Sean Hannity Show - The Fish Stinks From The Head Down - 7.24

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 25, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:36:11

The Fish Stinks From The Head Down - 7.24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	All right, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
	And what's changed?
	Just a pillow.
	It's had such a positive impact on my life.
	And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
	I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer, and now you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
	Now, you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two Go Anywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity, to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	You will love this pillow.
	All right, happy Monday and hope you had a great weekend.
	And we're glad you're with us.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	It's 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to join us, well, we've got good news on top of other good news.
	Nearly a million jobs created, a little less than a million since President Trump's been in office.
	A seven-year low of Americans on food stamps.
	Good news.
	We've got U.S. News and I believe World Report saying what housing starts are booming in June to their strongest gain in what, nearly six months as the economy appears to be turning the corner as it relates to a lackluster window for home construction.
	Starts bounced 8.3% in June, which snapped a three-month decline, which is great.
	And having been in the building business, that's all good for them.
	I see MarketWatch is reporting a manufacturing output reached a four-month high in July, according to data released just today.
	And, you know, purchasing manager, the purchasing managers index rose to 53.2%, an acceleration in readings from output, new orders, employment, stocks of input.
	I mean, but you're not going to hear about any of that today.
	You're not going to hear that we're at a 12-year low as it relates to gas prices in America.
	You're not going to hear that Western Europe is giddy at the news that the Obama-era regulations, especially as it relates to natural gas, coal, and energy, is giving them probably the biggest foreign policy security boost they've ever had because they get and are so dependent on Russia, Russia, Russia for their energy.
	If God forbid crazy Vladimir Putin ever decides to turn off the spigot, that they're in trouble because, of course, energy is the lifeblood of our economy.
	They'll never tell you that in the Middle East, there has been a full-fledged panic set in, including studies on if America ever does wise up and become energy independent, what is that going to mean for them and the riches they have grown so accustomed to because of American stupidity?
	We've got more natural gas, more oil, more energy, more coal, than we never need to import a barrel of oil ever again in this country.
	Well, that's not what you're going to hear about today.
	We've got a lot of big stories.
	Before I get to our top stories of the day, and obviously Jared Kushner, but more importantly, I have a message for all of you out in this audience that voted for change in November, that voted for an agenda in November, because there are forces now that are so aligned that I'm getting deeply concerned about whether or not what you voted for is going to be utterly,
	completely sabotaged by varying forces that don't want this to ever come to fruition because of Donald Trump being the president, which, you know, it's the agenda that I supported more than the man.
	I think the agenda is far more important.
	You know, there's one of the saddest stories I think I've ever seen in my life, though.
	Do you hear about the story about Charlie Gard and this kid that has a condition that has deteriorated?
	And we're told in Great Britain, remember I told you years and years ago about Great Britain, national health services, and old people, if you have reached the age by which your life expectancy, if you go beyond your life expectancy age, and let's say you're an older person that needs a hip replacement, knee replacement, or some type of what they would define as elective surgery, well, they decide not to pay for, well, after all, you've lived beyond the years you're supposed to live, so good luck with that painful hip.
	Good luck walking to the grocery store.
	Good luck having any quality of life because you're going to live with bone on bone pain for the rest of your life.
	That's the National Health Services.
	That is what they would like to implement eventually because it is what it would become in the United States.
	It's why it's so imperative that Republicans get their agenda done.
	Anyway, so the parents of this kid, Chris Gard, and Connie Yates, his little baby Charlie Gard, today withdrew their legal bid to bring their son to the United States for treatment and slamming doctors in the courts for time wasted.
	Now, they've been fighting this battle and speaking in court, and the mother claimed that her son was not brain dead and could have lived a normal life if he had been released for treatment abroad.
	The treatment, this is Great Britain.
	We're not talking about Saudi Arabia here.
	I'm letting a girl out of the country without daddy's permission or her husband's permission.
	It was prevented by doctors, lawyers, and bureaucrats in Great Britain.
	And the lawyer, Grant Armstrong, revealed that the parents ended up deciding to withdraw their appeal because they saw Charlie, their son's latest scans, saying that treatment should now end and things.
	In other words, who cares if it's the parents, they had doctors, one after another, American doctors flying to Great Britain saying they can help this kid.
	It was like in the Terry Shaivo case.
	I never understood it.
	Okay, the husband and wife, the husband doesn't want to keep his wife on a feeding tube, but the parents do.
	And I'm like, okay, husband, you can move on quietly.
	And if the parents want to care for their daughter in the hope and prayer that Terry Shaivo may not be brain dead, may have some outside chance.
	I was watching on Netflix one night a woman who woke up from a coma after like 20 some odd years.
	Nobody thought it was ever possible.
	These things occasionally do happen.
	Anyway, so the court was due to make their decision tomorrow, but proceedings are not going to continue.
	And the lawyer Armstrong told the Justice, Justice Francis, the time had run out for the 11-month-old baby.
	And the couple cried at London's High Court as the announcement was made.
	Speaking outside the court, the father said, put simply, this is about a sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy born with a rare disease who had a real genuine chance of life and a family who love him so very dearly.
	And that's why we fought so hard for him.
	We're devastated, to say the least, that following the most recent MRI scan of Charlie's muscles, as requested by the bureaucrats, that and as Charlie's devoted and loving parents, we have decided that it's no longer in Charlie's best interest to pursue the treatment, and we'll let our son go and be with the angels.
	There had been American and Italian teams that have been treating, you know, trying to treat Charlie, and they wanted to bring him to the United States.
	And there were doctors swearing that they were able to help this kid.
	But there is one simple reason why treatment cannot go ahead now, and that is time.
	And that a whole lot of time has been wasted, and the kids deteriorated in the interim.
	That's my bottom line.
	I'm not judging these parents for this decision today.
	There's got to be, there's probably got to be a medical reason that they just, they've been told all hope is probably gone now.
	But there wasn't hope gone when they started this process.
	And why would the government ever get in the way in deciding something like this?
	Drives me crazy.
	All right, let me go to Jared Kushner, and then I'm going to tell you everything that the Trumps, the Trump campaign, the Trump administration has not done that has been done, And how we are now heading to a point where I truly believe everything that Trump voters went out and did in November, that there is a chance that it can all be undone.
	And undone by a variety of forces that are working 24-7, nonstop, to destroy a presidency with the greatest amount of hypocrisy and the biggest double.
	standard ever seen in mankind history.
	It's insane what's going on.
	Maybe overstated slightly, but you get my point.
	Let's listen to Jared Kushner.
	Let me be very clear.
	I did not collude with Russia, nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so.
	I had no improper contacts.
	I have not relied on Russian funds for my businesses.
	And I have been fully transparent in providing all requested information.
	Donald Trump had a better message and ran a smarter campaign.
	And that is why he won.
	Suggesting otherwise ridicules those who voted for him.
	It is an honor to work with President Trump and his administration as we take on the challenges that he was elected to face.
	Creating jobs for American people, keeping America safe, and eliminating barriers to achieving the American dream.
	Thank you very much, and I look forward to taking questions from the House committee tomorrow.
	Thank you.
	Here is what nobody in the Trump campaign, the Trump organization, the Trump administration, has ever been accused of.
	They've never been accused of deleting emails that were under subpoena, some 33,000 of them.
	They have never been accused of bleach-bitting computers and acid-washing them so that nobody can find out anything that was ever on them.
	They were never accused, as we learned over the weekend, and we've learned before, that Debbie Wasserman Schultz shattered her computers and busted them into little pieces.
	The Trump campaign, the Trump administration, anyone associated with Trump never, ever destroyed BlackBerries and iPhones with hammers the way Hillary Clinton's people did.
	They never sent to the FBI phones and Blackberries.
	Remember, she was only doing it for one device, for the convenience of one device.
	Turns out there's 16 devices.
	They never did it and sent it over without the SIM cards, which render them meaningless.
	We've never had an example like in the case of the Ukraine and the Ukrainian ambassador meeting with a DNC operative and the Ukrainian embassy and the Ukrainian ambassador in Ukraine trying to influence the election in Hillary's favor and the DNC paid operative, according to Politico, meeting and passing on information to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	That would be collusion.
	Nobody in the Trump campaign or the Trump administration ever signed a waiver so that Vladimir Putin can get up to 20% of America's uranium.
	And that $145 million was kicked back to any Trump foundation the way it was the Clinton Foundation.
	We've never had an incident where anybody in the Trump campaign set up a private email server, deleted the emails, put it in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom closet, and put classified top secret and special access program information on it, which is a violation of the law and a felony.
	We never had them destroy such information either, another felony.
	We never had anybody in the Trump administration or the Trump campaign leak to the New York Times classified documents like James Comey and government property like James Comey.
	We've never had a situation where a special counsel has been so in need of recusal than Robert Mueller, we just discovered his firm donated 99.8% of monies in this last election to Hillary, and that he hired Hillary's attorney and he hired Obama donors and Clinton donors and Democratic donors.
	And this is all the media in this country talks about.
	And when we get back, I'm going to explain to you how everything, those of you that did vote for Trump, is in jeopardy more than you may ever think.
	Pat Buchanan said it best the other night.
	He goes, the swamp in D.C. has the smell of blood in their nostrils and they're not going to stop.
	He's right.
	And if you don't fight back, which is my call to action for you today, then you're going to see the very thing you fought and voted for overturned by a deep state and by a bunch of people that are trying to overturn an election.
	Because that's what this is about.
