Sean Hannity Show - Barbarism Will Delivery No Glory - 5.22

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 23, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:35:54

Barbarism Will Delivery No Glory - 5.22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	All right, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
	And what's changed?
	Just a pillow.
	It's had such a positive impact on my life.
	And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
	I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer, and now you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
	Now, you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two 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 GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	You will love this pillow.
	Nothing Governor Romney just said is true.
	Starting with this notion of me apologizing.
	This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign.
	My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.
	We sometimes make mistakes.
	We have not been perfect.
	All too often, the United States starts by dictating in the past on some of these issues, and we don't always know all the factors that are involved.
	In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.
	There have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
	I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
	I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world.
	The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.
	We've at times been disengaged, and at times we've sought to dictate our terms.
	We have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes.
	That's how we learn.
	Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions.
	Though we've made our share of mistakes, required some course corrections.
	9-11 was an enormous trauma to our country.
	The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable.
	But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
	There is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.
	That's just a fact.
	I realize that America's critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals, that America has plenty of problems within its own borders.
	This is true.
	So, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions.
	Our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures.
	In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
	We tortured some folks.
	We did some things that were contrary to our values.
	There's a strain of thought that doesn't embrace ISIL's tactics, doesn't embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances.
	Sometimes that's accurate.
	Does buy into the belief that so many of the ills in the Middle East flow from a history of colonialism or conspiracy.
	Does buy into the idea that Islam is incompatible with modernity or tolerance, or that it's been polluted by Western values.
	This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign.
	The path to peace begins right here on this ancient soil in this sacred land.
	America is prepared to stand with you in pursuit of shared interests and common security.
	But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them.
	The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their country, and frankly, for their families and for their children.
	It's a choice between two futures, and it is a choice America cannot make for you.
	A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists.
	Drive them out.
	Drive them out of your places of worship.
	Drive them out of your communities.
	Drive them out of your holy land and drive them out of this earth.
	For our part, America is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts.
	We will discard those strategies that have not worked and will apply new approaches informed by experience, talent, and judgment.
	Saudi Arabia also joined us this week in placing sanctions on one of the most senior leaders of Hezbollah.
	Of course, there is still much work to be done.
	That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamicists and Islamic terror of all kinds.
	We must stop what they're doing to inspire because they do nothing to inspire but kill.
	And we are having a very profound effect if you look at what's happened recently.
	And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.
	Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear.
	Barbarism will deliver you no glory.
	Piety to evil will bring you no dignity.
	If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be fully condemned.
	And political leaders must speak out to affirm the same idea.
	Heroes don't kill innocents, they save them.
	There you have a tale of two presidents.
	You have the apologist, the appeaser, versus the realist, and the individual that is willing to go up against evil and confront evil and identify evil.
	Now, I know that the media, all they want to talk about is the conspiracy theory.
	We are getting deep in the weeds here.
	So deep in the weeds, are we not, Linda?
	Very deep.
	And we're going to get to that in a second.
	Do you understand?
	And by the way, I was really glad that the First Lady and that Ivanka, and we'll get into this later with Lara Trump on the program today, didn't cover themselves.
	They dressed like they always dress.
	And we have all of these issues involving Hillary Clinton.
	We had Hillary colluding 20% America uranium in Vladimir Putin's hands.
	Then you have, you know, money of the Clinton Foundation.
	You have the Saudis and all these corrupt governments that adhere to Sharia law, giving millions to the Clinton Foundation, buying her silence.
	Meanwhile, they oppress women and kill gays and lesbians and oppress Christians and Jews.
	Such a distinction.
	And I know that, like everything else that the president has done that is successful, that that is not going to be given its true coverage and commitment from the media because all we really focus on now is conspiracy theory news, which is where I'm going to get to in a moment.
	But for the president to lay out a better vision, and the one thing that this Iranian deal did is it brought together a coalition in the Middle East that never existed before.
	And now that we have a potential, strong U.S. partner and not somebody that has become hostile to our closest ally, Israel, the way Obama did, by the way, influencing elections, Obama tried to influence the election that Benjamin Netanyahu was running in re-election.
	He tried to influence it.
	I thought influencing elections was bad.
	The Russians did it to us.
	Okay, but we've been told they did it before and they did it again.
	They'll do it again.
	But for the president, a better future, now that you have the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians now working with the Israelis and the United States that is now being a part of it, and a president that said radical Islamic terror and described a better vision and future only if these nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists.
	Drive them out.
	Drive them out of your places of worship.
	Drive them out of your communities.
	Drive them out of your holy land and drive them out of this earth was so powerful, especially comparing everything that happened under Barack Obama and pledging cooperation, principled realism, rooting in partners, not perfection, imploring leaders of more than 50 Arab countries to deny all territory to the foot soldiers of evil.
	I mean, it was as powerful a moment as Trump has had as president that I've seen since he took office.
	He framed the fight against ISIS and other terrorists.
	This is a battle of good and evil.
	Well, yeah, it is because people that want to advance their religion, their caliphate, and they're willing to kill innocent men, women, and children and use terror to get there, and that have no tolerance for people that have views other than their own worldview.
	That is exactly what it is.
	And America is devoted to its allies, and our friends will never question our support.
	Our enemies will never doubt our determination.
	We're not here to lecture.
	We're not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, or how to worship.
	By the way, you're not going to change people anyway.
	But if you create sort of like Sun Tzu and the art of war, alliances against one common enemy, just like we allied with the former Soviet Union in World War II to defeat Nazism, the world can be a much better, safer place with less evil in it.
	And, you know, it's hard, you know, in that sense, you know, would I prefer the president talk about human rights abuses?
	Yeah, I got it, but and the oppression of women and persecution of Jews and slaughter of Christians.
	And, you know, that's all going to come through better relations.
	But the first big elephant in the room here is we better all understand if you want your lives not to be, because remember, they're in close proximity.
	You know, the Iranians want hegemony.
	Iranians are willing.
	They're now fighting proxy war after proxy war.
	Who do you think is fighting the Saudis out of Yemen?
	That would be the Iranian-supported radical terrorists there.
	They're doing the bidding of the Iranians.
	You know, the Iranians being Shia and the Sunni Arab nations that I've been discussing here, like the Saudis.
	And, you know, he said every time a terrorist murders an innocent person and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.
	Well said.
	Terrorists don't worship God.
	They worship death.
	You ever think you'd ever hear Barack Obama say any of this?
	This is a tale of two presidencies.
	And the White House hinted in advance at the speech that, you know, they would not say radical Islamic terrorism.
	But anyway, president went right at it, right at it.
	This was a historic speech and moment that took place this weekend.
	No apologies, no political correctness, no Barack Obama weakness.
	And it was pretty amazing.
	Pretty, pretty powerful moment.
	And I'm not sure if the president, because of the insanity of the situation we now find ourselves in in this country, which is what I'm going to deal with at the bottom of this half hour.
	I don't think it's going to break through because the last thing the media wants to do is cover that this was such a, and the president in Israel today, same thing.
	If we don't defeat ISIS, we don't defeat the forces of evil, there will be no conditions under which we could even hope to improve the human rights for all people, Rex Tillerson said.
	Well, that was a powerful statement.
	Very, very powerful.
	And by the way, president said he'd always put America first.
	And yeah, he wants the Saudis to now start fighting for themselves.
	So they'll buy American arms from American companies and spend billions in America.
	So I do not, I do think America's got to stop sending young men and women, our treasured national treasure, to go fight these wars.
	It's got to stop.
	Because we have no intention of winning them, and they get politicized very quickly, and we pull out without victory.
	I know two things about you.
	You believe in objective, absolute truth.
	There's such a thing as black and white, not just shades of gray.
	And when it comes to politics, you like to think, not emote.
	But do you think like this when it comes to ethics, religion, and morality?
	Check out a podcast for thinking conservatives, issues, etc.
	Issuesetc.net.
	When you serve the web tonight, check out issuesetc.net.
	You may want to get your taper corners rolling for the next half hour of the program today as I'm going to address the media freak out.
	And there is a freakout going on on the issue of Russia collusion with the Trump campaign and the fact that there's no evidence.
	And that people are now beginning to ask other questions based on the case.
	And that people like me are beginning to ask very deep questions as it relates to the possibility.
	Possibility.
	I'm asking questions.
	I don't have the answers.
	If I was asking the, if I wouldn't need to ask questions if I had all the answers.
	There is a guy by the name of Kim.com.
	He's in New Zealand.
	Kim.com in 2015 predicted that Julian Assange would become Hillary Clinton's biggest nightmare in the 2016 election.
	He tweeted this weekend, I knew Seth Rich.
	I know he was the WikiLeaks source.
	I was involved.
	Do I know for a fact that's the case?
	No.
	Have I been in touch with Kim.com?
	Maybe.
