Sean Hannity Show - North Korean Threats - 4.17

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 18, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:35:58

North Korean Threats - 4.17

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 My Pillow premiums and two go anywhere pillows.
	Now MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to MyPillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090 promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two go anywhere pillows for 40% off, and that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	MyPillow.com, promo code Hannity, you will love this pillow.
	All right, happy Monday on what is a very busy week for us and a busy newsday today.
	Obviously, our top story is we've got Kim Jong-un, you know, vowing a weekly missile launch.
	It may very well be that the United States was able to cyberattack and dud out his attack is his missile launch this weekend, which is very entertaining.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	Uh we have the Berkeley I hate Trump lunatics out there.
	They're getting nuttier by the day.
	All the bizarre snowflakes.
	We'll get to that.
	I don't really know what's going on with the palace intrigue and who's in and who's out.
	I'm trying to get as much information from different sources.
	I'm getting conflicting reports.
	And uh we'll hit that today.
	We got the president's approval rating hitting fifty percent, as uh former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas once confessed that the media bias usually counts for at least fifteen points and Democratic unfavorability ratings, which means I guess it hurts Republicans by the same fifteen points if you use the numbers.
	But anyway, Rasmussen has Trump at fifty fifty percent, and uh that's pretty interesting to watch.
	Watch, did anyone hear newsbusters picked it up?
	Nobody else heard this.
	George Stephanopoulos actually said when the Hollywood reporter speaking to these news anchors.
	First of all, why anyone considers George Stephanopoulos anything other than a Clinton hack is beyond any comprehension to me.
	I mean, he is a radical Clinton sycophant.
	Period end of sentence.
	He has been and remains.
	Anyway, so he they were, I guess speaking of these quote, news anchors, phony news anchors, fake news anchors, fake edited news anchors, and so on and so forth from all the major networks in a discussion about what the role of the journalist was in today's day and age.
	Now I didn't see that they were asking questions about Obama's radicalism, his buddy Bill Ayers and everything that we were able to unveil prior to 2008.
	They didn't do the vetting of Obama.
	They never told America how Obama's leftist statist policies failed and failed dramatically, which led to the election of Trump.
	Anyway, so he goes out there and he says and argued that it it was the journalist's job to report the truth and silence viewpoints that didn't accept reality.
	So now they don't even want to put conservatives on.
	He said, I'm sure there's always two sides to every story, Stefan Abbas says.
	I think actually one of the challenges we're dealing with right now, how do you contend with a situation where we know there's a truth and we know there's a false, and one side is trying to say, no, there's actually two sides to this.
	Okay.
	Well, what are you gonna do?
	Then he goes on to say, you know, at what point does a White House, a member of Congress, a senator that refuses to accept reality?
	At what point do you say you're not allowed to come on anymore and broadcast that reality?
	There's not another side to certain questions.
	It's not serving our viewers to allow people to come on and say things at some point that are not true.
	You mean like keep your doctor, keep your care, save on average $2,500 per family per year?
	Was that George?
	Did you ever call that what it is a lie?
	Well, did you ever call out Obama for any of the lies that he told?
	Anything?
	I don't think you did.
	All right, let us start with um the ratcheting up.
	We have North Korea now vowing after their failed ICBM missile launch, uh, now vowing that they're gonna have a weekly missile launch.
	Well, after the dud this weekend, it might be entertaining TV, must see TV to see if it actually gets off the ground next time.
	But and then they're saying there could be a nuclear war at any moment.
	Now, the vice president has declared an end to what he called a policy of strategic patience on North Korea during a surprise visit to the demilitarized zone on his trip to South Korea.
	He said the era of strategic patience is over.
	And he said President Trump has made it clear that the patience of the United States and our allies in this region has run out, and we want to see change, and we want to see North Korea abandon their reckless path of the development of nuclear weapons and also its continual use and testing of ballistic missiles is unacceptable.
	Here's the problem.
	This gets very complicated.
	Bill Clinton paved the way so that North Korea now has nuclear weapons.
	And every time the North Koreans would demand this or that or saber rattle and say they're going to start nuclear weapons, in would come Bill Clinton and say, No, no, no, don't do it.
	I'll tell you what I'll do.
	I'll give you billions of dollars.
	You just got to promise to be good North Koreans, and you don't, you know, Kim Jong mentally ill, I can't just promise me you won't do anything bad, and I'll give you all of these concessions.
	Before I take your questions, I'd like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallushi signed this morning.
	Uh-huh.
	This is a good deal for the United States.
	Yeah, so good.
	North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program.
	South Korea and our other allies will be better protected.
	The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.
	South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing.
	And they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
	The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.
	Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.
	Well, he did so well and promised so much, just like Obama said, Oh, we got rid of, after I drew the red line on the sand, Syria got rid of their chemical weapons.
	Lie.
	Bill Clinton said there, oh, we just made a great deal for the United States.
	They're not going to get nuclear weapons.
	Now they have nuclear weapons.
	Now the United States has to contend with a mentally unfit loser in North Korea that has these weapons and is trying to get intercontinental ballistic missile capability to add to it, which means they could reach the continental United States.
	Now we've got ourselves a hell of a position to be in.
	And now the president is saying, all right, well, what do we do?
	Do we try and stop this guy before he has the capability of reaching the United States of America?
	Then you risk entire unrest in the region.
	What happens to South Korea?
	South Korea probably gets blown off the map.
	Where's China in all of this?
	You know, it's so amazing to watch people like Stephanopoulos and all these idiots on television, all over MBC, read the New York Times, read the Washington Post.
	They are so dumb, they have no clue what happened with the president of China meeting President Trump.
	You know, nobody reported that they were only supposed to meet alone for about a half hour on two separate occasions.
	And each time it went about three, three and a half hours as they sat there alone.
	Nobody's reported.
	Oh, there's a lot of well, he broke his promise about labeling China a currency manipulator.
	Well, it's called the art of the deal, and the president and got concessions on trade.
	Nobody noticed that that the Chinese are now trying to help.
	This is their region of the world.
	North Korea is their neighbor, and that they're pressuring North Korea as it relates to they just sent back a whole shipment of coal that was coming from North Korea to China and imported American coal.
	Nobody noticed that they themselves put troops, about 150,000 troops in the region as a sign of force, as a show of force against North Korea.
	Nobody seems to have noticed that the Chinese also said that they're going to make trade concessions to the U.S., and nobody seems to have noticed that there appears to be a new potential alliance that could be a great could show great potential for peace, especially as it relates to the power that China has over Kim Jong-un in North Korea.
	And that that's not a bad thing considering it's their problem more than our problem.
	Good grief, people are stupid.
	You know, I mean, we had a rigid radical ideologue that never had the end of the era of big government is over or the end of welfare as we know it, or a sister soldier moment, as we say.
	You know, but this is it's it's getting ratcheted up in terms of what's being said here.
	And not only do you have the vice president's comments, but then you have Lieutenant General McMaster was on ABC this weekend, he said it's clear the president is determined not to allow this missile capability or the capability of nuclear weapons married to the nukes they have to threaten the United States, and that the president would take action if it's in the best interest of the American people.
	Well, now what the hell do you do?
	Now the Clinton allowed them to get nuclear weapons, and he said, Well, we've just made we made a deal that's going to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.
	We're going to hold them accountable.
	Okay, they have nuclear weapons.
	Another bad deal.
	Just like Obama said, Oh, my red line in the stand stopped the Syrians from holding on to their chemical weapon arsenal.
	Well, that didn't happen either.
	Just like Obama's claiming that his ridiculous Iranian deal is going to somehow stop the mullahs in Iran from building nuclear weapons.
	Once you marry nuclear weapons with intercontinental ballistic missiles, you have a prescription for worldwide disaster.
	Now you can argue that Hannity, well, we never thought the Russians would, you know, during the height of the Cold War, there was always the danger that they could have fired their missiles at us and mutually assured destruction.
	You can make that argument, but do you really want to take the chance with somebody, a mullah in Iran that thinks that Allah is guiding them to fire those weapons and that death is a is a blessing to them and it represents a chance at 72 virgins.
	I don't think I want to take that chance.
	Or somebody, you know, if you look at the dynasty, the uh in in North Korea, there's a hundred and five year history of the world there.
	And it starts with the grandfather of Kim Jong un, Kim Jong sung.
	And then Kim Jong il.
	Now it's Kim Jong un.
	So there's only a hundred and five year history that the North Koreans know about.
	It's ridiculous.
	That's when their history, that's when the world starts for them.
	A hundred and five years ago.
	So McMasters are saying, well, the president's gonna do.
	How does the president thread this needle?
	I know we're sending, you know, a fleet to the region.
	I I I'm I am certain Kim Jong-un would like nothing else than to get into some type of military conflict with the United States.
	And I do believe he's capable of killing millions in South Korea, millions in Japan.
	You know, just take out a look of the map.
	And there you got North Korea, and you got China, then you got South Korea and Japan, and they're all sitting there in the same area.
	It's not good.
	And the United States will get dragged into this.
	Anyways, we have uh there was some good news over the weekend.
	You got a former top British official who served in the cabinets of Margaret Thatcher and John Major said it's likely that the Trump administration caused Kim Jong-un's missile test failure on Sunday.
	That would be really good news if true.
	We'll probably never know about it until books are written years from now.
