Sean Hannity Show - The Comey Investigation - 7.27

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 28, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:38:39

The Comey Investigation - 7.27

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 and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	You will love this pillow.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Yes, we are out of the sewer and the swamp.
	That is in Washington, D.C. You know, I don't even know what to make of this.
	Did you see that Hadas Gold over, I think she's at Politico, right?
	She tweeted out some GQ story about me.
	And I just wrote fake news, ridiculously fake news, never happened news.
	But all of a sudden, and then people start responding as if it's real on Twitter.
	And with diplomats, Trump business partners, places like Dubai and Malaysia, that same weekend, according to one forthcoming waiter, Fox News host Sean Hannity, get this, Linda, ran up a $42,000 tab in the restaurant, which included the cost of flying in an eight-pound 70-year-old lobster from Maine.
	Fox News denied the story on Hannity's behalf.
	Well, Hannity now denies the story on Hannity's behalf.
	I mean, how does something like that get out there?
	And how does somebody from the Politico go forward with something like that?
	And it's not like she doesn't know how to get in touch with us.
	Well, maybe she contacted Fox PR.
	In fairness, I don't know if they did or not.
	But I'm like, what is wrong with people?
	You know, people write me all the time.
	What did you do?
	Where'd you go?
	Who did you see?
	What'd you do?
	Where'd you go?
	I'm like, it's pretty remarkable times that we are living in.
	They're also dangerous times.
	And we do have some good news on a lot of these fronts.
	And I'm going to get to today.
	Pap Buchanan checks in with us.
	You know, I'm finally, what have I been saying is I have been outlining.
	Can I interrupt for a moment?
	I'm just processing.
	I'm just trying to figure out.
	Now, how much?
	Wait a minute.
	I pay for your lunch every day, right?
	You do.
	And I pay for my team's lunch.
	You do.
	Okay.
	So, and like, the funny thing is, is you guys all have my credit card and can run away to Dubai if you want.
	And probably, I wouldn't report it for a week until, you know, you spent a lot of money on it.
	Oh, all of a sudden, I'd be like, if I had your credit card, I can promise you one thing.
	Yeah.
	I would never go to Dubai with it.
	Okay.
	Where would you go?
	Ireland or Australia.
	Australia is a good place.
	New Zealand.
	I don't know, something like that.
	Someplace beautiful and lovely and colourful.
	Go ahead.
	What do you want to add?
	I just want to know at what point when you're eating seafood, I think something we all agree on is you want it to be fresh.
	What would possess anyone to eat a 70-year-old lobster?
	Just think about it for like five seconds.
	How many years have you known me?
	But the lobsters even live that long?
	Ethan Shakespeare.
	Ethan's a fisherman.
	He'll know.
	Yeah, do they?
	They live a very long time, but the bigger they get, the tougher the meat is.
	So a 70-year-old lobster, they'd probably have to make into like a lobster salad.
	That's disgusting.
	I'll take a bite of a lobster tail.
	Maybe.
	But I'm just saying, like, wait a minute.
	You're going to ask for it, really?
	I don't think so.
	And it's only good if you soak it in butter to drown the taste of the fish.
	They're going to need to when they're 70.
	For God's sake, it's a better lobster, apparently.
	Oh, you like.
	Look, all of you eat that raw stuff.
	What do you call it?
	Sushi.
	I don't touch that stuff.
	I could barely suck down, if I put enough of the soy sauce on it, a California roll.
	So I'm just all the years.
	Well, some, yeah, it doesn't.
	It has the fake crab in it.
	That's fake crab.
	I know.
	All the years that you've known me and we've all gone out.
	What do we usually get if we're going out?
	Burgers, fries.
	Burgers, pizza, fries.
	Yeah, you see me.
	Listen, I can't pass a what? Waffle house if it's late at night.
	Eggs, bacon, that's it.
	Yeah, that's what we got.
	Not a 70-year-old lobster kind of guy.
	Have you ever once witnessed me order seafood?
	Never.
	Ever.
	In my whole life.
	I mean, I'll eat it.
	I'll eat a shrimp.
	No, I've actually never seen you eat seafood.
	Yeah, I'll eat a shrimp.
	I'll eat a piece of a lobster, but I like clam chowder.
	I love the black pearl.
	The black pearl in Newport, Rhode Island.
	I just read this, and I watch it with amusement.
	I haven't been tweeting lately.
	Everyone's upset I'm not tweeting.
	Apparently people think that something's happened to me, and I actually have— You didn't go off into the woods?
	No, I didn't go off into the woods.
	I heard a vicious rumor about you in the woods.
	So I haven't been tweeting, and people think, I'm like, I've been busy.
	I'm trying to do a lot of good work, which is the focus of my monologue here, if I can get to this.
	All right, so we're with healthcare.
	We're watching the agenda.
	We're watching Republicans.
	I got to say on one good note today that Congressman Andy Biggs will actually join us on the second hour of the program.
	He's the lead sponsor of a bill, and Congressman Jordan is on this bill, and Matt Goetz is a sponsor, and Mike Johnson, and they filed an amendment in the House Judiciary, and they're going to investigate the things that I've been calling for.
	The FBI director, classified information, has pushed to get Mueller and a special counsel.
	Also, the fact that it was government materials that he handed over.
	All right.
	And he said, look, my colleagues and I are introducing this amendment because we're tired of passively allowing the left and the radical media to distract from what is the Republican agenda through wild accusations.
	Most of the claims about the president and his team are nothing more than unfounded, unsourced, anonymous allegations.
	Sort of like me flying in an 80-pound lobster that merely served the purpose of trying to delegitimize the president and prevent Congress from carrying out the agenda we promised to the American people.
	It's time for the left to respond to the blatant misconduct of Hillary, Eric Holder, James Comey, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, and our constituents want justice, the things I've been saying.
	That would include, we'll add to that, Uranium One.
	We'll add to that.
	I think Uranium One is the, I'd like to know where all the money that all those people involved in that deal, where they got their money from, and how they ended up donating it to the Clinton Foundation.
	We've never had the investigation that we need.
	Rumors that there were actually people that were within that organization that have working with law enforcement.
	I'd love to know what they found.
	I'd love to know how that got killed.
	I'd love to know why they killed it.
	I'd like to know whether or not because people were involved, that's the reason it got killed.
	I'd like to know some other questions.
	I'd like to know, okay, if collusion is wrong, when are we going to investigate and talk about, well, it's equally wrong for the Ukraine to try to influence our elections.
	I'd like to know why a DNC paid staffer met at the Ukrainian embassy with the Ukrainian ambassador, and it's reported in Politico that, in fact, that information was passed on to the DNC, and that information was passed on to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	And I'd like to know about Loretta Lynch, and I'd like to know about Comey.
	And I'd like to investigate everything and anything that is happening with Robert Mueller.
	You got, you know, there's so many different things happening.
	There's a Washington Times piece today, you know, and I wonder what Lindsey Graham and some of the other members of the Senate's Robert Mueller fan club have to say about the lead prosecutor, a guy by the name of Andrew Weissman.
	Not only has Weissman donated thousands of dollars to Obama and other Democrats.
	Great, we're going to hire Hillary's attorney, Obama and Hillary donors, to investigate Trump.
	I'm sure that they're going to be fair, unbiased, and impartial.
	Because that's just the way things work, right?
	He seems to have amassed quite a prosecutorial abuse record.
	According to the Washington Times, Mueller's team includes mad dog prosecutors with a record of crossing ethical lines in their attempt to get whoever they go after.
	Chief among them is this guy that I just mentioned, who, according to press reports, is known for his skill at turning witnesses, getting friends, business associates, and others to testify against those in his sights.
	Before being appointed the head of the fraud section of the Department of Justice during the Obama years, Mr. Weissman was the head prosecutor in the Enron investigation, as well as the man who destroyed Arthur Anderson, putting the firm's 85,000 employees out of work.
	It turns out that many of those indicted, convicted, or forced to plead guilty as a result of his no-holds-barred approach to his job had their sentences reversed or their cases tossed out by appeals courts that didn't share his disdain for due process.
	Why is this guy on Mueller's team?
	And it goes on in the Enron case, he and his fellow prosecutors, oh, they withheld or as the fifth U.S. Court of Appeals put it, suppressed exculpatory evidence from defense lawyers.
	And what's more, they verbally threatened to indict many witnesses who might have disagreed with them on the stand.