	Did I tweet Kim.com this weekend and say you're the evidence?
	Can you explain that in more detail?
	Yes, I tweeted that.
	Do I have a lot more to say on this?
	Yes, I do.
	Do I have some that I won't be saying?
	I won't be saying everything I know.
	But I want to bring it out.
	I take this very, very seriously.
	And the only thing I'm going to say to you as we go into this half hour, The first thing we're going to do is prove how there's no evidence at all.
	With all the hysteria, the breathless reporting, I'm just going to quote Democrats saying there's no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
	Then we're going to look at Julian Assange and my interviews with him and his comments.
	And then we'll look at what he said in the Dutch interview.
	And then we're going to raise questions about the situation with the Democrats, what the DNC, what was provided to Wikileaks in terms of how damaging it was to the credibility of the DNC released on the eve of the convention and resulted in so many people's firing like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	And then I'll tell you what I think is happening and the questions that I will be asking, some of which I have answers to and some of which I don't have answers to.
	And I'll share all that I can with you.
	And that's next.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	All right, for all of those in the liberal destroy Trump media that have now engaged in this program, waiting breathlessly because they want to accuse Hannity of a conspiracy theory.
	Hannity is involved in conspiracy theories.
	That's what I've been hearing all these liberal people writing me.
	And I just want to say something.
	If it wasn't so funny, it's actually a great irony because the only people that have been involved in conspiracy theories now for the longest time are you in the media.
	And for those of you in the media that have hysterically and breathlessly, night after night after night, been reporting on the Russia-Trump collusion, the Russia-Trump collusion, and the DNC and Hillary and everybody involved, well, don't take my word for it.
	Let's just listen to Democrats when actually they asked the one simple question that means everything.
	Is there any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion?
	Don't take Sean Hannity's word for it.
	I want all of you to quote the Democrats, not me.
	But Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
	And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that in our report.
	Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
	I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you all have read.
	We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that included in our report.
	Can you say definitively that there was collusion?
	There were people affiliated with the Trump campaign who were working with Russians to time the release of damaging information about Hillary Clinton that had been hacked either from John Podesta or the DNC?
	I don't think we can say anything definitively at this point.
	Have you seen anything, either intelligence briefings, through intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you have made?
	They have the documentation that they did the hacking.
	The hacking.
	On the DNC.
	Right.
	And on some of us, you know, that have been.
	But the collusion, though.
	No, we have not.
	Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?
	Not at this time.
	Have you seen anything that suggests any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?
	Well, there's an awful lot of smoke there, let's put it that way.
	People that might have said they were involved, to what extent they were involved, to what extent the president might have known about these people or whatever.
	There's nothing there from that standpoint that we have seen directly linking our president to any of that.
	Nothing there.
	Those are Democrats you just heard from there.
	Now, it is very, very fascinating because I've watched night after night, day after day, read piece after piece of how the innuendo, the conspiracy, the conspiracy, the conspiracy.
	I keep saying it's the tin boil hat conspiracy theories in all of this.
	But there's no, Maxime Waters said it.
	Maxime Waters.
	You just heard, you know, Joe Manchin.
	You just heard Dianne Feinstein.
	Brennan and Comey and Clapper.
	I don't know what else to say after this.
	You know, this all got past.
	Remember, it all started, Richard David Hansen, one of the few people I like at NRO still, you know, this whole thing started during the nomination process when you had these never Trump people commissioning a dossier by this retired British agent, you know, that Comey was going to end up hiring so-called fusion Christopher Steele dossier, you know, the one that talked about hookers at the Ritz Carlton and Donald Trump and urinating on a bed.
	And they were going to hire this guy.
	And that got killed because it got, you know, for all the obvious reasons.
	It never happened.
	And then Robbie Mook's analytics and data weren't successful.
	And they're desperately trying to come up with a narrative.
	How is it that they lost to Donald Trump?
	They couldn't believe it.
	And so, well, it had to be done by WikiLeaks, and it had to be done with the Trump campaign.
	And the Trump campaign colluded.
	By the way, let's say they did.
	They said to Vladimir Putin, Vladimir, release everything you got.
	And Vladimir released it to Julian Assange.
	You know, is that a crime?
	By the way, if we're so upset about impacting elections or trying to influence foreign elections, how come none of these people got mad when Barack Obama tried to do it and did do it, tried to influence the Israeli election, where Trump, by the way, was so powerful today.
	Now, let's go to Julian Assange.
	I've interviewed him many times on this radio show.
	I've interviewed him on television.
	And while other journalists were on their vacation over Christmas, I took time out of my busy schedule of doing nothing.
	And I went to London and I interviewed him.
	And I had him on this radio program.
	And I asked him a number of times.
	Same question.
	Any evidence?
	Hey, listen to the question and answer.
	Also, in other words, let me be clear.
	Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC.
	That's correct.
	Nothing.
	It was not any state, he says.
	All right.
	Now, for those of you that are immediately going to try and smear Julian Assange, whether you like him, don't like him, trust him, don't trust him, he's never been proven wrong.
	Not one time, not once in 11 years.
	So he's giving an interview to Dutch television.
	Now, pay very close attention.
	He starts talking about whistleblowers, the efforts that people go to, the risks that people take to get him information that he then checks out and has not been proven wrong on in 11 years, whether you like what he does or doesn't, not been proven wrong.
	And then he immediately, without skipping a beat, starts talking about Seth Rich.
	Listen.
	Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks.
	There's a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.
	That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn't it?
	No, there's no finding.
	So what are you suggesting?
	I'm suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.
	But was he one of your sources then?
	I mean, we don't comment on who our sources are.
	But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?
	Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources face serious risks.
	That's why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.
	But it's quite something to suggest a murder.
	That's basically what you're doing.
	Well, others have suggested that we are investigating to understand what happened in that situation with Seth Rich.
	I think it is a concerning situation.
	There's not a conclusion yet.
	We wouldn't be willing to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it.
	And more importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens.
	Now, my interpretation, which I'm allowed to have, is I interpret that as, and remember, then WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information as it relates to the, that would find the person or persons responsible.
	Now, the narrative has been the entire time that this was a robbery gone bad, that Seth Rich was killed because of a robbery.
	Yet they didn't steal his watch.
	They didn't steal his wallet.
	They didn't steal his phone.
	They didn't steal any of that.
	As a matter of fact, it makes no sense to me.
	And this is my opinion, none whatsoever, that people are saying that this is a robbery.
	Everybody that I tell that to say, that's not a robbery.
	Every cop I know, every FBI guy I know, every investigator I know, they all say the same thing.
	Now, when you take it a step further, this whole thing, it raises a lot of questions.
	There were a lot of, and I want to be very clear.
	I'm asking questions.
	And I want to step back and say one thing.
	If any evidence ever comes up of Russia-Trump collusion, I'll report it.
	I have no problems.
	Reporting the truth.
	But I wonder, is it any different than what Obama did with Israel?
	Is it any different from the Democrats seeking as much dirt or hiring the guy in the Secret Service guy that the, what do you call it?
	MI6 guy, former MI6 guy, former retired British agent that put the dossier together.
	Is it any different than that?
	Digging dirt on Trump, digging dirt on Hillary?
	It's what campaigns do.
	Remember, none of them said, if there's evidence, I want to know.
	But you've got to understand why I'm asking these questions.
	Yeah, Christopher Steele's the name.
	Why am I asking these questions?
	Because the media is trying to destroy a sitting president.
	Because the media is so, so absolutely freaked out by Donald Trump being president.
	They're trying to find anything they can to overturn the election results.
	And the Democrats are saying they want to impeach a president over this issue.
	So all I'm saying I'm doing here is asking questions that they refuse to ask.
	And where my greatest interest, I'll let all of them combined do their job.
	And if they want to follow that path, fine.
	So far, it's got them nothing.
	But I'm more interested in what Julian Assange said when he talked about courageous whistleblowers and their efforts and the risks they take.
	And without skipping a beat, started talking about Seth Rich.
	And I want to say for the record, because people have been right, you don't care about the family.
	Are you kidding?
	My heart and soul goes out to this rich family.
	My heart, my soul, my prayers, everything goes out to these people.
	And I'm sorry, but I also know I would probably myself never recover as a father.
	And I also know that I'd want the truth as a father.
	And I don't know that they ever reached out to Julian Assange to say, can you just tell us if he was involved in this in any way?
	Is it really unfair or conspiratorial of me, you hypocrites in the media, with your conspiracy theories you have been pushing and pushing and pushing.
	And now I'm asking questions and somehow that's a conspiracy theory.
	And then I'm trying to hurt an innocent family.
	That is a crock.
	You're trying to take down a president and I'm trying to get to the truth.
	And I'm asking questions like I did that you never asked about Obama and his association with Ayers and Dorn and Alinsky and Reverend Wright.
	You people never went into.