	Even on Friday, we get another deep state leak, this time about Jeff Sessions, and it never ends.
	125 leaks, 126 days.
	You got the deep state.
	This is raw intelligence.
	You got intelligence gathering, which is so necessary for our security as our country, and brave people that work in the intelligence community.
	And you got people that do their job, and we give them the tools that are so advanced and so powerful to do it.
	And then you get a few.
	It's like one bad cop hurts every police officer.
	You get a few that then start unmasking people or political operatives start unmasking people.
	And then they leak intelligence like they did with General Flynn.
	Look at General Flynn's life and career.
	It's just finished because of a felony committed and we don't know who did it.
	We don't even think, I don't even think anybody's looking into it.
	I don't think anybody's looking into Hillary's crimes.
	Then you've got on top of that the single most biased corrupt media we've ever seen in our lifetime.
	I know Anthony Scaramucci is going to join us at the top of the hour.
	I mean, I like what I'm seeing so far, and that is Gorka and Anthony, and I saw Kelly Ann on CNN this weekend just pounding these people, and they're not that hard to defeat in a debate.
	But I mean, why should the administration have to deal with this constantly?
	You know, why isn't this woman Chalupa and the Ukrainian ambassador and Robbie Mook and Hillary Clinton and John Podesta?
	Why aren't all these people under oath?
	Why isn't Debbie Wasserman Schultz under oath?
	Why is it just Jared Kushner and Don Jr. under oath?
	The Democrats don't care about people in poverty on food stamps out of the labor force.
	They don't give a rip.
	They have zero ideas.
	I watch them on these shows and I'm like, do you care at all about anything but hating Trump?
	And what I have to say is, I think, pretty important.
	And that is, you know, if you look over what happened today in Jared Kushner and look at his 11-page written statement and then look at his public statement after, and he met with the Senate today, he'll meet with the House tomorrow and Don Jr. this week and Manafort this week.
	Why if the Republicans have subpoena power, why if they have authority and control of all of these different committees, why aren't they, if they're not even legislating, it's not like they have anything else better to do.
	Why aren't they out there demanding that the Democrats answer the evidence of corruption and collusion and outright lawbreaking and felonies committed first?
	Mar Hannity, last big government.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
	Look, I'm going to say this as objectively, discerningly, analytically as I possibly can, because there is something we all can do here.
	Just something that Pat Buchanan said to me on TV on Friday night that just sticks with me.
	And he said that, look, in the last days of Watergate, this reminds me, you know, the swamp in D.C.
	And he's talking about the whole swamp.
	And that's the deep state.
	They continue to leak, leak.
	You know, this is raw intelligence data that is never supposed to see the light of day, period.
	And the leaks and the unmasking.
	All right.
	So it's coming from them.
	It's a media that they're never going to tell you what I pointed out today, that, you know, energy production is up, housing starts are booming, manufacturing hits a four-month high, seven-year low, people on food stamps.
	I mean, there's real beginning progress, and Congress pretty much has done nothing.
	So you've got the deep state.
	You've got Democrats that have no agenda only to obstruct the president.
	There's not one Democrat in the House, not one in the Senate that is focused on anything except the destroy Trump, destroy Trump, destroy Trump narrative.
	It doesn't matter what else is out there, the things that I'm mentioning, real evidence of Russia collusion and real evidence.
	Could you imagine if Trump signed off on America's uranium going to Vladimir?
	Imagine if that was the case.
	And imagine the Trump Foundation got a kickback people involved in the deal, $145 million.
	Imagine if Jared Kushner had deleted 33,000 emails, destroyed iPhones and BlackBerries like Hillary Clinton did.
	You know, imagine that Five foreign intelligence services were able to glean information on top-secret, classified special access program information because Trump mishandled it and then actually ended up, in Hillary's case, then destroying that, which is a crime in and of itself.
	Imagine if anyone smashed computers the way we found out and discovered Debbie Wasserman Schultz apparently did.
	Daily Caller and other reports show that.
	Imagine that, you know, Don Jr. Jared met with the Ukrainian ambassador at the embassy, the Ukraine embassy, Ukrainian embassy, and that information was disseminated against Hillary Clinton by them, colluding with them to disseminate that.
	Why isn't Chalupa put under oath and then sent to the DNC?
	Why isn't Wasserman Schultz under oath?
	And then to the Clinton campaign, where's Robbie Mook?
	Where's John Podesta?
	Or John Podesta's dealings with Russia?
	It is, I honestly never in my life imagined that Americans would be as suspect of or susceptible, maybe is the better word, to propaganda, lies, misinformation, and distortion.
	What's that, Linda?
	What are you talking?
	Oh, hang on.
	Donald Trump is headed to the podium.
	He's talking about health care.
	For the past 17 years, Obamacare has wreaked havoc on the lives of innocent, hardworking Americans.
	Behind me today, we have real American families, great families, just spent a lot of time with them, who are suffering because seven years ago, a small group of politicians and special interests in Washington engineered a government takeover of health care.
	Every pledge that Washington Democrats made to pass that bill turned out to be a lie.
	It was a big, fat, ugly lie.
	Democrats promised Americans like Steve Finn, a former police officer in West Virginia, that they would save $2,500 a year under Obamacare.
	Instead, his premiums have more than tripled.
	That's pretty bad.
	As a result of Obamacare's skyrocketing course, Steve and his family and many of his employees had no other option than going on Medicaid and giving up their existing coverage.
	That's pretty bad.
	Pretty bad.
	No choice, right?
	No choice.
	For them, Obamacare's promise was a nightmare.
	Marjorie and Kevin Weir from South Carolina have a son, Monty, who suffers from spina bifida.
	Washington Democrats promised families like the Weirs that if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor.
	But now there is only one insurer left in the state exchange.
	And Marjorie says that every year she waits anxiously to learn if the doctors and hospitals, which her son needs the most, will remain in their network more Obamacare lies.
	And you've seen that up front, unfortunately, upfront and personal.
	The Democrats promised Melissa Atkinson that her son's pre-existing conditions would be covered.
	The Atkins quickly learned that Obamacare's promise of covering for pre-existing conditions was meaningless, though if the doctors you need to care for you aren't on your Obamacare plan.
	So you just have a meaningless promise, and everybody knows it, and most people on Obamacare know it.
	After an excruciating series of events and complications, Melissa and her husband found themselves just before Christmas emotionally and financially devastated, crying in a doctor's office faced with yet another seemingly unpayable bill.
	When insurance wouldn't cover the Atkinson's care, they emptied out Melissa's 401k to pay their bills.
	They're not going to be, and they haven't been the first.
	There are many, many cases such as that.
	The 401k.
	The first rule of medicine is do no harm.
	But Obamacare's lies have caused this.
	And throughout the whole country, families like this, nothing but pain.
	Erin and Andy Witzig are small business owners from Illinois.
	They have six children.
	Their youngest daughter, Poppy, has a rare genetic condition.
	Children born with it are sometimes called butterfly children because their skin is as fragile as the wings of a butterfly.
	Poppy has to wear special bandages all of the time.
	Unfortunately, under Obamacare, Poppy's insurance has been repeatedly discontinued and replaced with what Washington deems equivalent policies.
	But for Poppy, these plans are not equivalent, and Poppy's family has to spend precious time and tremendous resources fighting for exceptions for Poppy.
	The Washington politicians who made those promises to Steve, Marjorie, Melissa, Erin, and their beautiful children want to ignore all the pain, all the suffering, and all of the money, the tremendous amounts of money that these lies have caused.
	They want to forget about the countless Americans they've hurt and the many that they are continuing to hurt every day by refusing to help us replace Obamacare.
	For the last seven years, Republicans have been united in standing up for Obamacare's victims.
	Remember, repeal and replace, repeal and replace.
	They kept saying it over and over again.
	Every Republican running for office promised immediate relief from this disastrous law.
	We as a party must fulfill that solemn promise to the voters of this country to repeal and replace what they've been saying for the last seven years.
	But so far, Senate Republicans have not done their job in ending the Obamacare nightmare.
	They now have a chance, however, to hopefully, hopefully fix what has been so badly broken for such a long time.
	And that is through replacement of a horrible disaster known as Obamacare.
	The Senate is very close to the votes it needs to pass a replacement.
	The problem is we have zero help from the Democrats.
	They're obstructionists.
	That's all they are.
	That's all they're good at, is obstruction, making things not work.
	They say all the right things and then they do exactly what they're not supposed to be doing.
	The Democrats aren't giving us one vote, so we need virtually every single vote from the Republicans.
	Not easy to do.
	The Senate bill that is being considered outside of the outright repeal of Obamacare will also provide emergency relief for the law's victims and it will deliver truly great health care and health care reforms that our citizens want, need, and really should be demanding.
	Some are demanding.
	You'll see that at the voter booth, believe me.
	Here are just some of these terrific reforms that we will be doing if everything works out the way it should.
	The Senate bill eliminates the painful individual mandate.
	It eliminates the job-killing employer mandate, repeals other burdensome taxes, and will significantly lower Americans' premiums.
	It will stabilize collapsing health insurance markets and give Americans far more choice and far more flexibility.
	The Senate bill protects coverage for pre-existing conditions, and you don't hear this from the Democrats.
	They like to tell you just the opposite, and they didn't even know the bill.
	They run out, they say death, death, death.
	Well, Obamacare is death.
	That's the one that's death.
	And besides that, it's failing, so you won't have it anyway.
	It dramatically expands popular health savings accounts.