	In one case, he had the wife of a potential witness that he sought to turn indicted.
	He sought to turn indicted on unrelated charges so he could dangle the wife's freedom before the man to get him to testify against others.
	It worked.
	One wonders how often in such circumstances he was in, in essence, encouraging and that kind of threatening people.
	Isn't that encouraging him to say anything, whether or not it's true?
	Anyway, it's habitual overreach, minimally documented in a 2004 book authored by Sidney Powell, a 10-year veteran of the Justice Department.
	Ms. Powell, who handled hundreds of appeals cases for the department, was appalled by what went on, especially by this guy's methods.
	He was a central figure in her book, Licensed to Lie, exposing corruption at the Department of Justice.
	Let me tell you, people are very ambitious in their lives and career, and they end up saying and doing things that themselves are unethical.
	I think everybody in every Justice Department is unethical.
	Well, you know, I would argue in the case, what happened in the Scooter-Libby case?
	Really?
	I mean, at the end, on day one, Patrick Fitzgerald, he knew Richard Armitage was the leaker.
	Did that stop him?
	That was the original intent of the special counsel in that case.
	No, he kept going.
	And three years later, what do we end up with?
	We end up with Scooter Libby.
	Rumor has it, Scooter was being told, well, if you just give up the vice president, you'll be fine.
	Oh, great deal.
	Now, you want me to lie?
	You want me to make something up?
	You want me to convict an innocent man?
	Schumer has threatened a temper tantrum if the skinny repeal passes.
	And he said that if skinny repeal bill, expected to be brought up later tonight, does not pass, the Senate can move on to the National Defense Act authorization.
	However, if it passes, he says, an unlimited right after it passes to offer unlimited amounts of amendments, which would block a vote on the defense bill.
	Okay.
	So what happens in prosecutor's office happens in Congress?
	Then you got the insurance lobbyists come out against the skinny repeal.
	It's almost laughable.
	You know what the sad thing is?
	With Republicans, the Republican Party is a party now without leadership, vision, or an identity.
	You know, they used to be the party of liberty, freedom, the Constitution.
	So I thought.
	They used to be the party that believed in energy, national defense, lower taxes, ending burdensome regulation, freedom, opportunity society.
	You know, the government, you know, in its best case, a necessary evil, as Thomas Paine said, in its worst case, an intolerable one.
	Or as Reagan said, government is the problem.
	They don't have an identity.
	You know who's getting screwed in all this back and forth?
	Republicans, Democrats fighting, fighting, fighting, fighting.
	Democrats, obstructionists, Republicans, weak, no identity, won't keep their promises.
	You know, get screwed.
	Every American.
	We all get screwed.
	Again, by government.
	Wonder why I'm a small government conservative.
	That's why.
	800-941-Sean is on number.
	By the way, where are all the Never Trumpers being mad at all these congressmen and women that suck at keeping their promises?
	Oh, they'd rather beat up Sean Hannity.
	We got some breaking news that's happening.
	And top FBI lawyer is under an investigation for leaking classified information.
	Tick tock, TikTok.
	Looks like there's a lot more to come.
	First, let's dip into the president.
	Remember on what happened June 14th, Alexandria, Virginia, the Republican, you know, Steve Scalise was shot while practicing for that annual congressional baseball game.
	Also shot, you remember these brave Capitol Police officers, Crystal Gayners, who's trying to protect Scalise and Zach Barth, a congressional aide, and others.
	Well, apparently the president is honoring those responders at this shooting.
	Let's dip in.
	Please sit down.
	Thank you.
	And thank you to Vice President for doing a fantastic job and for the introduction.
	We welcome you all, members of Congress and distinguished guests.
	We are gathered here today for a very, very special occasion as we pay tribute to real heroes whose courageous actions under fire saved so many lives in Alexandria, Virginia just six weeks ago.
	On the morning of June 14th, several members of Congress began their day on the baseball diamond, practicing for one of this town's greatest traditions, the annual charity congressional baseball game.
	It was just another beautiful morning until the unthinkable happened.
	The familiar sounds of baseball were suddenly interrupted by loud and vicious gunfire.
	Matt Micah, Zachary Barth, and beloved Congressman and my friend Steve Scalise were each shot during an attack.
	Others were injured trying to evade the incoming bullets, of which there were many.
	Fortunately, from the moment that gunman began to shoot, he was met by returned fire.
	Capitol Police, special agents David Bailey and Crystal Greiner raced through the bullets, and that's exactly what they did.
	They raced through the bullets and immediately engaged the gunman.
	Minutes later, members of the Alexandria Police Department arrived on the scene.
	Officers Nicole Battaglian, Kevin Job, and Alex Jensen joined the fight.
	Special Agent Griner was shot in the leg, visitor in the hospital.
	We'll pick it up on the other side.
	We won't blow the break for this, but you won't miss a second of it straight ahead.
	As a rock, honest, truthful.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hi, 25 till the top of the hour.
	So it happened on June 14, 2017, Alexandria, Virginia.
	And then we learned, of course, there was a hit list out there, but the president honoring those first responders that, you know, after the shooting took place, while they were practicing for the annual congressional baseball game for charity, and including those shot, Crystal Greiner, the Capitol Police officer, remember, they went out right into an open middle field.
	And I have been a pistol marksman my whole life.
	They had pistols, the Capitol Police.
	And against a high-powered rifle in an open field, it's no contest.
	You're almost going to lose 99.9% of the times, but they did it anyway.
	And thank God they survived and many lives were saved because of their bravery.
	And anyway, Trump is honoring, the president's honoring those people, which I think is the greatest thing to do.
	Let's go back to where we were in his announcement.
	Special agents David Bailey and Crystal Greiner raced through the bullets, and that's exactly what they did.
	They raced through the bullets and immediately engaged the gunman.
	Minutes later, members of the Alexandria Police Department arrived on the scene.
	Officers Nicole Battaglian, Kevin Job, and Alex Jensen joined the fight.
	Special Agent Griner was shot in the leg, visitor in the hospital.
	She was hurt very badly.
	And shrapnel injured Special Agent Bailey as bullets swirled all around him.
	Despite their injuries, both officers heroically continued to face down the gunman until they brought him down.
	And he had rifles.
	They had handguns.
	It's a big difference.
	These officers saved the lives of every innocent person on the field that day.
	Many of them friends of Mike and myself.
	They are American heroes, and we salute them.
	That is so beautiful.
	Thank you.
	We also salute the members of Congress who acted with such bravery in the face of danger, shielding each other and caring for the injured.
	We honor today the emergency dispatchers who directed the first responders to the scene within seconds.
	They really acted quickly.
	I especially want to recognize all of the personnel from the Alexandria Fire Department and the U.S. Park Police Aviation Unit for providing life support in a crisis where every second mattered.
	Thank you for what you did that day and for what you do every single day.
	Thank you very much.
	We also express our deep appreciation for the paramedics, doctors, nurses, and surgeons from MedStar Washington Hospital and George Washington University Hospital for saving the lives of the wounded.
	Joining us today is Congressman Scalise's medical team, Dr. Jeff Safa.
	Where's Jack?
	Dr. Safa.
	Stand up, Jack.
	Come on.
	That's beautiful.
	MedStar's Director of Trauma Surgery.
	And Dr. Robert Golden, the Director of Orthopaedic Trauma.
	Doctor, doctor, congratulations.
	They were a lot more worried that night at the hospital, weren't they?
	Great job.
	You have the gratitude of the entire nation.
	Thank you for caring for the victims and for your dear friend, Steve, and he is our dear friend.
	Steve is a fighter.
	We've known that for a long time.
	All right, we're going to pull out of this.
	I mean, obviously, and then the medals are then given out by the president as he moves forward.
	I was just told that something happened in a hearing.
	Steve Mnuchin was in a hearing, and Maxine Waters apparently had a moment.
	I have not heard this yet, but apparently she went absolutely crazy on Mnuchin.
	Is that what happened?
	She went very angry.
	We're just going to tee up the audio right now, but basically she asked him a question in a formal committee hearing and because she wasn't getting the answer she didn't like, she began to repetitively say, I'm reclaiming my time.
	So much to the point that they had to throw it back to the committee chair Henserling, who said that they would not treat their people like this, would not ask people questions like this when they're there to testify and to give answers, and people will be allowed to finish.
	Play it and then we'll show the video tonight on Hannity.
	Let's hit it.
	I was going to answer that.
	Just please go straight to the message.