	Just like you never told the truth after eight years of his failure.
	I didn't collude with the Hillary campaign.
	You people were proven to collude with the Hillary campaign.
	I don't need lectures from you people in the mainstream media that you are the kings and queens, if you will, of conspiracy theories because you have an agenda to drive this president out of office.
	I have an agenda to get to the truth.
	I'm not saying I have answers yet, but I'm digging deep.
	And I have a lot more information than all of you do at this point.
	Now let me say this.
	I have an article in an interview with Kim.com.
	Kim.com gave an interview.
	Successful, famous, in many ways he reminds me a little bit of Julian Assange.
	Young age, computer genius, hacker, gets in trouble.
	He even broke into NASA like Julian broke into NASA.
	Here's Kim.com in this interview.
	He founded Mega Upload.
	Yeah, Hannity's indicted in the U.S.
	Yeah, okay, because there's a company in the U.S.
	They said a copyright infringement.
	I don't know the details of the case, but he's a very smart computer guy, brilliant guy.
	Here's what he said in the Bloomberg interview.
	So what Julian Assange is doing, he's putting a spotlight on all these secrets.
	How often do you talk to him?
	Look, I like these guys.
	You know, I look up to them.
	I think they are very brave.
	They're going through a very hard time.
	You know, and they chose to do that for the betterment of all of us.
	So, yeah, I love to talk to them.
	So you said you were going to bring the Internet Party to the U.S. in 2016.
	Why?
	What's your goal?
	Well, because I think there's a big group of people out there that disagree with what's going on.
	They want to have their privacy back.
	They want to have internet freedom.
	You tweeted that you were going to be Hillary's worst nightmare in 2016.
	How so?
	Well, I have to say it's probably more Julian.
	But I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her.
	So, you know, if I can provide some transparency with these people and make them part of what the Internet Party stands for, then, you know, I will be happy to do that.
	You're saying Julian Assange is going to be Hillary's horse nightmare in 2016.
	Well, he has access to information.
	Well, Hillary hates Julian.
	She is just an adversary of, I think, internet freedom.
	All right.
	He was right.
	Way ahead of the curve.
	Now, here's where it gets interesting.
	For my cock stations along the Sean Hannity show line, I'm going long here, so hang with me.
	It's important.
	I get this out in one piece.
	Kim.com tweeted this weekend, I knew Seth Rich.
	I know he was the WikiLeaks source.
	I was involved.
	And I tweeted him back.
	You're the evidence.
	Can you explain that in more detail?
	That's where I'm going to stop.
	But for all of you in the media, I'm not going to stop doing my job and asking questions because I know the lies you're telling and the conspiracies you've spun with no evidence to destroy a president in conjunction with the deep state.
	I was right in so many other past inside.
	You never vetted.
	I was right that he failed.
	You never told people.
	You colluded with Hillary.
	I didn't.
	You didn't think Trump could win?
	He won.
	I was right about Trayvon Martin.
	Wait for the facts.
	I was right in the Jewel case in Atlanta.
	I was right in Ferguson, Missouri, because I waited for the facts in the Michael Brown case.
	I was right in Baltimore.
	You guys were wrong.
	I was right in the Harvard police acted stupidly.
	I've been right, and you have been wrong more often than any people I know.
	And if you think you people are going to intimidate me when you are guilty of what you are now asking me of, you don't know me.
	Because even if you take my microphone away and end up getting me fired, I'll find a way to communicate.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	So what Julian Assange is doing is putting a spotlight on all these secrets.
	How often do you talk to him?
	Look, I like these guys.
	You know, I look up to them.
	I think they are very brave.
	They're going through a very hard time.
	You know, and they chose to do that for the betterment of all of us.
	So, yeah, I love to talk to them.
	So, you said you were going to bring the Internet Party to the U.S. in 2016?
	Why?
	What's your goal?
	Well, because I think there's a big group of people out there that disagree with what's going on.
	They want to have their privacy back.
	They want to have internet freedom.
	You tweeted that you were going to be Hillary's worst nightmare in 2016.
	How so?
	Well, I have to say it's probably more Julian.
	But I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her.
	So, you know, if I can provide some transparency with these people and make them part of what the Internet Party stands for, then, you know, I will be happy to do that.
	You're saying Julian Assange is going to be Hillary's worst nightmare in 2016.
	Well, he has access to information.
	Well, Hillary hates Julian.
	She is just an adversary of, I think, Internet Freedom.
	All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show.
	Glad you're with us.
	That was Kim.com.
	That was an interview that he gave to Bloomberg.
	That was in May of 2015.
	Well, actually, I'm aware of the roadblocks for Hillary that Julian Assange is going to put up.
	Pretty amazing prediction, pretty accurate prediction.
	And there is a lot of panic as we speak today in Washington, D.C. and at the highest ranks of the Democratic National Committee.
	And that is this story over Seth Rich.
	But it's bigger than Seth Rich and bigger than what's happening here.
	And the Democrats themselves, the media, have been involved in the biggest conspiracy theory without any evidence.
	And I'm willing to look at the evidence.
	If they have it, show it to me.
	I'm willing to see whatever they've got of the conspiracy.
	But the reality and the truth is this simple right now.
	There is no evidence of any collusion in spite of all the breathless reporting, in spite of all the hyperventilating that you have been watching on cable TV and you've been reading in the newspapers and you've been watching on the three big networks.
	No evidence.
	But they would have you believe that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin and Hillary Clinton herself has advanced this conspiracy theory, you know, saying, well, that's one of the reasons I lost the election and WikiLeaks and blah, blah, blah.
	And the Russians.
	Okay, really?
	Where's the evidence?
	Where is the evidence?
	Now, rather than listen to me say that there's no evidence to this point, let's listen to people like Dianne Feinstein and James Clapper and Maxine Waters and John Brennan and Reuters and all these other people all saying there's no evidence.
	Forget Sean Hannity for a minute.
	Let's listen to them.
	But Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
	And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that in our report.
	Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
	I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you all have read.
	We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that included in our report.
	Can you say definitively that there was collusion?
	There were people affiliated with the Trump campaign who were working with Russians to time the release of damaging information about Hillary Clinton that had been hacked either from John Podesta or the DNC?
	I don't think we can say anything definitively at this point.
	Have you seen anything, either intelligence briefings, through intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you have made?
	They have the documentation that they did the hacking.
	The hacking.
	On the DNC.
	Right.
	And on some of us, you know, that had to be.
	But the collusion, though.
	No, we have not.
	Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?
	Not at this time.
	Have you seen anything that suggests any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?
	Well, there's an awful lot of smoke there.
	Let's put it that way.
	People that might have said they were involved, to what extent they were involved, to what extent the president might have known about these people or whatever.
	There's nothing there from that standpoint that we have seen directly linking our president to any of that.
	Nothing.
	So why is there so much breathless reporting, hysteria, innuendo?
	And I guess up to this point lies when we don't have any evidence to support it.
	Now, why did I bring up this guy, Kim.com?
	Well, he tweeted over the weekend that I knew Seth Rich and I know he was the WikiLeaks source.
	I was involved.
	And then I go back to my interviews with Julian Assange and I asked Julian Assange straight up, which apparently none of these other reporters took the time to do.
	Now, you can say what you want.
	You don't like Julian Assange, et cetera, et cetera.
	Fine.
	Give me an instance where WikiLeaks has been wrong in the last 11 years.
	They've never been wrong.
	Not one time.
	And I asked him, is it Russia?
	Is it?
	Our source is not the Russian government.
	So in other words, let me be clear.
	Russia did not give you the podesta documents or anything from the DNC.
	That's correct.
	That's correct.
	Now we go to Julian Assange in this Dutch interview where he talks about whistleblowers and the efforts that they make to work for him to get to the truth and the risks that they take and how he immediately transitions into this 27-year-old Seth Rich.
	Remember, he was killed.
	They called it a robbery, but yet they didn't take his wallet.
	They didn't take his watch.
	They didn't take his necklace.
	They didn't take anything from this guy.
	Nothing.
	They didn't take his phone.
	That doesn't sound like a robbery to me.
	Listen.
	Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks.
	There's a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.
	That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn't it?
	No, there's no finding.
	What are you suggesting?
	What are you suggesting?
	I'm suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.
	But was he one of your sources then?
	We don't comment on who our sources are.
	But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?
	Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources face serious risks.
	That's why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.
	But it's quite something to suggest a murder.
	That's basically what you're doing.
	Well, others have suggested that we are investigating to understand what happened in that situation with Seth Rich.
	I think it is a concerning situation.
	There's not a conclusion yet.
	We wouldn't be willing to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it.
	And more importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens.
	Now, my interpretation is he's saying, pretty much without saying, that it's Seth.
	Anyway, what are other people's interpretation?
	My job is to just get to the truth.
	I don't want to be like the rest of the media and get a conspiracy theory.