	It provides tax credits so Americans can purchase a private plan that is right for them and their families.
	It devotes substantial resources to fight the opioid, and this is a tremendous problem.
	The opioid epidemic, $45 billion is being put in so that the people of many states like New Hampshire, Ohio, and so many others that have such a big problem can be helped and helped greatly.
	We're going to be fighting the drug problems very, very seriously in my administration.
	And it provides, among many other things, higher quality care and more flexibility for states to administer Medicaid to better serve their poorest citizens.
	Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether to allow this urgently needed bill to come to the Senate floor for debate.
	The question for every senator, Democrat or Republican, is whether they will side with Obamacare's architects, which have been so destructive to our country, or with its forgotten victims.
	Any senator who votes against starting debate is telling America that you are fine with the Obamacare nightmare, which is what it is.
	For Democrats, this vote is a chance to make up for the terrible harm they have inflicted on Obama.
	I want to take the rest of this, but you got the main points in the president rightly calling out the Senate to do their job laying out what the plan is.
	And that is a lot of what, you know, Reagan said, if you can't get the whole thing, get 70%.
	Get 60%.
	Take it.
	We've got to do something that opens up free market competition.
	I want to go back to this thing.
	So you got the deep state.
	You got the Democrats.
	You got a corrupt media.
	You got weak Republicans that I think some of them want him to fail.
	And then you got the Never Trump crowd that wants to be able to say to every Trump voter, see, we were right.
	And they want to be relevant again.
	And what they're not focused on is the type of thing the President's discussing here.
	So they'll ignore the Ukrainian issue.
	They'll ignore real Russia collusion with the Uranium One.
	They'll ignore real lawbreaking with Hillary and Comey.
	And I didn't even mention Loretta Lynch yet.
	You know, and Jared Kushner, in his 11-page state, actually said, you know, the first time in politics, I took on more and more of a role.
	I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries.
	To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters, emails from people looking to talk to me and meet on a variety of issues, topics, including hundreds from outside the U.S.
	Well, I could not be responsive to everyone.
	I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing productive working relationship, were the candidate to prevail.
	To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, like Dr. Henry Kissinger.
	You know why I know this is true?
	Because my boss had a party, and I saw Jared talking to him like the whole night.
	I witnessed it for policy advice for the candidate, which countries, representatives.
	You can't win.
	If he didn't respond, you cannot win.
	And that's the point of all of this.
	There is nothing improper.
	As a matter of fact, what he did was absolutely correct in meeting with these people and talking to them and responding to their calls.
	But there is real collusion.
	There is real play to play.
	There are real felonies committed.
	These people won't do it.
	They won't even want to be somewhat fair.
	And that's the threat.
	Because if these entities are successful, everything you, the American people, voted for is in jeopardy.
	They want him to fail, and they want the election overturned.
	And they don't care by any means necessary.
	I'll have more on this later.
	We also have a big show today.
	Anthony Scaramucci, new White House Communications Director, Peter Schweitzer.
	He wrote the book.
	Remember what the book is called?
	It's called Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help to Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
	He's going to join us today.
	We'll get into the legal aspects of everything with Greg Jarrett.
	And we have Larry Kudlow today on the economy and the good news on the economy.
	All right, we got a lot coming up, including the brand new White House Communications Director.
	Did anyone see Kelly Ann smack down on CNN or poor fake Jake Tapper is now inflating his resume?
	He wants to say he's got blue-collar roots when he doesn't.
	Do they tell any truth there?
	Also, Peter Schweitzer, remember he wrote the book, Clinton Cash, about the Clintons and why foreign governments and businesses help make Bill and Hillary rich.
	I wonder if Mueller's going to investigate that.
	What happens to leakers on your watch?
	They're going to get fired.
	I'm just going to make it very, very clear.
	Okay, tomorrow I'm going to have a staff meeting.
	It's going to be a very binary thing.
	I'm not going to make any prejudgments about anybody on that staff.
	If they want to stay on the staff, they're going to stop leaking.
	If the leaks continue, we are strong as our weakest link.
	And I'll say it a little differently in a pun.
	We're as strong as our weakest leak.
	So if you guys want to keep leaking, why don't you guys all get together and make a decision as a team that you're going to stop leaking?
	But if you're going to keep leaking, I'm going to fire everybody.
	It's just very binary.
	He's not allowed to.
	This is the problem with the whole system.
	He's the president of the United States.
	If I turn to one of my staff members at Skybridge, I ask them a question, they run out to the news media and tell everything that I'm thinking about.
	Is that fair to the president?
	If you turn to one of your partners at Skybridge and say, hey, do you have a hundred brands for bail money in case I need it?
	Yes.
	Then people are going to say, why is he talking about bail money?
	I mean, Jake, that's a super ridiculous hypothetical, and I appreciate you're on the fly trying to think of them.
	But the truth of the matter is, is that the president's not going to have to pardon anybody because the Russian thing is a nonsensical thing.
	I was there early on in the campaign.
	I didn't have any interactivity with Russians.
	I didn't see anybody have any interactivity with Russians.
	It is a complete bogus and nonsensical thing.
	And this is the stuff that happens in Washington I honestly don't like.
	Scandals incorporated.
	But we know how to manufacture these scandals to take the president off of his agenda.
	We're going to put the president right back on his agenda.
	There is an escrow that's going to be presented to the American people.
	All right, that was Anthony Scaramucci with Jake the Fake Tapper on CNN over the weekend, 800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number, hour two of the Sean Hannity show.
	And the new communications director for the president, no holds barred, obviously, is Anthony Scaramucci.
	How are you, sir?
	Hey, Sean, it's a big honor to be on the show.
	Thank you so much for including me.
	All right, let's talk a little bit about the statement that you made here.
	Any leakers are going to be shown the door.
	Does that also include deep state leakers?
	Because it was one report.
	Let me rephrase that for your listeners.
	It's the leakers that I have control over.
	Okay, so I sit in the comm shop now.
	I report directly to the president.
	I had a very crisp meeting with him this morning about some of the things that I'd like to do.
	Got his green light.
	I met with about 40 or so people in the Roosevelt room here in the West Wing shortly thereafter and sort of laid out what I want to do culturally here to make people understand where I'm coming from.
	And so, very, very binary, like I said to Jake Tapper.
	You're going to leak.
	You're going to go outside on Pennsylvania Avenue.
	You're going to sell postcards to the tourists.
	Just that simple.
	If you're not going to leak, you can stay here and work.
	You've got to make a decision.
	I think one of the harder things to find is going to be the 125 leaks from within the intelligence community against the president.
	I mean, we had one late last week again, and this one was against Jeff Sessions.
	And it seems like it just never ends.
	Yeah, so that's a totally separate topic, and so unfortunately, it's outside of my authority.
	But what I will say there is we're going to start a process of bolstering the exposure of those as well.
	But the only thing I can do here, Sean, and there's an Italian expression which I know you remember from your days living on Long Island, I know you still live on Long Island, is that the fish thinks from the head down.
	And so I have to send a message to everybody here that this is not going to be tolerated.
	The interness and fighting is not going to be tolerated.
	This senior person leaking against that senior person, they want to use comms people in this shop to hit each other.
	That's not going to be tolerated.
	And, you know, and the president and I are in concert with this.
	He told me a story this morning where one of his friends had people stealing from him and decided, look, I'll just fire everybody.
	And then once everybody was fired, the stealing stopped.
	And so I can't control the Deep State.
	I can't control the other governmental agencies, but I can get as fierce a control as I can on the comms department and send a message to the other senior staff here that we're not going to do this.
	We're here to serve the president.
	The president is here to serve the 325 million Americans.
	And he's the president for all people, Sean, not just the ones that voted for him.
	And it's our job to get his message out and to stop the interness and fighting inside the West Wing.
	All right.
	I agree with all the above, and I think it's counterproductive.
	And I think it's up to now, I think it has actually hurt the president.
	And I hope you find out who those people are.
	If they continue to do it, I think anybody and everybody should go.
	I don't think there should be any exceptions to that rule.
	Jared Kushner testifying earlier today and answering questions from Senate investigators.
	Before his testimony, he released a pretty comprehensive 11-page statement.
	He also spoke afterwards, and he went through everything what his role in the campaign was about for contacts, but as part of a broader job that he had as it relates to the Russians, I mean, there's Russian obsession in the media today.
	What is your take on a media that never focuses in on anything but that, seemingly?
	Well, I mean, maybe it's eyeballs in some of the networks that you compete against, but I think it's a hoax.
	I think it's a nonsensical.
	I was there very, very early in the campaign, didn't see anything of what is being described.
	I got hit, Sean.
	You know that.
	You and I are personal friends.
	I was hit with a fake news story.
	I had to respond to it aggressively.
	A lot of the stuff that's come out is a whole bunch of nonsense and nothing.
	And so Jared, I think, did very well this morning with his testimony.
	I think he's being definitive and he's being declarative.
	No Russian involvement, no Russian involvement or collusion in the campaign, no Russian involvement as it relates to his business ties or activities in the public sector.
	And he's going to go up back to the Hill to the House of Representatives and testify again.
	And so he didn't have to do that.
	I think the President basically tweeted out that Secretary Clinton made a decision to erase her emails.
	Jared Kushner made a decision to not only and his other family members, his children, to show emails, but also agreed to voluntarily testify to those two committees.
	One of the things we want for the president is directness, which is his nature, candidness, and honesty.
	And literally, just to give you guys more color, I was in the study right off of the Oval Office with the President.