	But anyway, he claimed American intelligence has used cyber warfare to successfully foil missile tests before, and that there's a strong belief that President Trump's administration was behind the North Korean failed missile launch over the weekend.
	He was speaking on BBC, and he said it could have failed because the system is not competent enough to make it work, but there's a very strong belief that the U.S. through cyber methods has been successful on several occasions in interrupting these sorts of tests and making them fail.
	That would be good if in fact that were true.
	So we have one Trump advisor, the Trump administration.
	They're not even they're not willing to confirm or deny it.
	They're refusing to deny It outright that the cyber attack was done deliberately by the U.S. And well, you know, we can't talk about secret intelligence and things that might have been done.
	Uh covert operations, KT McFarland said on Fox News Sunday.
	Well, that's a good sign that we might have done that.
	Now, North Korean troops are privately referring to Kim Jong-un as mentally unstable and a mental patient, and Kim Jong un revealed that he has missiles that can reach the United States, the continental United States.
	So this is obviously topic A for the next coming weeks.
	Now we're going to be headed to Israel later this week.
	I'll tell you more about that as the show unfolds today.
	800 941 Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
	Hannity Headlines.
	A bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you.
	Anywhere you go.
	Sign up today for Hannity Headlines.
	Go to Hannity.com.
	The mistake is appeasement.
	Look, that was the mistake that Obama made with chemical weapons in Syria.
	Red line drawn in the sand, claiming a victory, taking a victory.
	Oh, we got rid of his chemical weapons because we drew a red line in the sand and did nothing.
	It never made sense.
	And I said from the very get go that in the lead up to the war with Iraq, there were all these convoys going into Syria.
	And as I suspected, it looks like those chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein had was sent to Syrian President Assad.
	And by the way, I'm not the only person that believes that.
	James Clapper said so himself.
	So that's where I think they all came from.
	Now you let the Iranians now are pursuing nuclear weapons and nuclear capability with a passion.
	You got the North Koreans because of Clinton appeasement.
	They got nuclear weapons.
	Now they're trying to get intercontinental ballistic missile technology so that they can marry them together and hit the continental United States.
	And now Trump is left with the mess of what the hell you do.
	And as we speak, we've got more aircraft carriers headed towards the Korean peninsula.
	You've got Kim bringing a special forces out and talking about nuclear war at any moment.
	And, you know, as one buddy, somebody described it, it's like the Cuban Missile Crisis now in slow motion.
	And what is what are the options here?
	I don't see a lot of good options for the United States.
	Now, this is more of a China problem than it is is a U.S. problem.
	It's China's neighbor, it's not our neighbor.
	And the problem is, you know, hopefully by Trump not labeling China a currency manipulator, which got the media all up, worked up in arms this weekend.
	But he did get trade concessions.
	China did put troops on the Korean border.
	And also we've got China now buying their coal from the U.S. and saying they're going to have concessions on trade.
	You know, there's got to be a little give and take in the art of the deal.
	Although that's a little bit over the head of our friends in the liberal news media.
	The problem is that, you know, we ought to take a lesson and a page when the Israelis, and we'll be in Israel later this week.
	I'll tell you why later.
	We're going to be in Israel later this week, but when the Israelis took out the Iraqi nuclear sites, there was worldwide condemnation.
	But it turned out to be a good thing.
	Similarly, it was one of the best military operations where you had Israeli aircraft flying under the radar of Syria and literally taking out their sites.
	And very few people covered it.
	Now it seems like there's going to have to be a coalition built to take out Iranian nuclear sites.
	But I don't know what you do with North Korea when you've got Kim Jong-un that's willing to take out millions of South Koreans and however many millions more that he can drag into this mess.
	We'll explain when we come back.
	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-laws' place in Vermont.
	So 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 till the top of the hour.
	This is pretty interesting.
	If Kim Jong-un orders his military To launch any type of nuclear strike on the U.S. or elsewhere.
	I don't believe, nor do I think intelligence believes that he has ICBM capability, although he's trying really, really hard to get it.
	But if he does, according to the UPI in a report out of Pyongyang this morning, a significant portion of the North Korean military thinks that Kim Jong un is child a childless mental patient.
	Those are their words, not ours.
	Members of North Korea's Second Army Corps have been placed under arrest for mocking the North Korean dictator.
	Now remember, he killed his brother.
	He killed his uncle, killed a bunch of other family members.
	He's obviously a paranoid despot.
	Anyway, news of Cadres of Second Army Corps slanding Kim Jong un reached all the way the people's People's Army's General Political Bureau and the arrested individuals are severely punished.
	They arrested them for saying he's mentally unbalanced.
	I guess I could be arrested if I go to North Korea.
	Anyway, the group had compared Kim Jong-un to a kindergartner, a joke that began to spread covertly across the military unit.
	Other soldiers referred to Kim as a mental patient in their jokes, and he's so unpopular among the military that another joke suggesting that North Korean lead leader is more outrageous than Kim Jong il and the father Kim Il sung combined refers to Kim Squared.
	That's insane, but that's what's going on.
	Anyway, while this is all going on, the nut job that he is unveiled the new missile during this big parade on Saturday, but they don't show any capability at this point of actually having ICBM capability, but they're working towards it.
	And this one looks like it has the capability of reaching the United States, the continental United States, but you know, the two-hour long military parade that also went on this weekend at the heart of those celebrations featured what appeared to have three intercontinental ballistic missiles.
	One of those ICBMs was previously unknown to analysts.
	It was hidden from view, carried in a canister on a mobile launcher.
	If the missile in fact exists, some believe the canister could have been empty.
	It clearly has a long range.
	And according to the Korean defense network, they say it has a range of 3,700 miles.
	Others, however, think it can go further.
	The canister resembles the one that's used for China's D F 31 missile, which can travel at least 5,000 miles downrange.
	If this one has a similar capability, then if launched from North Korea, it could reach some of the lower 48 American states.
	Now, you know, while Gordon Chang notes, and this was in the Daily Beast, that Kim's post-parade missile test crashed and burned on the launching pad, that may actually be bad news for America and its allies because he's saying Kim may have to do something we consider horrible if he wants to remain in power, and his rule looks increasingly unstable since the end of January.
	There have been various incidents suggesting trouble at the top of the regime, so a humiliating episode like what happened this weekend on Sunday could tip it over the edge.
	And on Friday, David Albright at the Institute for Science and International Security issued a report stating that Kim may have had up to 30 nukes at the end of 2016 and the industrial infrastructure to build more at a very fast clip.
	And Kim looks pretty defiant, and Washington has been issuing warnings.
	And uh in the days leading up to the quote, day of sun celebration, which took place this past Saturday, and so has Beijing.
	Beijing seems to now be leaning towards aligning with us at this point more than North Korea, and I think they're getting a little sick and tired of the instability created in their region by Kim Jong un.
	Anyway, so the missile tests suggest, among other things, that Kim feels he can ignore the stern Chinese lectures delivered through various means, including the Global Times and the nationalist tabloid controlled by the Communist Party of China, threatened restricting the flow of oil to Kim among other measures.
	So if Kim, in fact, thinks that he can safely defy Beijing, he may at this point, as a practical practical matter, be uncontrollable for everybody.
	You know, but it just raises so many different questions.
	You know, how did we get To this point, you might ask is how did we ever allow?
	I played in the last half hour.
	Bill Clinton swear we are this is a great deal for the United States.
	We're gonna stop them from getting nuclear weapons.
	It was a great deal.
	Yeah.
	Well, as a result, they got nuclear weapons.
	And he struck a deal with Kim Jong-un's father, Kim Jong-il.
	And if you go back to the newspaper reportings that the trial at the time, the U.S. agreed to give North Korea four billion dollars in emergency aid over the course of a decade.
	In exchange, North Korea was freezing and eventually ending their nuclear weapons program.
	And as part of the deal, North Korea would allow inspectors into their nuclear sites.
	By the way, doesn't this sound just like Iran?
	It is.
	Iran is North Korea redux.
	It's just the same thing.
	Anyway, so that's what the that's what the deal was supposed to be.
	Supposed to allow inspectors.
	They were supposed to stop the nuclear weapons program.
	And they'd the you know, they would also be allowed to keep those nuclear fuel rods.
	That was the big discussion at the time, which could be used to make weapons for an unspecified number of years.
	Even the New York Times was suspicious of that part of the deal.
	The New York Times at the time wrote the provision means that the potential that North Korea could break its agreement and quickly produce nuclear weapons will not disappear until the end of the decade.
	Well, those fears didn't stop Bill Clinton from praising the agreement, as we played for you earlier, and it didn't take long for North Korea to move away from the agreement.
	They got the billions of dollars, and in 1998, Pyongyang fired a long-range missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean.
	And by 2006, they had conducted their first nuclear test.
	And then under Obama, we saw an explosion in dangerous and threatening activity from North Korea.
	You saw varying nuclear missile tests, largely ignored by the Obama administration.
	And if that sounds similar to the disastrous one struck with the radical mullahs in Iran, it is.
	It's exactly the same thing.
	The exact same appeasement mistakes, just like the red line in Syria led to the Syrians and Assad giving up chemical weapons.
	How many times do we got to be we get dragged through this stupidity as a country?
	It's kind of pathetic, but it's true.
	All right, we'll get back to this.
	New Kingrich joins us at the uh top of the next hour.
	We'll get his take on all this.
	We got other news that's happening.