	Brian Finch is the co-chair of the cybersecurity practice at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw, Pittman.
	Rachel Alexander has been following the story for a long time at thestream.org.
	And also joining us is Jonathan Gillam, former FBI, Air Marshal, Navy SEAL, and genuine good guy.
	And welcome all to the program.
	Look, let me ask you all a very simple question.
	We now know that everybody in the Democratic Party says that there is no evidence.
	Then we have Julian Assan saying it's not Russia.
	And then my interpretation in his remarks on Dutch TV are that he's pretty much suggesting that Seth Rich was the source for WikiLeaks with the DNC.
	Is your interpretation the same as mine, Brian Finch?
	I think that's a fair assessment of what he's saying.
	I mean, he certainly has pointed in that direction.
	And I think the obvious next question or sort of more sad realization of the state of media affairs is that if he was alleging that there was a similar case within the RNC and that someone was covering up a murder of an RNC staffer, the mainstream media and congressional Democrats and others would be all over it and saying, you know, Trump's guilty of murder or whoever would be the person of interest here.
	But in this case, since it's Hillary and trying to explain their Hillary loss, they're trying to continue to make the excuse that it was some nefarious foreign government and nefarious motives for Trump to explain the otherwise, in their minds, unexplainable.
	What are your thoughts, Rachel Alexander?
	Do you think that my interpretation of his remarks are right, or do you think I'm off?
	Yeah, I agree with you.
	I mean, the evidence just keeps coming out more and more that Seth Rich was the leaker.
	And instead of Congress spending and all these intelligence agencies spending hours and hours and hours trying to find just one link between Russia and Trump, why isn't Congress interviewing Julian Assange?
	Why aren't the investigative agencies getting to the bottom of this?
	The evidence just never stops.
	This weekend was so much, I couldn't even keep up with it.
	I agree with you.
	And what's your take on it, Jonathan Gillam?
	Well, Sean, listen, I think from an investigative standpoint, what I would like to see from Wikileaks to process is I know he doesn't want to give out names of sources, but I think now that this individual's been murdered, if he was a source, it would be good to give his name and tell us these three things.
	How did his leak coincide with the dates of the quote-unquote Russian hack of the DNC?
	How did it coincide with the dates that Podesta emailed Robbie Mook saying that they should make an example out of the leaker?
	And lastly, when his murder happened?
	Because what that would be.
	Let me take Seth Rich out of it.
	And I want to be very sensitive, even though everybody's saying, and the media is, you know, it's interesting that they have run with a conspiracy theory with no evidence for so many months that has been so hurtful and destructive.
	And the fact that I'm just looking at facts and evidence and words and comments and analyzing them fairly and objectively, I'm being accused of advancing a conspiracy theory.
	So I find the irony here almost comical.
	But I do want to be respectful to Seth Rich's family.
	I'm sure it's a painful period in their life.
	I know that they don't want to be in the spotlight.
	But I would assume because it's their family and their son and their brother that they want the truth.
	I'm just, because I know I would.
	That's how I would act.
	And I think that this is so sad what has happened here.
	I don't believe you don't think based on your investigative background in any way that this is a robbery, do you?
	Listen, they keep saying it was a robbery when the guy was killed.
	So therefore it's a murder, even if somebody was trying to rob him.
	But it's interesting how they continuously say, even in that interview that you just played with.com, where the guy says, so you're just assuming that it was murder.
	Well, it was murder.
	It was murder.
	Yeah, I mean, it was murder.
	I mean, and I feel very badly for the family.
	My thoughts and prayers go out to them.
	But I also, will you all agree on this question, and we ought to take a break?
	Will you all agree that if in fact, take Seth out of it, that if it was a DNC disgruntled whistleblower truth teller that bravely saw collusion and corruption at the highest levels to deny Bernie Sanders a fair shot?
	And if they were the leaker to WikiLeaks, what would that mean for the Russia conspiracy media in this country?
	What would it mean for the whole Trump-Russia colluding narrative, Rachel?
	You know, I'm worried it wouldn't shut it down because they'll just say, well, Russia was colluding with the Trump campaign in other ways if it wasn't just, you know, through hacking the email.
	But the whole narrative was that they handed this off.
	I mean, the whole narrative is that they are the ones that the Trump-Russia collusion got this in the hands of Wikileaks.
	But, all right, stay there.
	We've got to take a break.
	800-941 Sean.
	We'll continue more with Brian Finch, Rachel Alexander, Jonathan Gillum.
	We continue with Jonathan Gillum and Brian Finch and Rachel Alexander.
	All right, real quickly, because we have short time here, but we'll get back to this.
	If in fact it turns out that there was a truth-telling whistleblower upset that Bernie Sanders was in fact screwed by the DNC, that the DNC conspired to cheat Bernie and his supporters, if that ever turned out, taking any one name out of this, what would that mean for the media that ran with it's Russia, Trump, Russia, Trump, Brian Finch?
	You know, I'd have to agree with Rachel on this.
	I think they would probably gloss over it and still search for any scraps of a nexus between the Trump administration and players and the.
	What about their credibility?
	What about they lied to the American people all these months?
	What about the corruption that would be exposed at the Democratic Party if it were true?
	You know, honestly, I think a lot of people take that for a given.
	At this point, the lack of credibility and the misrepresentation of facts.
	We've talked about it before.
	You know, how many people do I hear saying that they need to cancel their subscriptions to former wonderful journals of free press and objectivity like the New York Times, Washington Post, and others?
	I think a lot of people believe it.
	The problem isn't whether people see these as objective and legitimate.
	It's just the repetitive nature of these stories and just getting hammered with it over and over and over again.
	And unfortunately, that's the best thing and worst thing about free speech.
	You just keep carrying these things.
	So got to have people like you who are out there presenting the opposition.
	Oh, we're out there.
	We're always out there.
	We're out there vetting Obama pretty much alone.
	We're out there, you know, with Reverend Wright, Ayrzendorn, and Alinsky and Acorn.
	And then we're out there exposing Obama's failed date years, which the media never did.
	And then we're out there, you know, saying that Donald Trump's going to be a better president and he can win, and the media is ready to write my obituary.
	How many other stories have we been?
	We've been out there on the Ferguson case, the Baltimore case, the Trayvon Martin case, and we've been right every time.
	Even Buddy Jewell, not Buddy, he's the singer.
	Richard Jewell in Atlanta.
	We were right on him.
	Quick break.
	We'll continue more with our panel and your calls, 800-941 Sean next.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean.
	And we just played a media montage a number of times on the program today, how all the Democrats have to finally, when pressed, admit there's no evidence at all of any collusion with the Trump campaign in Russia.
	And the narrative, the conspiracy theory, keeps getting advanced.
	Well, then, we've actually done more work than they have.
	We're actually asked, we've asked Julian Assange, and Julia said, no, it's not Russia.
	His source was not Russia.
	Oh, well, that's interesting.
	And then he makes these comments on Dutch TV where he talks about whistleblowers and the efforts and the risks that people take to get information to WikiLeaks.
	And then he, on his own, mentions a 27-year-old who was killed in what we were being told for almost a year now was a robbery.
	And it turns out they didn't rob his phone or apparently I guess he had a chain around his neck and he had a wallet and he had a watch.
	So I don't know how they make that into a robbery.
	And then you have the person that predicted with pinpoint accuracy, pinpoint accuracy, the impact that Julian Assange would have on the 2016 race in May of 2015, saying, quote, I knew Seth Rich.
	I knew he was the at WikiLeaks source.
	I was involved.
	And the plot thickens.
	The plot thickens.
	Now, do I have all the answers?
	Absolutely not.
	Do I know for certainty?
	I'm not saying I do.
	Do I have my deep suspicions?
	Yes.
	What are your deepest suspicions based on what we know now, Jonathan Gillam?
	Well, I think it was murder.
	And I think there's an.
	Well, we know it was murder.
	That's right, because they shot the kid, and it's horrible.
	Right.
	I think it was murder, though, with enough circumstantial evidence with the fact that after it seems like they knew the DNC, the Podestas, the Moots, the Clintons, they knew that somebody was leaking information.
	The FBI goes to them, tells them that they're being hacked, that the DNC is being hacked.
	They did nothing for a month.
	And then all of a sudden, it comes out that the Russians had hacked them, and there is all these Russian footprints all over the place, which never happens.
	And then an email comes out saying between Podesta and Moot that was leaked, also to Wikileaks, saying that they needed to make an example of whoever the leaker was.
	These things point to somebody structure of a murder to me.
	That's what it all looks like structure of cover-up of who was leaking it, make it look like it's the Russians, and then go out and make an example of the leaker.
	And nobody's looking at that.
	You think that's a distinct possibility?
	Absolutely.
	Look, Sean, how many people do you or most people know that have been murdered?
	When you look at the Clintons, there's like 40 to 60 people that have been murdered that they know.