	Vice President Pence was coming in to have lunch with him.
	The president said to me, the number one thing that we need to be is honest.
	And Sean, you and I know each other a long time.
	I would never dishonor my family.
	It came from very hardworking people by doing something dishonest.
	And so we're going to try to keep this as transparent as we can and as open.
	I don't think we're going to be able to fight through a lot of the mainstream media nonsense.
	I think they're just going to go off the hook in the directions they're going in.
	But we've got very sharp people here on the comms team.
	We're going to reinvent the way we deliver information to the American people.
	And if I can't get the help from the mainstream media of giving the president a fair shake, we'll find other ways to do that.
	And certainly the president does that with his social media situation.
	I honestly have seen a shift and a change just before you came on board.
	And then we saw a lot of it this weekend.
	I mean, I think the exchange we just played with you and Jake Tapper is a really good one.
	Well, Jake, I know you're trying to come up with analogies on the fly, but good try, it doesn't work here.
	Or Kelly Am was on CNN and Dr. Gorka's two appearances, Anderson Cooper and Allison Camerado, went viral.
	I do think that they have gotten away with way too much, and I think there has been far too little pushback, in my humble opinion.
	I would say that we do need to have more pushback, but what I want to do, Sean, is I want to focus these people actually just away from this nonsense and start to focus on the president's agenda.
	We'll be heading off on Air Force One about 5 o'clock tonight down to West Virginia, where we're going to address 45,000 people at a Boy Scout convention or an association, if you will.
	And I'd like to get people more focused on what the President's going to do on health care reform, tax reform, some of the regulatory measures that he's taking in terms of deregulation to make the economy grow faster.
	So we're going to do something that you and I would do in the seat that I'm in, which is be offensive, play for what I would call the president's advantage by selling his agenda.
	If this agenda gets passed, he will be soundly re-elected in 2020, and that's our goal.
	This is at this fishnet of the mainstream media.
	In some ways, we have to ignore it.
	You come in at a time where Newt Gingrich was the first to point this out to me, that not only did Robert Mueller hire Hillary Clinton's attorney, but she also hired all these donors to the Obama campaigns and the Clinton campaigns and Democrats.
	But we also discovered that Mueller himself gave 90, his firm gave 99% of their donations to Hillary Clinton.
	You had even just late last week deep state attacks against the Attorney General in this particular case.
	I don't know.
	I'm beginning to see a lot of investigative creep by Mueller.
	It seems like it started out in one thing, and now he's moved in five different directions because the Russian narrative seems to be crumbling in spite of the way the media is reporting all of this.
	And I'm just wondering, and then we've got Hillary Clinton and everything involving her and real collusion and 20% of America's uranium and $145 million kickback to the Clinton Foundation and the Ukrainian embassy, the ambassador meeting at the embassy with a DNC operative who political reports went back to the DNC in the Clinton campaign.
	Is there a double standard?
	And more importantly, do you think that this, you know, how do you combat all of this double standard at one time?
	Are you going to take those issues to the media?
	Yeah.
	So you and I were separated at birth.
	You just happen to be Irish, right?
	You know that about yourself, right?
	So everything you just said, you know, I 1,000% agree with.
	But what I said from the podium on Friday is that the Navy SEALs have a great line that the only way that you can eat an entire elephant is to take one bite at a time.
	So the first thing I've got to do, Sean, is I've got to clean up the culture here in the comm shop, and I've got to stop the interness and civil warfare among the personalities in the egomaniac.
	Once they stop shooting at each other, we can subordinate all of that to the president's message.
	Once we get that under control, we can start dealing with the stuff that you're referencing.
	But I 1,000% agree with you that we've got to go in that direction.
	You know, Pap Buchanan said something on the show the other day, and I've known you for a long time, and you are a straight shooter.
	And I think one of the reasons we've always gotten along so well and became friends is that, you know, you're kind of like me and you have humble beginnings.
	And Buchanan said something that kind of alarmed me the other night when he said, you know, the swamp in Washington has the smell of blood in their nostrils.
	And he said it was like the final days of Watergate.
	And in terms of the intensity of fake news and the lying and the nonstop hysteria and the double standard, I don't think I've ever seen it this bad.
	Well, I mean, let me tell you.
	I mean, that's a large group of people here.
	There's no question about that.
	The flip side is there are people here in the West Wing and up on the Hill that are focused on the president's agenda.
	But I do agree with you that, you know, I thought Wall Street was bad until I got myself down here to Washington because what happens down here, Sean, is that the incentives are so different.
	If you're transacting over money, each party has a very clear incentive in a direction.
	I cannot figure out what they're transacting on most of the times down here.
	Some of it is power, some of it is positioning, some of it is vanity.
	But I would say to my fellow Republicans, though, we may have differences, we may have personality differences or somewhat ideological differences, but boy, we better pass health care reform.
	All right, stay right there.
	He gave a seven and a half year promise to do that.
	All right, well, going to take a break.
	I'm going to ask you very specifically about the president's agenda, the slow-moving Congress.
	When we get back, he's the new communications director in the White House, Anthony Scaramucci.
	A couple more minutes with him, and we'll let him go.
	800-941-Sean, a toll-free telephone number.
	As we continue, he's the brand new communications director for the president, a former, well, I guess, Wall Street superstar.
	Is it true that you offered Reince Prievis a job to make money and he turned you down?
	What was up with that?
	Well, you know, I'll tell you right after the 2012 election, I sat down with Rice and I was looking to hire a chief operating officer, and he had all the requisite skills.
	He's a very well-organized guy, a good communicator, had a great broad donor list inside the Republican Party.
	And, you know, I was offering him a career path that was different from a political career path.
	Having said that, he'd probably be richer, Sean, but I don't think he would have made it to be the White House chief of staff.
	So I'm not sure.
	The first thing I read is you guys hated each other, and I knew differently.
	Let me— No, not at all.
	I mean, you have to understand that if you're in a situation like this and you're not cross-roughing each other a little bit, I think that the terrible thing is a disservice to the president.
	I don't want to be in a sycophantic situation here.
	We have to tell each other how we feel, and we have to work our way through problems.
	And if we see things differently, we may be adding value to the eventual solution.
	Let me ask you, because I have been very critical of Republicans.
	Seven years they've run on repeal, replace Obamacare.
	Give us the House, the Senate, the presidency.
	And on top of that, we haven't passed the President's economic agenda.
	There is some good economic news, a seven-year low for food stamps.
	And we see close to a million jobs created in the time the president's been in office.
	And I see that businesses are investing because they like the end of Obama-era regulations.
	But if we want to get people off of food stamps and out of poverty and back in the workforce, they've got to move.
	Listen, I totally agree with you on that.
	I think that one of the issues, though, is there's several fundamental pillars of this.
	And you and I are both products of a good public school education, so we've got to work on...
	My parents spent every penny they had on sending me to Catholic schools because I was so incorrigible.
	I was more incorrigible than you, Bull, though.
	It turned out more incorrigible.
	You sent me to Shamanade, and I prayed every night to God.
	Thank God that they didn't send me there because that was an all-boys school.
	You remember that school at a long home?
	I went to an all-boys school called St. Pius the X Seminary.
	So what you successfully dodged, I had.
	Well, exactly.
	I forgot that he went to gathering school.
	But my point is that if you can get the tenets of education and opportunity right and we can shift a little bit of the culture to where we're training people to do an advocation that is successful, you can take a lot of the dependency out of the system.
	You know, I grew up in a family where my dad had seven brothers and sisters.
	My mom had three.
	Those 12 people went out and made 40 people.
	Only my brother and I went to college.
	I have 38, my sister and then 37 cousins that are working.
	Some of them are in AutoGlass.
	Some of them are working as deli owners, pizzeria owners, AutoCollision.
	My sister owns a children's store.
	My point is that these are all very successful middle class or upper middle class people, but didn't get that four-year formal education.
	And so we have to start pushing the agenda and pushing policy.
	That's the people that I care about.
	That's me.
	That's you.
	All right.
	Thank you, Louis.
	The president really understands, too.
	All right, we've got to take a break.
	Anthony, thank you for being with us.
	We appreciate it.
	And more on this busy breaking news day today.
	Peter Schweitzer is going to join us.
	He wrote the book Clinton Cash, and he's got some new developments on those issues.
	How do we get the economy back on track?
	And also the legal analysis from Greg Jarrett as to what happened with Jared Kushner today and other issues that we're discovering about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats and whether or not they have some issues regarding the law.
	800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
	Because of my service as Secretary of State is what his presidency would mean to our country and our standing in the world.
	I am already receiving messages from leaders.
	I'm having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump.
	I say, you know, I mean, this is up to Americans.
	Thank you very much.
	But I get what you're saying.
	You're not going to tell us who?
	Well, some have done it publicly, actually.
	The Italian prime minister, for example.
	How about the ones that have done it privately?
	No, Jacob.
	We're holding that in reserve, too.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the air.
	Oh, Hillary Clinton at a CNN town hall, admitting that foreign leaders are contacting her discussing how they can help stop Donald Trump.
	Isn't that the entire phony, fake, fraudulent narrative that foreign entities should not be trying to influence American elections?
	Isn't that what it's all about?
	There's a story out today about how Debbie Wasserman Schultz had an email server and computers that were smashed to bits and pieces for all the talk about the president, all the talk about Russia, all the talk about collusion.
	Well, they don't talk about all the broken devices, DNC and Debbie Wasserman.