	Mr. Chairman, I thought when you read the rules, you acknowledged that I shouldn't be interrupted and that I would have reclaiming my time.
	What he failed to tell you was: when you're on my time, I can reclaim it.
	He left that out, so I'm reclaiming my time.
	Please, will you respond to the question of why I did not get a response, me and my colleagues, to the May 23rd letter?
	Well, I was going to tell you my response.
	Just tell me.
	Okay.
	So, first of all, okay, let me just say that the Department of Treasury has cooperated extensively with the Senate Intel Committee, with the House of Committee.
	Reclaiming my time.
	Reclaiming my time.
	Judiciary.
	Reclaiming my time.
	Okay.
	Reclaiming my time.
	Mr. Secretary, the time belongs to the gentlelady from California.
	Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the rules because I thought I was allowed to answer questions.
	I'm reclaiming my time.
	Would you please explain the rules and do not take that away from my time?
	We will give the gentlelady adequate time.
	So what I read, Mr. Secretary, were statements of the ranking member and Democratic colleagues on how administration witnesses should be treated, not necessarily the way they will be treated.
	So the time belongs to the gentlelady from California, but I assure you, majority members will allow you to answer the question when it is our time.
	Okay, so what I was saying is that we have provided substantial information.
	We believe there's significant overlap.
	And matter of fact, I would say that we spoke to your chief oversight counsel yesterday.
	We have been responsive, and we are trying to coordinate with you the response, and we've suggested that you get the information through the other committees.
	But I would like to emphasize we believe we've been very responsive.
	Reclaiming my time.
	And we'll continue this challenge.
	You left a message yesterday, or someone on staff left a message.
	No, we didn't leave a message.
	Reclaiming my time.
	You did not respond.
	You left a message.
	Let us keep going.
	Reclaiming my time.
	Wait a minute.
	I just gave time to the president.
	I'm reclaiming my time across the entire Sean Hannity show network.
	You know, we're dealing with a.
	We have some really cool kids that just came in and then they're watching the show.
	I don't even know who they are, but they seem very like really great kids.
	And I'm looking in there, and you guys never fight, do you?
	They're going to reclaim their time real soon.
	They're going to reclaim their time.
	I mean, it's worse than kindergarten with these people in Washington.
	You know, I mean, this is one of the things.
	You know, Pat Buchanan, who will join us at the top of the hour, he said the scent of blood is in their nostrils in D.C.
	And they just got this feeling that they can destroy the president.
	It's the same in the media.
	It's the Democrats, they don't have any agenda to help the American people right now.
	I mean, they come up with a bumper sticker and a slogan the other day.
	What was the name of the new slogan?
	Papa John's made it very popular.
	It's called The Better Deal.
	Oh, so the Better Deal, Papa John's.
	So you get two pizzas for the price of one.
	Yeah, you get two Democratic people.
	Okay, we gave them eight years and they destroyed pretty much everything.
	I mean, eight years, 13 million more Americans on food stamps, 8 million more in poverty, the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s, worst home ownership rate in 51 years.
	We have the lowest home ownership rate in this country.
	The worst recovery since the 40s.
	They stole from this generation sitting in there with you.
	I mean, they doubled the national debt.
	And he said $9 trillion is irresponsible and patriotic.
	This is the problem.
	And then you got Robert Mueller on top of it.
	And after Robert Mo, then I'm even saying, well, okay, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and so on and so forth.
	So we'll look into Ukrainian collusion and then we'll look into the Uranium One deal, real Russia collusion, mishandling of classified material, destruction of classified material.
	Why did Debbie Wassaman Schultz smash those computer hard drives?
	Why did Hillary delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails?
	Why did she then destroy with a hammer all of those different devices when she only had one device and was caught in that big lie?
	And then why did they bleach bit, acid wash her computers?
	And then why when she finally sent the two remaining phones, a BlackBerry and an iPhone, to the FBI, after how many years they were requesting it, it didn't have a SIM card.
	So now we'll investigate that.
	We'll investigate Uranium One.
	We'll investigate Ukraine.
	We'll investigate Loretta Lynch.
	We'll investigate, you know, Comey.
	And guess, and Republicans that have no identity anymore.
	They used to be representative of something.
	And now they can't even repeal and replace Obamacare, which was a seven-year promise.
	And then the Democrats, this is, I'm reclaiming my time.
	Reclaiming my time.
	This is what we've got.
	This is your government working for you.
	Good luck with that.
	How many times have I said to people in this country, don't ever think the government is going to help you.
	Don't ever think they can do anything except get in your way.
	But I thought Republicans were the party of freedom and liberty and capitalism and free markets.
	I thought they were really, they all promised to repeal and replace.
	I thought they were the party of limited government, but yet they grow government just at a slower rate than the Democrats do.
	I thought they were the party of energy independence.
	They're doing nothing, although the House today, to their credit, did vote to fund the wall.
	All right.
	Put that in the win column.
	Another item accomplished off the list.
	It is not a small one.
	But I thought they were the party that would stand up against evil in our time.
	They can't, are we going to get the tax cuts?
	Are we going to get the middle class cuts?
	Are we going to get the corporate cuts?
	Are we going to get the repatriated money?
	Are we going to jumpstart the economy?
	Are we ever going to take care of the forgotten men and women in this country in poverty, on food stamps, out of the labor force that can't buy a house?
	Anyone care about them?
	I'm reclaiming my time.
	I'm reclaiming my time.
	Don't listen to the hell with those guys on radio.
	Whatever John McCain said the other day.
	What is the phrase that he used?
	It was very specific.
	I just don't remember.
	That somehow we are responsible for their failure.
	I couldn't believe it.
	Their incapacity, that's the word he used.
	Their incapacity is their financial gain.
	We've been pushing the penny plan and balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility for years, for five years.
	I guess I've wasted Dr. Umber's time by talking about healthcare cooperatives because they don't have those ideas in this whole narrative on repealing, replacing.
	None of them ever promoted it or health savings accounts that I've been promoting for 15 years on this show.
	None of them are talking about, well, let's really get education back to the states because the federal government screws everything up.
	All right, so now they're deciding to, you know, do the wall.
	Great.
	I've never seen lazier people that get more benefits.
	They have more barbershops.
	They have more recess, more vacation, more fun in my entire life.
	And then they sit with the audacity to say that their own failure and incapacity is our financial game.
	We've been trying to offer them solutions.
	At the end of 2013, beginning of 2014, I said, here, here's the agenda.
	It's called this Conservative Solution Conference.
	Here, I wrote it out for them.
	I talked about it every day.
	I put it on my website.
	And they came.
	We'll go forward with all the investigations.
	We'll try and take down the president.
	We'll do all that.
	You know who gets screwed?
	The forgotten men and forgotten women, who this election was supposed to be about.
	You know, the people in the media in this country, I never want to talk to them because I'm like, you don't want to understand me.
	You don't care about understanding me.
	It's one of the reasons I turned on the cover of the New York Times magazine.
	And I just said, it's no point.
	I don't think this guy, the end of the day, really cares that I care about the people that I talked about all election or the ideas that I have put forth for decades or the solutions we put forward.
	This is your government.
	Hannity, why don't you run for Congress?
	That's why reclaiming my time.
	I could do that on the radio.
	Reclaiming my time.
	I can reclaim my time on the radio and have more time on the title because I thought I was allowed to answer questions.
	I honestly have a more intelligent conversation with three-year-old kids.
	It's so bad.
	Government is god-awful.
	It's just awful.
	All right, a lot coming up today.
	Patrick J. Buchanan, the scent of blood in their nostrils.
	He's going to explain that comment.
	Rick Unger, Jonathan Gillum, Republicans fighting back.
	They're going to call for the investigations when there's a ton more evidence than Trump and Russia and collusion and collusion and Trump and Russia.
	Straight ahead.
	Investigation into the conspiracy with Ukraine, Uranium One, or mishandling and destroying classified documents.
	We're not.
	Sean, the folks in this town have got the scent of blood in their nostrils, and they're targeted on the West Wing.
	They don't care about Hillary anymore.
	If she were president, they would be going after her.
	All right, that's Patrick J. Buchanan.
	The scent of blood in their nostrils.
	Now, he said that to me Friday night when he was on Hannity, the television show.
	Glad you're with us.
	Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941.
	Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	The man himself, he's a political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, senior advisor to Nixon Ford Reagan.
	And thanks for being back on the program, Patrick Jay.