	Now, when you add that to this, there's a trail of people being murdered along the lines with the Clintons.
	And I think this is how people have to look at this.
	You spread the truth.
	That's what I do.
	I look for the truth.
	People need to educate themselves so when the media spends this, they'll say, well, hold on a second.
	That doesn't meet the timeline of the way things are laid out.
	What is your take, Rachel?
	You know, as a former prosecutor, I mean, to me, this just looks like an open and shut case.
	And if this was being tried in a court of law and you presented all this evidence to a jury, I believe the jury would come to the conclusion that, yes, he was murdered by somebody connected to, you know, maybe the Hillary, the Clintons, the Democrats who wanted him gone.
	What's your interpretation, Brian Finch?
	You know, at this point, I think it's highly suspicious.
	I wouldn't be ready to pin it on any given organization or any individual.
	I do think, though, it highlights at the end of the day that the incredible dissatisfaction and the incredible dishonesty of the DNC during the campaign process and how much it had been spoiled and aimed towards Hillary Clinton.
	It just goes to show how much the Democratic Party at the end of the day had surrendered its values and its principles with respect to government to the personality of the Clinton family.
	And, you know, you reap what you sow.
	You know, whether or not this was actually tied to someone in the Clinton family or the Clinton campaign, I'm not ready to make that connection at any given time.
	But this is what you do when you're underhanded and you're always walking a fine line between legal and illegal.
	So this is a story of their own making and is really more of their legacy than anything they've done politically.
	Thank you all for being with us.
	We appreciate your insight and analysis.
	800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
	Sherman is in Fairfield, Ohio.
	Sherman, you're on the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hi.
	Hi, thank you.
	I'm honored to talk to you, sir.
	The honor's all mine.
	What could I do for you?
	Well, being a police officer of 20 years, also chief of police for 10 of those years, you know, I couldn't happen to agree more that this Seth Rich murder, we can't really say is tied to DNC, but it's definitely leads there that want more checking into.
	Listen, if they're going to do the investigation, in my view, based on all that I'm reading and all the people involved, like, for example, I want to know this question, and I want to know, did anybody ever reach out to Julian Assange and ask him?
	Did anyone in the family, did anyone, and I've reached out to the family, I'd love to talk to them because I want to help them actually get to the bottom of this.
	I think getting to the truth is so important in life.
	And, you know, he would be the one person that knows yay or nay.
	You know, could he just, like, for example, he ruled out to me Russia.
	And I wish I asked him straight up, can you rule out this?
	And maybe he would do that for people.
	I don't know.
	Well, I agree.
	And the fact that Julius San brought out the fact of this murder.
	I mean, everybody and anybody can know that he was talking about Rich or Seth.
	But the thing of it is, is that the question is, is that, you know, you brought out the deep state, and it's come to light.
	Everybody doubted it.
	So now the question is, is if this was part of the deep state, will it ever come to light?
	Personally, I don't think so.
	I've never seen corruption as bad as it is.
	I've never seen anything as corrupt as it is.
	I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.
	You know how many of my friends are now calling me saying, you need to get out of this business.
	Just stop.
	Just stop.
	You've got to stop.
	You've gone too far.
	But by the way, Linda, hasn't that happened on every single big case we've been involved in?
	Everybody always comes after us and tells us to stop, and we never stop.
	And I can't think of any big case we've been wrong on.
	And we're not even taking a position here except to look deeper.
	What we're saying here is I'm listening to the Democrats say there's no evidence.
	I'm watching the media breathlessly advance a conspiracy theory.
	And I'm standing back as somebody who actually took the time to go to England, unlike the rest of these lazy reporters when I did it over my Christmas vacation and having him on the phone and I'm looking at what he says and what he said to me.
	And I have to factor in WikiLeaks' track record of being right.
	And I'm coming to a conclusion that there's, wow, a whole other way to look at this that we need to start asking questions about.
	And it's amazing.
	I've had all these liberal journalists writing me the last two days, well, you're a family man I hear.
	Why are you being so unfair to the family?
	I'm like, what?
	My thoughts and prayers go out to these people.
	I could say this unequivocally that I don't think I'd ever survive what they've been through.
	Of course, I'm praying for them, hoping for them.
	But I also know that from my heart, I would want an answer.
	I think, too, it's pretty sad that it takes you to look into it instead of the DNC that their son worked for.
	And I think it's also very interesting that we haven't heard from the parents, but instead a DNC spokesperson who happens to be the family's representative.
	How do you know that's a DNC spokesperson?
	Because you know what it all is?
	I've done some research.
	Unlike liberals, I know how to use a computer and do research.
	You know, the amazing thing to me, because I keep reading that too, but the amazing thing in all of this to me is all of this, we nailed this back in August.
	I don't know why we dropped it.
	I guess because of the campaign is the obvious reason.
	It's not that we dropped it.
	It was that there was so much going on.
	So much going on.
	And, you know, they were so busy drumming up, you know, fake conspiracies that have no evidence.
	And we're trying to follow, you know, some very serious tips and information that are coming out about a young man who died.
	And I have to think that if this much information was out on Russia, I think that Donald Trump would be in prison.
	So I find it very interesting with no evidence and with all of these Democratic senators saying that there's no evidence and with our own CIA and FBI and NSA directors saying that there's no evidence, we're still looking for evidence.
	Isn't it amazing all the times that we have on this program gone out on a limb?
	And we are our own.
	Going back to 07, Sean.
	Well, in 07, I did the only, Eric Rush was great.
	I did the only interview with Reverend Wright.
	And then he stopped doing interviews.
	Yeah, he stopped talking to anybody.
	And it was that we kept talking about it, and we kept investigating what he had said.
	What was black liberation theology?
	You know, what is the church that he went to all these years?
	Well, remember, you were the only person to talk about Barack Obama's two autobiographies.
	That's correct.
	And we played the audio.
	We played the audio.
	And then all the supervisors.
	White folks' greed runs a world in need.
	You can't even get that now.
	It disappeared.
	Suddenly it's not available.
	And then we went into Acorn and Marshall and Black Liberation Theology and Alinsky and Ayers and Dorn and then smaller cases.
	Not small, but I mean they were big.
	We went out on a limb as it relates to Harvard.
	The first case when we look at Harvard case.
	And the one thing I'll never get credit for in my career is being right.
	And it makes sense.
	Or waiting or just following the facts as they lead.
	And we follow the facts and then we end up being right.
	And they end up being wrong and they never get the egg on their face.
	And I am saying that as of today, there's no evidence.
	I watch the media coverage and I can't believe what I see every night.
	You would think they had full-on evidence of a conspiracy.
	But when the few times they're actually asked the real question, do you have any evidence?
	No.
	Yeah, but see, also remember, this is the same DNC that would not allow the FBI in to have their own servers researched and that phrases, that to me is a single thing.
	You never hear about that on any of the late night shows while they're giving out their fake news, which unfortunately is where a lot of the American people are getting their information.
	Yeah, and I'm watching the, you see right now that the attack we are back where we have been many times, where because we are doing something different and asking different questions and standing apart and being free thinking and not being the sheep that they are, you see what comes with it.
	And it's a level of attack.
	I mean, right now they want me out of this.
	And so what are they going to do?
	They're going to do what they always do, which is they will attack me personally.
	And it is at the highest level.
	It's at one of the highest levels.
	I mean, it's nothing we haven't sustained before, but it's just never going to stop.
	But I sense the fear on this case that I've never sensed before.
	A panic is engulfing both the media, the DNC, and all of those that have participated in the conspiracy theory.
	There is a lot of collusion, just not with Trump and Russia.
	Well, I think that's a great point and not proven yet.
	Now, we've always said, show me the evidence.
	I am willing to look at any evidence of collusion.
	And if it's the truth, I, you know, you have to admit the truth.
	Not going to spin something that we know is true, but there's no evidence.
	There's no truth.
	There's no...
	And we have to find it before they destroy it.
	I'm sure they're in the process of that right now, right?
	Wouldn't surprise me.
	I don't really have a reaction to that.
	But what can you tell us about the status of the NBC?
	I don't know who that person is, and the chief of police can give you the best person to give you the status update.
	Well, he's claiming that he's working with the family.
	The family says he has been helping them, but being paid by a third party.
	It's Rod Wheeler.
	He's the third party.
	I don't know.
	Yes, but that's what the family told us.
	They said that, but he told us last night that he has information, that there's evidence on Seth Rich's laptop that connects him to communications and that's what he's doing.
	This is what I think is important to talk about, that any homicide in the District of Columbia gets the full attention of the Metropolitan Police Department.
	And in fact, we have a cold case unit that is always focused on how they solve homicides in D.C., no matter how old the homicides are.
	Mayor, were you ever in communication with the DNC over this case or no?
	I'm sorry.
	Were you ever in communication with the DNC with this case or no?