	Why would they bust it up that way?
	And computers busted into smithereens if there wasn't some intent to make sure nobody ever reads anything that's on it.
	You know, then we got Hillary Clinton acid washing her computer for crying out loud with bleach bit.
	How many of you heard of bleach bit before Hillary Clinton?
	I didn't.
	How many of you ever had a staffer or somebody that works with or for you go out with a hammer and smash up BlackBerries and iPhones?
	How many of you know of anybody in the Trump campaign that destroyed 33,000 emails and just deleted them and said they were about a wedding, a funeral, and communications with a husband that does an email?
	33,000.
	And then how many of you heard about, well, the FBI requests different recording devices that weren't smashed into smithereens.
	And those recording devices, well, they didn't have SIM cards, which renders them totally and completely and utterly useless to the FBI.
	And of course, mishandling of classified material, destruction of classified material.
	You know, how many of you know anybody that gave Vladimir Putin up to 20% of America's uranium, signed off on it?
	And then as a foundation that received $145 plus million dollars from people surrounding the deal.
	Why are we where we are today?
	Why is it that Republicans don't know how to fight back?
	Why is it there's such a double standard in the media?
	Why is any of this happening?
	Anyway, joining us now is somebody who is way ahead of the curve.
	He broke so much ground in the lead up to the election.
	I argued had a big impact on the election.
	Peter Schweitzer, author of the New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of how and why foreign governments and businesses help make Bill and Hillary rich.
	Forget the subtitle of the book.
	Peter, welcome back.
	How are you?
	Hey, thanks, Sean.
	Great to be back on with you.
	You know, I'm watching Jared go in and I'm watching, you know, I'm watching everybody.
	I guess Don Jr. goes in, Manafort goes in.
	Where's Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
	Where's the Ukrainian ambassador?
	Where's Chalupa?
	Where's Hillary?
	Where's John Podesta and Robbie Mook and everybody else that worked for that campaign?
	Where are the Clinton Foundation people?
	Where are the people that kick back the money for the uranium?
	Yeah, that's really the issue, Sean.
	I mean, my position on this from the beginning has been, you know, the media should pursue, you know, these rumors, which have never really been confirmed or found out on collusion that have been disproven.
	That's their job.
	The problem that I have is the lack of vigor or interest in pursuing stories that I think are far more developed as it relates to ties between the Clintons and the Russians.
	That's really the problem.
	If they had pursued the Clinton stories with intense vigor and they're pursuing the Trump ones now with intense vigor, I would be standing up for the media and saying they're doing their job.
	But it's the lack of consistency that is the problem.
	And the notion that's sort of being passed around that foreign leaders, A, have favorites running for elections, and B, that campaigns have no contacts with foreign nationals whatsoever is just flat out ridiculous.
	And what I'd encourage people to do, Sean, is for a history lesson, go back and read the memoirs of a guy named Anatoly Dobrinen, who was the Soviet ambassador to the United States for 30 years.
	He wrote his memoirs in the mid-1990s.
	And in his memoir, and this is a guy who's very measured, in his memoirs, he talks about the fact that during the 1980 campaign, he was approached by Jimmy Carter's campaign saying, hey, let's work together to sort of undermine Reagan because he scares all of us.
	He talks in his memoir about Senator Edward Kennedy meeting with Soviet officials to do the same thing to undermine Reagan.
	Same thing in the 84 campaign with Walter Mondale.
	So, you know, anybody who wants to pretend that unfortunately this stuff does not go on occasionally is just being intellectually dishonest or they're not very well worsted in history.
	I wish it didn't go on, but it does go on.
	Let's start with collusion here.
	I've been, I think, pretty much the only one that has focused extensively on the amount of evidence of collusion with Ukraine, focused extensively on Hillary's sign-off on the Uranium One deal and the amount of money kickback, and focused probably almost the only voice in the media that points out, well, if it's so bad to influence foreign elections, why was Obama trying to influence the outcome of the Israeli election and defeat a sitting prime minister of one of our closest allies?
	Yeah, that's right.
	I mean, look, this is the way the game of politics is played.
	And I think the important thing we always have to do is when we find out that there's been contact with foreign leaders or there's been an exchange of funds, as there has been between the Clintons and Russian and some Chinese entities, the question is always: well, did they get something in return?
	Is there evidence that there was some kind of exchange or quid pro quo?
	And I think one of the problems that the Trump narrative has as it relates to collusion is there's no benefit that's accrued to the Russians.
	I mean, in fact, if you look at the policies that Donald Trump has pursued, consider just, for example, his energy policy, which is one that he's had when he first announced his campaign, which is to frack, frack, frack, to take American energy and make it robust and make us a net energy exporter.
	Well, that is an absolute disaster for Vladimir Putin's Russia.
	They are heavily reliant on energy exports.
	They need energy prices to be high, not to be low.
	Gas prices are at a 12-year low.
	And if Trump becomes energy independent, and it literally, from national security perspective alone, ensures that our Western European allies have an option beyond being so dependent on Vladimir, the Russians, and him turning off the spigot one day out of anger.
	Yes, that's exactly right, Sean.
	They much better liked it when oil was $120 a barrel early on in the Obama administration than where it is now.
	And then when you look at who the appointments are in the national security sphere, you know, H.R. McMaster, the CIA director, the defense secretary, none of these people are soft on Russia.
	So, you know, the question comes and remains: what is the perceived or what people are arguing was the benefit that Russia accrued from Donald Trump?
	There's no evidence of that thus far.
	So, you know, my position has been you need to look into these things.
	That's what the E.
	Well, then explain something to me because you're really a smart guy and the amount of research you did.
	I mean, you were so far ahead of the curve.
	Then tell me why is it that the people I'm mentioning involved in the Ukraine and they're trying an attempt to influence the election, coordinating and colluding with Hillary's campaign.
	Why is it that the Russian Uranium-1 deal, why is it that none of the, or for example, even the conflicts of interest, look at Mueller hiring Hillary's attorney or Mueller's firm giving 99% of their donations to Hillary or Mueller only hiring Obama, Clinton, and Democratic donors and no Republicans?
	Yeah, these are all issues that, you know, sadly, the media, the mainstream media has destroyed or affected their credibility dramatically because they are pursuing only certain stories with vigor.
	And that's, I think, the biggest damage that they've done to themselves.
	Again, look, if they had been pressing Hillary Clinton on these issues, if they'd been raising the Uranium-1 deal, it never came up.
	Well, why can't they do it now?
	They can.
	Why aren't they?
	Yes.
	Well, they're not because they are hell-bent on focusing on Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone.
	And they have gotten a lot of- Why is the Justice Department, though, focused in on Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone?
	Why isn't the Justice Department doing their job?
	Well, I think there is more going on there than we believe as it relates to the FBI and others.
	I know they continue to look into things related to the Clinton Foundation.
	But look, at the end of the day, it's going to come down to whether people at the Department of Justice are prepared to make difficult political decisions.
	And when you take on powerful people, you've got to be prepared to deal with the consequences of that.
	I don't think I've ever seen such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence in my life.
	How rich did the Clintons get, either through their foundations or personally, from their connections with the Russians and similar countries?
	Well, their foundation received hundreds of millions of dollars from either Russian entities or people that were doing business in Russia that needed benefit.
	They received millions of dollars in speaking fees from Russian entities.
	And here's the crucial thing, Sean.
	The Russians benefited from actions that Hillary Clinton took when they were getting paid.
	You have the Uranium One deal, but you also had Skokovo, which was this tech transfer program.
	So the Clintons are getting money.
	At the same time, Hillary Clinton, the State Department, is sending Western technology to Russia that's of dual use, that the FBI concluded had military applications.
	So again, it's crucial to look at these relationships and see what either side of the equation is getting from those ties.
	Yeah, and it is extensive.
	And especially considering there's no there there.
	This is the most corrupt, dishonest time I've ever seen in the country in terms of politics, the media, the deep state.
	I've never lived through anything like this.
	And if they are able to succeed and overturn the will of the people and their election and their desire for this agenda, I don't know how you ever recover.
	I don't even think it's possible.
	Take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue more with Peter Schweitzer.
	News Roundup Information Overload is next.
	All right, as we continue with Peter Schweitzer, author of the bestseller Clinton Cash, the untold story of how and why foreign governments and businesses help make Bill and Hillary rich.
	Unbelievable.
	All right, so you have another exclusive today where you've got some new research from the Government Accountability Institute, and you've done extensive studies on voter fraud campaign financing.
	And with the Democrats so concerned about Russia, you found out that, what, 44% of members of Congress don't require an online donor, which is the way most people donate now, to enter their credit card security code to make a campaign donation.
	Less than 10% of Democrats with active donate pages require an online donor to enter their credit cards and their security code while making a donation, where 90% of Republicans do.
	What does that all mean?
	Well, yeah, Sean, so, you know, a lot of people, when you buy things online, you go to Amazon or other places, you have to put in that CVV code, which is designed to make sure that you're not, you know, using a fraudulent card for a transaction.
	And that is to prevent fraudulent transactions.
	Now, in the campaign scenario, this issue came up in 2008.
	The Washington Post actually reported on the fact that there were thousands of donations to the Obama campaign made with cash cards, meaning they could not be traced.
	And so a lot of people argued you need to have this security code on there to make sure that people are not making hidden donations to campaign.
	We did a study in 2012.
	We noted that the Obama presidential campaign did not require the CBV.
	There were all sorts of questions about donations and where money was coming from.
