidence conspiracy theory advancement by the mainstream media.
	You know, remember when Donald Trump put out that he had been wiretapped, he was right.
	Donald Trump told the truth.
	I'm going to do this in my opening monologue on Hannity tonight.
	So what did they do?
	They ridiculed, they mocked, they bashed Donald Trump.
	Now that Donald Trump has been proven right, where's their apology and corrections?
	You know, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
	It is a totally debunked, baseless claim that the mainstream media has now been focused on without a shred of evidence for eight months.
	Remember when Devin Nunes announced that he'd seen credible evidence that Trump and members of his transition team had been caught up in this incidental surveillance where the names were unmasked.
	Well, they didn't practice minimization.
	They didn't practice protecting the names of Americans, which is standard operating procedure.
	Nunes also revealed that intel was shared among high-level Obama administration officials.
	So instead of the media seeing the weaponization for political purposes of intelligence and politicizing intelligence, no, they want to go after Devin Nunes.
	What did he do wrong except report the truth in these shocking revelations?
	So they react by besmirching him.
	And then the destroy Trump propaganda media is out there smearing anybody and everybody who doesn't echo their biased agenda.
	Well, we do have some real reporters and investigative reporters like Sarah Carter and some people at Fox and others, but not a lot of them.
	And then you've got so-called news networks saying they won't even cover the story.
	Susan Rice contradicts herself from what she said two weeks ago.
	You know, you've got Mr. Obamagasm thrill up his leg, Chris Matthews and others taking the low road, accusing Republicans of being racist and sexist for pointing out Susan Rice as a liar.
	Oh my God, this is pathetic.
	These are insane times we're living in.
	Up is down, down is up.
	White is black, black is white.
	And if a liberal tells you there's a donut in the sky, you'll say, oh, there's a donut in the sky.
	And you'll get these stupid cable hosts that will repeat it and regurgitate it.
	They're beyond dumb.
	And they're feeding conspiracy after conspiracy to, I guess, an audience of nitwits.
	Because if you had any common sense, you'd be able to see through all of this.
	Earlier today, when asked about the New York Times, asked by the New York Times, Trump said what's true.
	It's such an important story for our country and for the world.
	It's one of the big stories of our time.
	Trump is right.
	So you've got a partisan press ignoring something that's much bigger than Watergate.
	They won't give it any attention.
	Ignoring the weaponization of intelligence, the politicizing of intelligence.
	Are they ever going to get to the bottom of who leaked the intel and committed a felony as it relates to General Flynn?
	Will the media ever apologize for ridiculing the president over his surveillance claims now that they've been proven he was right?
	They're ever going to make a correction?
	They're ever going to offer an apology?
	You know, all these networks, all of them, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSF, they're all, and all their friends in the print media, the Washington Post, New York Times, they're all corrupt.
	They all lied, and they never own up to it.
	And they claim to be fair, and then they don't like people like me.
	I'm bad for America.
	I did their job in vetting Obama.
	They didn't do it.
	I did their job, you know, pointing out that Obama was a rigid radical ideologue that was indoctrinated, and he never broke his indoctrination.
	I predicted his presidency would fail.
	It failed spectacularly, but they never told you the truth about that either.
	All throughout the election, I mean, you got one revelation after another from WikiLeaks about collusion between the press and Hillary Clinton's campaign, and nobody seems to care or pay attention to it.
	Well, we did their job there, too.
	Now you've got probably the biggest scandal in modern history unfolding before your eyes, and they're ignoring that also.
	That now proven wrong that Donald Trump was right about, okay, maybe he could have used the word surveillance instead of wiretapping.
	If we're going to get into word parsing, semantics, and superfluous arguments, okay, we can argue he should have used a different word.
	Oh, God forbid he used the wrong word.
	He didn't say Navy corpseman 20 times like Obama did.
	Nobody in the media cared to pick up on that but us.
	It's so frustrating.
	You know, this country, this is why I'm mad at Republicans.
	It's like we've got all this work to do, and it's like nobody wants to do their job.
	The swamp just wants to stay on vacation all the time.
	Think about when you say, roll your window down, dial the phone.
	What is that?
	Just it's an expression.
	Like, you don't actually roll your window down.
	You hit a button.
	You know, you don't wiretap phones anymore.
	It's surveillance.
	There's no wire attached to your phone, but the concept is what you're talking about.
	It doesn't matter.
	They were surveilling the conversations.
	Exactly.
	Okay, and that's technically it's wiretapping.
	It's surveillance, but wiretapping, surveillance, it's all the same thing.
	It's just an expression.
	It's so ridiculous.
	It's just absurd.
	When is the media, why can't they just, listen, I got to admit, in my life, I've made so many stupid mistakes.
	I really have.
	I've been a dope probably half my life as just an idiot.
	And I make mistakes.
	You know what the most underutilized word in the English language is?
	I'm sorry.
	Those words.
	I'm sorry.
	I apologize.
	I was wrong.
	I was, you know, why can't they do that?
	I mean, they're fixated on taking down the Fox News channel.
	Now, it's like 24-7, beat up on Fox.
	All over the place.
	Just outright deceptive lying and headlines.
	I mean, I personally, I don't care what it's about.
	I just don't care.
	I got better things to do with my time than give a flying rip about what these other people in the media is.
	Now, do you understand why I've never been to a correspondence dinner?
	Do you understand why I would never go?
	People say, well, you're going to go this year.
	Trump's going to be there.
	Well, Trump's not going to be there, nor is anybody in his cabinet, but I wouldn't go anyway because I don't like these people.
	Because I know they're dishonest to you.
	And I know they don't like me either.
	So why are we going to put on a pretense?
	All right, 800-941, Sean.
	We're going to dig deeper.
	We're doing a deep dive into all of this surveillance, all of this unmasking, all of this leaking of intelligence, because it happens to be the biggest story of our time and the biggest scandal you'll probably ever see in your life, weaponizing intelligence politicizing raw intelligence all right hour two sean hannity show toll free
	Our telephone number is 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, our top story remains, although we're watching now the constitutional option being used by Republicans.
	Finally, we're getting some work out of these guys.
	It's good to see a little bit of backbone, a little bit of strength.
	We're watching, monitoring all of that unfolding.
	But our good friend Sarah Carter over at Circa News and John Solomon over at Circuit News are now advancing this surveillance, unmasking intelligence leaking story.
	And their headline today is: U.S. spy agencies intercept, unmask congressional figures as often as once a month.
	Add to that comments by Congressman Peter King about the intelligence reports that center around Susan Rice and the unmasking controversy.
	And he's describing it as almost resembling a private investigator's file.
	Quote, this is information about their everyday lives.
	He's a member of the House Intel Committee, sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired and investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night.
	And then you try and piece it together later on.
	And of course, Devin Nunez stepped aside, recused himself only from the Russia side of the investigation.
	And Trey Gowdy and others will be stepping in to take his place.
	Not a smart move by the Democrats, in my opinion.
	And it raises questions about whether Adam Schiff, who's already jumped to conclusions and is defending Susan Rice, whether he should also step aside.
