Sean is off and filling in at the helm is guest host Jay Sekulow who kicked off the show revisiting President Trump's proposed travel ban. Just today, the US Court of Appears for the 4th circuit, ruled that President Trump's Executive Order restricting travel was unconstitutional. Sekulow has the latest and the next steps in protecting American citizens both here and abroad. The Sean Hannity Show is live from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
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 and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
You will love this pillow.
Hey, everybody, this is Jay Seculo.
I am guest hosting, hosting for my friend Sean Hannity.
He's taking a couple days off as the vacation and the holidays start.
If you don't know me, I'm the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
That's a law firm.
We do cases all over the country.
I have really all over the world.
I've argued over a dozen cases at the Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm frequently on Sean's radio and television broadcasts.
And it's an honor to be sitting in for Sean today.
There is a lot that's developing.
Of course, if you want to talk to us, I encourage you to do that at 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
So again, if you want to talk to us, we'll be taking calls.
I've got to start with what is now breaking news.
I know everybody, we're getting a lot of breaking news these days.
Well, we have one.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard arguments last month in the president's executive order as it relates to what they are calling, remember the so-called travel ban, which was actually just the restrictions put in place to protect the country from six specific countries.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and full disclosure here, we filed a brief.
The American Center for Law and Justice filed a brief in the case, ruled not surprisingly, that the court, that the order of the president violated, you ready for this?
The religion clause, the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.
It states in part, in this context, the executive order in the text, in its vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.
They're basing this on statements the president had made when he was running for the presidency of the United States and determined that that makes it unconstitutional.
The lawyer arguing the case actually asserted during the oral argument that if Hillary Clinton had written the same executive order, it would be in fact constitutional.
And a majority of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals basically said this.
It's a 220-page opinion.
I'm not going to bore you with the opinion because, believe me, the Fourth Circuit is not the last court that's going to hear this.
But here's what happened.
The Fourth Circuit said the order is gone, unconstitutional.
But again, the same order by Hillary Clinton, if she was President of the United States or Barack Obama, would have been constitutional.
And by the way, those six countries, the six countries of concern, those were the ones earmarked by the Obama administration.
So what do you call this?
I call it a blip in the road when it ultimately goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is where the case is destined to go.
But this comes on the heels, literally, of the horrible terror attack in Manchester, England, where we're getting more information every moment.
We now have the father and two of the brothers arrested in Libya.
What were they doing in Libya, by the way?
They'd been supposedly UK citizens.
The parents fled Libya, but they went back.
Why'd they go back?
Why are we afraid to ask the question, by the way, if someone goes to Libya, why in the UK were they afraid to ask the question?
What were you doing there?
And why is it a constitutional crisis?
If you simply do this, ask a question, ask a series of questions.
But our Department of Homeland Security under the previous administration was satisfied if you answered this question correctly.
Are you or have you been a terrorist?
If you answered no, I'm not a terrorist or have been a terrorist, you got in.
I mean, that was the nature of the review that was going on.
So when President Trump talked about extreme vetting, it was really just applying common sense.
And by the way, those of you that are going to say, well, this is, you know, Seculo is talking about profiling here.
I want you to understand something.
If in Manchester, England, the individuals that were responsible for this or may have been responsible for it were Scottish Presbyterians, I'd be looking at the Scottish Presbyterians.
But they weren't.
They were jihadists.
And that became clear quickly.
Now, here's the difficulty.
On the heels of all this, on the heels of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, you have this.
The UK, the United Kingdom, Great Britain, concerned about sharing intelligence information with the United States.
Why?
Because they're afraid it's going to be leaked by our intelligence agencies.
And I am telling you this, folks, as I was on our radio broadcast earlier today, literally playing that soundbite from the mayor of Manchester, concerned about the leaks.
Now it was immoral.
CNN sent out an email that said from a U.S. source and gave more information that was not yet public regarding the terrorism attack that they got from a source inside the United States government.
So when we've been talking for months about a deep state, we're witnessing that deep state at play even on the issues, and maybe especially on the issues of terrorism, where if you're politically correct, you don't call it radical jihadist.
But the president did, and the president did it in Riyadh, and the president did it in front of 50 leaders of the Muslim world, the presidents, the kings, the prime ministers of 50 Arab countries.
And he made a very profound statement that I am dubbing a Trump doctrine.
And that is something we've been calling for, by the way, and I know Sean has as well for a long time.
And that is you've got to start confronting the terrorism and the terrorists where they are, not just in Syria and Iraq, in the Middle East, but all over the globe.
And the president made a, what I call a profound statement on this when he used, and he was so crystal clear in the way he said it.
He made the statement I'm going to play in a minute.
It's the drive them out doctrine.
And the thing I like about the drive them out doctrine, it's exactly as it should be.
And this is what the policy should be.
And I'm going to call this the Trump policy on dealing with terrorists in your own community.
Let's go ahead and play clip number nine.
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.
Well, there you have it.
So let's look at it.
Drive them out of your places of worship.
If you, this imam in Manchester was concerned about the terrorist.
In fact, there were people in the mosque that were concerned about the terrorists, but because of political correctness, they didn't go to authorities.
In fact, there was a petition inside this particular mosque to really attack the imam, not physically, but in their context spiritually, because he had given a sermon against ISIS.
Now, these are just facts.
Just laying out the facts for you.
So when you say drive them out of your places of worship, there is an affirmative obligation on behalf of the Muslim community to drive them out of the mosques.
And then you have to, as the president said, drive them out of your communities, like Manchester, wherever it might be.
We're talking about those that have been radicalized or you think might have been radicalized going to officials.
And that's true, by the way, in the United States, because maybe then San Bernardino, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale in the airport, Boston, Fort Hood may not have happened.
And there's a common link between a lot of these.
The FBI had many of these individuals already on watch lists.
But I am personally, as a lawyer that's been practicing law for 38 years, am sick of this line after the incident.
After the incident's this.
British authorities have rounded up seven or eight other individuals involved in this group, this terror cell, this network, as they called it.
Why is it taking after the event to do all this when this individual was on the watch list to begin with?
But the president went to Riyadh and told those leaders you must drive them out.
And that wasn't all the president has done on this trip because he's been very emphatic.
In Bethlehem, with Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Massen was his war name, the leader of the Palestinian Authority.
He made a very strong statement.
To make this statement in Bethlehem in front of the press, and while Mahmoud Abbas is there, is something that I've not seen another president do.
Clip 10.
This call for driving out terrorism is a message I took to a historic gathering of Arab and Muslim leaders across the region, hosted by Saudi Arabia.
There I spent much time with King Solomon, a wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly.
Again, the messaging there is rapid movement, not being afraid to say exactly what it is.
And then in NATO today.
I mean, in NATO today.
I mean, the president, and NATO, with our NATO allies there, first talks about the fact that the United States, as he said during the campaign, we're getting ripped off by NATO financially.
He doesn't mince words.
Let me play, this is clip 12.
This is the one where the president talks about 23 of 28 member nations.
Listen to this.
But 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they're supposed to be paying for their defense.
This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.
And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years.
So the president is calling the nations of the world accountable.
He also, by the way, in the same speech, said, you know what, we need to be focusing on terrorism.
Because NATO, where it was getting obsolete, was the nature of the conflict.
There is an article, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty that, in essence, says if a member state is attacked, other member states will come to its defense.
It was invoked during 9-11.
It has not, by the way, been invoked in Manchester.
But it was invoked in 9-11 because of the scale and nature of the attack.
But NATO itself has to realize the threat that we're dealing with.
And that is we're in a global jihad.
We are in a global war.
And we have to be able to deal with it as, in fact, a war.
I play these soundbites from the president to say this.
The president has shown some very strong initiative here.
He's talked a very tough line and taken a very tough line, and his actions are showing it.
To make those statements that he made with the people he was around is very significant.
There was another statement where he said, and I don't know if I got the right number here, but I'm going to ask our team to look at this, with President Abbas there.
He said, I was gratified that President Abbas joined the summit.
But then he said the next line, let's go ahead if we've got it.
Let's go ahead and I'm going to get the exact number for you because I want this really an important statement here as to exactly what was said because the nature of who he was talking to, that was what was so critical here.
It's the one that says, I was gratified that President Abbas joined the summit, committed to taking affirm but necessary steps to fight terrorism, confronting its hateful ideology, which, by the way, the Palestinian Authority is itself initiating.
Let me play for you number 10.
This call for driving out terrorism is a message.
I'll tell you what, that's not the right one.
All right, we're going to get the right one.
I think we've got a mistake on our end, but it's very clear.
He says, also, peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded, or even rewarded.
And what I want to tell you that are listening to Sean's great radio broadcast right now, your taxpayer dollars are giving rewards to Palestinian terrorists.
Your taxpayer dollars are giving rewards to Palestinian terrorists.
They take the money from the United States, and part of it goes to paying the Palestinian terrorists.
That's the reality of what we're dealing with.
When we come back in just a moment, we're going to talk about a domestic issue for a moment.
The Congressional Budget Office, not exactly the most reliable of government agencies here, has scored the American Health Care Act.
We're going to talk to some experts on this that really know what's at stake.
Betsy McCoy, of course, former Lieutenant Governor of New York, very involved in healthcare reform, and our Director of Public Policy at the ACLJ, Professor Harry Hutchison.
He'll be joining us as well.
Again, if you want to talk to me, I'm Jay Seculo, sitting in for my good friend Sean Hannity.
If you want to talk to us, 1-800-941-Sean, that's 1-800-941-7326.
We'll be taking more of your calls or your comments.
We're going to get into the healthcare debate because we've got to talk about some of these domestic issues here, folks.
They're real.
They're happening.
And the fact is, and what we have to know here is this is a fight for our families right here in the United States on healthcare.