	We updated that report by looking at Congress again and found that the situation has actually gotten worse.
	That whereas before, Democrats and Republicans had generally been equal in requiring the CVB security on their websites for donations, in the last five years it's gone down 63%.
	So you have with Democrats, for example, in the Senate going from 52 down to 19.
	And so the point is this, Sean.
	We are all concerned about the integrity of our elections, whether that's the money flowing into it, whether it's voting.
	This is a very simple thing that can and should be put on websites for donations so we can track and make sure that fraudulent hidden donations, even foreign donations, aren't flowing into our campaigns.
	They're not required to do it.
	And a lot of candidates are not going to be able to do it.
	Can you trace it after at the end of the day?
	Are you able to go back and trace it all?
	Well, you can't trace it all because there's a very interesting way to get around the rule.
	You're required to disclose campaign contributions that are over $200.
	You are not required to keep track of who even sent you money if it's less than $50.
	And what the Washington Post revealed back in 2008 was the Obama campaign was getting thousands of donations under the $50 threshold, and nobody knew who was making those donations.
	And so it was a real concern and remains a real concern that you could have somebody overseas literally, you know, electronically making thousands of donations to campaigns, not having to disclose because each one is under the $50 threshold.
	All right, Peter, we got to know where the money's coming from.
	You're going to be on Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern.
	And you know what?
	While the media is fixated and focused on one issue, we have far deeper examples of collusion, corruption, lying, disinformation.
	And we're going to just, we're going to continue to pound away.
	If you want to save the agenda you voted for in November, you need to tune in tonight.
	Quick break right back.
	We'll continue.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
	Let me be very clear.
	I did not collude with Russia, nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so.
	I had no improper contacts.
	I have not relied on Russian funds for my businesses.
	And I have been fully transparent in providing all requested information.
	Donald Trump had a better message and ran a smarter campaign.
	And that is why he won.
	Suggesting otherwise ridicules those who voted for him.
	It is an honor to work with President Trump and his administration as we take on the challenges that he was elected to face, creating jobs for American people, keeping America safe, and eliminating barriers to achieving the American dream.
	Thank you very much, and I look forward to taking questions from the House committee tomorrow.
	Thank you.
	All right, Jared Kushner, after meeting with the Senate earlier today, and, you know, what I'm being told from the inside is pretty fascinating is even the Democrats know nothing happened here.
	They all know.
	And for them, it's a big game.
	It's our top story today.
	And you think about where if collusion is really so, so bad, let's go back and listen to Hillary Clinton talking about foreign leaders.
	Is there anything we can do to stop Donald Trump?
	Listen.
	Because of my service as Secretary of State is what his presidency would mean to our country and our standing in the world.
	I am already receiving messages from leaders.
	I'm having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump.
	I say, no, I mean, this is up to Americans.
	Thank you very much.
	But I get what you're saying.
	You're not going to tell us who?
	Well, some have done it publicly, actually.
	The Italian prime minister, for example.
	How about the ones that have done it privately?
	No, Jay.
	We're holding that in reserve, too.
	And then you add to this the duplicity, the hypocrisy.
	I don't know anybody on Donald Trump's staff and his campaign that works for him, anybody in his family.
	I don't know any of them that deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails.
	I don't know any of them.
	I don't know any of them that went out there with a hammer and a sledgehammer, literally shredding some type of device like Blackberries and iPhones.
	I don't know any of them that sent to the FBI, you know, two years later some type of iPhone and a Blackberry that had no SIM card.
	I don't know anybody in the campaign that went out there and signed off on up to 20% of America's uranium going to Vladimir Putin in Russia.
	And I don't know anybody that kicked back as a part of that deal, people involved in that deal, some $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
	I don't know anybody in the Trump campaign or associated with the president that went to the Ukraine embassy, Ukrainian embassy, to meet with the ambassador because they were working to defeat Donald Trump, and it's all been on the record.
	And then that person reports back to the DNC and to the Clinton campaign.
	And that the Ukrainians, in fact, also disseminated false information because they wanted to influence the election.
	It just makes no sense.
	Anyway, he's a top-notch attorney.
	He is a host and legal analyst on the Fox News channel.
	Friend of ours, Greg Jarrett, is with us.
	How are you?
	I'm well.
	And, you know, I just got off the phone, Sean, with Professor David Clinton.
	He co-authored the seminal book on presidential transitions.
	He said he read Kushner's statement, and he said, this is the very same practice employed by other presidential transitions.
	He said there's nothing improper.
	And in fact, he said it's widely done and it's beneficial to the United States.
	He said, look, transitions are fairly long, and the incoming administration needs to do what Kushner did to inform itself of foreign policy.
	And it's very common for other governments to get in touch with the incoming administration to begin these informal relationships and address relevant mutual issues.
	That's a direct quote from the professor.
	And this is the preeminent author on presidential transitions in American foreign policy.
	Do you hear any of this from the media?
	Do they ever put it in historical perspective?
	They don't.
	Well, they don't.
	And I think I laid out a pretty compelling case.
	Maybe it's just in my own mind, of a massive double standard, real provable collusion, admitted collusion, and real potential corruption in terms of obstruction of justice, destroying emails and destroying devices.
	Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you can add her to the list as it was revealed they shattered computers that she had.
	I mean, the whole thing stinks to high heaven, and I don't see any of these issues being raised with the Trump people, but all we hear about is Russia, Trump, Trump, Russia.
	Well, you're absolutely right.
	And of course, you'll rarely hear anybody in the media talk about how on March 5th of 2015, Hillary Clinton received a congressional subpoena that directed her to preserve all emails.
	And yet, three weeks to the day later, 33,000 emails were destroyed.
	Now, you know, weren't they under subpoena?
	They were.
	And the instruction was hold and preserve all of your emails on the government server as well as any private server.
	And what would have happened if Sean Hannity or Greg Jarrett did that?
	Well, you know, you and I would have been in handcuffs and prosecuted.
	I would have been calling you from jail and saying, get down here and bring me a cake with a file.
	Yeah, and it'd have to be a pretty big file.
	If I'm in Rikers, there ain't I spoke at Rikers.
	There ain't no getting out of Rikers.
	I'm surprised they let you get out of Rikers after you spoke there.
	I spoke to the prisoners, and I don't think they're ever going to invite me back because it was a Christian group, and I was, let's just say, very, very raw New York and real.
	But I think the message was important.
	Absolutely, it's important, and good for you for doing that.
	And if I talked in high, lofty, spiritual language, I don't think they would care.
	You're probably right about that.
	Well, but I did have their attention.
	Anyway, I didn't mean to distract you.
	Go ahead.
	Well, that's all right.
	You know, and the point that you, the other point that you made is that it's a crime for a public official to use their public office to confer a benefit on a foreign government in exchange for money.
	Now, there seems to be some evidence, pretty clear, pretty convincing, perhaps, that Hillary Clinton may have used her position as Secretary of State to confer a benefit to the Russian government.
	And, you know, there's evidence that suddenly her foundation, as well as her husband, started receiving money therefrom.
	That kind of quid pro quo, pay-to-play, could, if proven, be a crime.
	If you double your speaking fees, does that sound like something to investigate as a quid pro quo, pay-to-play?
	It could be circumstantial evidence, which in my experience as a lawyer is often more powerful than physical evidence and direct evidence.
	So, you know, it is certainly the kind of thing that would justify a reopening of the Hillary Clinton investigation.
	What I don't understand is President-elect Trump, and actually before he became president-elect on the campaign trail, repeatedly promised that he would have his Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor, an independent counsel, to reopen the investigation.
	And that hasn't happened.
	Well, I don't think that's the call of the president, and that does raise the question: well, why hasn't Jeff Sessions done it?
	Well, he was very careful to say he would have his Attorney General do it.
	Now, look, the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President.
	It's a myth that they're completely independent.
	So my question is: you know, has that directive been issued to the Attorney General?
	And if so, why hasn't Jeff Session done it?
	Well, the statute of limitations haven't passed.
	You see, this is where I run into problems with Republicans.
	Not only are they weak on their agenda and a seven-year promise of repealing and replacing, and they still haven't gotten moving on the president's economic plan, and we still don't see the border wall funded and being built.
	And I'm sitting back and I'm watching, and I'm thinking, all right, well, the president's doing what he promised to the extent he's capable of acting alone, but we do have checks and balances and co-equal branches of government, and I don't see the legislative branch stepping up.
	And I watch investigation after investigation only of Republicans, and I see far more evidence of collusion and corruption with the Democrats, and I don't see them lift a finger.
	And I'm like, this is the most bizarre, surreal, almost inexplicable behavior of a political party I've ever seen in my life.
	They're still afraid of their own shadow, and they're in power.
	Which is why I think, Sean, that we saw the president's growing frustration that he aired during the New York Times interview, which was recorded late last week, in which he is complaining, and I think justifiably so, that he got sandbagged by his Attorney General, who didn't have to recuse himself.
	I looked at the statute on recusal for anybody serving in the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General.
	And it seems pretty clear to me that Sessions jumped the gun.
	He didn't have to recuse himself.
	And he certainly doesn't have to recuse himself from appointing a special prosecutor to the Hillary Clinton case.
	All right, Greg Jarrett is with us.
	He is a legal analyst, commentator, writer, and anchor of the Fox News channel.
	He'll join us with Sarah Carter tonight.
	Also, we will be checking in with John Sununu, who's had a great analysis of this double standard.