	Sarah Carter, a lot to get to today.
	How are you?
	I'm doing great, Sean.
	Thank you.
	All right, let's get into this new column and this new layer of the onion you've been able to unpeel here.
	Oh, yes.
	I think that this is very significant to the point where not only were we concerned when it was revealed to us that the unmasking really of congressional representatives on the Hill, but the fact that many of them don't even know they're being unmasked.
	So we went back and talked to people who were in charge.
	Chairman Pete Huckstra spoke with me last night, and I wanted to know: does this happen regularly?
	I mean, was this something that he was Familiar with, and he said this absolutely did not happen on a regular basis, that the only time they were aware of unmasking of a congressional representative's telephone conversation or intercept with persons overseas,
	if, for example, a congressional representative was approached by somebody, let's say from Russia or the Ukraine or China, and that person was posing as somebody else and they were trying to talk to our congressman or about a particular issue.
	So, if the intelligence community knew that the person that was in communication or reaching out to somebody in Congress was a spy, was working with the FSB in Russia or something else, then they may take that to the Gang of Eight or to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and say, look, you know, we know that Congressman so-and-so was approached by this person.
	Would you please inform them or should we inform them that they have been approached by a spy?
	And that was the only time, and he said that was extraordinarily rare, but that this is happening once a month and that other congressional members have no idea that they have been unmasked is deeply concerning, not just to him, but also Senator Grassley, who we spoke with at the House Judiciary Committee and others as well on background.
	Let's talk about what Peter King said.
	What do you know about that?
	Well, this is very interesting.
	Remember, this was what our sources had originally told us: that the concern wasn't just about that they were requesting the unmasking, but it appeared to be a type of weaponization of intelligence or political espionage that they were gathering too much information that it exceeded far beyond Russia.
	And so I think there is a point there that if they're building up these type of dossiers on people, if they're looking at everything that they're doing, if this turns out to be true, then I think that certainly elevates this to a whole new level, Sean, because what we're saying is the Fourth Amendment, the foundation to our right for privacy, which is really what America is based on.
	It's based on this republic where we're guaranteed certain rights, where we're guaranteed the right not to be listened to or followed to, I mean, without warrant, without warrant.
	This raises it to a whole new level.
	When people in power have this capability and are able to access private information, we have to be very, very concerned.
	It sounds to me like this has nothing to do with Russia at all in any way, shape, matter, or form.
	And can you go a little bit deeper into what you have discovered as it relates to, for example, the so-called Gates notifications and, you know, named after Robert Gates, which goes to the gang of eight in Congress, and you have now top members and congressional figures now being intercepted and unmasked as often as once a month.
	I mean, this to me sounds so intrusive.
	Well, and to others, it's not just to you.
	I mean, this is intrusive on many different levels.
	And this is going to be another part of this investigation, right?
	I mean, if we're looking at the gang of eight, so what that includes is the House Speaker, the minority leader, the Democratic leaders, Senate Republicans, and bipartisan heads of the chambers of the intelligence committees.
	So now you're thinking that they're delivering this information and it's going an unredacted to the executive branch intelligence report.
	So this is going all the way up to the top dogs in the White House, right?
	So they're going to have access to these intercepts and they're going to be able to see them.
	And now the congressional representatives, if they weren't told, right, if it wasn't involving, for example, maybe being approached by a spy from another country, which happens, I mean, intercepting these calls is not rare.
	And that's something that Pete Hoekstra made very clear.
	He said, you know, the fact that they intercept calls like this is not unreasonable because there are 535 members and their assistants.
	Yeah, but you also say in your article, it was rare during his tenure to be alerted that a lawmaker or congressional staffer had been unmasked unless there was a serious threat.
	That's where he says the concern comes in.
	The concern comes in when they are actually unmasked and then they are not notified that they've been unmasked.
	And then this information then reaches, you know, gets put in a dossier up to the highest levels of the executive branch and they're able to see it.
	But the congressional representative can't see it or their aides.
	They don't know that they've been unmasked.
	So they're left out in the dark, right?
	And then we have to ask ourselves, well, what was the information?
	What was the request for unmasking this?
	Why were they unmasked?
	And I think those are the answers that, well, the executive branch and the intelligence community need to answer because those are sure enough being questioned right now as violations of their Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights.
	Yeah.
	You talk about three years ago that Charles Grassley was alerted to that a government whistleblower's communication with his staff was obtained by the intelligence community.
	I mean, that to me is so outrageous.
	Well, yeah.
	And then the fact that he didn't even really talk about that publicly.
	And then when he heard about this, he's like, look, we really need to take a good look at what's going on here.
	I mean, we have whistleblowers going to Charles Grassley.
	I mean, I have people, you know, now coming out of the woodwork because they realize that this has been happening all the time and they want to share this information.
	I mean, remember when the CIA was forced to admit that some of its employees spied into the computers of Democratic staffers, and we talk about that in our story, too.
	And Senator Dianne Feinstein.
	So, I mean, Grassley acknowledged that this is a very serious problem.
	And remember, this comes up for review this year in the Judiciary Committee, this expansion of the FISA, these expansions that actually allowed people to request these unmaskings with such little information.
	So we've said this before, and I've said this on your show before, where they can just basically write down Susan Rice could request the unmasking of a certain phone intercept, and all she would have to say is for national security purposes.
	Well, that could mean anything.
	And just putting that down would allow her to unmask.
	So it wasn't like she had to give a lot of justification for unmasking people.
	And now we see it was happening.
	Well, that goes to the rules that Obama got approved by the Pfizer Review Court in 2011, which was your earlier breakthrough report.
	Now we're seeing the magnitude of that rule change.
	And I guess, you know, to me, where this seems to be headed, and I don't see any other justification.
	I can't think of any other possible reason.
	In my own mind, it seems to be going to where I believe it is, and that is we have weaponized and we have politicized our intelligence community.
	More and more, my suspicion goes to the higher echelon of government and government spy agencies, meaning like I.E. CIA Director Brennan.
	Well, certainly a lot of, there's going to be a lot of questions, especially when it goes, when it comes to the CIA.
	By the way, whenever you start saying, like when you slow down, I know you're being very careful with your words.
	Let's go back to my original question.
	What I see happening here is the weaponization of intelligence, politicizing intelligence.
	And the only logical place this goes is to those in the upper echelon, people like CIA Director Brennan.
	Now you start talking slowly and carefully.
	Go ahead.
	You're going to make me talk slowly.
	We have to be very careful.
	That's why I'm talking slowly and carefully.
	That's why I'm asking.
	All of this has to be based on evidence, right?
	We have to be able to prove it publicly.
	That's why I'm asking a question.
	But it does, it does.
	I am an awful human being.
	I don't even know why you come on my show.
	But I need we need a serious answer to that, because to me, that's you.
	Yes, we do.
	And what I can say is this.
	You know, when we looked at these documents, the scope didn't just focus on the Congress.
	It focused also as well.
	And if you look at some of the documents that we have posted, we've attached to circa.com inside our stories, you'll see a very interesting, interesting point that you're trying to make.