We'll talk more about it when we come back.
I also want to encourage you to stay tuned.
Also, we're going to get into some of the terrorism issues or some breaking news items.
We've got a lot more ahead.
But again, if you want to talk to us, 1-800-941-Sean, that's 800-941-7326.
I'm Jay Seculo, ACLJ.org at Jay Seculo on Facebook, excuse me, Twitter.
And if you want to talk to us, well, again, we'll take those phone calls.
We'll be back with more.
Your comments, your questions, and some really insightful commentary coming right up right after this.
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 surf the web tonight, check out issuesetc.net.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
It's Jay Seculo hosting for my friend Sean.
He's going to be back on Tuesday.
By the way, that music, I had a little bragging here.
I think it's appropriate.
It's from the Jay Seculo band.
Most of you did not.
Some of you know me as the lawyer, Supreme Court advocate.
You see me on Sean's TV program, hear me on radio.
But you probably did not know I was a rock and roll drummer and almost rock and roll guitarist.
I do play guitar as well.
But that's a Jay Seculo band.
It actually has a Facebook page.
So if you like music, that's kind of from my era, which is, you know, music stopped for me around 1974.
This outdates me a little bit.
But anyways, it's a Jay Seculo Band on Facebook.
You can look that up.
We've got a lot that we're going to talk about on the broadcast today.
Again, this is Jay Seculo.
I'm Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
You can get more information about the ACLJ at aclj.org.
You can follow me on Twitter at Jayseculo.
And of course, I've got a Facebook page.
The ACLJ has a Facebook page.
My son Jordan has a Facebook page.
And the band has a Facebook page.
So we've got a lot of Facebook pages.
We've got a lot that we're going to talk about.
And coming up, I'm going to get into the American Health Care Act because despite everything going on in the world, we also have to be concerned about what's happening right here in the United States of America as we've got a health care crisis, a spiral that is out of control.
We've got two great guests ready for that.
It's going to be a very interesting, important dialogue.
We're going to tell you what this CBO score really means.
By the way, the Congressional Budget Office, they were off about 100% in their scoring of Obamacare.
So I would not have the American Health Care Act fall because of a CBO scoring.
But I'm going to tell you some of the positive aspects of the CBO scoring, although I will say at the outset, the CBO has not been very accurate on their projections on numbers of people covered or people that would not have coverage.
We'll get into that.
I also am going to get into with colleagues of mine, Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing, and Andrew Oconimo, all lawyers, on the Russia collusion probe.
By the way, what is exactly the crime of collusion?
I've only been practicing law 38 years.
Is there really a crime of collusion?
We're going to talk about that.
And what is this really after?
Is collusion code word for impeachment?
Maybe.
It ain't going to happen.
We're going to have to be able to fight, fight back, and answer the real questions.
So there's a lot more ahead.
We'll be taking your calls at 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
I'm Jay Seculo, back with more.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Jay Seculo.
I'm sitting in for my friend Sean Hannity.
He's going to be back Tuesday.
Great holiday celebrations coming up from Memorial Day.
And I want to thank our men and women that have served and continue to serve and defend our freedom, which is under attack around the globe.
Without them, we wouldn't have freedom.
So for those of us that utilize the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the rest of the constitutional amendments for that matter, thank you.
Thank you for everything you're doing.
I want to go to a domestic matter for a minute.
Again, I'm Jay Seculo, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
You can follow me at jseculo or aclj.org.
As I said, sitting in for my friend Sean Hannity today.
I'll be back on Tuesday.
The CBO, Congressional Budget Office, has an analysis of the American Health Care Act, that is the repeal of Obamacare.
The CBO scoring came out, not surprising, by the way.
Let me just give you a little thumbnail here.
The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, projected that 21 to 22 million people would be enrolled in Obamacare exchanges by 2016.
They were only off by 100%.
And that was because only 10 million, in fact, about 9,700,000 were.
I could give you the cost differential.
You know what you're paying in premiums and how that's increased.
And on and on it goes.
Fortunately, it has passed the House of Representatives, and I am nervous as it goes to the United States Senate, which needs 50 plus one to get it to pass.
And there's a lot of discussions about it, but I thought I'd bring in two experts.
Professor Harry Hutchison is the Director of Policy and Law Professor, Director of Policy at the ACLJ.
And Betsy McCoy is the former Lieutenant Governor of New York.
She's a patient advocate.
She founded and is now chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and is an expert on the versions of health care bills and proposals.
She really knows the issue, very committed to it.
Both of you, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jay.
Betsy, let me start with you.
Mitch McConnell has already said, I'm worried about this.
We've got to get to 50.
I'm not sure I can get there.
Congressional Budget Office scoring comes out.
Give me your assessment of, first of all, the importance of getting the health care, Obamacare, as we know it, off the books for the American people.
It's going to be important for our economic recovery.
The millions of people who have been pushed down to part-time status on jobs so their employers could evade the employer mandate.
The people who are looking for work and will be able to find it once employers are not saddled with the cost of this.
Of course, the Congressional Budget Office didn't consider any of that.
And what really is so disturbing to CJ is the way politicians in both parties are having a meltdown over the CBO headlines rather than actually reading the report.
Isn't it so typical of Washington?
They're running for cover rather than looking for the facts.
The fact is that nothing in this report addresses the woes of the silent majority who have been so hurt by Obamacare.
The silent majority has never been more silent than it is right now.
They're getting the silent treatment from both parties in Washington.
Yeah, I lay the blame of this at both parties at this point.
I mean, I'm glad it got through the House, although that was quite a fight, and it got better as it went along.
But, Harry, I want to go to you on this one.
You look at the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, and they score these.
In other words, you had to have $2 billion worth of cuts for it to pass in the United States Senate as a kind of prerequisite.
It actually saves $119 billion.
But the CBO scoring on health care, when it comes to the number of coverage, people covered, and cost of premiums, was so off, not even in the ballpark.
I mean, 50%, 100% incorrect in their data.
Absolutely.
Whether it's enrollment, whether it's insurance premiums, whether it's the profitability of health insurance companies, the CBO has been consistently and notoriously wrong.
Jay, just as Sean Hannity has rightly suggested that the Russian collusion scandal is being deliberately manufactured by purveyors of fake news, the CBO report on the American Health Care Act was either deliberately or inadvertently manufactured by policy wonks that they have rarely been right, even if they have never been in doubt.
I would say deliberately deceptive.
Let me give you a couple of questions.
Yeah, absolutely.
One is they say that over 20 million people, fewer people, will have coverage.
But take a look at the footnote on the fourth page where it says coverage is defined as having a one-size-fits-all Washington style plan.
They say that people who choose to enroll in insurance that offers fewer benefits in exchange for a much more affordable premium will be considered not covered under this report.
Yeah, because they have this view of what's called minimum coverage requirements.
And that minimum coverage requirement is what has raised the cost of insurance for a family of three that are 28 years old with one child to record numbers that, if you look at it statistically, incomprehensible that that would be the coverage they needed.
But you're absolutely right.
And I look at the evidence.
It reminds me of the James Comey, you know, when someone said, well, you know, he was the former FBI director, what kind of witnesses?
Not credible.
And the CBO on this, Harry, is not credible.
Absolutely not.
They projected, for instance, with respect to Obamacare that economic growth would be 3.2 percent.
It was actually 2.1 percent.
They projected that costs would fall for most people with respect to insurance.
Costs rose by up to 116 percent last year in Arizona alone.
And across the board, all across the nation, premiums have doubled, have doubled since the end of 2013.
But you don't hear about any of that in the CBO report.
They deliberately slide over the fact that most people will have substantially lower premiums, big double-digit decreases in premiums under this new bill.
They do have to point out, of course, because this is just fact, that there will be $992 billion, that's with a B, in tax cuts.
Let me say that number again, $992 billion in tax cuts.
That's money you and I could be paying for that would come back to us that we could use for health care insurance.
And let's talk about the coggery for a moment because, and Chuck Schumer is the most guilty of this.
He is among many claiming that millions will have insurance coverage torn away from them because of the reductions in future Medicaid spending.
Well, that's not true at all.
Anyone who is currently enrolled in Medicaid is grandfathered in.
They're guaranteed to have their coverage.
This simply slows the growth in new enrollment, something that's very needed because the states are drowning in red ink from Medicaid.
I want to give a solution, though, because here's what's going to happen.
And Betsy and Harry, this is what the reality is.
And I want the American people to hear this.
Sean's got a vast audience here.
It's at the United States Senate.
Now, let's remember that the Republicans control the United States Senate.
So if they had the will to pass the American Health Care Act, it would pass if they had the will to do it now.
A senator who does not vote for it should be voted out of office next time around.
Okay, I want to follow up on that, Betsy, because this is important.
So if you start seeing the peel out or the excuses, which we're already seeing, and they're saying we're going to take a look at this afresh, Betsy first, then Harry, but I want to go Betsy first.
What do you want to send?
What message do you want to send to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and to also as well to Chuck Schumer?
Well, I would certainly say to the Senate Majority Leader and all the Republicans in Congress, if you do not support repeal, you do not get reelected.
Yeah, I want to add something to that, and that is pass the bill.
How about that for a direct order?
Pass the bill.
If you can make it better, great.
That happened in the House.
Harry, what's the message?
Because there's nothing that's going to happen here.
No, look, you're never going to get Chuck Schumer to agree to this.
So trying to cut that deal isn't going to work.
But the Republicans have to show some discipline in getting the job done here because the people paying the penalty, Harry, are the American people.
Absolutely.
So if the Senate lacks the courage to pass this bill, the American people should assume the courage to throw them out.
So this sounds, you know, it sounds Orwellian.
You're saying, you know, call out Congress on this.