	Oh, by the way, I don't understand this.
	There's um you have a major taxpayer-funded public university awarding class credit to students who skip the final exam and attend Trump hating protests instead.
	I'd even do that for an A. If I didn't have to take the final exam and just show up and take a picture at a Trump rally anti-Trump rally, I'd go to get an A in the class.
	Anyway, Arizona State University professor, Angelis Maldonado gave her class a choice last week.
	Take the final exam in our global politics of human rights class or come up with a group project instead.
	And the project was to protest Donald Trump's policies.
	Okay, let's go drink beer.
	We'll go to an anti-Trump rally, and we'll get an A in the course.
	Who wouldn't take that deal if you're a student?
	You'd be an idiot not to.
	Now we had the snowflakes out in force this weekend.
	I don't know if you noticed this, but it's kind of open season on Trump supporters and uh Moonbean Browns, California, after the weekend riot in Berkeley.
	It's clear police were ordered there not to interfere with the violent left-wing thugs as they descended on Trump supporters and trying to beat the living crap out of them.
	It's unbelievable.
	We want Trump's tax returns.
	As if it's relevant to any of our lives.
	North Korea is threatening nuclear war at any moment.
	And these snowflakes are out there committing acts of violence, and the police in California do nothing to stop it.
	Nothing.
	Violence broke out.
	These apparently this was happening all around the country.
	The same people that have been protesting since November the 9th.
	Here's some of the rhetoric from this weekend.
	It's also kind of all we have.
	show us your taxes you emotional child You like being a superficial bully?
	Here's one for you.
	You are a three at best.
	Have even tried to convince us that we're not really interested in seeing the documents.
	Do you want to see his taxes?
	Yeah!
	Do you want to see his taxes?
	Yeah!
	Do you want to see his taxes?
	Yeah!
	Mr. President, what you are putting forth is alternate facts!
	Data!
	Get down!
	We show our taxes in this data!
	Get down!
	We show our taxes in the house!
	Show me what democracy looks like!
	This is what democracy looks like!
	Show me what democracy looks like!
	This is what democracy!
	One, two, three, four!
	Chicken diet!
	One, two, three, four!
	We must say!
	It's very storm today!
	But we will not in there!
	All our rights!
	Must be protected!
	And who the hell?
	Do you think you are to hide me?
	And to treat us as though we are less than human!
	You work by Donald Trump!
	and the people united who never defeated Let me tell you.
	Now, what's the big deal about my taxes?
	Okay, since you guys are my supporters.
	This is a impersonator, by the way.
	Because this is between us.
	Okay?
	Don't let the protesters know what I'm gonna tell you.
	So what?
	I owe 50 million dollars to Deutsche Bank!
	Is a Trump impersonator at one of these rallies.
	But what you don't know is I know where all the Nazi gold is hidden in Switzerland.
	And I have it.
	And I have it.
	I have it.
	I have it.
	So wonderful.
	So let's release them, boys.
	Release the taxes.
	There we go.
	There we go.
	Releasing the taxes.
	I told Jared to shred my taxes.
	But I thought shred was Yiddish for Ko-A.
	And two are detractors that insist that this march will never add up to anything.
	F you.
	But this is the hallmark of revolution.
	Yes!
	I'm angry!
	Yes!
	I am outraged!
	Yes!
	I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House!
	I am a nasty woman!
	I'm nasty!
	Like my blood stains on my bed sheets!
	We don't actually choose if and when to have our periods, believe me, if we could, some of us would.
	We don't like throwing away our favorite pairs of underpants.
	Tell me why are tampons and pads still taxed when Viagra and Rogain are not is your erection really more than protecting the sacred messy part of my womanhood is the blood stain on my genes!
	More embarrassing than the thinning of your hair!
	I'm literally about to tell myself that I'm not kidding.
	You better make this right now!
	I literally am gonna die.
	I need an ambulance.
	The snowflake meltdown continues.
	I'm telling you, they're all on hinge, they're all out this weekend.
	20 arrested, eleven injured at Saturday's Patriots Day rally out in Berkeley.
	Berkeley cops sitting in their cars watching.
	How do cops sit in the cars as Mayhem breaks out like that?
	I know I'm just asking you guys, then you're here.
	I would defer you to our public information officer.
	I mean, let me defer you to our public information office.
	Um the con it's not their fault, they were ordered to stand down.
	They want to do their job, but they're not gonna get fired and go out and and stop it.
	Imagine if anybody like Rosie O'Donnell had suggested a 10-year-old kid of the president was autistic.
	Imagine if a Saturday night live writer had said about one of the Obama kids that you'd be f America's first homeschooler shooter.
	Imagine if you know a newspaper claimed that Melania Trump was a or in the case of Michelle Obama like they did with Melania was a prostitute.
	Imagine the Daily Show pushing the idea that Obama wanted to have sex with his daughter the way they did President Trump.
	Imagine Chelsea Handler attacking Eric Trump's unborn child or in the case of one of the Obama kids if there's a difference.
	You know, or or calling you know a ten year old kid a handsome date rapist to be or rapper saying he would pimp out the first lady of the United States if that was done in the years of the Obamas.
	What would be the reaction?
	Think about that.
	Hey, listen, Newt Gingrich weighs in on this North Korea problem when we get back and all the other news of the day.
	Newt Gingrich Right, hour two Sean Hannity show as things begin to ratchet up and the saber rattling begins.
	So many people don't seem to understand that this president, unlike our last radical ideological president, seems to have negotiation skills and the fact that he made a deal with China not to label them a currency manipulator on the one hand and they're making concessions on the other hand and as it relates to trade and they're taking a tough position on North Korea as they sent back North Korean coal and imported American coal.
	Uh it seems to just sort of graze over the eyes and ears of those that think they're so smart.
	So I think this is more of China's problem, North Korea, than it is America's problem.
	North Korea is now vowing to have a weekly missile launch and preparing for nuclear war at any moment.
	John McCain is out there doing what he does best criticizing the president.
	Here was him this weekend.
	I think he's partially right but I also believe there's a difference between being a candidate and having the the guy behind you with with the codes.
	With the codes second is I think that he is growing and he is listening to some very wise and intelligence people.
	And third of all I think he was deeply moved to those pictures of those children.
	Who wasn't who wasn't deeply moved uh by that we do not have and I I support what he did and I support the bunker buster bomb, but we've got to develop a strategy.
	There is still not an overall strategy that he can come to Congress and his advisors and say okay this is how we're gonna handle Syria.
	Here's how we're gonna handle uh postmos Iraq.
	Here's how we've got to have a strategy and uh give them some more time but so far that strategy is not apparent.
	Alright so he's saying the president has no strategy and he and Lindsay Graham it seems that there's not any conflict they don't want the United States in Donald Trump I think was true to his campaign promises, especially no occupation, no boots on the ground.
	He doesn't want to get involved in these foreign conflicts if at all possible although we have ships now moving uh off the coast of North Korea even as we speak.
	Joining us now former Speaker of the House New King Rich, Mr. Speaker, how are you?
	I'm doing well I think you summarized it pretty well you know first of all the general strategy is pretty clear.
	Uh like virtually every rational person Trump is worried about the North Korean drive to get combination of nuclear weapons and missiles that could reach the US including by the way submarine launch missiles.
	At the same time, he wants to minimize risk.
	He recognizes how dangerous...
	Particularly for s for the city of Seoul and for twenty five million South Koreans in our city, how dangerous North Korea is and apparently from everything I can tell the chemistry between the Chinese president and President Trump was just terrific and there was a genuine sense of uh liking each other,
	talking honestly with each other uh not that that solves everything but as Reagan discovered uh when he went for uh a walk in the woods with uh Gorbachev.
	Sometimes two leaders getting away from all their staffs and chatting uh the two of them together can have a decisive impact.
	You first saw it when the Chinese uh abstained from voting on the national the uh UN Security Council resolution over Syria, leaving Russia totally isolated by itself.
	Uh that was a big change from where the Chinese have been.
	I uh the Chinese but the Chinese have also begun to restrict the amount of coal they're buying from North Korea, and they've moved about a hundred and fifty thousand troops to the North Korean border.
	So there's some pattern being built here of Chinese American cooperation uh more than I can remember with any president since the North Korean nuclear program became a problem.
	Well, I agree.
	Now you talked about marrying up intercontinental ballistic missiles with the nuclear weapons they have.
	I think they have mid-range missiles now, but I think the goal is to keep America at bay by building these ICBMs and and also and also by building a submarine launch where you could actually have the submarine off our coast.
	Okay, so now we've got a problem and a decision to make here.
	Under Bill Clinton, every time the North Koreans blackmailed Bill Clinton, he gave in with the promise that they'd never build a nuclear weapon, it never worked.
	There was no amount of money or concessions that Clinton made to ever stop them.
	I don't think they're gonna stop with their ICBM pursuit either.
	So the question is, do you allow them to get to that point or you act preemptively, you act preemptively, you run the risk that that Japan or or Seoul or South Korea they're gonna they're gonna get hit with a nuclear weapon and millions will die.
	Right.
	And that's and that means that you first of all you you owe it to the people who are the most immediately at risk to really have in-depth conversation.
	And there's no accident that the Vice President of the United States uh has been in South Korea, and that they're having serious direct conversations.
	Uh and and uh and that he said in one of his public statements that that uh you know Kim Jong-un should not make the mistake of thinking that Donald Trump bluffs.