	There were journalists, clergy, doctors, lawyers that are also included in these rules on FIFA intercepts, okay?
	So it's very interesting, how the FBI intercepts people and unmasks them.
	In 2015, it became very specific.
	And this is very important, Sean, because this was something that you would ask me about, you know, just yesterday.
	And when we were talking about this, you know, were journalists swept up in this?
	We still know.
	I got to ask you when we get back if you found any information.
	I mean, do you know how many people are writing me telling me I have been surveilled and unmasked?
	I have not been able to confirm that, but we'll ask Sarah Carter from Circa News when we get back, the national security correspondent, senior national security correspondent.
	Her new piece is up on Hannity.com from today.
	If you need to get a link to it, 800-941-Sean is our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue with Sarah.
	And at the bottom of the hour, Ann Coulter joins us to weigh in on this and Neil Gorsuch and the constitutional options.
	That's right.
	When we come back, Ann Coulter joins us on Neil Gorsuch and the constitutional option.
	And of course, the latest on what is now becoming, I guess you can call it, I guess, the politicization of the Intel community and the weaponizing of the intelligence community.
	All right, that's up next with Coulter and then your calls in the final hour.
	Hannity Headline, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you anywhere you go.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	All right, as we continue, Sarah Carter now, who has been doing incredible investigative work on this whole issue of surveillance and unmasking and leaking of intelligence, she is the senior national correspondent for circa.com.
	And she, along with John Solomon, have their latest piece out today about how U.S. spy agencies intercept and unmask congressional figures as often as once a month.
	And we have Peter King on record saying that, well, the information that was being gleaned by Susan Rice's unmasking, et cetera, contained personal dirt on people associated with Donald Trump.
	He described it as news and information about their everyday lives, like a divorce case.
	We have attorneys and investigators looking into what a spouse is doing to the other spouse.
	All right, so I know you probably, because you're all over the story.
	Maybe people have asked you about me in this case, but I mean, I'm getting asked by everybody every single minute of every day, and I don't have an answer.
	And I'm just reading what everybody else is reading.
	And I haven't gotten any word back as of yet.
	I mean, what is all of this about me and this whole thing?
	Yeah, well, I think that, you know, people obviously see you.
	I mean, you've been very outspoken.
	You've had a very close relationship with President Trump.
	And, of course, you're swept up into this whirlwind of controversy.
	And I think you have a right to be concerned and wonder if, you know, there was any unmasking of your phone conversations.
	Now, remember, it would be conversations that you would have had from the United States to somebody foreign, or they could have rerouted it foreign to foreign back over to somebody else that was talking about you.
	So, there's very interesting ways and different kinds of loopholes that would allow people to unmask and find out more information about you.
	Like I said, you've interviewed Julian Assange many times.
	If you had conversations with him on your cell phone, very easily your name could have been unmasked, Sean.
	The thing is, we don't know, right?
	Because they are such highly classified documents.
	And unless somebody's willing to leak that information, unless someone's willing to share that information, so I need a friend inside the intelligence community that knows about it, that would give me that information.
	Wouldn't that if look, I don't, I can't, I'm being very clear about this.
	I cannot confirm or corroborate this in any way, and I'm only reading what other people are reading.
	But wouldn't that open up for me a right for civil litigation and civil action against those people that surveilled and unmasked me?
	You know, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it would.
	I believe it would because there are certain amendment rights.
	And, you know, we think of certain protections, especially when it comes to, and I don't know, especially when it comes to our civil liberties and, you know, being able to speak privately to someone on a phone, especially when you're not conducting, you're not doing anything criminal, when there's no warrant for you, when you're just a regular citizen with the right to believe the way you want to believe.
	And everybody has those rights.
	As long as you don't harm anyone else or you're not committing a criminal act, you should have the right to privacy.
	But one of the interesting things that we discovered in our reporting, both John and I, was that, you know, when the FBI wrote the rules in 2015, it actually came up with this idea of circumstances in which FISA intercepts could be unmasked and shared in other sensitive professions.
	Like we think, I think of myself as a journalist as having, you know, extra care.
	They're going to take extra caution, right?
	Because the FBI is really not going to want to get involved in investigating me per se because I'm trying to report stories.
	We have sources.
	I mean, what happens?
	As long as I'm not violating any laws.
	You should not be investing.
	Exactly.
	I've got to go, but I've got to praise you and John.
	I mean, you guys are like the Woodward and Bernstein of our time, and the work you've done has been phenomenal.
	And you're so generous in sharing this information with our audience.
	And thank you, Sarah Carter, to Circa News.
	When we come back, Ann Coulter, straight ahead.
	We know you never want to miss the Sean Hannity Show.
	And now you never have to.
	Just sign up for Hannity Headlines, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you on your laptop, your mobile phone, everywhere you go, even to your liberal-in-law's place in Vermont.
	So, yeah.
	And after a few hours of that, you'll be glad you brought Sean along to sign up today for Hannity Headlines.
	Go to Hannity.com.
	9:25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	All right.
	We're going to bring in Ann Coulter here in just a second.
	But first and foremost, let's go over Susan Rice lying just two weeks ago on PBS and then totally contradicting herself two days ago on NBC.
	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 order to spy on them.
	Absolutely, expose 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 utilize intelligence for political purposes.
	That's absolutely false.
	So it goes from knowing nothing to knowing everything and admitting unmasking, and that means acknowledging surveillance of a candidate and then a president-elect and his transition team.
	And all the reports now from Sarah Carter go a step further that they were looking not into anything connected to Russia, but into the personal lives of individuals, which then raises a lot of questions about how we have weaponized and politicized intelligence gathering in the country.
	Ann Coulter, author of the best-selling book in Trump We Trust, E. Ploribus Awesome, is here to talk about this and obviously the constitutional option that is being used today.
	How are you?
	Fine, thanks.
	How are you?
	I'm good.
	It's always great to talk to you.
	By the way, I love reading rumors about you on the internet.
	I'm not even going to mention them, but it was very entertaining from my perspective, considering our history together.
	Well, for people who don't know, basically any gossip columns are always sent in by the agents.
	It was on the AOL private life, but basically anyone that I am alleged to be dating, you know that in the universe, it's impossible people I could be dating.
	I am not dating those people.
	It was very, it actually made the wheel on AOL, which I thought was, wow, this must be huge.
	We are, this one has been going around forever.
	Jimmy Walker and I are friends, no romance.
	Yep, and he's a great guy, too.
	I like him a lot.
	And a Republican.
	That's correct.
	All right, let's start with the lies and the top of her Benghazi lies and then contradicting and then admitting surveillance, unmasking.
	And Sarah Carter now saying it's about personal lives.
	Well, it's hilarious that this has gone.
	I mean, everything Trump says is hysterically denounced, and usually within two days it's proved true.
	From the hysteria over at the very beginning, Mexico isn't sending their best.
	And then, you know, what, a week later, we get Kate Steinley.
	We had the look at what's happening in Sweden.
	What are you talking about?
	Sweden's the safest place in the world.
	Huge riot, Muslim riots blow up.