But Betsy, what if you were voting right now, if you were a member, and you've held elected office, so if you were a member of the United States Senate with the bill as it is, is there anything you'd want to tweak right now to get it through, or would you just say, let's get this done?
I think we have to get it done and get it done soon.
First of all, it is standing in the way of tax reform.
But more importantly, Obamacare is in a death spiral.
And if we do not pass this bill and move on to this new system, millions of people who are depending on Congress to act will be left with no insurance alternatives next January.
I'm also concerned that we talk about the spiral of this, Harry, and we've talked about this a lot internally at the ACLJ.
We've been involved in a lot of the litigation on Obamacare and some of the fallout on Obamacare, including the mandatory aspects of violating people's religious conscience.
We have to litigate those at the Supreme Court successfully.
But again, fighting back on this has not been an easy task.
There is this sense of that I think we have right now what I call a media filibuster going on.
And that is the media is going to focus, and we're going to talk about what's going on in Russia with lawyers that actually know how it really works, by the way, former prosecutors, and we're going to talk about that.
But you look at the media filibusters going on, the last thing they want to happen is I'm talking about the left-wing media here, is to see the president sign a health care bill.
Because that would mean, gee, the first 120 days, 130 days, 140 days, Supreme Court justice, executive orders, health care reform, tax reform coming up.
So this media filibuster is happening.
So we have to be aggressive in our advocacy on this.
Absolutely.
But the Senate and the House have to take action.
That's the best way to fight against the media filibuster.
So, Betsy, let's talk about the political reality of what we've got.
So, Mitch McConnell got, I mean, he took bold action on getting, and I gave him a lot of credit for this, Justice Gorsuch confirmed by changing the rule.
By the way, changing the rule.
In other words, restoring it to what the Constitution actually said.
I mean, that's all that did.
It wasn't going nuclear.
It's going original.
No, I said con.
Yeah, I called it the constitutional option.
Right.
But you know that we're going to have a battle right now today on this bill and also getting, again, this media filibuster that's going on that nobody in the left-wing media wants to talk about.
So what's the messaging right now to the American people that you want to give?
Well, certainly that the silent majority need to speak up.
You see all of these demonstrations, town hall meetings, very, very vocal, demagogic speeches by a very small minority of people, the silent majority who are saddled with double-digit premium hikes every single year, who can't get a job, who have been pushed down to part-time status, all because of Obamacare.
They need to speak up, and it's time for members of Congress to represent them instead of these fringe minorities.
And here's the reality, folks.
If we do nothing, let me tell you who's going to suffer here.
Not the members of Congress.
They got their own policies.
Small business owners, large companies, employees, self-employed, rates are going at an unsustainable – Harry, you're a law and economics professor.
It's not sustainable.
Absolutely not.
So many people will simply flee the market.
Insurance carriers are fleeing the market.
Anthem, Cigna, Humana, all over the country.
And so essentially, you already have a death spiral, and this death spiral cannot be reversed under Obamacare.
That's why we need a new health care act, and we need it immediately.
Well, it's passed the House.
We've got to get it through the Senate.
The CBO, Congressional Budget Office, as I said, projected that 21 to 22 million people would be added to Obamacare exchanges by 2016.
It was actually about just under 10 million, so they were off by 11 million.
The CBO projections of profitability from health insurers, participating exchangers, were not only off the mark, as we've seen, as Harry just mentioned, major insurance companies pulling out.
You also had CBO estimates that were just incorrect as a matter of fact.
And the reality is, and Betsy, really quick, I just got a little bit of time.
Your statement to legislatures right now, to the Senate, is we have to get this done now.
That's right.
It's time to represent the American majority who elected Donald Trump president and who demanded repeal and replacement of Obamacare.
All right, Harry Hutchison, Betsy McCoy, thank you so much.
And Betsy, thanks for your continued.
You've been fighting on this for a long time.
And Betsy McCoy, I appreciate you coming on the broadcast today.
We're going to be back with a lot more in just a moment.
We're going to get into the Russia scandal.
Or is it?
Back with more.
Hey, everybody, this is Jay Seculan from my friend Sean Hannity.
We'll talk to you at 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
Sean's going to be back with us on Tuesday, celebrating the Memorial Day holiday as we celebrate the men and women that have served and continue to serve the United States of America.
Our freedoms are protected because of you.
So thank you.
Thank you to all of you that continue and your families that continue to defend our right to be free.
And none of us take it for granted here.
I'll tell you that, not for a moment.
Coming up, I'm going to get into the Russia scandal.
One thing they never put in my introductions, you're not going to, I think it's in our at ACLJ.org's there, but it's certainly not at Jay Seculo on Twitter.
But my first job out of law school was as a government lawyer.
The client was the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service.
Doesn't make you a lot of friends, by the way, when you say that.
But I was an IRS lawyer, civil and criminal cases.
We're going to be joined by three friends of mine, colleagues of mine, on the Russia scandal, so-called.
I not only call it a faux scandal, but I'm going to tell you this.
There is not a crime of collusion.
There's conspiracies to commit violations of federal criminal law, but they keep talking collusion, whatever that is.
But I'll tell you what the crime is.
The crime is when British authorities say we're not going to give information to the United States because we're concerned that the intelligence community is leaking it.
And as they're leaking it, literally, CNN is putting the leak out.
We're going to talk to Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing, one of my law partners, Andrew O'Connor, when we come back from this break.
Russia collusion or a leak investigation?
We'll talk about it coming right up.
More with the Sean Henning program.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Henny Show.
It's Jay Seculo sitting in for my friend Sean.
He's going to be back with us Tuesday.
Happy Memorial Day, especially to our men and women serving our country who have served and continue to serve and fight for freedom.
I have been practicing law for 38 years almost.
And I like practicing law with really tough lawyers, really aggressive lawyers.
And our next three guests, I have practiced law with on cases currently and cases going back a long time.
As I said, I was a government lawyer when I came out of law school, so were these folks.
We're joined in this video with me today.
Andy Oconamo is a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, also a former U.S. Attorney from the Northern District of Georgia.
Victoria Tunsing and Joe DeGenova, of course, founders of the Washington, D.C. law firm of DeGenova and Tunsing.
And by the way, all of us right now take cases together, work on cases together.
And I am telling you, I like getting on the phone with these folks because they know how to practice law and they practice law tough.
And we've got right now, and I want to start with a statement here quickly.
I'm a lawyer that deals with evidence.
So here's the evidence that we have so far.
Brennan, John Brennan, here's what he says.
He shared classified information.
Here it is.
Go ahead.
Shared classified information with the Russians while I was director of CIA.
CIA, on a routine basis, shares classified information with Russians on terrorism matters.
It doesn't mean that it becomes unclassified.
It means that it retains the classification but is releasable then to Russia or to other partners.
So that in itself is not unprecedented.
And I don't know what was shared or said in the Oval Office, but if the reports in the press are true that Mr. Trump decided to spontaneously share some intelligence with the Russians, I think he would have basically violated two protocols.
Yeah, okay.
Well, a couple of news-breaking items here.
Number one, Mr. Trump is the president of the United States, okay?
Guess what he doesn't have to do?
Ask for your permission if he's talking to the Russians or anybody else for that matter, any of our partners.
So I want to start with that.
Joe, and get yours and Victoria's statement.
I got another question for Andy.
That statement about the president sharing information, and that created such a firestorm, if in fact it happened, according to the press reports.
Why is this issue even an issue?
The president may have violated a protocol, which a president can't do, by the way.
He doesn't have to ask these folks to clear.
Go ahead, Joe.
Well, we have to understand who John Brennan is.
He's a classic Democratic apparatchik.
He's been around for years.
He has been in the intelligence community.
He is widely regarded as an intelligence hack within the intelligence community.
He is not well liked.
You could tell from his testimony that he was fairly seething at the notion of the types of questions he was being asked, particularly by Gowdy.
But the president is the ultimate declassifier and classifier.
He can do whatever he wants.
Nothing that he said to the Russians was improper, certainly not illegal.
He is the highest constitutional authority that there is.
Brennan was just looking for a way to be negative, violated protocols.
Thank you very much, Mr. Brennan.
Right.
Thank you.
Yeah, go ahead, Victoria.
Brennan expressed his concern because people from Russia, maybe people who were connected with Putin, were talking to people in the campaign, you know, a campaign that was looking to maybe we might be running the world and we have to talk to all these people.
Now, if he expressed such concern about this possibility that they might be compromised, I would have liked one Republican to have said, Well, Mr. Brennan, were you concerned when Bill Clinton, who was the wife of the Secretary of State, received $500,000 for a one-hour speech from a Russian bank that's connected with the crime?
Or how about when the president went on the plane with Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, and your wife was under investigation?
That might have been something.
Well, this Russia, I was feeding into the Russian Russia thing.
Uranium.
It was at the same time that Hillary was pushing the reset button to, here's her quote, to help strengthen Russia, unquote.
And then the 20% Iranium deal that gave the benefactors of that gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
We're not concerned about that, Mr. Brennan?
Evidently not.
So that was Brennan's comments.
Now, I like, again, I like playing some evidence.
So I'm going to play another one for you.
This is Senator Lindsey Graham talking to James Comey, the then head of the FBI, number two.
March the 5th, 2017, you said the following to a question.
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's the NSA, the FBI, the 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.
Chuck Todd then asked, I understand that, but does it exist?
You say no, not to my knowledge.
Is that still accurate?
It is.
All right, so now we've got Andy, the head of the FBI, then head of the FBI, saying, it is no evidence of this.
So you're a prosecutor.
You don't have evidence.
You don't bring the case.
No, I do not bring the case if I don't have any evidence.
There has been no evidence here of any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign whatsoever.
Whatever that means, by the way.
Whatever it means.
I don't know.
It's a violation of the law to collude.
It may be a violation of the law to conspire, but I've never heard that it's a violation of the law to collude.