	Uh th there was a lot too, that simple comment, I think.
	Uh so start there and then you build out from that as far as I can tell.
	Uh you have um I think you you want to get the Chinese t to increase the pressure.
	I suspect that there's an active effort underway.
	I I have no secret information, but I suspect uh that there's an active effort underway between the Japanese, the South Koreans and the Chinese to see if there's a way to have a military coup uh and get rid of this guy and replace him with a with a military leader who would at least be rational,
	you know, and and and who and you could you could get to an agreement where you could have the United States and China and Japan and South Korea all agree to sign a treaty um that guaranteed that the North would survive in return for the North giving up their nuclear weapons.
	Now this guy's not going to do that.
	I mean, he's totally isolated, he's obviously pretty weird.
	Uh he just had his half-brother assassinated.
	Two months ago he killed one of his uncles.
	Uh, he recently shot five uh uh officers with an anti-aircraft gun.
	Um, you know, this is not your normal everyday negotiating position.
	But I suspect that there are efforts underway to increase the pressure uh and to look for the escape valve of seeing if they could find a way to foment a military coup to replace him.
	Well, it would be great, but what does this guy do on the way out the door?
	Does he go scorch dirt and launch everything in his power?
	I mean, that's also a risk.
	You know, it does raise a lot of questions here because you know your options are limited when you have a madman married to nuclear weapons.
	You're you're it's forget Sean.
	They've got maybe a hundred thousand missiles and artillery tubes within reach of Seoul.
	So even if you you don't have any nuclear weapons engaged, the amount of damage they would do we could take them out would be horrendous.
	And you can't ask the people of Seoul to run that kind of risk, uh, which could involve literally tens or twenties of thousands of of dead people.
	So there there seems to be a number of Realignments happening at once.
	I mean, in many ways you can thank Barack Obama by giving the Iranians this ridiculous nuclear deal, but but it did bring together Israel, the Saudis, all the Sunni nations, the Jordanians, the Egyptians.
	And on the other hand, I mean, President Trump was scheduled for a a 40 minute meeting with the President of China, it went on three and a half hours, and that happened twice, not once.
	And and all the things that we discussed happened.
	So there is a new alignment emerging there.
	From the standpoint, it was even worse than that.
	Remember, when we hit the Syrian airfield, the only countries that objected were North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia.
	I mean, how can you be m how can Moscow get more isolated than to be down to two rogue nations in a country that's cropping up?
	Well, I think um you see, I I mean, at this point, I don't even think the world would have the capability even in with the United Front, even the United States and the Chinese aligning against North Korea, I don't think we'd be able to get out all the nuclear sites anyway.
	I mean, and this then raises questions about you know preemptively striking Iran because I mean I'm even more afraid of radical Islamists married to nuclear weapons.
	Well, I think look, I'm equally afraid just because Kim Jong-un is so unstable.
	Totally uncreditful.
	And by the way, he cooperates with the Iranians.
	At one time he cooperated with the Syrians until the Israelis destroyed a reactor the North Koreans are built.
	Um he would, I think, cheerfully sell nuclear weapons to terrorists.
	Um, so I I think i there's there's not a whole lot to choose between uh Iranian religious fanatics and an and a guy who's a nutcase but has eight or ten or fifteen nuclear weapons.
	But I I think that what you're seeing and what Trump is trying to communicate with people like General Mattis and McMaster and others is that we are going to calmly and methodically do whatever it takes that we will probably next start moving a lot of anti-missile capability in the area.
	They'll probably also consult with the Israelis about the way they built the airndome uh to protect Israel from rockets, although they they tend to be um shorter range and slower rockets than we're I'm headed to Israel later this week.
	Do you want to come with me?
	Well, I'd like to, but I'm you know, do a few things here.
	But uh I would uh do you do you see this ratcheting up this week?
	I mean, with the North Koreans vowing a weekly missile launch, although it was pretty entertaining to watch the dud this weekend, but or look, and look, if if the truth is, I don't I don't know yet, because again, I don't know any secrets about this, but there are clear indications that we may have used uh cyber war to uh make sure that that missile is self-destructive.
	Well, there's all indications that we might have done that.
	Yeah.
	Well, if we're inside his systems and he so he gets to l he gets to launch one one missile a week that blows up.
	I I could live with that for a long time.
	I mean, I'd you know, you'd have the Saturday funnies.
	Let's all get together and watch Kim Jong-un have another missile fail.
	I mean, that would that would be okay.
	I'd probably increase blood pressure.
	When we come back, I want to ask you about the domestic policy agenda and the inability of the Republicans in the House to get a health care bill together, which is beyond frustrating.
	Henry Headline, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you.
	Sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.
	Joining us now, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
	Uh, my understanding is the Freedom Caucus that have been waiting for days for language on the waiver issue, which was the final issue for them, that their votes are going to be available.
	And uh where's the lack of urgency among where why is there a lack of urgency among leadership to get this done?
	I know for a fact the freedom caucus has not stopped working day and night since the day it failed.
	But I also think there's a uh a desire to make sure that if they get this thing uh packaged right and if they go through the right modifications, that everybody understands it going in, uh, and that they don't end up rushing back here to just fail again.
	Um this is a little bit like a balloon where you squeeze one end and the other end pops out.
	I mean, you know, they they've got to make sure if they do something that makes the freedom caucus happy, does it cost them more moderates than they gain on the other side?
	But I understand the Tuesday group and every other group was consulted as it relates to working out the issues involving the waiver.
	Here's my frustration.
	My frustration is after eight years, they didn't build consensus, nobody saw the bill, they allowed intramural fighting all over television.
	They look like the gang that can't shoot shoot straight.
	And it's beyond frustrating.
	How are we going to get two budgets done this year?
	How are we going to get health care done this year?
	How are we going to get the wall funded and ready to be built this year?
	And you know, and the tax cuts that were promised by the president, if they can't get their ass moving.
	I'm very frustrated if you haven't noticed.
	I can tell you're frustrated.
	All I can tell you is welcome to the American system.
	I mean, this is not a parliamentary body.
	Okay, but I watched you as speaker with all due respect, and you got an awful lot done in a hundred days.
	Why can't they?
	Yeah, yeah, but but that but then it took me 18 months to pass welfare reform.
	It took us two and a half years to pass the balanced budget.
	And I'm just saying, and I'm not trying to be in a to apologize for anyway.
	I've said I know personally, and you know that I've been involved in a lot of this, and I've had calls as recently as this morning, and I've been reaching out to every element of the party.
	Uh and and frankly, remember, do you think this deal is done?
	Is this is Dave Bratt is he right that this deal should be done by the end of the week?
	Well, it may be.
	I I would strongly oppose them coming back to vote this week.
	Why?
	Because, first of all, they they need to make sure that every single member understands what's in this bill before they vote on it.
	I mean, one of the read the read the various reports in town hall meetings where people can't explain the bill.
	That is pathetic.
	I agree.
	Yeah, well, it's I can tell you, having done it for a living one time, uh, it takes time.
	It takes time, you got to get people in a room.
	You annoy me when you're so calm and reasoned and peaceful persecution, peaceful perseverance.
	You call it is your old seat in jeopardy because he got a runoff going on there.
	Yeah, I'm I'm glad I'm glad you raised that now.
	But here's something which is practical and immediate and urgent.
	Every person listening to us today, and I think I'm gonna be with you on TV tonight, and I hope I can repeat this then.
	Every person should email, call, Facebook, every person they know in the sixth district of Georgia, which is the northern part of the Atlanta area, it's it's Cobb and North Fulton and Gwyneth.
	That that is Tom Price's seat, it used to be my seat, it was Johnny Isaacson's seat.
	It should be safe, except we have a Democrat who has spent twelve million dollars.
	He's become the great liberal hope nationwide.
	He got the cover of New York magazine.
	Uh he's not getting 50 percent though.
	He's not gonna be he's not getting 50 percent.
	There will be a runoff.
	Well, no, no, but that's remember I've I've lived through days when the polls you did too.
	Remember the last election where the polls said one thing?
	Yeah, that's the voters said another.
	I want to make sure I don't care who you vote for, if you're a Republican, go out and vote tomorrow.
	If you live in the such district, and I want everybody who hears me and and understands I uh that I do in fact do this for a living.
	I really care about the Republican majority.
	Everybody should contact every person they know and make sure they vote tomorrow.
	As long as enough Republicans vote, he will get probably 40, 41, 42 percent.
	When we get to the runoff in June, he will probably get 40, 41, or 42 percent.
	Got it.
	And we'll beat him soundly.
	But tomorrow's the big game, because if we stay home, then he wins.
	They vote.
	Listen, I agree.
	All right, so if you're in the sixth district, Newt's old district in Georgia, uh, you need to get out and vote in this primary tomorrow.
	It doesn't matter what Republican you vote for.
	Don't let this Democrat get to 50 percent, and then the runoff will be in June.
	If you're a WSB listener, you know all about this.
	All right, Mr. Speaker, we'll see you on Hannity tonight.
	A lot of news going on, a lot to be worried about, actually.
	800 941 Sean, our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back, we'll continue on the other side.
	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-laws place in Vermont.
	So after a few hours of that, you'll be glad you brought Sean along to sign up today for our Hannity Headlines.
	Go to Hannity.com.