	And now we've gone to, I mean, this is one of the most stunning turnabouts I've seen from Trump means to apologize to Obama for accusing him of committing a felony and spying on the Trump campaign to, well, yeah, we were spying, but it wasn't political and it wasn't, you know, we do it to everybody.
	It's the craziest turnabout.
	And now, you know, we at least understand.
	It seems like kind of overkill to be so upset about Hillary losing for Democrats in the media to obsess on this nothing burger Russia story, which has completely collapsed.
	And I wrote a little about that this week.
	But now we see why they were doing it.
	This was going to be their excuse when they get exposed for spying on private citizens, unmasking them from the White House itself.
	I mean, it's getting to the point where we're going to find that Obama was actually crawling around, you know, wiring Trump Tower the way things are going with their story unraveling.
	But now this is going to be their defense.
	Well, we had to because of this fear of Russian collusion with the Trump team.
	And if I could just mention one thing that hasn't been talked about because there's no evidence for Russia trying to influence the election.
	What I wrote about this week is I hadn't seen anyone else say this.
	The basic story, apart from the absence of evidence, the basic story is cockamame-y.
	Their claim is Russia wanted Trump to win, point one.
	Point two, that their dastardly plan for accomplishing making Trump the president of the United States was to get in and release emails from the DNC showing that the DNC was being horrible to Bernie Sanders.
	It's just a crazy theory on every level.
	Russia is a nation trained in spycraft.
	We didn't even know, we American experts in politics didn't know how this election was going to turn out.
	Remember, the Democrats were praying, oh, we want to run against Trump.
	Ha ha ha, this is a disaster for Republicans.
	The day of the election, New York Times had Hillary with a 91% chance of winning.
	And plus the idea that Russia would not want to deal with the corrupt, viable president, Hillary Clinton, but rather a loose cannon who wants to drill Donald Trump.
	But how would releasing these emails with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz going after Bernie Sanders, how does that help Trump?
	It could have been the worst thing that happened to Trump.
	The Democrats might have gotten their act together and said, oh my gosh, she's taking us down to defeat.
	We've got to have a come to Jesus moment with Hillary and tell her she's got to drop out.
	We're running Joe Biden.
	You just never know how these things are going to affect an election.
	And the idea that this was Russia's idea, add to that the fact that Julian Assange, I mean, quite obviously the logical leaker here, is someone within the DNC who thought Hillary's taking us down to defeat.
	We've had it with the David Brocks and the Debbie Wasserman Schultz leaking this stuff.
	And that's what Julian Assange says, as well as one of his associates.
	That's where they say it came from, a DNC whistleblower, which is the only story that makes sense.
	Well, it was actually one of his associates.
	He's never confirmed it.
	I did ask him when I had a chance to interview him.
	You know, it's funny how he comes under fire, but the New York Times printed everything he printed.
	Well, he did clearly say it's not Russia.
	He'd say, the guy who collected it, allegedly, he describes where it was a DNC whistleblower passed him the emails.
	It was a park near American University.
	And whatever you think of it, Julian Assange, he may be, you know, a reckless zealot.
	Nobody says he's a liar.
	He's very nearly the opposite.
	He's, you know, maybe a little too self-righteous, but he's not the kind of person who lies.
	He says, not Russia.
	It's a DNC whistleblower.
	Again, the whole story, it only makes sense as a DNC whistleblower.
	But now we see why they're so obsessed with these weird connections and really crazy conspiracy theories, which is always a specialty of the left.
	They need to pretend there's some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia to explain why they were using the apparatus of the federal government, national security, deep state intelligence to spy on political opponents.
	Well, and it gets deeper.
	And this goes to the heart of Sarah Carter's big breakthrough article today, and that is that not only were they surveilling and unmasking, and in the case of General Flynn leaking, which is a felony, but we now find out that almost it resembled almost a private investigator's file, and the information is about people's everyday lives, and that's confirmed by Peter King of New York, the congressman.
	He said it's sort of like in a divorce case where the lawyers are hired, investigators are hired, just to find out what the other person is doing morning until night until you try and piece it together.
	Right, right.
	That's a police state, Ann.
	This is now, I know.
	Well, the police state is now in the control of Donald Trump, and I think they got to start declassifying and releasing all this stuff.
	I mean, I suspect what they're doing is allowing the Democrats to go out more and more and more on a limb before revealing the truth.
	But this is now in the control of President Trump.
	And it may be, I doubt it'll be particularly embarrassing.
	It might be a little embarrassing for some people who are being secretly surveilled, but I think it's worth it.
	This is a pretty shocking.
	I may have to hire you as my lawyer, too, because I got Jay Seculo and Joe DeGenova, and maybe I'll get you and Levin and part of my team if I was surveilled in a mask.
	What do you think?
	Oh, you're just going to be talking about the penny plan.
	It'll be fine.
	Thanks a lot, Anne.
	You know, just at least let's create an image that it might be a little more interesting than that.
	You should demand that your tapes be released because I want to see them all.
	I mean, if they were going after you.
	I have no problem.
	I have no problem.
	If they were, I mean, that really does show how crazy and how political they are.
	No, that was.
	It's tied in with the whole obsession with Bill O'Reilly right now.
	And if we could just have a little footnote on that, Fox News compared to other cable networks?
	Good grief.
	At one prominent cable network.
	Listen, you and I know.
	Oh my gosh, it's unbelievable in this network.
	You and I know more stories.
	And by the way, also the heads of networks, if you know what I'm talking about.
	Stay right there.
	All right, we'll take a break.
	More with Ann Coulter.
	All right, Sean Hannity Show News Roundup Information Overload Hour coming up at the top of the next hour.
	Our buddy Rick Unger is here to get beaten up again today.
	I don't know why he comes back for more punishment.
	He's going to join us in studio in a minute.
	We continue with Ann Coulter.
	All right, so I don't know if I like the term nuclear option.
	I would call it the Harry Reid precedent, or I'd call it the constitutional option.
	And that is this is the first time in a couple of hundred years that for purely partisan reasons, you have a political party that won't allow an up or down vote.
	So Republicans finally are showing a little bit of backbone.
	I've got to give them credit on this.
	Yes, I'm so glad you asked about this because I know other people have jobs.
	They don't sit around reading all day like I do, and I think conservatives should know the truth about this.
	And the truth is these supermajority requirements are absolutely unconstitutional.
	The Constitution clearly expected majority votes for basically everything in the Senate.
	And when it does not, those cases are expressly identified.
	There are five cases where you need a two-thirds vote to pass something in the U.S. Senate.
	One, impeachment.
	Two, expulsions.
	Three, to override a presidential veto.
	Four treaties and five to pass a constitutional amendment.
	Now, what sense does it make for the Constitution to expressly say after Congress passes a law, sends it to the president, the president vetoes it, you can override that veto with a two-thirds vote?
	But wait, now suddenly we need a two-thirds vote to even pass the law in the first place.
	It makes no sense.
	This is an unconstitutional rule that's been invented by the Senate.
	I don't know if anyone's ever challenged it or if the courts would feel like they had a right to rule on a political rule of the Senate.