	Ari Fleischer, Larry Elder tonight, will be joining us, and much, much more, Peter Schweitzer as well.
	800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program?
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	Also, good news on the economy.
	Housing starts are now booming.
	Why isn't the media reporting on that?
	Manufacturing is at a four-month high.
	We have a seven-year low now as it relates to those on food stamps in the country, and nobody talks about it.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue by putting up this tweet that President Trump sent out yesterday, yesterday morning.
	He said, while all agree that the U.S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of it when the only crime so far is leaks against us, fake news?
	I wonder if you can explain what the president means by that complete power to pardon.
	Does he believe he has the right to pardon himself?
	Well, the president in that tweet stated something that's rather unremarkable, and that is that under the Constitution, under Article 2, Section 2, the President has the authority to pardon.
	But I want to be clear on this, George.
	We have not and continue to not have conversations with the President of the United States regarding pardons.
	Pardons have not been discussed, and pardons are not on the table.
	With regard to the issue of a president pardoning himself, there's a big academic discussion going on right now, an academic debate.
	You've got Professor Tribe arguing one point.
	You've got Professor Turley arguing another point.
	And while it makes for interesting academic discussions, let me tell you what the legal team is not doing.
	We're not researching the issue because the issue of pardons is not on the table.
	There's nothing to pardon from.
	All right, that was Jay Seculo over the weekend.
	We continue with Greg Jarrett, News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
	And he, of course, a Fox News legal analyst and host and friend of the program.
	If they're not even talking about it, and this is media speculation, and the president responds to what the media has been saying, my interpretation is very clear.
	I know Lawrence Tribe disagrees, but he seems to be as anti-Trump as anybody and somewhat political as anybody.
	But people like Jonathan Turley and others are saying the power of the pardon is absolute.
	My reading of it is absolute.
	It is absolute.
	Where is there an exemption or exception?
	There is none.
	It is an absolute power.
	And in fact, Richard Nixon considered pardoning himself and chose not to.
	In the end, he was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.
	But he has the unfettered power to pardon anybody.
	There are no limits.
	So, you know, but it's a question that the media puts out there to imply guilty behavior where so far there is none.
	And, you know, it's just evidence of the media bias against the president.
	But, you know, and the president, I saw him today lashing out at Adam Schiff, who is, you know, the ranking member on the Intel Committee.
	And he did so justifiably.
	I mean, Schiff was on Face the Nation on CBS over the weekend talking about, you know, the president's worried about discovering laundered money through his Trump organization.
	My goodness.
	You know, if I were the president and Robert Mueller starts digging around into my finances, I'd go down to the nearest federal judge and get an injunction because the special counsel doesn't have unlimited latitude to look into somebody's finances.
	The law says there has to be just cause and a reasonable basis.
	And I can easily envision most federal judges saying, wait a minute, you are not allowed to engage in a phishing expedition into somebody's finances.
	Show me the probable cause.
	And so far there is none.
	Well, what do you make of Mueller and the conflicts of interest?
	I mean, Newt broke this weekend.
	We've got even more conflicts that his firm donated 99.8% of their money to Hillary.
	He hires a Hillary attorney.
	He hires Obama donors, Democratic donors, Hillary donors.
	I don't see any Republican donors on his list of investigators.
	And he has people that are ethically conflicted as well and challenged based on their past behavior.
	I mean, I, for the life of me, have no idea.
	And there's investigative creep now beyond the scope of what the initial investigation was supposed to be about.
	The whole Mueller-Comey investigation, and it can be called that because they may be acting in collusion to get the president.
	The whole thing stinks like Limburger cheese.
	I've never seen so many conflicts of interest all rolled into one investigation.
	Mueller has a disqualifying conflict of interest, and under the special counsel statute, he is required to recuse himself because of his close relationship with Comey.
	The statute literally says that, and he hasn't done it, which raises a serious conflict of interest question.
	So if the president wants to get rid of him, he can't, can he, without it being all the analogies to Archibald Cox, the Saturday Night Massacre, or baloney.
	They are baloney because everybody agreed that Nixon had the ability to direct his Attorney General to get rid of Cox.
	And in fact, nobody ever accused Nixon of obstruction of justice for the firing of Cox.
	It was what was on the tapes that constituted the corporation.
	Well, that was the obstruction.
	I think that was item number two on the impeachment that they had written up.
	Greg Jarrett, we'll have you on TV tonight.
	Sarah Carter.
	Also, John Sununu, Ari Fleischer.
	Peter Schweitzer is going to blow open all the Clinton corruption with foreign governments because nobody else will report it but us.
	Ten Eastern on Hannity.
	Quick break, right back.
	Good news on the economy.
	We'll talk to Larry Kudlow straight ahead.
	Join Sean's Army on Twitter where we get back to conservative values.
	I just want to say six months later, I'm going to be, Trump, I'm giving Trump, first of all, on a pass-fail basis, which is how you all probably went to college.
	I had grades when I was in college.
	But on a pass-fail basis.
	I didn't go to Brown, okay?
	Well, neither did I. On a pass-fail basis, I give him a pass, okay?
	On a letter basis.
	On a letter basis, I'm going to give him a B. All right.
	When he gets his tax cut, I'm going to move it to an A.
	And I want to add, just give me a second, his regulatory reductions have been terrific, okay?
	Particularly in energy.
	We are taking Russia out of the energy business in Europe because of energy exports and because of opening up all of the fracking and LNG stuff that he wants through.
	All right, that's Larry Kudlow, 25 now till the top of the hour, a friend of mine.
	And Larry, by the way, author of numerous books over the years.
	And what's the name of your latest book?
	Wait a minute, I got it.
	Reagan from JFK and Reagan, A Revolution, The Secret History of American Prosperity.
	Is my mind rush serving me well?
	Yes, he nailed it.
	That's not bad considering I had no idea.
	You know, I thought of you and I wanted you back on the program for a couple of reasons.
	And I heard your comments about a B.
	I think that was a fair grade.
	I'm literally giving Congress a D minus, and the only reason it's not an F, because I'm holding out a little hope they may get their you know what together.
	But Congress is pathetically slow, but you're right, on judges, on Obama-era regulations, on keeping his promises, moving everything, his agenda forward as he can do it without the help of Congress, very effective.
	Yeah, I mean, it's look, I am very down on the Senate right now, the Republican Senate.
	You know, I think this idea that six or seven or eight of these Republican senators are going to stop and hold up repeal and replace Obamacare, Sean, I think that's a betrayal of the voters who put them into office because the promise was very clear that they were going to repeal Obamacare and come up with something better.
	So that's not Trump's fault.
	I'm not going to blame Trump for that.
	Nobody should.
	This is really a betrayal of these Republican senators.
	And, you know, some of them, maybe we'll name names, maybe we won't.
	But why don't you name names?
	Because, you know, Mitch McConnell's for he'd get this done.
	And I know that he, here's what we've heard.
	We've heard, give us the House, we'll get rid of Obamacare.
	Give us the Senate, we'll get rid of Obamacare.
	Give us the House, Senate, and White House, we'll get rid of Obamacare.
	Give us the House, Senate, and 60 votes.
	No, I'm sorry.
	I can't take it anymore.
	Yeah, well, it's kind of a mystery to me, for example, why free market guys like Rand Paul, who's a friend of mine, and Mike Lee, who's a friend of mine, are against this.
	Okay, I don't understand this.
	Dean Heller from Nevada, I don't understand it.
	Others have been railing against Obamacare for years.
	Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia is against government control of health care.
	Now she's against it.
	You know, I guess charitably, you could say that the perfect has become the enemy of the good.
	But if I'm less charitable, Sean, I think there's a lot of showboating.
	As I say, a betrayal of the Republicans who voted the men in the first place, and it's damaging the country, and it's damaging the administration.
	I don't get it, but I'm not going to condone it.
	On the other hand, I also think it's damaging themselves.
	Don't you think at this point they're damaging themselves?
	I do.
	I do.
	And there is some talk about some of them getting primaried.
	I'm all for it.
	I'm all for it.
	You can't run.
	You can't sunron on an agenda, get elected, and then vote against that agenda.
	That's just nonsense.
	It's, you know, false labeling.
	So, yeah, I've lost my patience with some of these.
	But the problem is, if they don't get it done, it won't matter if they're primaried because they're going to lose.
	And they're going to lose significantly, and their power is going to be diminished greatly.
	And what I'm having a hard time understanding is that you notice Democrats never break ranks.
	They always stay together.
	Even when they're dead to rights wrong, they'll stay together.
	It doesn't matter to them.
	And Republicans, I understand I like independent thinking, et cetera, but the independent thinking is a bunch of nonsense if you can't agree to the fundamental thing you ran on.
	And by the way, you know, perfect should never be the enemy of the good.
	Sometimes you have to use Ronald Reagan's dictum.
	Give me half a loaf now, and I'll get the other half later.
	Why don't you just get rid of all the mandates, get rid of all the mandates?
	That would be a good idea.
	But they just repeal it.
	I'll take the repeal and transition.
	I'll be fine with that.
	Yeah, okay, okay.
	Yes, I'm willing to do it.
	Just get something done.
	But here's the deal.
	Trump has made his promises good on rolling back regulation and cutting taxes.
	He is so—I was in with him a few days ago, 10 days ago.
	If he can't get a— Why are you name-dropping on my show?
	I don't understand that.
	Well, I want to make a point in defense of Trump.
	I'm teasing.
	Go ahead.
	He wants the business tax cuts, particularly the small business tax cut.