	How are you, the original insurgent, sir?
	Delighted, Sean.
	How are you?
	Well, I'm good.
	I mean, when you said that to me Friday night, I really, it kind of stung.
	It kind of crept in, and I spent a lot of time thinking about it over the weekend.
	I know it.
	I talk about it, and it's just the way you laid it out, spelled it out, kind of bothered me because it's true.
	I think, Sean, the collision between Mueller and the president is now almost inevitable, and I can understand why the president is angry and outraged and exasperated.
	Look, this started as an investigation into the Russian hacking that I believe Donald Trump had nothing to do with.
	I don't think his senior age had anything to do with it.
	And so at the same time, this is now metastasized into a small lethal group inside the White House, inside the administration, which is targeting the White House and the president himself under Mr. Mueller.
	And I think the president wants to see them focus really on the Russian hacking where he did nothing wrong, but I think they're moving afield, Sean.
	I think they're moving into the finances.
	They're bringing in these white-collar criminal prosecutors and investigators.
	And so I think it's going to be an all-out press on Donald Trump and his White House.
	And I don't see how President Trump, given his disposition, is going to tolerate it.
	What does that mean?
	I mean, because the analogy just doesn't fit when they say the Saturday night massacre and Archibald Cox.
	And I know the media is fond of using that analogy, but it wouldn't be applicable in this case.
	There are so many numerous conflicts.
	One has to worry about the investigative creep that we always see with these special counsels.
	And you know what?
	They've already moved on from the original purpose, well beyond the original purpose.
	Well, let me say, Sean, here's what's going to happen, I think.
	First, I think the Attorney General has rightly had to recuse himself, even though the president's very exasperated with it.
	Secondly, Rosenstein appointed Mueller, former FBI director, and a real bulldog.
	Third, he's going to move beyond and probably already has simply the counterintelligence investigation into a criminal investigation.
	And then he's going to start issuing subpoenas like Cox did, Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre.
	And we offered Cox a deal.
	You know, we said, look, we're going to give you these tapes, transcripts of them, verified by Senator Stennis.
	Howard Baker and Irvin were on board.
	Everybody was on board.
	And Richardson was on board.
	And Archibald Cox was not.
	He said, I'm going to keep on issuing subpoenas until I get what I want.
	And so that was where we got to the point where we told the Attorney General to demand that he restrict his subpoenas or get rid of him.
	And Richardson refused to do it.
	Now, who is the president going to get now, Sean, to tell Mr. Mueller that you are investigating the Russian hacking and any cover-up of the Russian hacking, and that is your franchise, and that is it.
	So then, assuming that this conflict occurs, I mean, what you're saying here is that, you know, there's a real collision coming.
	Well, how does that play out?
	Give me two or three possibilities.
	Because I've got to imagine that's not going to end well for anybody.
	It's not.
	But here's how I'm writing a column on it tomorrow.
	It's titled, Is Trump Entering the Killbox?
	Here's what happens, I think.
	First, if Mueller defies the demands that he restrict his investigation, somebody's going to have to fire him.
	Who?
	Who's going to fire him?
	I think the Attorney General is not going to do it, and the Deputy Attorney General is not going to do it.
	He's already indicated he would resign rather than do it.
	And if the president fires Attorney General Sessions and puts in an acting Attorney General who does it, then I think that Mueller will defy them and continue on, and he will have to be fired.
	That will leave his entire staff right there inside the government of Donald Trump.
	And Trump will have to get a new attorney general who will not be improved unless he agrees to name a new special prosecutor.
	So I don't see, again, I see that if Mr. Mueller is obdurate and insists on pursuing what he believes he ought to pursue, that he either is not going to be fired and he's going to continue along that course or he's going to be fired and we're going to have a major firestorm that is not going to end well because we're going to get another special prosecutor or special counsel.
	So I just, it is hard for me to see, you can see what is coming, and it is hard for me to see how it ends well for the president.
	Mueller, with all those conflicts of interest, starting with Comey himself and the circumstances under which Comey leaked government material, we know that to the New York Times through a friend of his, and frankly, we know now classified material.
	And that led to Rosenstein going forward with the special counsel because Jeff Sessions had recused himself.
	And then we find out he's hiring Hillary Clinton's attorney for crying out loud, and then all these donors to Obama, the Democrats, and Hillary Clinton.
	I don't see anybody.
	I don't see any sense of fair play on Mueller's part.
	I mean, just looking at it, Pat, it seems like he's out there and he's going to doggedly pursue this wherever it has to go till he gets people indicted.
	I think you're exactly right.
	I think that's exactly true.
	But isn't it that he really wants his big target as the president, and if he can't get him, he'll get as much collateral damage as possible.
	And if at the end of the day, through all the subpoenas and all their hard work, and you and I both know that a lot of bullying tactics are used by some of these people.
	Sure.
	And perjury traps are set for these people.
	I mean, that we may end up with another perjury charge like Scooter Libby wouldn't give up the Vice President Cheney at the time?
	I think you're exactly right.
	Look, Mueller, whatever you say about him, he's a gutsy guy, and he's a tough customer.
	He's not going to be intimidated by charges of lack of objectivity or lack of neutrality.
	He's going to continue to pursue this.
	If he's told, you know, you can't go here or there, he will decide on his own whether to do that.
	And if he does, look, I mean, Donald Trump's, as I say, I don't think Trump had anything whatsoever to do with the hacking.
	And even if he knew about it, which I don't believe, that it's not a crime.
	So how do we now get into the finances?
	And what is this now, an attempt to get the president's tax returns that he never told?
	Sure.
	They're going to find out what are his connections with the Russians.
	Did he make deals with him?
	Did they sell that?
	Let's assume that they get into that.
	They draw this out.
	There's another thing, Sean, that Donald Trump has been in a very rough real estate business, and he's played hardball up there in New York, and he's got a lot of enemies who know a lot of things.
	They're going to be up there sending stuff to the independent counsel or special counsel, dropping the dime on him.
	And some of those guys are going to start running down the leads.
	And they've got a long time.
	I think a lot of them see this maybe as a year-long or even years-long experience.
	And I've never known one of these special prosecutors to be established and cheered the way Mueller is, who doesn't come home with a bag full of scalps.
	Where's Mueller's sense of fair play?
	I mean, let's forget about what his own personal views are.
	I mean, doesn't he have a sense of responsibility to balance the people that he's hiring on his team?
	I mean, or is he just— I think these guys—I mean, clearly, he hired these guys because he knows them and respects them, and whether they're Democrats or Republicans, and he hired people who look like they're deadly serious and gone after somebody.
	Look, I remember, I mean, Bobby Kennedy, I can remember the Get Hoffa squad back in the early 60s.
	And they went after these guys and went after them and went after them.
	And I think what you're talking about is a major situation coming at the White House and the Trump family and the Trump campaign and General Flynn and the rest of it moving up the ladder.
	And given the disposition, the natural disposition of the president, who is a fighter, who has very little patience, who is exasperated and angry, and who is a man of action, my guess is he's going to find a way to have a confrontation and see if he can't get rid of Mueller.
	But even if he does, Sean, can he abolish the special prosecutor's office?
	Now, we did that with Nixon, but the firestorm was so mammoth, of course, our situation was much more serious.
	We had all kinds of indictments.
	But after the firestorm, Nixon had to reappoint a new special prosecutor, and the special prosecutor staff all came back to work with their papers.
	So I think, again, I don't see how we avoid, given the disposition of Trump, given where Mueller is headed, given who he's hiring, how we avoid a major collision coming down the road and probably pretty soon.
	All right, Pat Buchanan, stay right there.
	We've got to take a quick break.
	We'll come back and we'll continue.
	800-941-SHAWN.
	All right, as we continue, Patrick J. Buchanan is with us.
	800-941 Sean is our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	All right, Pat.
	So my next question is: you know, all the battles you see, here are Republicans in power and begging for power in the House and the Senate and the White House, they get it.
	And now we've got the skinny bill opportunity on health care.
	And I know I speak for a ton of people.
	This is beyond frustrating.
	Well, I think what you've got is admitted.
	I don't think anybody can deny it, people who are skeptical about the Republicans who are enthusiastic.
	This is a real failure of the Republican Party.
	I know it's a very tight margin with which Mitch McConnell's got to work.
	But when the party again and again and again votes to repeal Obamacare and to replace it, and first doesn't even have a plan to do so, and secondly, can't get anything through in six months when they control both houses of Congress.