	But all we're doing with the so-called nuclear option is getting back to a constitutional method of voting.
	And by the way, sometimes this will go against us.
	I'm not saying this with passion because Republicans have a majority right now.
	They wouldn't have needed Al Franken's vote to pass that monstrosity Obamacare.
	But it is the way the Constitution is written, and I think our constitutional framers are smarter than we are.
	Yeah, I think so too, and they've been proven right again and again over time.
	What do you think about expanding it or broadening these rules changes beyond just judiciary appointments?
	Well, absolutely.
	As I was just saying, to pass a law, it shouldn't be a majority vote.
	Now, look, that doesn't mean the Senate can have rules.
	They keep defending this two-thirds vote and saying, well, we have to let the minority have be able to chit-chat.
	Okay, you can listen to their views.
	There are other things you can do.
	We can say we'll give you an hour.
	We can say you can filibuster.
	Go ahead, but you got to stand on the floor and filibuster.
	But no, in fact, I mean, as many constitutional scholars have written about, that was part of the reason the Articles of Confederation were dumped and we moved to a Constitution.
	And also, the whole mood of the country after the revolution was we're sick of being ruled by a tiny minority of elite.
	We don't want to be bossed around.
	Yes, we don't have a pure democracy, but when it comes to our representatives in Congress, it is supposed to be majority win, not some special two-thirds law.
	No, again, that's for a treaty.
	I'm up on a clock here, but E. Pluribus, awesome, Ann Coulter's new book, and we could talk forever as always.
	We love having you on.
	Thank you, Anne.
	And these are interesting times, aren't they?
	In Trump, we trust.
	Yes, ma'am.
	E-Ploribus, awesome.
	All right.
	Thank you, Ann Coulter.
	When we come back, News Roundup Information Overload.
	All right, News Roundup Information Overload Hour here on the Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-SHOT.
	Sean, we got little Chucky Schumer, of course, crybaby Schumer.
	And he's out there attacking the president, trying to sound like a tough guy.
	Mr. Filibuster himself, Mr. Obstructionist himself, listen to this.
	When Donald Trump campaigned, one of the main issues he campaigned on was that China takes us out to lunch, stealing millions of American jobs, trillions of American dollars in wealth through unfair trade practices.
	And yet, since Donald Trump has become president, when it comes to trade, his policies make America look like a 98-pound weakling.
	He has done virtually nothing.
	Isn't this the same crybaby Schumer we've known about forever?
	Pretty unbelievable.
	And I named my daughter, her middle name, is Emma, named for Emma Lazarus, the great poet who wrote those lines on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.
	Give me your tired.
	You're poor.
	You're huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
	Freak.
	What reason?
	So, this executive order was mean-spirited, un-American.
	American.
	It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country, and it will only serve to embolden and inspire those around the globe who will do us harm.
	I noticed Chuck Schumer yesterday with fake tears.
	I'm going to ask him who is his acting coach.
	I don't see him as a crier.
	If he is, he's a different man.
	There's about a 5% chance that it was real, but I think there were fake tears.
	I say, where was the outrage of the Democrats when all of our companies were fleeing to Mexico and to other places far away and leaving jobs behind?
	Now they're all coming back.
	You know, joining us now, Rick Unger and Jonathan Gillum.
	We're going over all the news of the day, which is varied.
	Top story obviously remains surveillance.
	Now we've discovered that they're literally looking into the private lives like divorce hearings of Trump associates and, of course, the Republicans using the constitutional option.
	Mr. Unger, you want to weigh in on your buddy Chucky?
	You love Chucky, don't you?
	Chucky cheese.
	Actually, I got a bigger kick out of hearing you cry there.
	That was pretty good.
	You know, listen, I don't know why Chucky is so upset because that executive order he was crying about, it's still stuck in the courts.
	You mean your judge shopping little technique worked?
	Is that what you're suggesting?
	Judge shopping.
	Oh, come on.
	They went judge shopping.
	You know they went judge shopping.
	Based on the states?
	Yeah, I guess that's probably true.
	You pick states that are going to except that it doesn't entirely work out because the states end up coming together.
	And I'll tell you what.
	Well, then they know they're going to the Ninth Circuit.
	The Ninth Circuit's going to surprise you now.
	I doubt it.
	I think the Ninth Circuit's going to come down a different way.
	The Ninth Circuit is embarrassed because about over 80% of the time they are overturned.
	I thought the Ninth Circuit was right the first time around.
	I think it's hard to make the case this time around.
	What do you think, Jonathan?
	I think Chuck Schumer, when he talks, it's like this.
	That's not Chuck Schumer at all.
	That is so bad.
	That is not a good Chuck Schumer.
	It's a little bit off.
	He has a little more rasp in his voice, but I'm really scared.
	I'm really worried now because I'm afraid that Muslim, I call them fundamentalists.
	Everybody else calls them extremists are going to attack us now because somebody is, well, first of all, he misquoted what the Statue of Liberty says.
	But I don't think that's going to be between tears.
	Yeah, yeah, right.
	You know what?
	Listen, I know we're joking about this, but this is a perfect example of why we're in the mess that we're in in this country because of these political games.
	He's talking about Trump as though he's been in office for years and years.
	He's been in office three months.
	He hasn't done, there's nothing that has been able to be done where we see lasting effects.
	So I don't know what this guy's talking about.
	I'd like to do this, but I'm going to agree with you on that.
	Look, I have seen the memo that got leaked with respect to what Trump's plans are with renegotiating on NAFTA.
	And I would tell you, I was a little surprised that it was as soft as it was.
	And we'll see if that holds up.
	But no, I mean, after three months, I'm not sure you can say that he's done nothing on trade because I don't think you could expect him to do something yet on trade.
	There's been no negotiation to take place.
	So, yeah, I actually, when I heard that, I wonder why is Senator Schumer stretching to that degree?
	There's enough, if he wants to go after the president, there's lots there he can pick on.
	It's a little premature to do it on trade.
	But I tell you what, I think you, I think, Sean, you're going to be disappointed when you see what he has in mind.
	I'm not as anti-trade, so I was not particularly disappointed with what he has in mind.
	You guys, I know, have a stronger point of view on that the other way.
	I think you're not going to be able to do that.
	I think it's going to be a negotiation tactic, and I think these countries that don't practice fair trade with us are going to get one or two of them will get slapped in the head and then everybody else will fall in line.
	That is possible.
	They need this work with the United States.
	That's possible.
	All right, so we have the Reed option, and for the first time in a couple of hundred years, we've got a partisan filibuster where Democrats won't allow an up or down vote.
	And you have two former majority leaders in the Senate, Bob Dole from Kansas and Trent Lott from Mississippi, saying it's time to let it go.
	And the rules have changed because the Senate has changed, and the Senate has become a bitter partisan.
	Become the House.
	Pretty much.
	Yeah.
	I mean, actually, but here's the thing.
	Republicans are stupid.
	Republicans play by different rules.
	If it's Elena Kagan, we know a left-winger, right?
	If it's Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, we know a left-winger.