	Nowhere is that more evident than with our commitment to confront the region's most dangerous and urgent threat to peace and security.
	The regime in North Korea.
	Since nineteen ninety-two, the United States and our allies have stood together for a denuclearized Korean peninsula.
	We hope to achieve this objective through peaceable means.
	But all options are on the table.
	Just in the past two weeks, the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan.
	North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.
	We will continue to deploy the Thaad missile defense system as a defensive measure called for by the Alliance and for the Alliance.
	We will continue to evolve a comprehensive set of capabilities to ensure the security of South Korea.
	And as our Secretary of Defense made clear here in South Korea not long ago, we will defeat any attack and we will meet any use of conventional or nuclear weapons with an overwhelming and effective response.
	All right, Vice President Pence talking about the situation with North Korea, which is vowing a weekly missile launch, which could get very entertaining, must see TV if they continue to bomb on the launching pad.
	But on a more serious note, the North Koreans are threatening nuclear war at any moment.
	Also have Terry Jeffrey and Jeffrey Lord coming up.
	Sarah Carter's gonna check in today as well.
	And uh but in the meantime, let's get to some busy phones here.
	We have Peter in New York listening to the all new AM seven ten, WOR, the voice of New York, New Jersey, Long Island.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm great, Sean.
	Happy to be part of the program.
	Yes, sir.
	What's going on?
	I um I just had the thought.
	Like our our ships are moving there, they're close there.
	What would what do you think they would actually do if we were put in a position to take an action?
	What action do you think that would be?
	Well, I I think first of all, though I think I think that Newt Gingrich is right.
	I think this Kim Jong-un wants to engage America militarily.
	It depends how mentally unstable this kid really is.
	This this chubby despot of uh of North Korea.
	It just depends.
	I mean, I think he's unstable.
	Everyone else seems to think he's unstable, and you know, there's a real danger here.
	I look the real if America's gonna take any action at all, it has gotta be to take out all their nuclear sites.
	Now with that said, that is such a massive operation.
	We need a lot of cooperation.
	Now, I look to the emerging new alliance with China as a potential possibility.
	Because the Chinese remember they put a hundred and fifty thousand troops on the border.
	You know, they've got more to lose here than we do.
	And this is their region of the world, not ours.
	They don't we don't believe they have ICBM capability to launch those nuclear weapon weapons and hit the continental United States.
	So, you know, there's a lot of questions here.
	I mean, I think it's in our best interest.
	Look, if they get the ICBM missile capability coupled with with the nuclear weapons that they have, thank you, Bill Clinton very much.
	Then we're you know, our hands are tied.
	They're a nuclear power, and they've got to be respected as a nuclear power.
	When you have a nuclear power that's coupled with mental instability, it becomes a worldwide problem.
	But I d you know, to take out all those facilities and not miss any of them, you gotta have great intelligence on the ground, and you've got to have pinpoint precision and accuracy, and I I think it's something that's got to be coalition based.
	I'd rather not get to that.
	We've got enough problems here at home right now.
	Yep.
	But you know but with Kim Jong un testing a missile a week, you know, eventually they're gonna get it right.
	Eventually they'll pay their way and they'll get it right.
	And that's scary.
	Anyway, Peter, thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	Tony Jacksonville, Florida, WOKV.
	What's going on, sir?
	How are you?
	Hey, I am fine, Sean.
	Listen, uh I'm I listen to your radio and stuff like that, and I'm not what I'm gonna I'm gonna make more of a comment than anything else.
	Um, but when I hear when they're talking about protesting, this is going back to the the tax thing.
	You know, uh it just sparked something in me that it it's not just that, but other thing that other things that these younger people do and uninformed people where they protest, they do all this stuff, whether they're getting paid for it or not.
	It just irritates me that they don't look back in history.
	Uh I watch a lot of decor uh documentaries.
	Um I'm retired military, uh, and all this, and I've seen what people have done to other people.
	And with the funny you say that, I I think I watched the American Hero Channel all weekend.
	They were running these these exposes on Hitler with all the footage that they've been able to accumulate over the years.
	I mean, the similarities between him and ISIS, and they're far greater than I think anyone has written about or talked about.
	Right.
	Right.
	And and and he's he's yo I'd say younger generation people, but you still got uh Pelosi's and all that that they just feed on all this garbage, you know, and and these people are just uneducated, and if they really would see stuff and be educated about these things, I think that they would would just not act the way they do and quit protesting about stupid garbage.
	Listen, I I look, it's not gonna stop.
	Trump derangement syndrome is real.
	Um look, I for Donald Trump to be a successful president, he's just gotta continue doing what he's been doing.
	Check off every promise he's made, don't let anyone influence or deter him from that mission, and try and contain as best he possibly can all of these emerging crises around the world, around the globe.
	Look, the world's also adjusting just like the left in America's adjusting.
	They're they're adjusting to the fact that this guy just dropped a massive bomb on ISIS, the mother of all bombs.
	They're adjusting that his red line actually meant something.
	They're adjusting to the fact that as we speak, we've got the U.S. having deployed more aircraft carriers towards the Korean peninsula, and he means what he says, and the world's got to adjust to that too.
	The reemergence of American leadership, you know, people were used to what they had, and what they had was appeasement.
	What they had was weakness.
	What they had were words that meant nothing.
	So it's it's gonna take some adjustment period, and he will be tested as every president is usually tested.
	You know, whether or not this is a Cuban missile crisis in slow motion, you know, time's gonna tell that's certainly got the potential to be far more dangerous than I think anybody expects.
	Uh we'll stay in Jacksonville, Florida.
	Thank you, Tony.
	Brian is next also on WOKV.
	What's up, Brian?
	How are you?
	Hey, Sean, thanks for taking my call.
	I think I speak for all of your listeners when I say thanks for keeping us focused and most importantly hopeful over the last eight years.
	Thank you.
	I guess I have a two-part question today about the reports of a U.S. cyber warfare attack on North Korea's missile test.
	Uh, part one is assuming those reports are correct.
	What are your thoughts on the potential risk such a strategy could pose to the U.S. as it relates to a reciprocal attack on our highly vulnerable infrastructure that is just unprepared for such an attack?
	And I guess part two would be.
	Well, let me deal with that too.
	I think it's it's a real clear present danger.
	I mean, the fact that we have not prepared for let's say the electrical grid.
	I mean, there is look, one of the things that I kept saying, and everybody took out of context, in many ways Julian Assange did us a favor.
	Well, Hannity, what do you mean?
	He he released our secrets.
	And but he showed that we were vulnerable.
	And nobody did anything about it.
	We're just as vulnerable today as when Julian Assange was sixteen, allegedly, and got into our NASA computer systems, our DOD, our Pentagon computer systems.
	So there's a vulnerability there that you know the fact that we if we don't fix that problem, at some point we've got to look in the mirror and blame ourselves and not blame others for being able to access things that we ought to be protecting.
	So, all right, what's the second part of your question?
	Yeah, it sounds like you've answered the second part, which was you know, do you think the president should make the hardening of our critical infrastructure?
	A hundred percent.
	Yes, I a hundred percent.
	He said he would do so.
	And as a matter of fact, I think when he first got into office that he he said that he had put together some commission to do just that.
	You know, look uh again, I like to think out of the box in my real life, in my real life.
	I take Julian Assange in and said, okay, how do you do all this?
	How do you how do your people do this?
	How do we protect ourselves?
	You know, if everybody, you know, saying that, oh, it's Julian Assange's fault.
	Well, the New York Times published the same things the WikiLeaks published.
	You know, Julian Assange, when I interviewed him, said I'm a reporter, I get information.
	I disseminate information.
	I've never been proven wrong.
	None of the information I've released in all these years has been proven wrong.
	And so I I think at some point look, fool me once, shame on you.
	Fool me twice, shame on me.
	America now has been hacked, you know, to death by our enemies, and we're not doing enough to protect ourselves.
	Now, as I understand it, there are countries that are even testing the ability to see if they can get into our infrastructure, our electric grid, so on and so forth.
	Um there is look, anybody that's denying the worst case scenario in life is not living in the real world.
	And I live in the real world.
	And it, you know, my my father grew up in the depression.
	A real depression with no money, with real breadlines with thousands and thousands of people needing soup and bread every day to survive.
	You know, my my father fought in World War II.
	Watch these documentaries, and what do you see?
	You see millions of human beings slaughtered.
	You know, you look at Stalin's Russia, you look at fascism, you look at Nazism, you look at Imperial Japan and their attack on Hawaii and Pearl Harbor, and you look at 9-11.
	Evil exists.
	There's nothing that the enemy won't do to destroy us.
	And to believe anything short of that is being naive and ignorant of all history.
	In the last century alone, a hundred million souls were slaughtered in the name of accumulation of power by others and dictators and despots.
	What do you think I wrote the book?
	You know, deliver us from evil, defeating terrorism, despotism, and liberalism.
	Liberalism being the foundation of appeasement.
	And of course, conservatism, I think, is built on strength and peace through strength, and having an impenetrable shield that we build around the United States.
	I've said it for all the years I've been in radio that I think that Ronald Reagan's greatest legacy may end up being strategic defense.
	We still don't have it built in this country.
	You know, I'm going back to Israel later this week.
	They have an iron dome.
	I've watched it.
	I've been up close to it.
	I've seen it in action.
	It works.
	I was there during the last war.