	There's nothing you can say other than we admit that as Republicans, we have failed.
	We failed to accomplish the first priority we said we would realize if you gave us power.
	And you gave us a power in the White House and the Congress, both houses, and we failed you.
	Well, I mean, there's no other way to put it.
	Do you think some of this is by design?
	Because I'm told, like, when the doors are closed in Senate meetings and other meetings, you know, you've got people in there like Ben Sasse and Flake and McCain at times, and people like Lindsey Graham at times.
	They're just openly trashing the president.
	And it's like, what part of his agenda isn't conservative enough for you?
	Is it, you know, building, well, maybe they don't like the border wall.
	Okay, an honest disagreement.
	But did they not promise themselves repealing and replacing?
	I look at the Republican Party now as a party without an identity.
	Are they the party of freedom, capitalism, liberty?
	Are they the party of security?
	Are they the party of energy?
	Are they the party of tax cuts?
	You know, do they not want the president's economic plan done?
	What do they stand for?
	Because the opportunity of a generation now stands right before them.
	You know, Sean, I talked to an old friend of mine whom I was in battle with alongside a conservative back in the 60s.
	And he sent me a note and he said, Pat, besides the victory in the Cold War, which is a tremendous victory, what have we accomplished?
	I mean, if we're the party of small government and we're the party of the private sector, there's unquestionably government has grown mightily.
	The federal government controls 20% of GDP.
	State and local governments another 20% of GDP.
	Regulations control more of it.
	The intrusions into private life are enormous.
	The amount of freedom that people to live as they see fit is restricted.
	I mean, in terms of the long process since the New Deal, the Great Society, which one of those programs have we really cut back or eliminated?
	I don't think there's a single one.
	Well, incrementalism has worked its way through, and Republicans have— I've never seen a group of people, whether Obama was in power or now, that have been so afraid of their own shadows, so spineless, and frankly lacking vision.
	You know what, Pat?
	I mean, John McCain took a shot at talk radio and cable television, and he said, you know, our failure, I guess, is their livelihood.
	Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the internet.
	To hell with them.
	They don't want anything done for the public good.
	Our incapacity is their livelihood.
	Our incapacity is their livelihood as if we're responsible.
	You know what?
	I spent a lot of time, Pat, and we've known each other for a long time.
	I've had on a doctor that's talking about health care cooperatives $50 a month concierge care for five years on this show.
	I've talked about health savings accounts for well over a decade, 10 to 15 years or longer.
	I've talked about the penny plan.
	Geez, that must be going on a decade, too.
	I've talked about energy independence for however long.
	I've talked about education back to the states for however long.
	The need to identify evil in our time for however long.
	It's beyond frustrating that they don't, you know, I didn't hear in any of this healthcare debate about health cooperatives lowering premiums, health savings accounts.
	And I'm like, you people have, you don't offer anything.
	No, they do not.
	And I remember I go back all the way to the Medicare battle when there was a good Republican idea called Kerr Mills.
	And the Republicans really didn't push it.
	And so Lyndon Johnson rammed his Medicare thing through.
	But two points here.
	Senator McCain, and we all wish him well in his current crisis, identifies the public good as what he and the Democrats can agree on rather than what he and his party base can agree on.
	So we have different concepts of that.
	And truth be told, I mean, the mighty, if you, welfare state, neo-socialist welfare state, moves on inexorably.
	Sometimes there's a slight pullback, but gradually it moves on and on because every time the Democrats pass one of these Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid and they build in the growth of the entitlements, the Republicans retreat to a new defense line.
	There's never any rollback.
	Sad, you're right.
	And this is the opportunity of a generation, and it could be squandered.
	That's sad.
	Pat Buchanan, telling a lot of truth here, holding them accountable.
	The Sean Hannity Show.
	Thank you, sir.
	You take it easy, my friend.
	All right, when we come back, finally, we've got some breaking news on the effort to pursue some truth about the corruption, the felonies, the scandals, the double standard as it relates to Democrats and election fraud and collusion and Hillary Clinton's crimes that she committed.
	We'll get to that.
	We'll continue.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
	Finally, we are getting what I have been calling for.
	I keep asking, where are the Republicans?
	Where are the Republicans?
	They have the power of every committee.
	And they keep, well, let's walk in Jared Kushner.
	Let's walk in Don Jr.
	Let's bring in Paul Menafort.
	Well, what about all the issues that we keep bringing up?
	What about the issue of Loretta Lynch?
	And what about the issue of James Comey?
	And what about the issue of the Ukrainian influence in the election?
	And what about Hillary Clinton?
	And, of course, the email server scandal, the Uranium One issue.
	You know, where are all those people?
	Anyway, I've got to give credit occasionally where it's due in Washington.
	And Congressman Andy Biggs is going to join us in a moment.
	You know, finally, he and a number of his colleagues are beginning to pursue the truth behind Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and they are now requesting the appointment of a special counsel.
	It's about time.
	Anyway, Andy Biggs, along with Congressman Matt Goetz and Congressman Jordan and Johnson, they filed an amendment into the House Judiciary Committee to direct an investigation into the former FBI directors James Comey's management of Hillary Clinton and her email server scandal.
	And what they said is my colleagues and I introduced this amendment because we're tired of passively allowing the left and the radical media to distract the Republican agenda through wild accusations.
	Most of the claims about the president and his team are nothing more than unfounded, unsourced, anonymous allegations that merely serve the purpose of trying to delegitimize the president and prevent Congress from carrying out the agenda we promised the American people.
	It's time for the left to respond to the blatant misconduct of Clinton, Eric Holder, James Comey, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch.
	I'll also add the Ukraine issue on top of that.
	Our constituents want justice for the scandals of the Obama administration.
	And we must earn and keep their trust by demanding information and investigation.
	That's what I've been saying.
	We need equal justice under the law.
	Today we fight back, reclaim the narrative that has rightly been given to us by the American people.
	Let's take a little primer of you of some of the information we all know we have out there.
	Russia, Russia, Russia.
	Think of that as you hear this.
	Let me go back, if I can, very briefly, to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the email.
	Was your decision influenced by the Attorney General's tarmac meeting with the former President Bill Clinton?
	Yes, in an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.
	Were there other things that contributed to that that you can describe in an open session?
	There were other things that contributed to that.
	One significant item I can't.
	I know the committee's been briefed on.
	There's been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee's been briefed on the classified facts.
	Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in open setting is that at one point the Attorney General had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.
	But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly.
	Did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice?
	Yes.
	And to whom did you show copies?
	I asked, President tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there's not tapes.
	I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn't dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation.
	There might be a tape.
	And my judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square.
	And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter.
	Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
	And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.
	And was that Mr. Wittis?
	No.
	No.
	Who was that?
	A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School.
	You said after you were dismissed, you gave information to a friend so that friend could get that information into the public media.
	Correct.
	What kind of information was that?
	What kind of information did you give to a friend?
	The Flynn conversation, that the president had asked me to let the Flynn, I mean, I'm forgetting my exact own words, but the conversation in the Oval Office.
	So you didn't consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document you considered to be somehow your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to?
	Correct.
	Through my friend?
	I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president as a private citizen.
	I felt free to share that.
	I thought it very important to get it out.
	I had Not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
	Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email.
	Was that true?
	Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
	So it was not true.
	But I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
	Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received.
	Was that true?
	That's not true.
	There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.
	I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified.
	Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
	There is no classified material.
	Was that true?
	There was classified material emailed.
	People across the government knew that I used one device.
	Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
	Secretary Clinton said she used just one device.
	Was that true?
	She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
	But we turned over everything that was work-related.
	Every single thing.
	Personal stuff, we did not.
	I had no obligation to do so and did not.
	Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department.
	Was that true?
	No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.
	All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate.
	Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive.
	Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
	No.
	I have no idea.
	That's why we turned it over.
	You were in charge of it.
	You were the official in charge.
	Did you wipe this urban?
	What, like, with a cloth or something?
	No.
	I don't know how it works digitally.
	Did you try to wipe the whole curve?
	I don't know how it works digitally at all.
	All right.
	Joining us is Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona.
	Congressman a little trip down memory lane, but the reality is what you and those co-sponsors of yours are saying here, you introduced this for all the right reasons because these claims have been false.
	They are unproven.
	They are anonymous allegations.
	And it is preventing the President, Congress, from carrying out its agenda, its promises.
	Yes, absolutely, Sean.