	Of course.
	I think the Metropolitan Police Department in the course of their investigation have reached out to any and all parties.
	What did you talk about as far as this case was concerned?
	I don't think I particularly talked to the DNC.
	They came in to talk with us with the Seth's family, and then our discussion was with the family.
	So it wasn't anything that had to do with a stand-down order that you're being insisted on.
	That's preposterous.
	There's a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.
	That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn't it?
	No, there's no finding.
	So what are you suggesting?
	I'm suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.
	But was he one of your sources then?
	I mean, we don't comment on who our sources are.
	Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?
	Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources face serious risks.
	That's why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.
	But it's quite something to suggest a murder.
	That's basically what you're doing.
	Well, others have suggested that.
	Right, Julian Assange implying, well, Seth Rich could have been the WikiLeaks source.
	That's how I interpret that.
	All right, when we come back, News Roundup and Information Overload Hour 8009.1 Sean, full coverage of top two stories tonight on Hannity on the Fox News channel as we dig deep into, yes, the tale of two presidents, one weak, one timid, one apologizing, and one strong.
	And then, of course, okay, the whole media conspiracy lie about Trump and Russia.
	And what are the other possibilities that they're not looking into?
	We'll do their job as usual.
	Ten Eastern, Hannity, Fox.
	There are no facts that prove there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	We don't know yet.
	Nobody knows.
	We do know there are no facts as of right now.
	And in fact, I worked on that campaign.
	I can tell you there were no facts.
	And it never came up in the polls.
	And it never showed up in the electorate.
	And there was no evidence that they tampered with any electorate at all, any election ballots at all.
	So they keep on spreading this.
	Hillary Clinton got destroyed in the election.
	She was supposed to win, and it was the biggest upset for the establishment that they've ever seen.
	So they invented this myth that the Russians interfered.
	And you know what?
	They'll keep talking about General Flynn.
	You know who took more money from the Russians than General Flynn did?
	John, forgive me.
	I can't let you say that on air without the people you're accusing being here to speak for themselves.
	Forgive me, I can't do it.
	I can't do it.
	I would like to talk to you.
	We would very much like to talk to you once we hear back from Mr. Mueller.
	Let's do that, can we?
	Can we make a date?
	Mr. Mueller, he just when he reports, let's talk about it.
	But I'm talking about facts, and this is all.
	I can't let you make those allegations, John.
	I'm sorry.
	Not on air, because we'll be held liable as well.
	Those people have to be allowed to defend themselves.
	Thank you.
	Let's talk again.
	Thank you.
	You're off the air.
	News Roundup, information overload.
	That was on the BBC.
	And you can't speak the truth on the BBC.
	It's just stunning that exchange.
	That's our buddy John McLaughlin, pollster, founder of McLaughlin and Associates.
	He's actually the Good Brother.
	And we got Doug Chone, pollster author and political analyst for Fox News.
	All right, here is where we are with this whole Russia thing.
	By the way, I mean, they totally cut you off, just so our audience knows.
	You were hung up on.
	That was it.
	Yeah, they called me to Skype an interview on the BBC, and I did it.
	And it's important, like most Americans, vast majority of Americans, don't watch the BBC, but they do all throughout Europe and the Middle East.
	And it's important that somebody get out there and defend our president.
	So I was doing the interview, and when I said that, when I started to say that the Clintons took more money from the Russians than General Flynn, all of a sudden he's cutting me off and talking about getting sued or libel laws.
	That's a fact.
	I sent him a link from the New York Times.
	You know, it was okay, I guess, when Bernie Sanders was going after the Clintons that they, you know, Bill Clinton got a half million dollars, as you often talk about, a half a million dollars for one speech from Russians.
	And the Clinton Foundation got millions when she was in charge of the State Department, they deciding to sell uranium assets in the United States to the Russians.
	So it was amazing that he cut me off at that point.
	And it was nothing short of censorship.
	And there's been a running Twitter war since last week between myself and Mike Gembley, who's the BBC presenter for that.
	And at one point, they were saying, well, it had to be UK sources.
	I guess I used a Canadian source and a New York Times source, and I guess they weren't good enough.
	But it's absolute censorship.
	And you watch this one, too.
	The president gave a great speech in Saudi Arabia the other day.
	Oh, it was amazing.
	By the way, I guarantee you, Doug Schoen liked it.
	We'll get to him in a minute.
	But I bet, Doug, yes or no, you liked it, right?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	All right, John, go ahead.
	Look at the lack of coverage in the United States.
	Most people you talk to say what speech.
	You know, they know he's over there, but he does something great that the media should be raving about, and they're silent.
	They're radio silent on that.
	And Doug, if I'm wrong, just say so.
	But I think it's amazing what they're censoring.
	And it's amazing what they're covering and what they're not covering.
	All right.
	Let me go through this because we have all of these people on tape, everybody from James Clapper to Admiral Rogers to even Dianne Feinstein last week and Joe Manchin.
	There's no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
	Now, Doug, I'll ask you as a Democrat, can you cite any evidence?
	After all this conspiracy theory talk, is there any evidence you have of Trump-Russia collusion you could share with my audience?
	Not at this point.
	Not at this point.
	All right.
	And if it comes out, we have to look at it.
	But with all the talk and all the insinuation and all the conspiracy, we don't have any evidence.
	And they have to admit that.
	Now, I guess the next part of this equation is whether or not there's a possibility that there might have been a Democrat disgruntled in the DNC that perhaps was a whistleblower, truth teller that saw the collusion.
	You don't have any doubt they screwed Bernie Sanders, do you, at the DNC and they conspired to do it, Doug?
	They conspired to screw Bernie Sanders.
	Totally, right?
	From what I can tell, he played right along with him.
	Right.
	He really seems weird, right?
	I agree with you.
	He went in the tank where he should have exposed the truth.
	Now, I want to, I've interviewed Julian Assange multiple times on this radio show and on TV.
	Let me play Julian Assange when I ask him specifically, was it Russia on the leaks?
	Now, keep in mind, you cannot trust Julian Assange if you want, but WikiLeaks factually has not been wrong in 11 years.
	Our source is not the Russian government.
	So in other words, let me be clear.
	Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC.
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	Now, he does a Dutch TV interview, and you tell me if you guys agree with me or not.
	But my interpretation, he pretty much all but says Seth Rich was the source.
	Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks.
	There's a 27-year-old that works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.
	That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn't it?
	No, there's no finding.
	What are you suggesting?
	What are you suggesting?
	I'm suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.
	But was he one of your sources then?
	We don't comment on who our sources are.
	But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?
	Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States.
	And our sources face serious risks.
	That's why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity.
	But it's quite something to suggest a murder.
	That's basically what you're doing.
	Well, others have suggested that we are investigating to understand what happened in that situation with Seth Rich.
	I think it is a concerning situation.
	There's not a conclusion yet.
	We wouldn't be willing to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it.
	And more importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens.
	Okay.
	My interpretation is he all but said it's Seth Rich.
	Do you agree with my interpretation, John McLaughlin?
	I think your interpretation is right.
	And what would be shocking?
	I mean, that BBC interview, which is on our website, McLaughlinonline.com, that guy without any facts is talking about impeaching Donald Trump on the BBC.
	Here, you've got a situation where I think it was only reported on Fox News channel, and you were probably talking about it, where that young man who it's tragic, he was killed, and they've not found the killer.
	But that young man supposedly had contacts on the internet with WikiLeaks, according to a private investigator that I think his family hired.
	So, you know, there's a lot more.
	Well, here's an interesting twist.
	And Doug, do you agree with my interpretation?
	I agree with your interpretation of what Julian Assange was saying.
	I don't know that the facts have been determined at all yet, Sean.
	Okay, no, no, that's a fair interpretation.
	Nobody can say definitively that the facts have been determined.
	All right, but now based on what we know and all of the talk of conspiracy and the Russia conspiracy and the Trump-Russia connection and that this is what led to the leak of the DNC emails, I'll ask both of you this question.
	Doug Shoan, what is the more likely of the two scenarios, what do you think is more likely the truth?
	That it was a DNC, a potential person in the DNC disgruntled, a whistleblower, a truth-teller, or the Russians that colluded with the Trump campaign?
	Sean, at this point, that is a question that's beyond my competence to answer.
	We don't have enough evidence of either one for me to give a good or definitive judgment.
	Now, I have an article from May 14th, 2015, and the headline is, Kim.com, Julian Assange will be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare.
	That's May of 2015.
	Now, you've got a story after story, the Gateway Pund, and other places today that, you know, complete panic at the highest levels of the DNC because this guy, Kim.com, tweeted out this weekend, I knew Seth Rich.
	I know he was the WikiLeaks source.
	I was involved.
	Now, based on his track record, now he'd like Julian as a controversial figure, but based on his track record of being accurate, how much interest does that peak in your mind, John McLaughlin?