	What was it, about fifty feet away from us, you know, a scud missile landed.
	And I I've sent the picture out at the time.
	I was in my car.
	Boom.
	We went to a a city where 10,000 rockets had been fired from Gaza over a 10-year period of time.
	We showed you the bombs that they recovered that were in the back of the police station.
	You know, I saw I brought you into the tunnels that were dug under Israel with Israeli electricity and Israeli cement.
	They live in a reality that's so different than ours.
	You know, I think American kids, you know, it's funny, my s my son plays tennis, and there was a kid that came from Israel.
	He's 22 years old and he's gonna start college because he spent the last three D three years with the IDF.
	They're a lot more advanced and a lot more rooted in reality than our kids that are complaining, oh, we can't play beer punk this weekend.
	You know, it drives me nuts.
	Uh Chad is in Dallas, Texas.
	What's up, Chad on the answer?
	How are you, Chad?
	Thank you so much for Sean.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	It's always good to talk with you.
	Uh I say something on a continued and further outcry of Donald Trump's tax release.
	And then I have something good to tell you about your show.
	You know, uh for the further outcry and outrage of the left wanting, you know, Trump's to release his tax returns.
	You know, let's take a line out of their out of their uh head party.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Um it's you know why I never can understand what are they gonna get out of it.
	They're really not gonna understand it at all.
	So uh even though he's not going to do that, it it really gets them nowhere, and they continue to do that because they get something out of that.
	They don't get anything with Hillary losing, but they get that that's that's their personality.
	Well, let me let me let me let me tell you something.
	They don't want to see Trump taxes.
	All they want is a reason to whine, bitch, moan, and complain uh because they lost.
	That's it's really that simple.
	And you know, they've gotten beyond hysterical at this point.
	That's my take on it.
	Anyway, Mark in California, what's up, Mark?
	How are you?
	Hi, Sean, thanks for taking my call.
	Hey, I wanted to uh alert you that um I you know I follow you on Facebook and repost some of your stories.
	You know today I've reposted probably eight or ten of them in both sanity stories, not at the same time, a few hours apart, were deleted by Facebook.
	Well, you mean the articles we put up on Hannity.com every day?
	Yes.
	All right, stay right there.
	Let me let me figure what uh figure this out on the other side of this break.
	It doesn't surprise me.
	Of course, Facebook is gonna censor me.
	Listen, it's a war against conservative thought and ideology out there.
	I keep warning everybody, you know what, shows like this are at risk every day because people sit in their underwear and get paid to listen, tape, and hope and pray.
	I say one word, one phrase, one sentence they could take out of context, and censor me by going after my advertisers or just outright trying to get me fired.
	It's an unbelievable environment we work in.
	All right, News Roundup and Information Overload Hour, Sean Hannity Show.
	Let's play Rex Tillerson.
	As it relates to the whole issue of Syria and whether or not the president acted constitutionally with the use of military force.
	Many nations look to the Geneva process to resolve the Syrian conflict in a way that produces stability and gives Syria the Syrian people the opportunity to determine their own political future.
	And our hope is Bashar al Assad will not be a part of that future.
	If the Astana ceasefire negotiations become effective towards achieving a durable ceasefire, then the Geneva process has the opportunity to accelerate.
	To date, Astana has not produced much progress.
	It is also clear Russia has failed to uphold the agreements that had been entered into under multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
	These agreements stipulated Russia as the guarantor of a Syria free of chemical weapons that they would also locate, secure, and destroy all such armaments in Syria.
	Stockpiles and continued use demonstrate that Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on its two thousand thirteen commitment.
	It is unclear whether Russia failed to take this obligation seriously or Russia has been incompetent.
	But this distinction doesn't much matter to the dead.
	We can't let this happen again.
	To be clear, our military action was a direct response to the Assad regime's barbarism.
	All right, there are some that are making the case that the President acted unconstitutionally as it relates to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, that Congress shall have the power to declare war.
	Uh joining us now is Terry Jeffrey, who wrote this piece on CNS News and Jeffrey Lord, who is the author of the book What America Needs, The Case for Trump.
	There's a big difference, Jeffrey, between a military action as commander in chief and an act of war.
	I I'm I'm not sure why you would not wal uh look and I'm not a big believer, by the way, in the war powers act, but putting that aside for just a second, the president does have the right as commander in chief to make a decision to use military action separate and apart from an official declaration of war.
	It certainly does.
	And i i this is I mean, I I was in uh not only in the Reagan White House, but I was there the night that President Reagan sent uh uh uh not missiles in his case, but they were bombers uh to uh send a message to Gaddafi, who had uh bombed a West German disc attack at the time and killed a couple of American soldiers, wounded many more and killed and wounded others who were who were not U.S. soldiers.
	And on the night of October, I'm sorry, uh April fifteenth, nineteen eighty-six, while we were standing on the South Lawn in the driveway there with a motorcade ready to take the president to a hotel for uh uh an event.
	He was late.
	He was uncharacteristically late.
	I mean, he was always on time.
	We later found out he was inside waiting to hear the results of a twelve minute attack on Tripoli that almost got Qaddafi himself.
	Uh that sent a message which reverberated around the world, you know, Ronald Reagan believed in peace through strength.
	He didn't invade Libya, but he certainly made clear this was not tolerable.
	This is exactly what President Obama uh I'm sorry, President Trump has done here.
	Terry with full authority as commander in chief.
	Sean, there's uh there's a couple of distinctions.
	first that attack that President Reagan ordered on Qaddafi's Libya was after, as Jeffrey said, an attack that wounded and killed Americans in Berlin.
	But the bigger, more important distinction is what the Constitution actually says and what the framers understood it to mean.
	And the record on that is very clear.
	And if we as conservatives go around saying that we believe in an original misinterpretation, it has to be when we talk about the war power too.
	The Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia on August 17, 1787, to discuss the part of the draft constitution that gave Congress the power to quote unquote make war.
	Pierce Butler of South Carolina actually argued for giving the power to the president.
	And Elbridge Jerry of Massachusetts and James Madison, who is keeping written notes, which you can actually look up on the Library of Congress website and read in his actual handwriting today if you want, joined in offering a counterproposal to the ma to make war said they would substitute declare for make, and these are the last the exact words he used.
	Leaving to the executive the power to repel sudden attacks, quote unquote.
	That's what Madison used to describe his own language in the U.S. Constitution.
	I'm listening to everything you're saying, but it would take away all powers as commander in chief.
	Constitutional powers.
	If we're talking about originalism, the right to declare war, yes, it does rest in exactly what you're discussing here.
	Article one, section eight, clause eleven.
	That's Congress's authority.
	The president, though, using military action, it would take away any ability of him to have any element of surprise, which has to be in his arsenal as commander in chief to stop in this particular case the use of chemical weapons against women and children.
	Sean, not in an offensive military action.
	Quite literally, the founder say we need to leave the power of the president to repel an attack against the United States.
	We cannot be able to do that.
	Well, what is a scenario under which you would say, okay, the president does have the authority?
	Well, I I I think there's probably you know room for argument in which kind of action by which president is given specific facts would be to repel a sudden attack.
	But when you talk about a president unilaterally using force against a country which isn't threatening us, and he's not even arguing they are, and he doesn't think so.
	You don't think America has uh any moral authority when you see chemical weapons used against women and children?
	And by the way, I'm not for the America getting boots on the ground in Syria, getting involved in a seven-year Syrian civil war.
	I'm not for in any way, shape, matter, or form any disaster like they had in Iraq, because we don't have the political will to finish the job.
	I'm not for any of that.
	But you're saying there aren't instances where the America, the United States of America has a moral obligation to stop the use of certain weapons?
	I I I think Sean, the the question there is who may authorize it.
	And under our Constitution, it is given clearly to the Congress.
	Only if it's only it's only if it's an act of war if it's a war, declaring war.
	Yeah, actually actually, Sean, that's not what the Constitution says, and it's not what the frame or sediment.
	It says Congress shall have the power to declare war.
	In and grant letters of mark and reprisal, make rules concerning captures on land and water and so as commander.
	But wait a minute, Terry, as commander-in-chief, you would take away any sense of element of surprise or his ability to act in defense of this nation or what he sees as a defense of this nation.
	Not in defense of the nation, but as an offensive military act.
	And I mean, for example, George Washington, who pr who was the commander of the Continental Army, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, who was sitting there when Madison and Jerry offered this language and explained it.
	When he was president, people were lobbying him to use military force against the Creek Indians and what's now Tennessee and the bordering territory, which was then controlled on s by Spain, and Henry Knox, who is the Secretary of War in Washington himself, said we cannot take offensive military action until it's approved by Congress.
	And it hasn't been.
	So according to George Washington's interpretation of the United States of our Constitution, he could not take offensive action even against the Native American tribe that had taken done raids inside U.S. territory and tell the U.S. Congress.
	All right, let me ask Jeffrey to weigh in here on the Sean.
	One of the things that I I think we have to take into account here is these chemical weapons, or I mean things like chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc., these things can be handed off to other parties.
	I mean, who says that they couldn't have gotten chemical weapons in here for an attack that that came from this.
	And and Sean, how many times have I heard you talk about where did these chemical weapons come in the first place?
	Were they in fact from Iraq?
	I mean, I don't think there's any I don't think there's any doubt.
	Today's world has to anticipate what can happen here in this country and take care of our national security.