	I mean, there's really two main things, and you've nailed it.
	Number one is the American people deserve to know there is a mountain of evidence out there, and for whatever reason, the investigations that were ostensibly going on, they weren't really going on, they seemed to stop when the new administration came in.
	And so we're entitled to know about that.
	And the second aspect of it is this distraction that the left is engaged in is preventing the president from having a successful term of office.
	It's preventing the Congress from getting its job done in some respects because it's just a distraction.
	And I told my colleagues as we were discussing how to approach this when we saw yet another amendment from a Democrat coming forward to try to another resolution trying to get more records from the Trump administration.
	It's like, enough's enough.
	We can no longer be passive and inert.
	We've got to go forward and be aggressive.
	And I tell you, I love the feeling of punching back.
	I love the feeling of punching back.
	I've been saying it for a long time.
	And I think there are other issues as well.
	Like, for example, if collusion is so bad in Russia, Russia, Russia, well, what about the paid DNC operative meeting at the Ukrainian embassy with the Ukrainian ambassador?
	Ukraine is trying to undermine the attempt of Donald Trump to win the election, so they're colluding, and then that information Politico tells us is funneled back to the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
	Oh, absolutely.
	This is the point.
	As we were talking about it, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
	There are so many scandals that arose, both with, like you mentioned, Ukraine and their efforts to undermine the election with the DNC, to that James Comey's trying to get together so he can get Mueller, his mentor, his predecessor appointed.
	And then once he's no longer head of the FBI, he's leaking information to a good buddy to try to undermine things.
	And this is really the problem.
	There's just so many things.
	Where do you see Mueller ending up?
	I mean, there was a story in the Washington Times about one of the people appointed was involved in prosecutorial abuse.
	Then we've got Hillary Clinton's attorney on the team, and a majority of these people, Mueller's firm, donated 99.8% of their money to Hillary Clinton, and then he's hiring all these people that only donate to Obama, Hillary, and Democrats.
	Well, that's why almost six weeks, seven weeks ago, I issued a statement and a call for Mueller to recuse himself.
	He is not an impartial arbiter.
	He is not able, in my opinion, to be able to get in there and do an objective job in investigating.
	I think that his whole team is biased, and it's not going to be good for anybody.
	And you know what?
	Even if they were to find President Trump and his whole team, which, by the way, everybody has so far, you know, absolved of all of the allegations of wrongdoing, it's going to be tainted because he is a biased arbiter.
	Well, that's my position as well.
	But here's the biggest problem we have, that there seems no appetite among the Republicans to have any identity, any backbone, or any courage.
	I mean, the health care vote is just a perfect example.
	You experienced it in the House.
	We saw what unfolded in the Senate yesterday.
	And apparently a lot of people that go out there and say they want repeal and replace had no intention of ever doing anything such as that.
	Well, it's what, you know, I don't have much hair, but I'm pulling it all out because since I got here, one of the things I've found is...
	I have hair and I'm pulling it out.
	We make concrete, clear promises to the American people.
	All right, Congressman, stay right there.
	We'll take a break.
	I want to ask you about the economic plan and what you think of Obamacare replacement light or skinny Obamacare.
	That's all straight ahead.
	Can you elaborate more on what the DHS's connection with the DNC was or consultation with the DNC was after you became aware of the hacking and they became aware of the hacking as to what was offered them, what they accepted?
	Was there any level of cooperation at all?
	To my disappointment, not to my knowledge, sir.
	And this is a question I asked repeatedly when I first learned of it.
	You know, what are we doing?
	Are we in there?
	Are we helping them discover the vulnerabilities?
	Because this was fresh off the OPM experience.
	And there was a point at which DHS cybersecurity experts did get into OPM and actually helped them discover the bad actors and patch some of the exfiltrations or at least minimize some of the damage.
	And so I was anxious to know whether or not our folks were in there.
	And the response I got was FBI had spoken to them.
	They don't want our help.
	They have CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm.
	And that was the answer I got after I asked the question a number of times over the progression of time.
	Now, that was, I assume, totally different from the reaction you got from OPM.
	The OPM effort, we were actually in there on site helping them find the bad actors.
	Do you know who it was at the DNC who made that decision or who was making resistance?
	No.
	Do you know if the FBI continued to try to help, try to assist?
	I've read in the New York Times about those efforts sometime earlier this year.
	All right, as we continue with Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona, and he and some of his House colleagues now are calling on real investigations, other special counsels, only against Democrats where we know there's evidence against them.
	Where do you see the rest of the president's agenda going now, considering we've had such difficulty on health care?
	Well, I think the one thing that I'm grateful that President Trump has indicated no bat tax.
	Okay, so that takes that off the table, and that was a stinker part of the tax reform.
	And people are now, I think, going to be able to coalesce around the tax reform plan that America needs.
	You know, a lower corporate tax rate, lower rates for individuals of the middle class, and that's going to bless the economy for sure.
	And so I think I'm very hopeful about that aspect.
	We have to get a budget out.
	And, you know, that's always a dicey thing.
	We're going to vote on a budget here.
	I don't think we're going to get it done before the August recess, which is why I think we should stay and not take an August recess.
	But I'm hopeful that the president's agenda is going to go forward with specifically the tax reform package and the efforts to take care of the budget balancing issue.
	Do we get to that, or do we get, for example, do you think we'll get a 15% corporate rate, middle-class tax cuts, repatriation of trillions parked overseas?
	Is that all going to happen?
	Are we going to get, you know, end of double taxation and the death tax?
	Everything you said is part of the tax reform package as it sits right now.
	I am pushing hard for that, and I've had numerous meetings about it already, and that seems to be the consensus.
	That's where everybody wants to be.
	That corporate rate needs to be 15% because that will be the catalyst.
	We need to also get the repatriation rate down to about 5%.
	You do that, and these trillions of dollars that are parked overseas, they'll come back for one-time immediate stimulus of the economy.
	And I'm talking to my colleagues, and I think many of them, I haven't had anybody disagree with any of those positions.
	So that's why I'm hopeful about the tax reform package.
	All right, appreciate it.
	800-941 Sean, thank you, Congressman.
	As we take a break, we'll come back.
	And at the top of the hour, we have our news roundup: information overload, all the topics and issues of the day, Rick Gunger, Jonathan Gillum, and more.
	Right ahead.
	Mission Overload.
	Polls in the past, Mr. Gingrich, have said that A, the American people really don't understand Whitewater, and B, they really don't care about it.
	Is there a reason for hearings now other than to inflict political damage on the president prior to the election?
	The fact is, what we have here is a modern Salem witch trial with no accusation, no evidence, trial by ordeal.
	This is not investigative journalism.
	Sometimes it is propaganda, but mostly it's the hot wind of a mob all shouting into each other's faces.
	But are members of the media, you think, about two scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?
	And the Republicans come, I think, very close to McCarthyism.
	They raise the idea of suspicious circumstances to almost just an assumption that people are to guilt.
	There is growing controversy tonight about whether the newly named independent counsel in the Whitewater case is independent or a Republican partisan allied with the Gut Clinton movement.
	Among the questions about Kenneth Starr are these: the involvement of anti-Clinton activists in pushing for Starr's appointment to replace Robert Fisk.
	By pandering to Clinton haters, Mr. Starr appears to be abandoning all pretenses of impartiality.
	He went into this job with a reputation as a fair-minded conservatist.
	He now looks more like a political hitman, desperately eager for a future Supreme Court appointment.
	Ken Scott is a credible prosecutor.
	He will bring this to a conclusion and the Clintons will be exonerated.
	Wouldn't it be nice if it was just completely, totally, absolutely impossible to suspect that Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week so that his friend in the White House could have a big night with missiles and all of the praise he's picked up over the last 24 hours.
	We are, number one, nailing down more direct connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government at the time the Russian government was influencing our election.
	And number two, at the same time, we are also starting to see what may be signs of continuing influence in our country, not just during the campaign, but during the administration.
	Basically signs of what could be a continuing operation.
	Vladimir Putin over there in the Kremlin did everything he could to put guess who in the White House.
	CNN has learned that the nation's top intelligence officials provided information to President-elect Donald Trump and to President Barack Obama last week about claims of Russian efforts to compromise President-elect Trump.
	It kind of makes it hard to believe that Putin doesn't have anything on Trump.
	I mean, it just, there's no, there seems to be no guardrails here.