	Well, I think it would peak it, but you know, it was interesting.
	Robert Mueller, when he was given his position as an independent counsel, it certainly is to go after these ties, alleged ties, that I think are totally phony because I was in the Trump campaign between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	But there was another paragraph going after, gave him really broad authority to go after anything related.
	This is something he should look into that deserves a serious offense.
	Somebody was killed.
	You know, there's political connections.
	Hopefully, you would never want something like this to be true.
	But if it's true that this poor young man was killed because he was leaking to WikiLeaks, we owe it to our system to find out who was responsible for that.
	So I think Robert Mueller should definitely look into this.
	Yeah, and honestly, I feel very badly for this young man's family.
	And I feel very badly that this narrative of a burglary has been advanced for almost a year since this young man was shot and killed, when, in fact, they say it's a burglary.
	Did you ever hear of a burglary, Doug, that they don't take the person's necklace, watch, phone, wallet?
	That doesn't sound like a burglary to me.
	Does it sound like to you?
	I would endorse John's comment.
	Special prosecutors have wide berths.
	They should look into it.
	But I'm asking, does that sound like a burglary to you?
	Come on, just be honest.
	Well, it's not my line of work, but no.
	It's not my line of work, but no.
	All right.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	John McLaughlin, we may hang up on him like the BBC did in a few minutes if we feel like it, and just, you know, silence him and shut him down.
	And, of course, we have our friend Doug Schoen with us.
	Right, as we continue with John McLaughlin and Doug Schoen and the media narrative about Russia-Trump collusion, the conspiracy theory, there's no evidence.
	How do we know there's no evidence?
	Well, let's listen to Democrats tell us repeatedly there's no evidence.
	But Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
	And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office.
	The Director of National Intelligence had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that in our report.
	Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
	I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you all have read.
	We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that included in our report.
	Can you say definitively that there was collusion?
	There were people affiliated with the Trump campaign who were working with Russians to time the release of damaging information about Hillary Clinton that had been hacked either from John Podesta or the DNC?
	I don't think we can say anything definitively at this point.
	Have you seen anything, either intelligence briefings, through intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you've made?
	They have the documentation that they did the hacking.
	The hacking.
	On the DNC.
	Right.
	And on some of us, you know, that have been.
	But the collusion, though.
	No, we have not.
	Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?
	Not at this time.
	Have you seen anything that suggests any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?
	Well, there's an awful lot of smoke there.
	Let's put it that way.
	People that might have said they were involved, to what extent they were involved, to what extent the president might have known about these people or whatever.
	There's nothing there from that standpoint that we have seen directly linking our president to any of that.
	Wow.
	What's your reaction to that, John McLaughlin, especially in light of the narrative and the hysteria and the breathless reporting on media?
	Well, I can tell you one thing is I feel like a typical Trump voter.
	We're all like, this is nonsense.
	We need to fix the country, make things better.
	I mean, besides when that BBC reporter cut me off when I told them there was no collusion, you've had the Media Research Center blog about this.
	You've had Secure America now engage on this.
	Steve Forbes posted it today.
	There are tens of millions of people out there that are really upset that Washington is so out of touch.
	They're wasting time with this.
	While in the meantime, the average person would like their health care fixed.
	They'd like to see the economy grow through tax cuts.
	And this is what Washington's concerned about.
	I mean, it's just, I think you're going to see a backlash from the Trump voters.
	I agree totally, and I think it's coming.
	You know, Doug, I noticed that last week that I saw a little panic emerging in the Democratic Party because they went so hard impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, that they're beginning to realize that they're now in jeopardy.
	And in light of developing events, that there is a whole other narrative emerging, that there's real panic that everybody, if it's proven that there was no collusion and that the leak came from, let's say, somebody in the DNC, let's say, and that turns out to be true, that means we've been lied to all these months.
	What does that do to the credibility of the Democrats and the media?
	Sean, there's a Democratic campaign that doesn't concern impeachment.
	It concerns cuts to health care, cuts to the budget, cuts to the social programs.
	That's where I would urge my party, if it'd still be my party, to concentrate their fire.
	Can I say accurately that, Doug Sean, you're worried that they've gone over the ledge here and it may bite them in the ass?
	I think that if I were running their campaign, which I'm not, I would focus on that which is certain, which is draconian cuts to programs most Democrats hold near and dear, rather than allegations that, as you have pointed out, have yet to be proven.
	All right, Doug Schoen, John McLaughlin, thank you both for being with us.
	All right, we saw Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump in Saudi Arabia.
	They were not wearing headscarves like Hillary Clinton did on other trips.
	That is an issue that we're going to discuss and the powerful speech that the president gave in Saudi Arabia and the mistreatment of the Trump women.
	Lara Trump joins us exclusively next.
	Straight ahead.
	All right, the fake news roundup never stops.
	800-941, Sean, is a toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	You know, it's very interesting.
	One of my big criticisms during the political campaign, and we go through this every election season, is if you are conservative, if you are a Republican, then that means you're racist, you're sexist, you're misogynistic, you're homophobic, you're xenophobic, you're Islamophobic.
	And the great hypocrisy that nobody in the mainstream left-wing media wanted to focus on was the great hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton.
	There actually is a Russia connection, and that's the Uranium One deal where Hillary signed off as Secretary of State, and 20% of America's uranium ends up in the hands of Vladimir Putin, and it is the foundational material, as you know, for nuclear weapons.
	And the fact that many of the people that were involved in that deal kicked back millions and millions to the Clinton Foundation.
	And Bill Clinton ended up doubling his speaking fees in Moscow.
	There's a real Russia connection.
	But one of the great hypocrisies is the fact that over the years, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had taken millions and millions and millions of dollars from countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Qatar and the Emirates.
	And we've gone through all the varying laws and the oppression of women and gays and lesbians and Christians and Jews.
	I'll give you Saudi Arabia as one example.
	Women are told to dress a certain way.
	They have no choice.
	They have no option.
	Women in Saudi Arabia can't drive.
	Women in Saudi Arabia up until 2015 couldn't vote at all.
	Then, of course, they can't travel abroad, and they're treated like second-class citizens, which is just horrific.
	And you can't believe it happens in this day and age, but it does.
	Gays and lesbians are literally put to death for no other reason than being gay and lesbian.
	And Christians and Jews don't have the right, the freedom to worship as they choose.
	You can't build a temple, and you cannot build a church in Saudi Arabia.
	Now, the Clintons took millions of dollars.
	And I looked and looked and looked, and I never was able to find any instance in which Hillary Clinton went after the abysmal human rights record, track record of Saudi Arabia.
	And she'd go there, and I know that she'd been to other countries, and she would, you know, honor and respect their religious tradition.
	And she'd put on a headscarf, as Madeline Albright did and so many other people in many instances.
	And a lot of note was taken this weekend where the first lady, Melania Trump, and the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, did not wear a head covering.
	And actually, Melania and Ivanka got very positive press as being very conservative in Saudi Arabia.
	It was interesting to watch that observation.
	In other words, they didn't capitulate.
	Obama went there and went on his apology tour and he blamed America.
	And Donald Trump went there and said it's time for all of you to get your act together and stand up against radical Islam and kick them out of your mosques and get rid of the cancer that exists that is a threat to every man, woman, and child.
	Just a very different approach.
	I mean, it is the tale of two presidencies as far as I'm concerned, night and day.
	And the fact that I think you have this distinction where you have a false characterization of Republicans and conservatives, and Hillary, who was bought and paid for by the Saudis and all these other Muslim countries, is so telling.
	Joining us to talk about this and much more, Lara Trump.
	She's the wife of Eric Trump.
	And by the way, she's now part of a digital company that's being used by the president that was used during his presidential campaign and apparently is now gearing up even for a reelection bid in 2020.
	How are you, Laura?
	Hey, Sean, I'm doing really well.
	Thanks so much for having me.
	And I just have to say, just listening to you just now, I'm so incredibly proud of our president, my father-in-law, overseas.
	He looks amazing.
	He's so presidential.
	He seems so strong in the face of, you know, so much criticism.
	And I don't think that there's anything negative that anyone can say about the speech in Saudi Arabia, about seeing him now in Israel.
	I'm just so, so proud of him.
	We're going to talk about a tale of two presidencies on Hannity tonight, my opening monologue.
	But I just want to ask you, because it really is a false narrative that Democrats put out there.
	And Hillary took all that money from all those Muslim countries for her foundation.
	And it seems that they bought her silence in terms of she was never critical of their abysmal human rights record.
	What are your thoughts on that?
	Well, and you know, you're right.
	We never hear anything about that.
	And I wonder why that is.
	It's because, and you're calling this whole segment fake news.
	I mean, that's exactly what it is.
	They pick and choose what they want to report.
	And when it comes to Democrats, they underreport the negatives that you see coming out of the Democratic side.