	That is his primary focus.
	Jeffrey?
	Well, the responsibility for making that decision clearly constitutionally rests with the Congress.
	And if you may want to make an argument based on a prudential analysis that says this is the right thing for President Trump to have done, and I think in this particularly limited case, firing those fifty-nine missiles at that Syrian air base, you might be able to make that case.
	You need to go to Congress and make it.
	And if you're going to say the President has the unilateral power to take offensive military action where the United States is not repelling an attack, that's exactly Sean like saying the President, even though co the Constitution says, So you're saying that you're saying to use Jeffrey's example from earlier, he was in the Reagan White House, you're saying what Reagan did was unconstitutional.
	I think if he's interpreting that way, where he's not acting to repel an attack against the United States, for the president to unilaterally take offensive action without congressional authorization is not constitutional.
	I think there is a a little bit of a difference in the attack on Qaddafi's Libya because it was responding to an attack that killed America wounded and killed an American.
	But yes, it's e what if a president were to say, look, I think we need more revenues, I'm going to raise up the top uh f income tax to 75%.
	People will go, wait a minute, the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, Mr. President, not you.
	This is no different that the Constitution does not empower the presidents to do this.
	If you want the President to do this, you either have to get Congress to approve it or to change our Constitution itself.
	And the very first thing that would happen, Sean, if if let's just say that the President Trump did it Terry's way, and and he then goes to Congress amidst all the publicity and fair fanfare that would follow and say, I want authority to strike at these chemical weapons on a Syrian airbase, by the time Congress got around, let's say they approved it, by the time they got around to doing it, those chemical weapons would have been moved somewhere else.
	Well, by the way, I mean that just makes no sense.
	I mean, do you uh do you have a let me ask you this do you have a problem with the mother of all bombs dropped in Afghanistan, or do you believe the authorization for use of force is still in uh in still in effect because it's never been rescinded?
	You know, it's i i it's it's a good question, Sean.
	I think there's a stronger argument for saying the authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan, which began after the 9-11 attacks in 2001, is still in force, and then there's a policy question where you say sixteen years later, we are still in the middle of the city.
	But it's never been it's never been rescinded.
	Stay right there.
	We'll continue.
	Terry Jeffrey and Jeffrey Lord, 800 941 Sean Tollfree telephone number.
	We'll get to your calls coming up straight ahead as well.
	Here's a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you.
	Sign up today for Hannity Headlines.
	Go to Hannity.
	Uh Terry Jeffrey and Jeffrey Lord.
	All right, so now we have all the saber rattling out of North Korea, vowing a weekly missile launch.
	If it's a flop like this weekend, it could be very entertaining weekly watching, must watch, must see TV.
	And also you've got Kim Jong-un c saying that there's a nuclear war chance at any moment.
	Uh so what do we do then in this case, Jeffrey Lord?
	Well, I do think the president has done the right thing by sending the fleet over in that direction and making it abundantly clear that we're not going to tolerate this.
	And I I mean, I have no idea uh uh any more than I suspect any of the rest of uh rest of us do whether these stories that uh the American government was somehow able to, you know, put bugs in their missile systems and keep them in a technical sense from launching.
	I don't know.
	But I'm not gonna do that.
	What do you make of McMaster saying Trump will take any action to end the any North Korea threat to the U.S.?
	That sounds to me like they won't let them get ICBMs.
	Uh yeah, I mean, this is peace through strength.
	The weakness uh is, as we've heard so many times correctly, is provocative.
	And the very fact, I mean, I I think I'm correct that Bill Clinton had an agreement and uh quote quote unquote an agreement in 1993 or somewhere in there that said that North Korean this was going to keep North Koreans from getting nuclear missiles.
	Well, how did that work out?
	I mean, these people seem never to these people, meaning liberals seem never to learn about this sort of stuff.
	That when you when you uh approach these things in a weak-minded state of state of mind and you use appeasement, then these folks are going to lie right to your face and they're gonna go ahead and do whatever anyway.
	And and God only knows what trouble we've got with Iran coming down the pipe because of Obama's agreement with them.
	Well, certainly things are ratcheted up.
	What do you do in this case, Terry Jeffrey?
	Well, Sean, I I I believe in what Trump was saying as a candidate, that is that you put the interests of America first.
	The purpose, the main Well, well, stop right there.
	Is it in America's best interest now that we know the the North Koreans thanks to Bill Clinton have nuclear weapons, is it in America's interest if they get intercontinental ballistic missile capability married to those nukes?
	No, I I I don't think it's in our interest for the North Koreans to have intercontinental ballistic missiles that they can arm with nuclear weapons and possibly send at the United States any any more than it was good for us for Pakistan to be able to develop a nuclear weapon.
	But the the question is when you talk about a war, can the president act to stop an attack against the United States?
	Yes.
	Can the President preemptively start a war in the name of the United States?
	No, he cannot.
	And in and I think that's a distinction that is not just written in the Constitution.
	There's great prudence to it.
	Just like we've seen the fallout from an authorized war which we conducted in Iraq, which led to the rise of the Islamic State Caliphate and the proliferation of terrorism, not the diminution of terrorism.
	That was an authorized war.
	Bush went to Congress.
	Congress approved it.
	Hillary Clinton, John Kerry voted for it.
	I think if you had done that without congressional authorization, it would be far worse.
	So if President Trump is planning on using military force in a way other than to protect the United States from a threatened attack.
	So you're saying every president before him that did the same thing also acted unconstitutionally, so you're consistent, including Reagan.
	Including Reagan.
	Come on, you gotta answer that, Terry, including Reagan.
	I'm gonna answer it.
	For most of our history, in Louis Fisher, who wrote presidential warpower, former Library of Congress scholar, has put together an excellent book on this.
	All the way up until the Korean war, presidents of the United States, I gotta run in the spirit of George Washington, they did not take preemptive military action without to me that would render any president's authority under the Constitution as commander in chief to use military force, not in the declaration of war form.
	And I I look I it's it's a complicated issue, but it's simple on the other hand for me.
	All right, good conversation.
	Jeffrey Lord, Terry Jeffrey, thank you.
	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-laws' place in Vermont.
	So 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.
	Share stringent regulations and engage in robust office of the general counsel and an empower independent office of inspector general to make sure of that.
	Moreover, regardless of what you see on the silver screen, we do not pursue covert action on a whim and without the approval or accountability.
	There's a comprehensive process that starts with the president, consists of many levels of legal and policy review.
	Let me assure you, when it comes to covert action, there is oversight and accountability every step of the way.
	And I inherited an agency that has deep respect for the rule of law and the Constitution.
	It's embedded in the very fiber of the people that work at the CIA.
	And despite fictional disp depictions meant to sell books or box office tickets, we are not an untethered or rogue agency.
	And so while we've had some truly office excuse me, some truly awesome capabilities at our disposal, office do not operate in areas or against targets that are rightfully and legally off limits.
	At our core, we're an organization committed to uncovering the truth and getting it right.
	We devote ourselves to protecting our trade.
	We work hard to maintain truly global coverage.
	We spend hours upon hours collecting information and pouring over data and reports.
	And we also admit when we make a mistake.
	In fact, because CIA is accountable to the free and open society, we help defend the times in which we have failed to live up to high standards of our Fellow citizens have been catalogued well over the years, even by our own government.
	These mistakes are public.
	They're public to an extent that I doubt any other nation could ever match.
	But it's always our intention and our duty to get it right.
	And that's one of the reasons we as they find the celebration of entities like WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling.
	Because while we do our best to quietly collect information on those who pose a very real threats to our country, individuals l such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seek to use that information to make a name for themselves.
	As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security.
	WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service.
	It overwhelmingly focuses on the United States while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.
	It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is.
	A non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.
	In January of this year, our intelligence community determined that Russian military intelligence, the GRU had used WikiLeaks to release data of U.S. victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee.
	And the report also found that Russia's primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.
	No, I'm quite confident that had Assange been around in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history.
	We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today.
	Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the anguish of liberty and language of liberty and privacy, but in reality, they champion nothing but their own celebrity.
	Their currency is clickbait, their moral compass non-existent.
	Their mission, personal self-aggrandisment through destruction of Western values.
	They do not care about the causes of the people they claim to represent.
	If they did, they would focus instead on autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech and dissent.
	Instead, they chose choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments, which has so far proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant.
	Clearly these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience.
	We know this, for example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal enough information of scores of innocent citizens around the globe.
	We know this because the damage they have done to the security and safety of the free world is tangible.
	The examples are numerous.
	So if the CIA, which is certainly is highly motivated to try and keep control of its cyber weapons arsenal, if it can't even control its entire cyberweapons arsenal because information can uh flow without oversight, then what is the chance that it can control how that arsenal is used?
	It it doesn't it can't.
	There's there's absolutely nothing to stop uh a random CIA officer uh or contractor or liaison uh agent working for the British using that technology against whoever they like, for whatever personal reasons they like.
	And we have quite a lot more material that talks about these um attempts to throw off attribution to discover who is really behind a particular cyber attack.
	Already an antivirus expert has come forward to say that a sophisticated malware that he had attributed to a state, either Iran, uh China uh or Russia, now he believes actually is from a central intelligence agency,
	because the uh type of attack system it uses uh corresponds directly to a description that we published of that attack system, and it's rare enough that it seems unlikely it would be independently discovered discovered, unless, of course, that China has already gotten hold of these parts of the CIA arsenal and that China uh is using them to pretend to be the CIA.