	Sonia Sotomayor, we know a left-winger.
	Republicans, they go along, they allow the vote.
	Okay?
	They don't have to, they play along, and there's no reciprocity here.
	You can't tell me there's one thing wrong with Neil Gorsuch's background credentials to sit on the Supreme Court.
	No, not.
	I mean, I may disagree with some of his rulings, but that's the point.
	But that's not.
	You know what?
	When you elect a president that's a Republican, you know what you're going to get?
	You're going to get a conservative Supreme Court justice, whether you like it or not.
	The time to fight that battle is not now.
	The time to have fought that battle was before the president.
	So I think for the Republicans, the best thing is what they're doing.
	They're using the constitutional option.
	I'd get rid of cloture on every vote.
	I actually, I think you'd be disappointed if you did.
	I think it's a shame.
	You win the House or Senate, and it now means something.
	I thought it was a shame when Harry Reid did it.
	I was against that.
	Because to me, and I mean, I understood his reasoning just like I understand McConnell's reasoning now.
	But you take those kinds of issues to the people.
	You don't destroy the one thing that makes the Senate a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives.
	If this continues, it happened today.
	It is what it is.
	If they continue down this road and they do away with the legislative filibuster, well, what an awful, awful shame.
	I just think, you know, I'm going to go a little philosophical here in that we have no individual thinkers in politics anymore.
	You have the Senate, you have the House of Representatives, you have the presidency, the Supreme Court, and the only way that they make decisions is based on party lines.
	I mean, there's no individual thinkers in the Republican Party that say what you just said, Sean, that say, hey, listen, we've got to stand up and we've got to go forward on this.
	What's going on with this spygate stuff?
	The Republicans should be going nuts about this brand new congressman that just stepped in to this field of career should be going ballistic, saying, I will not work under an environment where we may be spied on.
	But you're not hearing that from anybody.
	And that's because we don't yet know.
	But it's because their allegiance is to two political private organizations and not to the American people and not to the office of the United States.
	This whole thing, this whole thing that's happening today, the nuclear option, what I find so astounding, you don't have to be a political science genius to know that this is not a good strategy on the part of the Democrats.
	I've been squawking about this on my show for weeks.
	This is not an intelligent strategy.
	You know what?
	There is, what, at least a 75 or 25 percent chance that we're going to get to the last year of this president's term, and that's going to be when he needs to pick a justice, right?
	I would have loved to have heard the Republicans explain why it's okay to do it in that year when it wasn't okay when it was another president.
	Now, because you chose to fight over a nominee who is getting approved, it was always clear he's going on the Supreme Court.
	All they're doing is playing to the base.
	They aren't doing their job.
	No.
	Aren't you worried at the admission of unmasking the contradiction of what's her name?
	Farkas.
	No, Price.
	The other name.
	She's still on Farkas.
	She's still on that.
	By the way, did you ever get a lawyer up?
	I'm not going to answer the question.
	Did you ever get it?
	Come on.
	I mean, her talking.
	Did she know that I was actually trying to help her?
	I told her.
	I don't want Farkas.
	I actually told her you were.
	She's in trouble, dude.
	She's in big trouble.
	She is being very capably represented.
	So you got Susan Rice out there, and she's out there.
	You know, now we learned from Sarah Carter today that, in fact, they're looking into the personal lives of people.
	This has nothing to do with Russia.
	Except you guys are, you're getting as ahead of the story as the other side of the world.
	No, we're not.
	Well, let me tell you why you are.
	You know, as far as anything that we know, it is entirely possible that there's nothing to the Susan Rice story, and there's nothing.
	Susan Rice admitted she unmasked it.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	She admitted surveillance.
	It's illegal.
	It's illegal when you leak it.
	If she leaks something, but she's the NSA director's short.
	It happened to General Flynn.
	Hold on.
	John.
	But we don't know who leaked it.
	It's also illegal if you are read into a program and then you take that information and then you give it to somebody else in the government.
	Yeah, that's the only thing that we don't know that she did.
	Why did Farkas need to know this?
	See, I don't think she had any.
	Well, hold on a second.
	You say I'm sure.
	We're talking about Rice.
	Well, you can't talk about Rice without talking about her and everybody else.
	Because the information that Rice unmasked is the same information that Farkas is talking about.
	So in that case, it got disseminated.
	No, I mean, you're making a very big leap there.
	You may get there at some point, but we're not there yet.
	To me, it's not a significant thing.
	We went from two weeks ago to she's no, I know nothing.
	Remember, Sergeant Shelton was talking about it.
	I know nothing.
	Right, remember?
	Yes.
	And then we got to, oh, yeah, a surveillance took place.
	Oh, yeah.
	I did a masking of Trump people.
	That is not.
	And now by the way, Sarah Carter has gotten everything right to this point.
	Now she's saying they're going after the personal lives of individuals, which means and proves it was weaponizing the intelligence community.
	All you guys have to do is stay right there.
	We'll wrap things up.
	Get to your calls in the next half hour.
	News Roundup Information Overload.
	Rick Unger and Jonathan Gillum.
	Straight ahead.
	Hannity Headline.
	A bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines.
	Go to Hannity.com.
	As we continue, Rick Unger and Jonathan Gillum staying with us.
	News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
	All right, so what I'm trying to understand is why you aren't more upset that we now know your friend Evelyn Farkas said it.
	She admitted that there was surveillance on masking.
	She's talking about, let's get it to our friends, our colleagues on the Capitol on Capitol Hill.
	Well, that would sound to me, and I'm not an attorney, but that sounds to me like leaking intelligence.
	See, that's my problem.
	I am an attorney.
	And that's why you haven't heard me screaming about President Trump and his people collaborating with somebody from overseas.
	Because I haven't seen any evidence to prove that yet.
	And I haven't seen any evidence to prove that Susan Rice did anything wrong.
	When I see evidence on either, both, or none.
	What about what she's admitting?
	What about what she's admitting to and how she contradicted what she said two weeks ago?
	Because she didn't, you know, that's not fair.
	What she said two weeks ago was not in response to the statement.
	Play the beginning of her two weeks ago when she says she knows nothing.
	Well, play the whole thing.
	I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Eunice.
	I know nothing about this.
	That's not very useful without the question that she's answering.
	All right, but she's talking about the very specific issue.
	By the way, if I sit here and I go, I know, am I guilty?
	But then she goes on to NBC and she admits she knew everything about it.
	But she didn't say she knew nothing to this stuff.
	The very thing she's saying she knew nothing about.
	No, you know, the question.
	Let's look in the context of how, and I hate to say these initials, but CNN has covered this, and like John Lemon, for instance.
	If, you know, sometimes when the cops roll up on a scene and there's a dead body there, there's no evidence.
	And so they have to do an investigation.
	That's right.
	They don't just assume that nothing has happened here and that the person just died in the future.
	I'm all for an investigation.
	Well, according to the mainstream media and a lot of these people on the left, we should just let this go.
	There's no evidence here.
	That's why, when you say the things that you say, you have to be very careful with that because there is more circumstantial evidence here.