And there's some collusion here, they say, but there's no evidence to support any allegation of collusion that I have heard from Clapper, from Comey, or from anyone else that has testified before any Congressional Investigative Committee.
There's a lot of talk about things that occurred allegedly, but if I had to have one hard evidence and the judge were to tell me, call your next witness and elicit some evidence that I can know of actual conspiracy here to violate the law, I can't find anything.
So when I was a Treasury lawyer, Joe, and you all were U.S. attorneys, I used to have to write what was called a criminal reference letter, a CRL.
And that would be if we had an investigation going on and we thought there was a crime being committed, the Treasury would contact the Justice Department lawyers and say, here's our basis of what it looks like.
Here's what the evidence is.
I am still perplexed when you have, I know this is what this is.
It's called politics.
And it's to do anything they can to stop the administration.
You got, as I said earlier, you got a media filibuster going on, and then this is part of it.
But you look at the statements from the leaders of the intelligence community.
I mean, in the question by Senator Graham, NSA, FBI, CIA, DNI.
So what is underneath here?
The career prosecutors, what are they doing?
Now we have a special counsel.
Well, I would assume that they have taken over what has been referred to as a counterintelligence investigation, which the FBI is conducting, which, of course, is not a criminal investigation.
And Rod Rosenstein, when he appointed Mueller, said he was doing so for reasons because of the heightened Interest in the matter, not because there was any evidence of crime or that a crime had been committed, but to insulate the department from further criticism.
What you're watching is nothing more than an attempt by various institutions to protect themselves.
There is no evidence that any criminal activity occurred.
I thought it was rather laughable yesterday when Gowdy asked Brennan whether or not he was aware of any collusion.
Brennan, snappy little SOB that he is, said, collusion is your word, not mine.
I wish Gowdy had said, no, no, Mr. Former Director.
Collusion is the word of the Democratic Party, not me.
It's the one they're using.
So I thought I'd use it in questioning you.
Just remarkable arrogance by Brennan.
By the way, put the guy on a polygraph, give him a grand jury subpoena, and ask him if he's talked to anybody about X, Y, and Z, who he unmasked and why he did it, and whether or not he leaked any information about it.
So, Victoria, I want to ask that to you because, you know, again, we talk about the evidence issue.
The four of us are lawyers here and aggressive lawyers at that, and we fight hard for our client.
And, you know, these guys are going to all, and anybody involved in this, they're going to all lawyer up, and they should, because the fact of the matter is, I think that the leaks are coming from the intelligence community.
So, if you were the special counsel, which I think this whole thing is a waste, but okay, they got a special counsel, what would you be looking at really right now?
How about this?
I'm going to put this out there.
The British telling us today, you know what, we're concerned about giving you classified information because it's leaking out of your agencies in record rates.
Go ahead, Victoria.
Well, I want to know, I'd separate all the leaks that are out there, and then I'd want to know who all had access to this material.
When I was Goldwater's chief counsel, he used to always go against it.
Oh, you can't have a leaking investigation because 595 people had access.
Well, that's not the kind of stuff that has been leaking out here.
This has been classified information that has only been available to a handful of people.
And certainly the unmasking can only be done by a handful of people.
So, I'd start right there with those people and focus in on each one of them.
All right, so we played Brennan.
Yeah, go ahead, John.
I also think that something very important happened today when Teresa May said she was going to raise this personally with the president, and they were deeply concerned about the leaks from the American intelligence community.
That was a slap in the face to John Brennan and everybody else in the intelligence community.
And may I say also to the people in the Department of Justice who up until now apparently have not been investigating the leaks.
Now, why that is, I cannot tell you, because the only crime we know for certain that has occurred is the unmasking and the revelation of Michael Flynn's name from phone calls that are top secret code word.
So, believe me, there have been lots of crimes committed, and there's not one shred of evidence that any of them have been committed by the president or anyone associated with him, his current administration, or his campaign.
No, so what I've been saying from the outset is the leaks are the crime.
And, Andy, when you have a leak, you should impanel, and we've been saying this on this broadcast with Sean for a long time.
I've been saying it in our work around the country.
Impanel the grand jury and start finding out these leakers.
That's right.
You need to start issuing subpoenas to some people and bring them into the grand jury and let them testify as to what is going on here.
And I think that's what ought to be done to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and not have all these talks and allegations and suggestions of, as Joe said, or somebody, that there's collusion here, which is not a crime as far as I'm concerned.
Or as far as I know.
Let me tell you something else here.
How about this?
James Comey, not exactly a credible witness.
I say he suffers from selective disclosure disorder.
And that's why he's testifying before a committee, not testifying before a committee, will testify before a committee, won't testify before a committee.
We'll do it only in private, but now only in public, because Victoria, in public, he can say, oh, I can't discuss that.
That's classified.
I know.
I don't think it would be a very pleasant hearing.
You will get nothing, just as we did when it was the clapper Sally Yates hearing.
Everything was, well, we can't talk about that.
Even Sally Yates said she didn't know of any of this.
I mean, she said, and she was the acting director of the Department of Justice, acting attorneys general.
Yeah, she didn't know anything.
No, no evidence.
Jay, let me just say something about that.
What was the Trump administration thinking of keeping the Obama deputy attorney general and making her acting attorney general?
You get rid of everybody at the higher levels because these are the kinds of things that happen.
Yeah, you know, as you were saying it, Andy, who knows Sally Yates because he practiced in Georgia for a long time, as I did for a long time, was the first thing that you said, why is she the one humming the press commissioner?
I couldn't understand why in the world, after Loretta Lynch, the illustrious attorney general who met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac, and what about that as being collusion or conspiracy?
We don't want to talk about that, of course.
But to keep Sally Yates, to keep Sally Yates as the acting attorney general was a serious mistake of the Trump administration.
Yeah, it was.
It was.
Look, it was.
I mean, you don't do that.
They don't do ⁇ they never.
And by the way, Joe, they never do it, right?
I mean, they never do that.
The left of them doesn't.
Clinton got rid of all the U.S. attorneys when he came in.
That was just perfectly fine.
But when Jeff Sessions asked about a month into his term, I want all the U.S. attorneys to, it was terrible.
Oh, my God.
He's getting rid of all the U.S. attorneys?
Yeah, well, you know, look, here's the reality.
Our guys play nice sometimes.
They never do.
Joe, I want to ask you this.
I'm running really short on time.
We've got a break coming up.
Right now, if you're advising the president, you and I work.
I mean, we work a lot of cases together.
We're working cases right now.
We're tough litigators.
What are you telling the president right now if he was a lawyer?
I would stop talking about everything and say that that's now under investigation.
Next question.
Just stop responding to all these questions about the Russians.
Don't tweet about it.
Talk about your program.
Talk about taxes.
Talk about the war against ISIS.
Talk about anything else but this.
And every time somebody asks a question about it, say, asked and answered.
It's being dealt with.
I'm not going to comment.
I have a suggestion in the comments.
Real quick.
He should have had a Washington, D.C. criminal lawyer, one who knows criminal defense and one who knows Washington, D.C. Instead, he's brought in a New York lawyer that does all kinds of civil rights.
Well, there may be multiple.
We don't know that.
All right.
We've got a lot more to talk about.
I want to say this also, and I think it's important.
We're in a fight here for real freedom.
So when you are fighting for freedom, you know what you do?
You fight back.
And you know what I like to fight back with?
Lawyers just like these.
All right, we'll be back with more in the Sean Hannity program with Jay Seculo at Jay Seculo.
Back with more in a moment.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
It's Jay Seculo, and that is my band that I'm in.
Jay Seculo Band, we call it JSB.
You can find out about the band, by the way, if you like the music, at the band's Facebook page, Jay Seculo Band.
That's simple on Facebook.
You can follow me on Twitter at Jay Seculo and follow the ACLJ.
I'm the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org.
We all have Facebook pages as well on social media.
We encourage you to engage that.
Sean's going to be back in the saddle here on Tuesday as we celebrate this weekend our veterans and those that are serving and continue to serve our country.
And thank you.
Every freedom we enjoy is because of you all.
And we thank you so much for that.
Well, we've talked about the situation with the Russia investigation and the special counsel.
I'm going to add one thing to what our great last panel had, and that is, look, a special counsel has been appointed.
And I agree with completely what Joe DiGenova has said, and that is the president just has to carry out his agenda.
And it's hard to carry out your agenda in public when the media is engaged in a media filibuster.
We talked about the situation on the American Health Care Act and how the CBO scoring, in many respects, always at fault, never really right on health care, off by 50%, 100% in some circumstances.
I mean, just incredibly wrong.
Yet, it's now at the United States Senate.
It's got to pass or the American people pay the consequence.
And then we have a NATO summit that's going on right now, and the president lays down a very clear line, I thought, crystal clear, and I don't think could have been any clearer, and that was, look, 23, you're not paying your fair share here.
And also, NATO, look, you've got to also get with the year 2017.
We're fighting terrorists.
This is a real battle.
It's part of the war we're engaged in.
So is NATO getting up to speed?
And what about the leaking continuing?
As the meetings are going on, leaks are coming out.
We're going to be joined by two guests coming up, one of which is handle classified information.
He's going to talk to us about that, Colonel Wes Smith.
Also, Logan Secular, director of media here at the ACL Jan.
How do you get the message back on course?
Back with more in a moment.
Hey, everybody.
Jay Seculan for Sean Hannity.
He'll be back Tuesday celebrating the Memorial Weekend, as we all should be, celebrating the men and women that serve.
We're going to talk about NATO right now, and I want to do this because the President issued some strong statements.
We're going to also talk about messaging because there is, as I said, kind of a media filibuster going on.
So whatever the president said, he's made strong statements in Riyadh, strong statements in Bethlehem, strong statements and NATO.