	They make these decisions time and time again in a way that makes it appear that they're hostages, that he's that he's that he's Vladimir Putin's hostage.
	John McCain compares the Russia story to a centipede.
	There's always another shoe to drop.
	Well, this evening, one more piece of footgear goes Trump in the night.
	When this story first crossed, Trump Putin held a second undisclosed meeting at the G20 summit.
	When these headlines started to cross tonight in our newsroom, it caused an audible, oh my God.
	Donald Trump believed there was a VIP section at the dinner and the VIP section was not between the wife of the president of Argentina and the wife of the prime minister of Japan.
	It is abnormal and it is not appropriate for his duty and then not to disclose it only arouses further suspicions about what the hell is Donald Trump's obsession with Vladimir Putin and why won't he be straightforward about it?
	Glad you're with a snooze roundup information overload hour.
	If that doesn't prove how the media does the defensive work belittling the Clinton whitewater probe and what we were told, there were actual indictments that were written in that particular case that's never ever happened.
	How the Clintons skate every time is beyond imagination.
	And yet the media promoting the Trump-Russia collusion story 24-7, 365, cable channels all they are devoted to.
	Newspapers all they are devoted to.
	And yet we have so many other issues that we keep bringing up that nobody seems to care about.
	Rick Unger's, what's with the face?
	Rick Unger and Jonathan Gilleman.
	I'm not interested.
	I just want to hear about your dinner last night.
	I want to know what you ate.
	What was on the menu?
	What dinner?
	Who was there?
	What dinner?
	Where?
	I don't even know what you're talking about.
	You know, I read the tabloids.
	You're running over them, right?
	No.
	It wasn't in my place.
	You went to my place.
	Let's talk to Jonathan because I really don't like you right now.
	Look, you asked the question, how do the Clintons keep getting away with it?
	You know, I'll say this one thing about this.
	I don't know where we're going with this conversation, but I will tell you this.
	We're going back to dinner last year.
	I will tell you with Sessions recusing himself what happened.
	I've been giving this a lot of thought.
	I don't know if you guys wanted to cover this or not, but Sessions recusing himself put a series of events in place that are so dangerous because Rosenstein, Comey, Mueller, and even this guy that the president has put forward as the FBI director, Christopher Wray, are all buddies and they all lean the same direction.
	And here you go.
	Rosenstein gives Mueller all the authority that he wants.
	Nothing's going to happen to Comey Comey to leak that information to have Mueller come into effect.
	And on top of that, you're going to have an FBI director come in if he gets confirmed.
	That's your question.
	Hold on.
	When you were in the middle of the moment.
	Let me finish this whole thing.
	An FBI director is going to come in and work with all these people.
	That is an unholy triangle of individuals.
	All because he recused himself.
	When you were in the FBI, I know you.
	I know you were a straight agent, right?
	There's no question about it.
	If somebody that you were friends with in the FBI.
	Anthony's making me laugh.
	It's his fault.
	If somebody that you knew in the FBI was put under investigation for something and you were assigned to do it, wouldn't you do the best job that you possibly could, even though they were a friend of yours?
	Yeah, well, I was an FBI agent.
	These guys are DOG attorneys from the most liberal agency in the United States.
	This presumption that because people know each other, and I would never make those allegations against the other side when they're in the FBI.
	But I worked under Mueller.
	Mueller destroyed the FBI.
	Mueller, Comey, and the rest of these people you don't like are political hacks.
	Wait a minute.
	Stop for one second.
	What about this one question, which I think is important?
	So you think it's appropriate what Comey did by leaking A, government material, B, classified material, and C, you know, basically coordinated to get his best friend in this and coordinated his testimony, and it gets worse.
	Then he hires, look who's working for him, Hillary Clinton's attorney.
	And it seems every single person that he has brought on his team is either an Obama, a Hillary, or a Democratic donor.
	All right, so let's take it point by point.
	First of all, we now know they're not best friends.
	They have respect for each other.
	They know each other.
	They're friendly.
	They coordinated before Comey testified, before the House Intel.
	As for what Comey did, if that material is deemed classified, and I know it was after the fact, I don't know what the rules are, but yeah, you got to act on that.
	That's called the espionage act.
	And I don't know the rules.
	I really don't.
	If it's classified after the fact.
	No, you don't.
	Which is why you come on the program.
	I hope you.
	You don't classify things after the fact.
	I don't classify it.
	I learned this.
	I learned about it at dinner.
	But if.
	Who'd you have dinner with it?
	Nobody.
	With Comey?
	Were you hanging out with Comey again?
	Yeah, I knew you do that.
	I'm sure he loves me.
	So if that's the case, yeah, you cannot drop classified information.
	Fully agree.
	And it was.
	And if that's the case, then yeah, you got to go after that.
	So then Hillary Clinton, based on what you're saying.
	You don't have to have Hillary's lawyer working for him.
	That's not true.
	He's got some lawyers who made contributions when they were out of office.
	What do you make of?
	Totally legit.
	What do you make of Debbie Wasserman Schultz in this case where she has this?
	Well, I mean, what is it about Democrats and smashing hard drives and smashing iPhones and Blackberries and deleting emails and acid washing with bleach pit and sending phones over to the FBI without SIM cards?
	It's really easy to explain.
	They call them.
	They smash them because it's really bad for the environment when old equipment gets out into the dumps.
	That's why they smash them.
	So in other words, I don't know.
	I got it.
	That's it for decomposition purposes.
	That's right.
	I am totally confused about this guy who works in her office who tried to beat it out to Pakistan the other day.
	With 300 grand.
	Yeah, and this guy.
	An ankle bracelet.
	Yes, this guy and his brothers, right?
	They've already been in trouble because they were double billing Congress.
	They were doing IT work for a bunch of members of the United States.
	And she kept them on board.
	And she kept them on.
	So I can't figure that one out.
	Well, wait a minute.
	Here's my theory.
	Don't you think it's probably likely that the reason, remember why Debbie Wasserman Schultz got fired on the eve of the Democratic National Convention and WikiLeaks come out?
	Maybe there's information.
	I'm just guessing.
	I'm just guessing.
	If it's on her computer, maybe, just maybe.
	It's a conspiracy.
	Yeah, I know.
	I read the same article.
	Maybe, just maybe it's information that the DNC colluded with Hillary and rigged the election against Bernie.
	That was a nice thing that they did.
	Well, I heard.
	I actually agreed that the election was rigged against Bernie, but I don't think that they would need any help from an IT guy to do it.
	Maybe it was just an email that said, take them out.
	I don't know.
	I don't think that that would matter.
	I think it was crystal clear to everybody that the rules were written.
	WikiLeaks revealed it.
	That's the point.
	And what I theorized wasn't even a theory, but I'm wondering, was there even more material on there?
	I don't know.
	What about the fact that these Awan brothers and the whole family are connected to Hamas?
	They're Muslims.
	They're connected to Muslim Brothers.
	Here's where you got to be skipping right over that stuff.
	Yeah, you know why?
	Because I actually read a bunch about it because I was trying to figure it out too.
	This is where you get from news that we have evidence on to speculation.
	These guys, I don't know, they could have been, but there's been more.
	42 CIA operations officer they were.
	Nothing that I've seen so far.
	And they had access to over 40 or 50 computers in Congress.
	Yeah, well, that they did because they were servicing them.
	So I agree with that.
	But from my end, I mean, there's nothing I've seen to back up taking the story that far.
	This story is still weird.
	Mainly to me, the story is weird because after these guys got busted for double billing Congress, why the hell is this guy still working in a member of Congress's office?
	I don't get that.
	We'll continue.
	All right, as we continue now, it's our news roundup information overload.
	Rick Gunger, Jonathan Gillum are with us.
	Wasserman Schultz, what is it?
	You know, if 33,000 emails, Jonathan, because I don't want to even ask Rick, are under subpoena and they get deleted.
	And then we're told, no, no, no, they're only about yoga, a wedding, and a funeral, and emails with my husband who doesn't have an email account.
	If they get deleted and they're under subpoena, and then you're smashing devices.
	Now, it ends up there's like 15 or 16 devices overall, but the whole purpose of having the special server was that you want to consolidate on one device.
	But then you have AIDS smashing your devices with hammers.
	And then the FBI finally gets a BlackBerry and an iPhone, but it doesn't have a SIM card.
	And then just to make sure the computers are really clean, you acid wash them with bleach pit.
	And then Debbie Wasserman Schultz says, IT, let's just smash more hard drives into smithereens.