	When we look at Farkas, when we look at Susan Rice, you do see that they were moving around information that was unmasked by Susan Rice.
	Wait, let's just set a few things straight there.
	Number one, I'm not CNN.
	I'm telling you what I see.
	I have always been mistrustful of circumstantial evidence, and I apply the same to Mr. Trump's situation, right?
	Show me evidence.
	I have no objection whatsoever to an investigation of that.
	None whatsoever.
	You got a question, it should be investigated.
	And if the investigation turns up evidence that she or anybody in the previous administration did anything wrong, go get him.
	The problem is the people who are going to be doing the investigations, one, don't want to, it's half of them are establishment from the GOP, and they don't like Trump.
	The other half are Democrats who hate Trump.
	So see, this is why we need an outside investigation.
	You can't be responsible for that.
	I know.
	And I'm all for an independent investigation.
	That's why I think James Comey.
	It's the Republicans that won't let that happen.
	I think James Comey should be fired, and I think a lot of people.
	How do you fire him?
	He's got a 10-year term.
	Well, you ask him to resign.
	You have to ask him to resign, but you also can look and see if he's done malpractice of his job, and then you can ask.
	See, listen, my take is very clear, and I think what we see unfolding before our eyes is going to be much deeper than Watergate ever was.
	And that is, we are now weaponized and politicized intelligence gathering in the country.
	That is the beginning of a police state.
	As a liberal, you should be on my side about this.
	I'm on your side once I know that it happened.
	But I just.
	You're presuming it happened, and I'm not making you.
	I'm citing Fox News' report from yesterday that says they literally look, Peter King said, this information is about people's everyday lives.
	We've got to let you both go.
	By the way, I love having you both in the studio.
	Good to see you both.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Aiden is always fun.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	We know you never want to miss the Sean Hannity show.
	And now you never have to.
	Just sign up for Hannity Headlines, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you on your laptop, your mobile phone, everywhere you go, even to your liberal-in-law's place in Vermont.
	So, yeah.
	And after a few hours of that, you'll be glad you brought Sean along.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	All right, 25 now to the top of the hour.
	We'll get to your calls here in just a minute.
	I want to update you on the story.
	Remember, this 14-year-old girl forced into a bathroom stall, repeatedly and brutally raped in Rockville High School in Maryland by two illegal alien teenagers.
	And those accused, one of which had a pending deportation order, were 17, 18 years old.
	But under the district sanctuary policy, they were placed in ninth grade in a detailed and gruesome account of this rape we have talked about in detail.
	And this local national outrage about this is a group called that has put a petition together called Stand United, calling for the superintendent Jack Smith to reverse the sanctuary policies there.
	And I wanted to get an update on this.
	And the senior campaign organizer for Stand United is Angela Morbito's with us.
	Angela, how are you?
	Hi, Sean.
	I'm doing well.
	Well, explain to me, obviously, did you see that the lawyers for these two illegal immigrants are claiming that this was consensual sex with the 14-year-old girl?
	What are the laws in Maryland as it relates to statutory rape?
	What are the age consent laws?
	Well, you know, I'm definitely not an expert on those, but I can tell you that, you know, there is no, none of that supposed to be happening inside a school, let alone during school hours when you have two people who are perpetrating this, who dragged her into a bathroom stall.
	They're 17 and 18.
	She's 14.
	There are so many layers here of how this is illegal.
	Okay, so now, what is your petition calling for?
	That they stop being a sanctuary city or?
	So our petition asks the school superintendent to come up with a policy that at least looks into the background of new students who are enrolling in school.
	Montgomery County Public Schools right now has a policy where anyone can show up and be allowed into their public schools, no questions asked about their background.
	In fact, that's why these two suspects were considered freshmen.
	They had come across the border in 2016.
	They had no educational records.
	And instead of asking why not, the school just said, okay, great, I guess you're a freshman.
	That's pretty unbelievable to me.
	You know, I just don't understand the thinking and the mindset that, you know, this is one of my biggest arguments has been nobody realizes that we're spending billions and billions and billions of dollars a year on education, on health care, the criminal justice system.
	And that is not even the most devastating impact of illegal immigration.
	Then you have people that are competing for jobs at lower wages, so that puts Americans out of work.
	Then you've got those people that commit crimes.
	I've given the statistics when I sat through a briefing down, a security briefing down in Texas with then Governor Rick Perry, 642,000 crimes, including murders and rapes against Texans just in a seven-year period of time.
	I was stunned and shocked.
	And, you know, here we have an incident where you have people in the country illegally and you have a sanctuary city policy.
	And then you have the 18 and 17-year-old kids in with 13, 14-year-old kids in school, and a rape happens, and then they claim it's consensual.
	It just doesn't make any sense to me.
	This whole story is just so sad and so tragic that now you have a 14-year-old girl whose life has been changed forever because nobody, none of the adults who were supposed to be educating her and at least keeping her safe while she's in school every day, because none of them thought to ask questions of men.
	Well, one of the men was an adult.
	The other one is 17, so just shy of the age of majority.
	No one asked them any questions.
	And you think about how something like this happens.
	And the bureaucracy in place failed this girl at every level.
	Unbelievable.
	All right.
	Well, thank you for the update.
	And if people want to sign your petition, where do they go to it?
	You can check us out at standunited.org or on Facebook at StandUnited Petitions.
	We hope that you will sign this petition.
	It's going to go to the school superintendent.
	And we're looking forward to getting a policy in place to make sure this never happens again.
	All right.
	Thanks, Angela, for all you're doing.
	We really appreciate it.
	Thanks for the update.
	800-941 Sean.
	Toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program?
	Kimberly is in Idaho.
	Kimberly, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Glad you are with us.
	Hi, how are you doing, Sean?
	I'm good.
	How are you today?
	I am in shock.
	What's the matter?
	I mean, well, the thing that I also just realized Was that you were part of you were partly surveilled along with I can't remember the gentleman's first name, but last name was Prince.
	Yeah, Eric Prince.
	Listen, I read the stories.
	I've been very clear on Twitter.
	I have not been able to confirm, although I have my sources looking into it.
	I have not been able to confirm or corroborate that I was surveilled or unmasked as, you know, all these stories, I mean, I've seen a number of them now all over the place.
	I've not been able to independently confirm that, but I am making it very clear that if, in fact, that did happen to me, and I consider it such a violation, because, look, there's no way that I was picked up in any incidental, legal, incidental surveillance.
	Because I don't know.
	No, but this is the thing that concerns me.
	As an American, we did not sign up for this.
	We did not sign up for a police state.
	No, we didn't.
	And we've had one liar after another in the Oval Office.
	Started with Clinton, then it went to George Bush, getting us into Iraq under false pretenses.
	Then it went to, you know, then it went to Obama.
	And it's ridiculous.
	It's out of hand.
	And I read this article that Hillary's plan for you and Barack Obama's plan for you, too, was that if Hillary won, that they were going to try to get you fired from Fox.
	I didn't see that.
	Where did you see that?
	I did not see that.
	It was an article.