And I'm going to start with playing a soundbite, then I'll introduce our guests.
Here was the president at NATO.
This is number 11.
Take a listen.
The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO's eastern and southern borders.
I mean, I think the president laid it right out there.
Joining me right now on the Sean Hannity broadcast, again, this is Jay Seculum submitting in for Sean, is the director of our senior military analyst for the ACLJ, Colonel Wes Smith, and also our media director, Logan Seculo.
And they're both with me in studio here.
All right, I want to talk first, Wes.
You served in a lot of these countries where the president has been, you served in.
In fact, many of you may know Wes Smith's a very famous picture when Ambassador Stevens remains came back to the United States.
Wes was the senior chaplain there for those killed in action in the United States Army as a colonel, and he was the one conducting the service and the return service in between President Obama and Secretary Clinton.
And it was Wes Smith and that famous picture with the casket of Ambassador Stevens there.
And Wes knows firsthand what was being discussed to those families, and we've talked about that before.
And these families were told a story, a lie, basically.
I just wanted to recap that very quickly.
Secretary Clinton said the video, said it was the video that we're going to get the people.
You were there when she said that to the families.
Right.
I heard her tell two of the four families that that was the reason for the attack and that they were going to get the person who produced the video.
And then later on, of course, during her campaign and during the Benghazi hearings, denied that she'd ever said that to these families.
And you were there.
I was there.
I heard her say it.
And she basically threw them under the bus.
All right, let me go to NATO here.
Let's talk about the NATO issue first.
The president said NATO now must focus on terrorism.
There has been, he also called on member states to start paying up.
This is what it was a campaign promise of the president.
He's doing it.
The NATO of today has to be different than the NATO of the 1950s and 60s.
It absolutely does.
Whenever NATO was founded, the primary threat was the Soviet Union.
And today, while Russia continues to be belligerent at times, and certainly we have troops in Eastern Europe because of that, the real threat, the more dangerous threat, is coming from radical Islamist and radical Islamic terrorism.
And so what President Trump is doing is trying to pivot and to make sure that NATO fulfills their mission of defending against common threats wherever those threats might come from.
And right now, they're not just coming from Russia.
They're coming from Islam, Islamic terrorism.
So the president is there.
He's in front of the NATO members.
Right.
And he says, first, you must include a greater focus on terrorism.
And then you must pay your own way.
Yes.
You got to start participating.
Right.
Every NATO member, there are 28 nations, about to be 29 when Montenegro comes in, are supposed to spend 2% of their GDP, their gross domestic project, on their military.
And so far, only five of those nations, including the United States, are doing that.
And interestingly enough, Jay, the other nations are Estonia, Greece, Poland, and Great Britain.
Some of your major players in NATO do not pay the 2%.
But, Logan, here's the problem.
The president makes, I mean, I played it.
He made that strong statement in Riyadh, drive them out.
He goes to Bethlehem and says, stop rewarding those that are paying for and funding terrorism while he's in front of the guy that is paying and funding terrorism.
I mean, he says it right to his face.
Then he goes to NATO in front of the NATO member, says, listen, we got to get up with the current world that we live in.
You've got to focus on terrorism.
You've got to pay your fair share.
And what's coming out instead, that message is being broadcast, but what's coming out is breaking news alerts.
CNN saying another source has indicated a leak on what happened in Manchester.
Exactly.
Stepping on the message.
Exactly.
It's become a huge problem for the administration and for just the way we tolerate life in general right now is that the real news, the big news that's happening, is squashed by the narrative that is presented.
And I think that anything right now, specifically with these leaks happening, you have the situation where the narrative is controlled by the media and they can pick apart anything to pull apart exactly what they know is going to get enough clicks, exactly what they know is going to get enough people to not even pay attention to the good part that happened that almost is universally agreeable that everyone can look at and go, yeah, that's a win.
And they'll take those small bits and pieces and they'll spin it.
Happened during the Manchester attack as well, where people like CNN were throwing out different headlines as the attack was unfolding, but had nothing to do with that.
Just had to do that or even would go after the people that were exclusively covering that.
Yeah, I mean, well, they made that statement about Fox.
I mean, you know, we're covering the Russia probe.
You know, and Fox was driving out Manchester.
It was what's driving primetime.
And what are we talking about?
We're talking about the Trump-ass Intel chiefs to dispute the FBI Russian probe.
And what is Fox talking about?
British fatalities at Ariana Grande concert.
You know, when in a major massive terrorist attack, one of the biggest in the UK.
So it's an insane situation where it's almost like you said a no-win, where I don't think this is like any other presidency where there's going to be those big wins from the press.
Yeah, I think that's just the nature of it.
We'll talk about how do you fix that in a moment.
Wes, looking at the statements that the president made on NATO, the job of NATO right now and the complexities of the world we live in, how does NATO play into that?
Because there are a lot of people saying, do we really need NATO anymore?
And I take the view that the president is right.
We need NATO when it comes to the new threat that we're facing.
Yes, absolutely we do.
And, you know, you asked the United Kingdom and the British subjects there, do you need NATO for your defense?
And I think that the answer would be a resounding yes.
Part of what's going on, though, and the president's getting pushback in Brussels about his call for NATO to help with the fight against terrorism, and it reflects a weakened NATO, Jay, due in part to the feckless leadership of the previous administration.
They were so anxious to minimize the perceived threat of terrorism so that it would fit their political narrative, Jay.
With the president, for example, in 2014, President Obama declaring the Afghan war over and withdrawing American troops, what that did, it allowed NATO to back off from their commitments.
And now President Trump is trying to get them to do what they had done previous to 2014, and that is to stand with the United States in the fight against terror.
Common defense, which is NATO's charter.
Right, I mean, that's what they're supposed to do.
Common defense is supposed to be without qualifications.
Article 5, they talk about a lot.
If one member is attacked, it's as if they were all attacked.
But if Islamist terrorism is truly a threat, which it is, then NATO, if it's a threat to NATO or any one member, simply cannot categorically rule out the use of combat troops.
And so far, the Secretary General is saying whatever they do, they will not introduce combat troops again.
All right, I'm going to play a statement that the president made.
Again, this is in front of his NATO allies.
Okay.
I mean, this is in front of the NATO allies, number 12.
Take a listen.
28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they're supposed to be paying for their defense.
This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.
And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years.
All right, so Logan, there's an example.
You're a media guy.
So there's an example of a statement that everybody should be saying, right, left, and center, right.
The United States is paying a disproportionate amount.
Everybody needs to pay their agreed upon amount.
And if you're in arrears, pay up or at least have a plan to pay up.
That should be a message everybody's agreeing with, yet most of the media blocks it out.
And it doesn't even drive a headline.
I think that's why.
There's nothing controversial about that statement, so therefore it's not going to be talked about.
And I think that's the number one focus that's happening right now.
What gets the clicks?
What are people watching?
It's controversy.
It's something they can pick apart and take down the president and say something negative about him.
There's really very few topics that they can't take and spin.
And I think that's going to be the issue coming forward is how do you react to that?
There isn't going to be that unifying moment.
It kind of takes you back to George W. Bush first term pre-9-11.
All it was was essentially this, but maybe a little less of hostility, more in a joking way, more fun of him.
But now we have such hostility.
We all have social media.
You can be much more, trust me, I feel like it probably been the same with him then.
Much more visceral language coming out of both people and the press.
So the question is now, what do you do?
Do you move forward and say, I'm not going to pay attention to anything the press is saying.
I'm not going to pay attention to what is happening on social media and just say, I'm putting my policies through.
We're going to get the job done.
Like I said, I was going to get done.
And don't focus on what's happening in the mainstream media.
And that's a tough thing to do.
It's a really good question.
But that's how you've been telling the president.
Well, I think so because you look at this, there's not a unifying issue at this point.
There's not one thing that we can all agree on and say, yes, we get behind it.
And if it is, it's something like what the clip was, which isn't enough of a story to get everyone excited.
Yeah, what's interesting about that is, Wes, is that he does this in front of the UN NATO members, excuse me, the NATO members that aren't paying.
Yes, exactly.
That's a bold move.
When you're in front of the NATO members and you say, by the way, you're not carrying your fair share.
That in and of itself should have been news.
Right.
That he actually asked for the money.
Right.
And say what you will.
President Trump is a leader, and he exhibits that boldness of a true leader, and he's not bashful about saying things.
And what is interesting, I noticed this when he was in Riyadh a few days ago.
His candor actually is refreshing.
And a lot of people that you would think, people in foreign nations, who you might think they would resent what he is saying, they actually, you know, they get it.
They trust him and they respect him for his bold leadership.
You know, Logan was talking about how the media is giving us information or disinformation overload.
You know, I agree with Logan.
The president really needs to focus on his mission and as much as he can start ignoring some of the rabid insults of the media.
We have an old expression in South Georgia where I grew up.
If you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
And I think the media, they're sparring for a free.
We didn't have that in Brooklyn.
You didn't.
No, we didn't.
Go ahead, Logan.
I think you're right in that fact.
And the big thing is, if your policies are successful, the tide will turn.
And right now, you're not giving them enough time to get the tide to turn.
It's just attack, attack, attack from all sides.
I'll say that from all sides.
It's just going after, but we mentioned even just not even getting the news out there.
This is what's happening.
This is what's happening as those attacks were happening.
Remember, we were getting push notifications about the budget proposal during the attack.
At 9.58 Eastern Time, everyone who has the CNN app got a push notification saying that Trump's first budget proposal going to Congress Tuesday reporting 22 flash safety net programs as this was all going on.
Now, that could have been obviously probably an automatic thing that was set up to go, but no one was smart enough to say maybe we should turn that off.