	All right, so all those comments between Julian Assange and the new director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth, it raises a lot of questions about what America is to do or not do.
	And here to weigh in on all of this is Sarah Carter.
	Sarah, it seems clear that the CIA's taken on a new mission under Barack Obama's regime, if you will, and that is one that has been very active in surveillance, unmasking, leaking intelligence.
	Has it taken on a role, especially with this latest WikiLeaks dump that nobody ever anticipated?
	Yeah, I think that what we've seen particularly shine with with the CIA right now.
	I mean, is is this kind of fight back kind of mode, you know, because there was so much happening under the Obama administration, but I gotta tell you, talking to intelligence sources, you know, those that cover both the CIA and their roles overseas, Western intelligence, some of their biggest concern was that they were looking like they were the bad guys, and they're a lot of them were saying, look, you know, we're not here to spy on Americans.
	That is not our role.
	If people within our agency are doing that, if there's issues with Director Brennan and others that were under the Obama administration, then let's have that out with them.
	Let's bring that out.
	When we talked about the unmasking and those abilities for Director Brennan and others to be able to do that.
	But you know, if if if something happened on that scale, let that be discovered by investigations and stuff, but don't throw us all into the same boat.
	And I think that right now with you know CIA director Mike Pompeo, he's he's taking a stand and he is trying to uh mitigate some of what he feels has been has backfired on on the intelligence community.
	All right, let me still ask you this question first, then we'll get back to this in a second.
	You're the senior national security correspondent for circa.com.
	You saw the president's action, obviously it w in Syria.
	You see now we're moving our ships into areas surrounding North Korea, and then you see a response from both China and Russia in the same way.
	There seems to be some relationship that is now developed between the the President of China and the President of the United States as they sent North Korean coal back.
	They're importing American coal.
	Uh they now have moved troops to the border with Seoul in the middle of Korea.
	So they're getting actively involved, seemingly to help the president bring some type of cessation to the saber rattling of Kim Jong-un.
	What do you see happening as a senior national security correspondent?
	What is America's next move?
	What is Trump's next move?
	I think that President Trump is making very distinctive moves right now.
	I think he's sending a decisive, decisive messages across the globe.
	And it's very important because what we saw during the Obama administration was kind of it was it was really a lack of any type of messaging to countries like Russia, to North Korea, to Iran, even to China.
	And people saw and we saw what was developing on the geopolitical scale as these countries becoming more emboldened, kind of pushing their way forward.
	We saw that with Russia really early on, even in Syria in 2011.
	I remember reading reports, getting messages from people that were in Syria that there were Russians on the ground, special operators on the ground already assessing the situation there.
	I mean, Russia was already putting its imprint in there and knew that they wouldn't be pushed back on, especially by the Obama administration.
	We saw that with Iran too, when they were sending their IRGC into Syria, and they were creating kind of the fear among even the Sunni countries that there was going to be this huge Shia Crescent moving across the Middle East.
	And it was frightening.
	We saw that across North Africa as well, where each country was kind of facing uh this collapse during the Arab Spring.
	Every country was kind of rolling and nobody was paying attention anymore to what the US was having to say because the U.S. really wasn't asserting itself.
	So I think right now what we're seeing with President Trump, and it still remains to be seen, Sean, how it's all going to play out.
	But it definitely very decisive, very assertive movement, both again with North Korea and China.
	We're seeing China respond to that.
	We're seeing Russia respond to that.
	We're seeing what's happening in Syria right now.
	So what happens though?
	I mean, you got the vice president now on a trip that he's, I guess, trying to resolve some of these issues and build alliances for us, saying all options are on the table against North Korea, that they would do well not to test President Trump's resolve.
	I don't doubt that.
	The ad McMasters on uh on ABC this weekend saying it's clear the president's determined not to allow nuclear capability and ICBM capability to be put together by North Korea.
	Um we have a lot of reports that it's likely the U.S. sabotage Kim Jong-un's missile test this weekend.
	Yeah, and I you know, and that's that's a really great point.
	I was gonna bring it up because if you think of the Pyongyang tests, right?
	You have the sixth nuclear bomb test failure.
	Uh we don't know.
	We don't know if we have the uh evidence, and we don't yet whether the United States sabotaged that, but we definitely saw that in 2010 when reports started to come out of the Stuxnik virus, which sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program and set it back.
	I mean, I remember trying to get uh former CIA director Hayden to talk about it.
	He refused to discuss That topic.
	Um, and it was apparently in cooperation with both Israel and the United States.
	So we know we have these programs ongoing.
	Um, and I think that Vice President Pence sends a very stark and direct message to North Korea, but it's also to China.
	Like, hey, China, you want to work with us.
	You've got to tip play your role in this.
	You have a big hand above North Korea.
	We know that you can utilize your power over North Korea to calm Kim Jong-un down or make it known that you aren't going to put up with it either.
	So not only are we being like assertive and and directive with them, but we're also sending the message through other people and through other nations saying, hey, if you want to play ball with us, you've got to you've got to quell these leaders in your area of operation in your AO, in your theater, particularly North Korea, because they are so unstable and the North Korean leadership is so dangerous and such a threat to glob global stability.
	And I think that comes not only from people within the Obama administration, but within the Trump administration and even as far back as the Bush administration.
	I mean, this is an area of the world that if they don't get this direct message, if they don't receive this direct message, um, they they they definitely are going to continue to push and push, and nobody wants to see something like this happen.
	Nobody wants to see Kim Jong un be able to successfully launch those missiles.
	And I think that what what happened here over the last few weeks with the president.
	I know some people have been, you know, saying, well, what about just focusing on America?
	Well, America needs to focus on the world.
	This is a global world.
	And I think President Trump realizes that, and he realizes that the best way to protect America is not to ignore what's happening overseas, but to pay attention to it.
	All right, stay right there.
	All right, we got to take a break.
	We'll have more with uh Sarah Carter.
	She is the senior national security correspondent for circa.com.
	You know, a breach of an online tool that's used for a student loan program and applications may have been compromised for up to a hundred thousand taxpayers.
	Now, this IRS data tool allows tax returns to be uploaded to the free application for student aid.
	Now identity thieves use stolen data to file fakes tax fake tax returns, and the IRS estimates show that about 8,000 fraudulent refunds were issued, totaling 30 million dollars.
	Now the tool was taken offline in March after the breach was discovered, and the IRS has started notifying people who may have been affected.
	Now, this is identity theft.
	It's America's fastest growing crime.
	That's when these thieves take your information, act like they're you, buying things on your credit, liquidating your bank your retirement accounts.
	Life lock every second of every day is scanning millions of transactions.
	If they detect your information, you get an alert, you have a problem, they have a team that'll fix it.
	A life lock is the best identity theft protection available.
	Membership start as low as 999 a month.
	Now just go to lifelog.com/slash Hannity or call 1800 LifeLock, mention my name, Hannity, and you get a 10% discount.
	That's life lock.com slash Hannity or 1800 Life Lock in this day and age, you need to protect yourself.
	We'll continue more with Sarah Carter right here on The Sean Hannity Show.
	The Sean Hannity Show.
	As we continue with Sarah Carter, or as it relates, let me go back to this.
	What is going to be the next major breakthrough?
	Because I know that Susan Rice and surveillance unmasking intelligence leaking has kind of been put to the back page with all these foreign policy issues that have come up.
	What do you see coming out next and how bad is it going to be for the former Obama administration officials?
	Well, I certainly think there's more and more evidence being collected by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
	And I know that people are looking into this intensely.
	They're looking at what was being unmasked, who was unmasking it.
	I know there's also a lot of difficulty in trying to get all the information.
	Some of the reports that I'm hearing is that the NSA is not giving all the information that is being requested.
	And I think that's an issue.
	I know I've spoken to sources that are saying they get parts of things here and there.
	They may get a part of a document, but then they don't get who unmasked it.
	And so that is that is potentially being a problem for them in this investigation.
	But we know that the scope of the investigation is widened.
	We know that includes who else was unmasked and and not just focusing on the Trump administration, but focusing on members of Congress, focusing on others.
	Were there journalists that were unmasked?
	I mean these are questions that need to be answered.
	And as you know, Sean, because you and I have reported on this and I've reported on this many times on your show, I mean this goes all the way back to 2011 when the rules were actually loosened.
	So when a lot of people thought those rules were just loosened as recently as you know this January, that was not the case.
	These uh the FISA rules were signed off by the FISA courts.
	Like we said, it was all done legally, but it was loosened enough so that um the unmasking uh was happening with much more frequency and at greater at greater speed.
	And you know unmasking Americans is a very very serious thing.
	Uh and there any chance I was unmasked in this and I was surveilled have you gotten any more information on it.
	Yeah you know I have spoken I have spoken to sources that do believe that reporters were unmasked and yes your name did come up now I have not been able to 100% verify that uh myself but it's something that I am continuing to look at and it is something that has been um brought up by sources so you know that's an area that we want to investigate.
	I'd like to I'd like to know you know why?
	Because I'd like to file a civil action against everybody involved in that maybe even former President Obama Obama if he was put in uh his presidential daily briefing.
	But uh Sarah Carter, great work as always.
	We love having you on the program.
	Thank you so much for being here.

▲