	And they try and find anything they can, of course, to go against Republicans, to go against my father-in-law.
	And, you know, as the first woman to run for the presidency on the ticket, it was really disappointing that this was the woman.
	And I said it during the campaign, this was the woman that represented all women as the first one to run for the presidency because, you know, you see things like that and you see all of this, just these back-end deals and things that are never reported and never talked about and are bad for our country.
	And I mean, thank God that we have the president we do today because you have to think what would have happened had she become the president.
	What would have happened with all those deals when she had to pay up and live up to the expectations that these people had from her?
	And now we see my father-in-law who is representing this country impeccably overseas on his first overseas trip.
	And you're right.
	It couldn't be more different.
	It's night and day.
	And, you know, again, thank God we're in the situation we're in.
	Yeah, well said.
	Look, I do believe the attacks against the president are unprecedented, but also the attacks against the First Lady.
	I won't reiterate the things that have been said.
	You know what's happening.
	You've heard them.
	And the attacks against Ivanka Trump in particular.
	The late night comedians, for example.
	You talked to her.
	You're friends with her.
	You're best friends with her, as I understand.
	And I mean, how is she taking all of this?
	I mean, she recently wrote a book and, you know, women who work and rewriting the rules for success.
	And from what I understand, she can't even go out and promote her own book.
	Yeah, well, I'm very close to Ivanka.
	We're an incredibly close family.
	And she was really passionate about this book.
	Really, the book was written from a businesswoman's perspective, from a mother's perspective, who is trying to figure out life between home and work.
	And this is more of a guide as an entrepreneur for women out there who are businesswomen, who also have families, who are trying to figure out how to make it all happen.
	And, you know, being that she's in the position she's in, she said, you know what, I won't go out and promote this book.
	So you never heard her say anything about it.
	I tend to think it's an incredible book.
	As a woman who works myself, who will be a mother come September, I found it incredibly insightful.
	And, you know, what did you hear?
	You heard people on the left just saying anything negative they could so that sales of her book were repressed.
	And, you know, listen, these are people who are supposed to be propping women up, you know, supposedly.
	And instead, they're trying to tear her down.
	But despite that, Sean, her book has been on the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal bestseller list for weeks now since her book debuted.
	So it's not working.
	Without any promotion at all.
	Without any promotion at all.
	People are interested in what she has to say.
	And again, I find it incredibly insightful.
	And as a woman myself who can learn from Ivanka, I have always found her to be an incredible role model.
	And before I was even pregnant, I always said to her, I hope I can emulate what you do when I become a mom, because she really does have it all worked out, at least in my mind.
	I'm sure she's chaotic most days, like we all are.
	But, you know, it's a shame that instead of propping a woman up and saying, you know what, this is a book that can help all women, what you hear from women on the left is negativity and trying to repress sales of her book, but it's not working, which is great.
	Look, I just think the double standard, I mean, let's use an example.
	If some of the things that were said about Ivanka or Melania Trump and how in God's name does anybody get away with saying anything about a 10-year-old kid is beyond any comprehension I have in my life, but that all has happened.
	Anybody that likes and supports the president, anyone working for him, Bannon and Jared and Reince and poor Kellyanne and all of these people, Sean Spicer, I mean, it's a daily beat-up job on the poor guy.
	But I guess my question is, I mean, if you are close to the president, like the president, support the president, you're going to get the crap beat out of you.
	Yeah, and I think that that's become the narrative.
	We all understand that.
	And the nice thing is that I'll tell you, I see notes from people all the time.
	People are still ordering merchandise.
	And as you mentioned in my introduction, I'm working with the campaign.
	And I see the incredible things.
	When people place an order on our website for merchandise, they have the ability to write a note on there.
	And these notes are so inspiring to read.
	I go through all the time and read them because people say things directly to the president.
	We are proud of you.
	We're with you.
	The fact that we're still able to fundraise and that we are still here.
	The movement that started in this country almost two years ago now is still here, says a lot.
	And it says that it doesn't matter what they're doing out there.
	We all know what they're doing.
	And we can handle it.
	You know, we made it through this campaign as bloody as it was.
	And I think we all understand that this is for the betterment of the country.
	And if we have to take a few knocks here and there and get a little bruised up, that's okay.
	Because at the end, it will all be worth it.
	Are you really saying a few knocks?
	This is more than a few knocks.
	And I've been.
	I'm being a little conservative.
	I've been a brawler my entire life.
	And I've been, since my first day on radio for 30 years, I've been hit, but not this hard.
	Trust me.
	And I don't mind a good fight.
	Well, I think it's really pretty great that you guys are out there and you're taking it in stride that way.
	I think the greatest concern the left has is that Donald Trump is actually going to be effective and successful.
	That's their worst nightmare.
	And I think he will.
	And you know what?
	I say it to people all the time.
	People always come up to me.
	They come up to my husband, Eric, and they say, you know, we're worried.
	We hope the president knows that we're still with him.
	And the one thing I will say about my father-in-law is it doesn't matter what they say about him.
	It doesn't matter what they try to do.
	He will always do what he knows is right and what is best for this country.
	And you see it right now happening overseas, the way he's representing us, the accomplishments that I think he's already had over there.
	I mean, this is a historic trip of epic proportions.
	You have not seen something like this ever in my history, you know, that I know about.
	This is so special.
	And what he will do for this country, there will be no denying it.
	And I think I felt it during the campaign.
	The more they pushed back from the other side, the more I knew we were winning.
	And I still feel it today.
	And I think they're very nervous because they know he's going to do great things for this country.
	And you've got to understand.
	I mean, if they can do nothing else, they want the noise.
	And the noise and the chatter and the breathlessness, you know, actually, in a way, helps them prevent the president from being successful.
	And that's also part of what they want.
	I mean, if they can create enough distraction and 80% of the time the administration is fighting off critics and fighting off conspiracy theories, if they're successful at that, then they're successful in some capacity of stopping the agenda.
	Well, and they should be ashamed of themselves because all they're doing is hurting our country.
	You know, when they start doing things like that, and you're right, that's exactly what's happening.
	It's to the detriment of our country.
	And reporters out there, and I use that term very loosely, journalists used very loosely these days, they ought to be ashamed of themselves because we should all be trying to help the president achieve the best for our country.
	And instead, it's what you say.
	You know, it's every single day.
	We all see it.
	It's an all-out fight to try and find anything that he has said, anything that he has done wrong.
	And, you know, it's really a shame.
	And history will look back on this time.
	And I really do feel like I'm on the right side of history every day.
	I sleep very well every night knowing that.
	And these people aren't.
	And they're doing things that could potentially hurt our country, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
	All right, Lara Trump.
	We'll also see you on Hannity tonight talking about these same issues and more.
	And by the way, we're going to put a link of Ivanka's book on our website.
	Well, I don't even know if I can.
	It'll be an in-kind donation.
	Remember, I did that with my buddy Gomez, and it cost me $200,000 in legal fees.
	No, I can't do anything.
	I don't get charged legal fees.
	Well, anyway, Ivanka's book is Women Who Work.
	It's in bookstores everywhere, Amazon.com.
	Lara, tell, you've got to tell Eric, I think he definitely got way the better side of this deal.
	And I don't mind saying it publicly, even because he's a friend of mine, and he'll probably be upset, but I always tell the truth.
	I'll let him know, Sean.
	Thank you so much.
	All right, Lara Trump, then they have a baby.
	Congratulations on that coming soon.
	7800-941 Sean on toll-free telephone number.
	Hey, in order to successfully run your own business, you need attention to detail.
	It's critical.
	Now, one contract slip up, one legal misunderstanding, and it can set you back big time.
	Now, fortunately, there is legalzoom.com.
	Now, you may already know that over a million Americans have used legalzoom.com to start their businesses, but legal Zoom services go way beyond business formation.
	And they have built a nationwide network of independent attorneys.
	They provide legal answers to your day-to-day questions that you have about your business.
	Now, you got to face it, you know, things like trademarks and employment law and lease agreements, it gets pretty complicated pretty fast.
	Don't waste your valuable time trying to wrap your head around all of the fine print.
	Use legalzoom.com so that you can focus on growing your business instead.
	You're going to get the legal help you need without being billed by the hour.
	LegalZoom.com is not a law firm.
	Go to legalzoom.com today.
	Put my last name, Hannity, in the referral box when you check out.
	You got a special savings only at legalzoom.com, legalzoom.com.
	Quick break, right back, and we will continue.
	And awesome, Hannity.
	We have two big breaking news stories tonight.
	The tale of two presidencies, and that is on foreign policy: an apology tour versus a tour of strength, and a story for the ages.
	We will break down how the media-Russia collusion narrative is dissolving before their eyes, and there's no evidence.
	But is there another answer?
	We're digging deep tonight.
	Hannity, attend.

▲