	And he's not letting me down.
	He's going to push hard for that.
	It's time to move on if they can't do health care.
	And he wants to double the standard deduction for individuals.
	But Larry, there's a risk to that strategy.
	If we let them off the hook and they don't get it done and they kick the can down the road, I would argue if they don't get repeal and replace done, and maybe they don't even look, they may not even get tax reform done.
	I'm not worried about tax reform as I am the economic plan.
	I want tax reform, but I definitely, if we're going to get people out of poverty, off of food stamps and back in the labor force, energy is certainly going to create millions of high-paying jobs.
	I think we're close to a million new jobs, right, since he's been president, or somewhere 800,000.
	What's the number?
	You know better than I do.
	Yeah, it's a little short of a million.
	Okay, so short of a million.
	If we want people to get back to work out of poverty, then you've got to have the corporate tax cut, the middle-class tax cuts.
	The repatriation plan was brilliant.
	I love it.
	Especially, you can even incentivize them further if they'll build in certain depressed cities, right?
	Look, all this, this is the key, and he's going to go there, okay?
	He's going to go there.
	And if this dumb health reform thing holds it up, he'll pivot and go to tax cuts to grow the economy.
	You're right, by the way.
	You know what's the most popular thing is the small business tax cuts.
	All the surveys show this.
	And this is where better jobs and higher productivity and higher wages and creating brand new businesses for more jobs.
	This is so important to the economy, which basically hasn't hardly moved in 15 years.
	Now, Trump wants it.
	He says he wants it.
	He's ready to roll on it.
	And that's why I gave him a B between rolling back regulations and the tax cuts.
	And he is going to move towards infrastructure.
	And he's got Putin over barrel because we're going to export natural gas.
	No pun intended.
	You're right.
	I couldn't resist.
	These are good things, and I'm going to give him credit.
	And as you say, the Gorsuch nomination was absolutely crucial.
	That's like a 25-year conservative judge for him.
	What do you make of all the Russia distraction?
	That's all it is.
	There's no collusion.
	There's no there-there.
	This is the swamp at its worst.
	But you know what?
	I don't think the president's going to let that bog him down.
	In other words, that's a fight.
	Let it be fought.
	I don't even understand any of this stuff, but he's going to go forward.
	I mean, this is what he's seen.
	And he's going to make good on his promise for growth-oriented policies.
	That's all you can ask of president.
	Growth and defense and national security.
	It really comes down to this, though.
	It comes down to safety and security, peace and prosperity, and then the economy.
	If he becomes the president that creates jobs, we become energy independent.
	He builds the wall for security.
	I see him rolling in the reelection.
	Well, I do.
	By the way, if the Republicans would let him, he could help them in 2018 if they get this stuff through.
	Yeah, that's a big irony.
	The GOP senators are slitting their own throat.
	Just let Trump do what he wants to do.
	It's a very solid growth, as you say, and security agenda.
	That's why I give him a solid B right now.
	What do you give Congress?
	I've got to give the Senate, I don't know, a D minus because they're not doing what they said they were going to do.
	Even the House got something through on health care, although I'm a little concerned that Speaker Ryan is not working the right way on the tax cuts.
	I'm a little concerned about Brian.
	Do you, well, yeah, I mean, do you think that there are Republicans?
	Pat Toomey actually says, he goes, I couldn't, I think our biggest problem is none of us saw this coming.
	We had no idea he was going to win.
	He won back in November.
	You know, you would think emotionally, mentally, they'd have the time to adjust.
	And I'm just, I'm looking at these guys.
	Do you think some of these guys want him to fail?
	Well, I guess I choose to think not.
	I can't be sure about that.
	I just think there's a lot of grandstanding and freelancing.
	This is the GOP at its worst, Sean.
	I don't blame McConnell.
	McConnell's trying to.
	I do not blame McConnell.
	He's the leader that stops at the top.
	Come on.
	You've got to blame him.
	He's got to get the job done.
	He did it with Gorsuch.
	He held everybody firm.
	Well, all I can say is he's tried everything.
	And he's, you know, let's take Medicaid.
	So they found some extra change on a CBO markup, which I don't really believe, but whatever.
	So they're putting even more money in Medicaid.
	Mitch McConnell's trying to do that.
	And even that is not working with some of these stubborn Republican senators.
	Actually, I don't really blame Mitch McConnell at all.
	At this point, I think he's trying to pull out every stop to get this debate going again this week.
	And maybe they'll finally come up with something.
	And they should not, Trump.
	They should not, Sean, absolutely not go away on any Christmas summer vacation.
	No August vacation.
	You know how many days are scheduled?
	Legislative days, it's less than, I think it's about 30 or less than 30 days left if they take their schedule as it currently is configured.
	Yeah, well, it's a little more than that.
	It's about 40-something days.
	But that's not enough because they've got to get the tax cuts through.
	See, the president has said, you're not going home until you get health care.
	All right.
	And then McConnell says, so we'll extend for two weeks.
	I would have said you're not going home until we get health care and tax cuts.
	Okay.
	I would have put the tax cuts in there because to even get that in the fourth quarter in the autumn, that takes some time.
	Okay.
	There's more agreement on taxes, fortunately, but it still takes some time because they've got to get a budget resolution and they got to keep the government going.
	So this is crazy.
	The GOP should not be in this position.
	Right now, they're in a position of weakness.
	They should be with three houses in a position of strength.
	Did you ever, did the president ever talk to you about going in the administration?
	Yes.
	And what did you say?
	No.
	Obviously, you're not there.
	What's that?
	I love my job.
	I didn't ask you if you love your job.
	I asked you what you said to him.
	Did I ask you the question, Larry, you've been a friend for years.
	Do you love your job?
	No, I said, what did you say?
	Nice person.
	I love my job, Sean.
	I love my job.
	You know, the only reason I'm letting you get away with that is because I've known you all these years, but you know, if you were left of center, I'd be pounding you right now.
	Well, listen, I'm not left of center.
	You're a great broadcaster.
	Now he's going to flatter me.
	No, no, that gets you nowhere.
	I'm still working on CNBC, and I'm still working on my weekend radio show, and we're still selling books about supply side, and I think I can help President Trump doing exactly what I'm doing right now.
	Well, I do think that the president needs congressional help, and at this point, they better now see the urgency.
	Putting aside their own personal feelings for the president, they better see that their futures are now directly tied to their actions.
	And if they decide to be inactive, if they can't, you know, what I've suggested is put them in a room and don't let them have Senate dining room fare of sending Kentucky fried chicken, my favorite, and original recipe, and send in Wendy's and send in McDonald's and pizza and beer and water and Coke and Sprite.
	And they can't leave the room and then take off the air conditioning like our framers and founders.
	And I think they'll probably find a solution faster than we could ever dream of.
	Well, you could be right.
	Whenever I write or talk about keeping them home in August, the response from the public is hugely positive, huge.
	So let's hold their feet to the fire.
	Really, that's what you need to do.
	And the response of Washington is shut up, Larry.
	Right.
	Oh, no.
	People hate this.
	House members and senators who have come on the show with me don't even want to talk about it.
	Don't even want to talk about it, except Mark Meadows and the Freedom Car.
	By the way, you and I are fabulous.
	This is why you and I get along so well.
	They are the only people right now, and a couple of senators in fairness.
	Actually thought Ted Cruz's amendment was superb on health care and I thought it was a big step forward, and it was certainly would have helped with free market competition and lowering premiums, in my opinion and it was actually confirmed in a study.
	But they're the only people that I actually trust in Washington now.
	They're the only people that seem to have the urgency, the sense of a desire to fulfill promises, and I'm like, why aren't these guys in charge?
	Well, you're right about that, and I wonder whether there's going to be unrest in the House.
	I mean, you're right.
	Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Dave Bratt those guys are great.
	And, by the way, you're also right about Ted Cruz.
	Ted Cruz has been a terrific leader during this whole issue and you're also right.
	The Cruz idea of letting insurance companies put their own product out for customer demand is a terrific idea and it would really end all these mandates which have caused premiums to go sky high.
	Now, if the Republican party can't back that, what can they back?
	That's the part of this thing that just you don't have to get everything this time.
	Okay, let's just get a few key things like consumer choice that'll bring premiums lower tax cuts.
	How about we get?
	Just repeal Obamacare and transition off it, and then we can have free market solutions and cooperatives and health savings accounts and you know, things that people like yourself and and i've been talking about for a decade or more.
	It's ridiculous.
	All right Larry, gotta let you run.
	Man, appreciate it.
	I'm all for it.
	Stay, hang in there, keep up the fight.
	Oh no, I never fight.
	I don't.
	I'm a.
	I'm a.
	I'm a very peaceful, calm individual.
	If you didn't know that quick break right back and we will continue.
	This is the Hannity show.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	I am going to lay out how there is a coalition.
	They want to destroy what you voted for in november.
	Are you going to let them a call to action tonight?
	Hannity 10 Eastern maybe more one of the more important monologues i've done, John Sununo reacts.
	Ari Fleischer, Larry Elder tonight we'll talk to them.
	The president's comments on health care and Peter Schweitzer remember his book Clinton cash, how foreign governments, or why foreign governments and business helped to make bill and Hillary Rich.
	Talk about Jared Kushner, today being in front of the Senate and in front of the House tomorrow.
	Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett and finally the White House fighting back 10 Eastern tonight.
	Hannity FOX, and we'll see you from the swamp Washington Dc tomorrow.

▲