We were smart enough to say, you know what, some of the stuff we have published going on later tonight, let's hold off on that and wait and go live and talk about what's actually happening in the world, what people matter, why President Trump was elected, which is what I've been saying the whole time, which was purely based on young families like myself who have kids who go, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this world going on right now, and we have to do something to protect the kids.
You said that early on that it was kids that when they undercounted the vote for Trump, you said it was young families like yours going to the poll saying, you know what?
I got to vote for national security.
I've been through this for eight years, and even if you liked some of the policies of President Obama, you didn't like the police.
I can't find many.
Hypothetical person.
If you look at that and you'd like the policies of Barack Obama, but you look at it and go, but I don't feel safe.
Yeah.
That didn't matter.
And you knew that electing Hillary Clinton would mean the same.
Yeah.
So I think that's where a lot of young families came in and said, enough is enough.
And the problem is the media isn't giving those people enough of attention.
And I keep saying that.
I said, you know whose voice is they're drowning out the media?
The left-wing are trying to.
They're not because of programs like this and what Sean does on TV and on radio.
They're not able to do it.
But I'll tell you something.
They're trying.
Last thing, Wes, how important is it?
I want for people to understand, real quick here, how important is NATO?
NATO is vital not only to the security of the United States and not only, interestingly enough, to the security of the European countries who are members.
NATO is vital to the security of the world and the stability of the world because the threat from terrorism is a worldwide existential threat.
Which means the rest of the world that are member states, those NATO countries, do what the president did and asked for.
Pay your fair share.
If the countries met their burden, it would increase the amount of money to NATO by billions, $119 billion.
That goes a long way to fighting a threat of terror.
I'm Jay Seculin for Sean Hannity.
He'll be back Tuesday.
We've got a lot more ahead.
I'm going to encourage you also, folks, understand this is a battle that's going.
This is an intergenerational conflict.
That is exactly what we're talking about.
I want to thank our guests.
I'll be back with more.
We're going to get into the issue of this radical Islamic terrorism.
Got some great guests coming up.
Some more information coming as well.
We'll give you kind of a recap of where we all will be taking phone calls also at 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
I'm Jay Seculo at Jay Seculo on Twitter, sitting in for my friend Sean Hennan.
He'll be back Tuesday.
Back with more in just a moment.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Jay Seculo is sitting in for my good friend Sean.
He's going to be back on Tuesday, enjoying the Memorial Day weekend.
And again, thank you to all the men and women that serve and continue to serve our country.
Let me say a couple of things.
If you want to get more information about what I do, you can go to ACLJ.org.
I serve as the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
We do cases all over the world.
I do cases a lot at the Supreme Court of the United States.
We have a radio broadcast every day around noon in most markets, and we encourage you to listen to us there.
And also, follow me on Twitter at Jay Seculo.
And we're also on Facebook.
I've got a Facebook page, Jay Seculo.
The American Center for Law and Justice has a page.
Coming up, Jordan Seculo, he's got a Facebook page.
And the music you're hearing from our band, we've got a Facebook page, too.
The band does, believe it or not.
Jay Seculo band.
We call it JSB, has a Facebook page.
I'm going to get into coming up in the next segment of the broadcast.
I'm going to get into a little bit of a more in-depth discussion of the fight against radical jihad.
Zudi Jasser and Jordan Secular are joining us.
Zudi, of course, has been on this broadcast many times.
Jordan is one of the co-hosts of our broadcast and is the executive director of the ACLJ and has done a lot of legal work and diplomacy on these issues of terrorism.
We're going to get into it so we understand the nature of who we're fighting.
Again, I'm Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean Henny.
We'll be taking calls later, 800-941-7326.
That's 1-800-941-Sean.
Back with more.
Jordan Seculo, Zudi Jasser.
And your calls coming up in really just a moment.
I'm Jay Seculo.
Talk to you soon.
Hey, everybody, it's Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean Hannity.
Be back Tuesday.
You can call us at 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 1-800-941-7326.
I'm going to get into the issue of what's happening in Manchester because there's more developments, multiple arrests now in Libya in this terrorist attack.
And we've got two great guests to talk about this.
Dr. Zudi Jasper has been on with Sean many, many times, been on our broadcast as well, former U.S. Navy medical officer and staff position to the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court's got a great book out called A Battle for the Soul of Islam.
And Jordan Secular, the executive director of our American Center for Law and Justice, who holds an LLM degree from Georgetown Law School as well.
I want to go to both of you first, and this will start Zudi with you.
Thanks, Jordan.
Looking at Manchester, Zudi, then thanks for being with us.
Let me tell you what's concerning me, and that is it's I call the after-effect roundup.
In other words, you go in, the incident happens, multiple casualties, 22 people dead, a lot of kids, many, many injured, and then the roundup starts.
Yet there was a problem with this guy known by authorities in the community, in the mosque itself, and nothing happened.
Jay, it's great to be with you.
You too.
Thanks for having me.
And you could not be more on target.
This is the problem: we deal with these in this sort of sound, you know, sonic boom after an effect.
And we think that this is the problem.
And not only did they miss it, which was the known wolf, this is a guy, one of the 3,500 that was on the radar, but they did not follow through because the entire mantra or focus of Homeland Security, be it here in America or in Europe, is about violence.
If they're not strapping bombs, working on building bombs, then they're supposedly not part of the profile.
And unfortunately, it's not just the travel to Libya and Syria that should have tipped them off.
It's not just the background, but actually the fact that they were dabbling in ideas that are related to nonviolent Islamism.
The Imams, the mosque that was preaching anti-Western ideology, anti-Semitism, homophobia, that we're finding out today that the mosque that condemned this act weeks before had had sermons that clearly are part of this radicalization profile.
And how many of these attacks do we need, be it Boston, San Bernardino?
The San Bernardino shooters were getting training at the Huda school from Salafi Jihadism in Pakistan online from California, and no one seemed to think that that mattered because it was nonviolent.
We have to start paying attention to the nonviolent precursors of these known wolves and also of the rest of the Muslim community.
Well, Jordan, we've talked about this a lot, both in our legal work at the American Center for Law and Justice, and that is I'm very concerned about what I just was talking to Zudi about, and that is this post-justification or post-action that takes place.
We've said you've got to be more affirmative, and the president said that well.
He's been very clear about the nature of what we have to do when he talks about push them out of the mosque, push them out of the community.
You've got to drive them out, push them out.
Well, and if you have the known ISIS connections, and that's what was reported here, the French foreign minister talked about these individuals having the known ISIS connections.
So they've had that contact between Islamic State recruiters, whether that's online, in person, whether it happened in Libya, whether it happened in travels in Syria.
Any of that contact alone with a known terrorist organization should be enough to execute the arrests.
But we've kind of discussed this problem of waiting until they've actually gone violent.
I mean, Zudi knows this for the military, but we're treating civilians like military members.
It's like you can't act until you've been fired at until the other side.
And that's not how we need to operate in civilian life.
In civilian life, if you're starting to move towards acting or firing or explosions or bomb making, if you're having those discussions, that is criminal.
You don't have a freedom of speech to go back and have a conversation with ISIS.
There's no freedoms for that.
And in the Western world, we have these ideas of freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech.
But there aren't freedoms to associate with known terrorist entities or criminal entities.
And you can act before the crime has been, the bigger crime has been committed because there were already crimes committed here.
Travel, fighting with ISIS already in Libya.
I mean, these are 23-year-olds that already have long records of fighting with terrorism.
And they didn't do enough to get picked up by the British authorities until after the fact.
You know, Zudi, you have said often on this broadcast with Sean and also in talking with me on our broadcast, I'm Jordan, that this is a problem within the Muslim community, and we have to be able to, you, the Muslim community has to be able to address this.
And the president has said that to the 50 leaders from Muslim countries that were gathered in Riyadh.
I was gratified that President Abbas joined the summit and committed to taking firm but necessary steps to fight terrorism and confront its hateful ideology.
And it's so interesting that our meeting took place on this very horrible morning of death to innocent young people.
Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded, and even rewarded.
So, Zudi, that was with Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem.
And in fact, we know that their violence is tolerated, funded, and rewarded.
They get rewards from it, and the American people are paying for it.
But you've been calling about this for a long time, that this is also, this is significantly an internal Muslim problem.
And I'm so glad you made that connection between Manchester and Riyadh.
These two, the acts of terror in Manchester and then the speech the president gave are deeply connected.
We have to begin to look at the underbelly of these acts of barbarism.
It's not just Manchester.
It's not just San Bernardino.
It is the entire global Islamist movement that are an ideology that can only be addressed by Muslims.
And as much as it was great to see him start a counterterrorism center in Riyadh, it's sort of like starting an anti-cocaine center in Colombia.
I mean, really, it's up to Muslims in the West in London and in America to set up centers like that where we can do the work to reform, to counter theocracy that you just can't do in Saudi Arabia because you end up in prison and they're not willing to connect the dots between their Salafism and jihadism, which is militant.
So this is why the acts of Manchester need to finally wake up America and the West that, listen, we have to begin to reform and create an anti-theocratic movement and think Cold War, think Radio-Free Europe, and begin to think about how to engage Muslims to counter the establishment of the Muslim community that is the primary reason for these ideas being penetrated into mosques.
And the radicalization pathway is not just that last moment when he puts on the belt.
It's far before that.
Well, Jordan, that's what you were talking about earlier.
So in the way to engage this now, because we have to look at how do we go forward?
And I think what the president said was the right statements.
You're talking about driving them out, get them out.
But this has to actually be put into policy.
And the political correctness in the United States and in Great Britain, where it's even worse, has really added fuel to this fire.
Yeah, the idea, again, of how many of these attacks before we change our approach, law enforcement agencies change their approach, they stop just leaking out information and being sources to the press and start focusing on keeping us safe.
Again, whether it's here in the United States or abroad with our Western allies who are facing this, you know, as Zudi said, they have about 3,500 identified.