	It was on Facebook about how Obama did not like you because you didn't paint him in a flattering light.
	Listen, all of that's true.
	from the kool-aid look nobody vetted him harder and but got to the truth of look i think i've been proven through the prism of history that i was dead on accurate even beyond my imagination as it relates to obama i I know he hated it.
	I mean, he mentioned me, you know, a dozen times and then was told by somebody to stop because I kept using every time he did it as a promo.
	And so, you know, my only answer to him is, listen, nothing surprises me.
	You know, you've got to remember, remember the secret police stories that Dick Morris used to tell about the Clintons?
	And then you've got the IRS being used.
	Now we've got confirmation.
	They've weaponized the intelligence community.
	I mean, this blockbuster discovery that they were more interested in getting into the private lives of individuals more than anything else.
	I'm not afraid of whatever they might have done to me, but listen, I will not stop.
	And I would do this just for the principle that no American, and if it happened, if it ever turned out it was me, that no American, because of their political point of view, should be surveilled and unmasked.
	And so if it if I ever get to confirm it and I have people looking, people that like me within the intelligence community are looking into it for me.
	If my source is ever.
	I'm glad because it's ridiculous.
	And the thing is, is I wish that Trump wouldn't have signed over our search histories to be released, you know?
	Yeah, listen, all of that is the beginning of a police state.
	Everything you're talking about is this is it.
	Now, if they want to embarrass me, intimidate me, silence me, that's not going to happen.
	And I'm willing to.
	And I'm so glad.
	I love watching your show, and I love how hard-hitting you are toward these.
	Listen, I make a lot of enemies.
	I'm not surprised.
	I mean, I have for years assumed that my tax returns are gone over with a fine-tooth comb.
	And percentage-wise, even my own accountant says to me, what are you doing?
	You know, you really should be taking these deductions.
	And my next question is, is it going to likely trigger an audit?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Leave it in.
	Just don't take it because it's not worth it to me to be the target.
	And even with those protections that I've put in place, I still get attacked by them.
	I'm dealing with a case right now with the IRS, and it's ridiculous.
	And it's absolutely ridiculous what they're trying to look at here.
	But, you know, this is my - this goes with the territory.
	A lot of good things.
	I get to meet nice people like you.
	I get to talk to great Americans like you.
	And I am not shy about expressing my political views.
	I just don't know the answer.
	I can't give a - I don't know.
	I can't confirm.
	I have my sources looking.
	And if I get an answer, I promise I will be forthcoming.
	But I have not been able to confirm it.
	And I keep reading the same things that you're reading.
	And I'm not surprised at all to see it, to be perfectly blunt.
	Brian is in New York City, the all-new AM710, W-O-R, the talk of New York, New Jersey, Long Island.
	How are you, sir?
	Hi, Sean.
	You're doing a great job.
	I got to tell you, I love your show.
	Thank you, sir.
	You and Mark Levin are doing.
	It's great stuff.
	God bless us.
	My question is: Devin Nunes knew about the unmasking back in January.
	I understand.
	Why is it that James Comey came before Congress and he didn't really suggest that they were investigating these intelligence leaks?
	Now, where is he?
	All this is coming out on Susan Rice.
	Where is James Comey in this whole charade?
	It's a really good question.
	I mean, it bothers me that he acknowledges one type of investigation that's going on, the Russia investigation.
	When asked about the felony committed with the intelligence leaking, he just has nothing to say about it.
	And his answer is the standard.
	Well, we don't talk about potential or ongoing investigations.
	And why did you just five minutes ago start talking about the, quote, Russia investigation, even though we all know there's no evidence up until this point?
	So I fear, actually, that Comey may have been politicized now.
	I don't know the guy, and the way he's acting is kind of bizarre, unpredictable.
	I'm not sure why he's doing the things he's doing.
	And it's troublesome to me, especially in light of the seriousness in what we know about surveillance of a presidential candidate, a president-elect, his transition team, and now the new discovery that they're looking into the personal lives of all these people, nothing to do with any real national security investigation.
	That means we have weaponized our intelligence community.
	And that's a very, very dangerous position for the United States of America to be in.
	Anyway, Brian, good call, sir.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	Let's say hi to Shannon in Florida.
	Shannon, hi.
	How are you?
	And we're glad you called.
	Hi, how are you?
	Thank you so much.
	I've been listening to you for a while.
	And I'm telling you, Sean, you have a real chance.
	I'm so telling you.
	You keep screaming and telling us, and I believe you, and I want to believe you, but you keep saying how you want to keep everybody accountable and hold everybody, and you have a chance.
	We have to prove you guilty.
	You don't have to prove it.
	Nail them to the wall, Sean.
	You have a chance.
	If they're surveilling you, make them prove that they're not.
	Well, listen, I'm going to be very judicious, very cautious, but also very thorough.
	No, they're not being cautious.
	Well, but the thing is.
	Well, because I believe in the rule of law.
	I mean, in other words, just because I read something doesn't mean I necessarily believe it.
	Now, somebody somewhere in the intelligence community clearly, in my opinion, leaked that this happened.
	That's my take on it.
	But I've not been able to independently corroborate or confirm this.
	So all I'm doing is due diligence.
	I'm using every insider source I have trying to get to the answer.
	And as of now, I can't confirm or corroborate anything at all has happened that is inappropriate.
	I can't confirm I've been surveilled.
	I can't confirm I've been unmasked.
	I don't know.
	Am I worried about it?
	A lot of people, look, I really appreciate it.
	A lot of people are writing me worried for me because they see it as such an invasion of privacy.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm telling all my friends, I'm not worried.
	I don't care.
	You know, there's nothing they can do to hurt me.
	And then there's not, look, you can't.
	You will discover that I curse a lot more than you think I do.
	Oh, no, I believe you.
	But here, think about this.
	You have a team.
	They make phone calls for you all the time.
	I know they do because you're a very busy person.
	So how do you know your team wasn't surveilled?
	It's not fair to them that you aren't taking up the staff and saying, okay, if you're going to do this to me, if somebody leaked this.
	By the way, if they ever surveilled Linda, I mean, it would be, it would be, every word would have to be bleeped.
	It would never get me.
	I begin every phone call with hello, the NSA, and then I continue.
	And then you continue.
	By the way, I do that a lot too.
	I've been doing it for years.
	But that's okay.
	You've got to think about what you.
	I'm challenging you to put your money where your mouth is.
	You want to hold them accountable?
	Do it.
	Listen, I promise you this.
	If I ever do confirm, and I don't know where this is going, I really, and to be honest, I'm so focused on my job, it's not been top of mind for me.
	I'm very honest here.
	I've got friends.
	I've got friends, some of the, you know, them.
	Joe DeGenova, Jay Seculo.
	I have, these guys have already agreed to represent me because that would be cause for civil action.
	And that means I'd be able to depose every single person involved in any surveillance of me or any unmasking of me.
	And by the way, I promise one thing.
	If it happened, if it turns out it's true, I will not stop.
	Every one of them will be deposed under oath, and I will chase this down to the to the, I'll squeeze every bit of truth I could get out of these people.

▲