We have about 1,000 now, based on our populations.
How hard is that to follow up?
It seems like with the billions of dollars we all spend in these countries on national security, if you started treating this more like organized crime, and again, obviously knowing that the driving factor is not money, but is the radical religious ideology.
And I think that because if it's not changed, and if, for instance, if Muslims who are trying to do the right thing call into the law enforcement, the law enforcement is afraid to do anything about it.
And they feel like, okay, why do I keep reporting?
But you know, it reaches a critical head at some point in the world.
At some point in the world, people will, things will turn worse for everyone.
So it's not going to be good for the Islamic community, and it's not going to be good for freedom-loving people around the world, especially in the West.
Because if there is some crackdown more, that will be targeted on Islam at a certain point.
People will take action into their own hands if their governments are not going to protect them from these mass killers.
So, Zudi, what do we do?
Let's talk about proactive engagement here because that's what you've been really dealing with for many years and successfully.
But let's talk about proactive engagement to address this because this is a problem that is now, and this was targeted against kids.
And we shouldn't be shocked at this.
This is the kind of barbarism that we're dealing with with groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
But let's talk about the proactive engagement of what we need to be doing now as a country, as a people.
Three things.
Number one, the president needs to yesterday, when he gets back tomorrow, convene the Commission on Radical Islam.
He promised in the campaign that he was going to convene and have leading reformers in the Muslim community be a part of that.
Many in the anti-jihad movement be a part of that.
To begin to have sort of this Manhattan Project, if you will, that begins to look at how do we create a movement of ideas that are not only anti-ISIS and anti-violent extremism, which is my second point, is stop the violent extremism talk, which is just a symptom, like terrorism is a symptom, and get to countering violent Islamism.
So two, is to shift the conversation nationally, strategically, at DOD, state, and all across government to counter violent Islamism.
And then third, to begin to work with pro-freedom, pro-secularist groups that are reformists in the Muslim community, build platforms so that we can teach our kids that it's far preferable to want to die for America and die for freedom than ever to want to die for the Islamic State and jihadist identity movements until we counter these identity movements from a positive perspective,
like we did in Radio Free Europe and the advancement of we defeated socialism of the Soviet era by advancing capitalism, not by spreading the ideas that socialism was bad.
We defeated them by spreading the wonder of free markets, and that's what we're missing in this war.
So when we look at it, Jordan, taking the next step, and you've written about this and you've talked about this, you have a system in place right now.
And we talked about this with the failure in Florida, in Fort Lauderdale, where the individual had gone to the FBI, Omar Martine in Orlando on the tarot watch list.
The Sarnet brothers interviewed by the FBI because they're traveling.
Yeah.
And here you go in Fort Hood in that situation.
So, you know, which the government initially called workplace violence and finally acknowledged that they were going to be able to do it.
Had that contact that could have been enough to put him in prison.
But they instead promoted him and moved him.
Right.
Kept him going on because of the political correctness.
And it's not something that changes overnight because of who you elect as president.
The president, as we've seen, has had to deal with what the bureaucracy is like and the undermining of everything he's tried to do.
So this, I think, and what, like Zudi said, these ideas to implement are going to take a lot of resolve.
You have to really be committed to changing a culture.
One, not just the culture in the Muslim world, but the culture in the Western world of how to combat this.
The culture inside the FBI, the culture inside the CIA, the culture amongst our Western allies, that you can say radical Islamic terrorism in Riyadh with the Saudis, and they're not shaking their heads and huffing and puffing about it.
But in America, you've got a lot of Islamic leaders who do.
And I think that's because they are used to, again, exploiting the freedoms that we have in the West to our own detriment.
Zudi, I got just about a minute here.
On that issue, the president made those strong statements in Riyadh, which very direct.
But yet, as Jordan just said, the FBI manual takes out radical Islamism.
Don't want to talk about jihad.
We've got to change that culture, too.
We absolutely do.
And we have to, because the reason you identify, if you want to engage Muslims, you engage us because the elephant in the room is the Islamic interpretations.
And the diversity in the Islamic community is not ethnic of Pakistani, Egyptian, or Western Muslims.
It's a diversity of ideas.
And right now, there's a single monolith.
And what I hope the president does in future speeches is speaks past the establishment, the corrupt establishment of the Arab tyrannies and speaks to the Arab people because the future of this cultural revolution we have to see that America, I think, can lead, like the civil rights movement of our day within the Muslim community is one of representing individual rights against blasphemy laws, apostasy laws, the persecution of minorities, et cetera.
That's what we need to have a meet of every day, not just for a week after each barbaric.
Jordan, 15 seconds here.
This is a war we win if we put our mind to it.
If we put into place the policies and practices, we can win this.
We can win this, but we have to change.
We have to change our mindset, our policies, and our practices.
All of that has to be changed, or else this has continued on.
It was before 9-11, and it's been 16 years, and it continues to change.
We have to fight back in all the tools that we have.
All right, Zudi Jasser, Jordan Seculo.
We'll be back with more.
This is Jay Seculin for Sean Hannity.
Back with more in just a moment.
Hey, Jay Seculuan for Sean Hannity.
Jordan Seculo, standing in with me for the next segment here.
And I want to go over something.
If it kind of came in a little bit late today, late breaking news, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declares the president's executive order on immigration, refugees issues, quote, unconstitutional because in context, it drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.
Jordan, in full disclosure, we filed a brief in support of the administration on this.
We're not surprised about this because this is going to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That's right.
I mean, we look at the breakdown here, and mostly appointees from the left, from Democrat presidents.
And unfortunately, you can now see how many of these controversial cases, not all cases, but the controversial ones, break down amongst party lines based off kind of who was appointed by what president and their ideology.
Here, there is clearly an animus in these lower courts with Donald Trump because it's all about not actually the executive order text.
It's all about things he said on a campaign trail.
And I think the Supreme Court, though, is a different makeup than these courts, especially with the courts.
As we were just talking about, the idea here, you are not going to be able to rely on the courts or various different branches of government to get the reforms done necessary to start really routing out the problem with Islamic terrorism.
Obviously, it starts with the president, but I think he's seen, again, all the roadblocks that get put in your way, whether it's the courts, whether it's the shadow government and the deep state and your own intelligence agencies that try to stop you from changing the culture.
We've got a lot more ahead.
We're going to take your calls.
Thanks, Jordan, for that analysis.
Again, if you want to talk to me, it's Jay Seculo in for Sean Hannity, 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 1-800-941-7326.
And we're going to have Sean back here, of course, on Tuesday celebrating Memorial Holidays.
Thank you for defending us, men and women in the military.
Thank you for the freedoms we enjoy.
We couldn't do it without you.
We'll be back with more, including your calls, in just a moment.
Everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Program.
This is Jay Seculo sitting in for Sean.
He'll be back on Tuesday.
That song with Lee Greenwood was orchestrated and played with our Jay Seculo band.
And Lee had a great book.
He has a great book out called Proud to Be an American that my daughter-in-law, Amanda, did the illustration work for.
And it's really aimed at young people to understand the great story of America.
And as we celebrate the men and women that have continued to defend our freedom and have defended our freedom, we are proud to be Americans.
Let's never, ever forget this.
All right, as I said, I'm standing in, sitting in for Sean.
He will be back on Tuesday, but we're going to go right to the phones here.
And I'm going to take Sharon's call out of Mississippi.
Hi, Sharon.
You're on the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi, Jay.
I just got to say it's an awesome show.
I love all the guests, every single one of them, and the music.
By the way, we're kicking the same music time warp.
Yes, I said my music tastes stopped about 1973-74.
Might be.
Yeah, there you go.
But you can get that at Facebook, the Jay Secular Band.
We've got a Facebook page.
You can hear all those songs.
But go ahead, Sharon.
Well, listen, I think you might can answer my question that I've had for a long time.
Susan Rice uses that VISA warrant as an excuse and a cover.
How many people, is a VISA warrant like, I don't know, a chain letter or a virus where, you know, they listen to General Flynn and then everybody he talked to and then everybody those people talked to?
I mean, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FISA warrant are proceedings that are unique and different than any other kind of warrant you would get.
But it's targeted specifically at supposedly conversations with foreigners.
Someone from a foreign country could be any foreign country, friend or foe, by the way.
But it's supposed to be minimized so you don't start disclosing American conversation that goes into the whole unmasking.
No one knows except the intelligence community themselves.
And they haven't leaked yet the numbers, although they said at one point it was like 1,800 of them at one point.
I know that can't possibly be correct, by the way.
There's no way that I'd be shocked if there were that many FISA warrants issued.
But here's the problem.
The whole procedure that was utilized is the problem and how the lack of minimization.
And so you had the unmasking.
You had the leaking of information.
And the crime here is, again, I keep going back.
We've talked about it earlier with our panel.
The leaking is the crime.
And that I hope, if there's going to be anything positive out of the special counsel, is they could close up some of these leaks.
But we actually filed a lawsuit against some of the intelligence agencies, not to get the names of the people that unmasked, but how that process actually worked.
And we got the response today from the intelligence agencies.
But it's voluminous.
There's a lot of volumes to it, a lot of documents.
So we're going through that right now.
But Sharon, no one will know the exact number.
That's just kind of the way the system's set up.
Tom's calling from Connecticut.
Sharon, appreciate your call.
Tom, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Thank you very much, Jay.
Thank you.
Yeah, I just wanted to make a couple of quick bullet points, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
But after the Manchester attack, there were several taxi drivers who were reportedly Muslim, giving rise to children going back to their homes afterwards.
Now there are several girls reported missing.
And a couple of years ago, there was a report from Manchester, actually, Rockdale, R-O-C-H-G-A-L-E, that there was taxi drivers taking part in a sex ring.
They were kidnapping girls and then taking them back wherever they were taking them.
And those girls were found.
And I think that might be something that's going on.
Well, let me tell you what we do know.
Here's what we know.
A horrific terrorist accident, incident, a terrorist attack, took place in Manchester, England.
And if you were a parent of a teenager and did not know where your children were for hours, and it was, if you remember, I was rolling out that nighttime.
It took hours and hours and hours.
And it may have been that the cab drivers had plenty of good intentions.
It may be somebody had ill intentions.
I don't know.
This is what I know.
The terror attack itself resulted in an additional form of terror, and that was the parents not knowing where their children were.
And that went on, you'll remember, during the night.
That was hours.
I don't want to dismiss for a moment the serious issue that exists globally on sex trafficking.
This is a serious issue.
And at the ACLJ, we have actually drafted laws for all 50 states to try to get enforcement on that.
But the sheer nature of the terror in these cases has multiple parts, and that's what you have to deal with.
And that's unfortunately what has to be dealt with in these situations.
Let's go to John calling from California.
John, you're on the Sean Hannity show.
It's Jay Sekhilo.
Glad to talk to you.
Glad to talk to you.
First time caller.
Great.
What I'd like to ask you and see what your take is on it.
Here we have a Manchester attack, and within days, the British government is arresting people all over the United Kingdom in Libya.
When we did it in Paris, the Paris police did the same thing.
But when we did the attack, when the attack was against Benghazi, when they killed our ambassador, we arrested one guy.
Yeah.
How is that possible?
Well, look, the whole process, and I've said this, and we are writing about this.
Here is the problem.
It takes, why is it taking the terrorist act itself, in other words, the attack, to then do the roundup?
Because a lot of these people, most of them, unfortunately, I mean, it's in the United States, too, it's true.
We're under some type of watch list surveillance, but we're not watching enough.
We're not surveilling enough, and we're not interdicting enough to prevent this at the outset.
So I think the entire operational basis upon which our intelligence gathering is taking place after the fact of a terrorist attack, I understand that from an evidence preservation standpoint.
I understand that from where does this lead, but I will tell you what the real problem is.
It's taking that attack to then do the, quote, network arrest which took place in Manchester.
I mean, think about that for a moment.
These people were under surveillance, so that means the surveillance isn't working.
And this is a global problem.
It's not just the United States.
It's not just Great Britain.
It's not just France.
In every one of these incidents, these were known terrorist actors or on watch list, but evidently not being watched enough.
And to me, that is the fundamental problem with all of this.
And that's what I'm really, really stressing when we're getting our information out of stressing with the law enforcement.
We've got to be much more proactive.
Mike from Dayton, Ohio, you're on the Shawn Hannity program.
It's Jay Sekhillo.
Good to talk to you.
Hey, Mike.
Thanks for taking my call.
I love what you're doing.
Thanks.
I'm sorry.
Are you still?
You're good, Mike.
Go ahead.
You're on the air.
Okay, sorry about that.
Hey, I wanted to say if we want to work on worldwide terrorists, it's kind of obvious that we have to do something about Islamic terrorism.
And if we want to do something about Islamic terrorism, it's kind of like your previous guest said, you have to work it from the inside.
And the best way to work it from the inside is give those moderates space to breathe and space to grow while repressing the guys that would do more harm.
And that was what I discovered.
I was in Iraq in 2007 to 2008 as an advisor to the Iraqi Air Force.
And the core of those people were very, very moderate.
As a matter of fact, they bragged about Sunnis marrying Shia, marrying Kurds.
They bragged about one of the students in particular.
But you're talking about fostering within the moderate community, Mike.
What I hear you saying is you're talking about fostering within the moderate community the ability to speak out.
But here's what they've got to do.
I appreciate Zudi Jasser speaking out.
But I can count on a couple, two hands.
I mean, other than Zudi Jasser and a few others, it's hard, Mike, to find moderate Muslims that are, and they're not, by the way, I don't even like the term moderate.
They're reformers.
They really are trying to reform from the inside.
And that's probably what you were seeing when you were in Iraq.
I mean, there are reformers there, but the reform community, and I'm glad for Zudi Jasser, but we could use thousands more of them, thousands more of them, to really make the difference that would count here.
But I appreciate you calling in to the Sean Hannity broadcast.
Gary from Knoxville, Tennessee, University of Tennessee, Vault, go ahead, Gary.
You're on the air.
Thank you for taking my phone, Professor.
My question is, U.S. citizenship.
you are not born here and you find your way by visa or whatnot to the united states is it not a requirement for that person to renounce their loyalty to the country they're exiting and then proclaim their loyalty to the united states and then if so if that person are you talking about someone that's are you talking about just traveling on a visa or are you talking about becoming a u.s citizen you I'm talking about they actually apply for citizenship.
Yeah, when you become a citizen, you have to swear your allegiance to the United States of America and to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
That's right.
Now, that same person, if later on, they proclaim Sharia law to supersede the U.S. Constitution.
Does that action not sufficient evidence to nullify their citizenship?
Okay, so you're talking about a citizenship revocation proceeding.
And let me tell you, the bar, the standard for that is very, very high and very difficult because in the United States, we let people believe what they want to believe, speak what they want to believe, but they can't incite violence and they cannot cause for the violent overthrow of the country.
So the argument would have to be made there, Gary, that by adopting this particular thought or practice, that they are violently overthrow or threatening the violent overthrow of the United States.
But I will tell you, it's a very high burden, which means at the front end, we've got to do, guess what?
Extreme vetting.
So we know who's coming into the United States and we know who these people are and what they stand for.
And unfortunately, having a box or a question that says, are you a terrorist or have you been a terrorist?
Yes or no?
And if you answer no, we say, okay, that's not vetting.
Do we think, what, the terrorist is going to tell the truth?
And look at the situation in Manchester here.
This was the second generation.
The parents fled Libya.
Evidently, the whole family got re-radicalized after a generation.
The father initially was not, was radicalized again.
The son gets radicalized in a generation, goes back to Libya and joining ISIS, then comes back and does the terror attack.
And I think governments, whether you're a citizen or not, have the right to ask you what you're doing when you're going over to a country like that.
I mean, look, I do a lot of work in Israel, and I will tell you when the Israelis, you come back into Israel, I had this experience once where I was on a government trip by the government for the government of Israel doing a case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
And I had to go to Israel for meetings.
I'm talking about with the Minister of Justice, Prime Minister, foreign minister.
And they gave me this letter that was like a safe transport letter.
And I was at the airport in New York, and Israeli security came up to me and said, you know, we want to talk to you a little bit.
I said, I understand that.
I appreciate that.
But I've got this letter from, you know, it was the foreign minister's office.
And the representative from the state of Israel said, I don't care if you have a letter from King David.
I'm going to ask you these questions.
We need to start operating the same way.
And I actually, I really appreciated the fact that he said that.
John is calling.
Got a question on the Fourth Circuit.
John, you're on here.
Good afternoon, Jay.
You're a wonderful guy.
Thanks for having me, and thanks for allowing.
And I want to thank Sean's entire team and Sean for letting me sit in for him today.
And I can't believe you have a daughter-in-law or a son-in-law.
You look too young.
Wait a minute.
I've got two daughter-in-laws, two sons, and four grandchildren.
God bless you.
There you go.
But go ahead, John.
I do not understand why if the Constitution gives the president the right to put a travel ban, why we are even entertaining any courts interfering at all.
We should turn the tables on and make a new executive order that says the travel ban is in effect.
No court has the right to circumvent the Constitution, and if they want to, they can fight it out amongst themselves.
John, you must have read the brief filed by the American Center for Law and Justice because our position was when it comes to this, the president has the plenary authority, and the courts really cannot interfere.
But here's what you've got.
You've got a liberal judiciary that is taking statements of the and understand this.
The lawyer in the case in the Fourth Circuit argued that if Hillary Clinton or President Obama would have executed the same executive order, then it would have been constitutional.
But because it was President Trump and what he said before the campaign, now all of a sudden it's not constitutional anymore.
I mean, think about that for a moment.
It's constitutional for if it would have been President Hillary Clinton, but not constitutional.
I mean, think about this.
If it was President Trump, that was the decision they made.
I've got some final comments when we come back.
I want to talk to you about why it's so important.
To be the Americans that we're proud to be an American, you bet.
We've got a lot more to talk about.
In the final segment here, I'm going to give you a kind of a summary of the day.
A lot of news breaking.
Jay Seculo in for Sean Henny.
You can follow me at Jay Seculo on Twitter, Facebook as well.
And again, aclj.org.
Back with more in a moment.
Hey, everybody, Jay Seculo again.
It's been a pleasure being with you.
It's a little bit of breaking news right now, and that is the Attorney General has just announced that he is going to take the Fourth Circuit decision striking down the executive order on immigration directly right to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I expect those documents will be filed with the Supreme Court probably tomorrow.
Again, it's been my pleasure, Jay Seculi.
You can follow me at jseculo or aclj.org filling in for my good friend Sean Hannity.
He'll be back Tuesday.
I've got a book coming out now in paperback called Unholy Alliance, dealing with Russia, Iran, and Syria.
And that's going to be out in just a few days.
But again, the book's called Unholy Alliance.
And it has been a pleasure being with you.
I want to thank Sean's entire staff and Sean, the entire team for allowing me to sit in for Sean today.
As I said, he will be back on Tuesday with a lot of, can you imagine the break in five days, the amount of breaking news that will take place in this country, in the next, in the world, in the next, let's say, 72 hours or so.
A lot going on and a lot to be thankful for.
And to the men and women of our country who continue to defend us and have defended us.
I want to say on behalf of all of us from the entire Sean Hannity broadcast, from everybody at the American Center for Law and Justice, thank you for serving America.