	Why do I think every time somebody does that, they're probably trying to obstruct justice?
	I'm guessing.
	Well, obstruct justice, their destruction of government property, regardless of what Rick knows about classified information, destruction of classified information doesn't have to be marked.
	It doesn't have to be classified later.
	If it has to do with any certain type of classified project or program, it's classified.
	And if it's on a device that is classified, whatever information that's on that is also classified to the level of whatever that device is.
	Do you guys spend all your time talking about people who aren't in government?
	No, no, I'm telling you, classification laws, all these things, all these things.
	And this all pertains to people who aren't in government.
	Now, I acknowledge that Hillary, listen, Hillary might run for the city council of Chautauqua one of these days.
	So we gotta keep an eye on her.
	Hillary Clinton still has, as far as I know, or recently had her security clearance.
	I got a question.
	Do you believe in equal?
	Do you believe in the equal justice under the law, equal application of the laws?
	You know I do, and you know that I've said a million times.
	So that people break the law, you prosecute them.
	Okay, so do you believe Hillary broke the law with what we just described?
	If all of that is accurate, very possibly.
	Okay, you've been following this too close.
	No, no, he's not an attorney.
	He's a spin artist because he knows damn well she did it.
	All right, so knowing that she should have been indicted.
	Anybody who, well, actually, I can answer that even more specifically.
	Yes.
	When he did not indict her, I went on the air and I said she should have been indicted at least on the misdemeanor.
	On the misdemeanor?
	What are you talking about?
	Because when you look at the actual dictates of what you have to meet in that law, it was touchy with respect to the felony, but to me, it was clear on the misdemeanor.
	I don't see how this stuff is touchy because it was.
	You're not a lawyer.
	You know, you have to meet, you have to meet.
	You serve for 15 years of government.
	I know what the question is.
	You have to have the evidence to support them.
	She met him and far surpassed him.
	I actually didn't think so.
	And I wasn't afraid to say that.
	I thought that she should not be.
	The biggest thing is, though, why are we talking about her and not government equal justice?
	Talking about Jeff Sessions.
	He's the attorney general.
	Equal justice under the law.
	I'm going to get to that.
	But I want to just really, do you think the Uranium One deal, $145 million kickback all the players?
	You know what I suspect?
	I actually think probably the money came from Russia in some way, shape, matter, or form.
	That's what I think.
	And why?
	But we don't investigate that.
	And all we investigate is Trump and Russia.
	So investigate.
	But again, you're focusing on the state.
	Well, where's the special counsel?
	No, I want to.
	Convene a special counsel to do it.
	With all the obsession that we're watching over one topic, we're not looking at obstruction of justice, classified information mishandled and destroyed.
	Well, that's right.
	We're not looking at 20% of America's uranium.
	She signed off on it and gets $145 million in kickbacks.
	We're not looking at real collusion, a DNC operative in the Ukraine and in embassy with the ambassador kicking back information to Clinton.
	Well, it looks like the House is getting ready to investigate just that.
	That's correct.
	Oh, boy.
	You know, there's going to be some law put in order if Congress is going to be looking into it.
	So you're really not happy with that.
	They don't have to do it.
	The FBI.
	It's their job, the FBI's job, to investigate this and charge her.
	And then tell the Attorney General.
	Do you guys want to stick around a little longer?
	You got to go?
	Sure.
	Sure.
	You have a show.
	I don't.
	You have a show?
	I thought it got canceled.
	No, not yet.
	I actually saw your better half in Washington, D.C.
	And just because she listens, you mean my wife.
	No, I saw your partner in radio.
	What is wrong with you?
	Did you come in here?
	What did you take?
	Giddy pills?
	You've been drinking early in the day.
	This has been a long week.
	I was out to drink once with him.
	You know what he drinks?
	He drinks Manhattan.
	I do not.
	Why do you keep saying that?
	I drink scotch.
	What do you drink?
	And I drink, occasionally I'll drink a martini.
	No, you drink a Manhattan.
	No, I don't.
	You're the only person that had one.
	You've got me confused with some other liberal you can't stand.
	He also goes home and puts on a smoking jacket and stuff.
	Now that I do.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue more with Jonathan Gillum and Rick Unger, and your call's coming up straight ahead.
	OLD Inspired Solutions FOR
	America.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean is our number.
	You want to be a part of the program?
	We're continuing with Rick Unger and Jonathan Gillam.
	You actually may, we had Pat Buchanan on earlier, and he was on the other night, and he said Friday night on the TV show, the scent of blood is in the nostrils of the swamp in D.C.
	And I'm looking at what Mueller is doing and how he got appointed.
	And this is why I think the president is so angry with Jeff Sessions.
	Jeff Sessions' recusal paved the way for Comey to manipulate and get the special counsel in.
	Now that the special counsel's in, I always see investigative creep.
	And we've gone from Russia-Trump campaign collusion.
	Now we're into finances, and it'll go wherever it needs to go until ultimately they end up at the very least with somebody in a perjury trap somehow somewhere.
	And what I don't like about it are the people that he's hired.
	And everyone can tell me he's a nice guy, nice guy, nice guy.
	The sky turns blue again because it's not in New York today.
	It's not going to convince me that when you hire Clinton's lawyer and all these Democratic donors.
	Clinton's lawyer.
	What lawyer of hers did he hire?
	The one that worked on the Clinton Foundation to prevent Freedom of Information Act requests.
	The Clinton Foundation lawyers.
	This is to me like me complaining that Trump just hired that lawyer for a time.
	Okay, we're going to investigate.
	We're going to investigate you, and you know who I'm going to hire to investigate you?
	I'm going to hire the most right-wing lawyer I know.
	Go ahead.
	You're allowed.
	All right.
	You know what?
	You're just full of crap.
	You're allowed.
	You can hire whatever lawyer you want.
	You're just full of it because you know.
	But am I sitting here complaining that Trump hired a lawyer that represented Russia?
	No, because who cares that he had a client that represents the law?
	The difference is you're missing the point.
	The point is for the next three years, Jonathan, this is all that the Democrats are going to do.
	And the fact is, this is supposed to be an independent special counsel that is handling this.
	If you're going to hire attorneys, you should not be hiring attorneys that are that politically connected to people.
	Who says they're that?
	But see, this is, you're making this up.
	You don't know one of them, do you?
	Tell me one of these attorneys that you know or have any history with.
	You don't.
	I actually do know two of them.
	But that aside, it's just a false claim.
	We all have backgrounds.
	You are not prohibited from doing an honest job in investigation because you have a background.
	That's like saying that a sheriff that gets elected who runs as a Republican is not allowed to investigate me if he thinks that I committed a crime.
	That's insane.
	The Clintons have special relationships with their own.
	I'm assuming that everybody's criminal.
	If you don't like the Clinton Constitution, I'm assuming that the Clintons are criminals.
	Well, but they're not the Clintons, are they?
	No, but they represented the Clintons.
	And they're tight with them.
	And so everybody who's ever had a Clinton as a client is unethical because you don't like the Clintons.
	Could be.
	Don't you see how ridiculous that is?
	Listen, this is why we are so screwed up.
	I don't think that people who work for Trump are unethical just because I just want to say that.
	But I'm saying you cannot hire only Democratic donors Obama.
	He didn't.
	Hang on.
	Who's the Republican?
	He's got about 50% of each.
	No, that's not true.
	Then name the names.
	I don't know one.
	Well, you name the names that are all Democrats.
	All right.
	He had the Clinton attorney.
	Forget the name.
	Multiple Clinton donors.
	We've gone over the names on the state.
	He does have some Clinton donors.
	It's true.
	But he also says Obama doesn't.
	He's not a Republican.
	Oh, by the way.
	I don't know one.
	He's a Republican.
	Who?
	Mueller.
	Mueller, excuse me, his firm donated 99.8% of their donations in the last election to Hillary Clinton.
	He's one partner in a firm.
	Yeah, he lives around liberals.
	He was appointed.
	You know what?
	The last thing I would do is hang around people like you all day and night.
	You'd corrupt my thinking.
	He was appointed by a Republican president.
	I mean, come on.
	That's because they.
	And you know what?
	That doesn't make him one thing or another.
	The guy is capable of doing his job honestly.
	Let me just say this one thing.
	Look, if he turns out to be as you say, I'll be the first to say I was wrong.
	I was suspicious for no reason.
	And I agree with Jonathan.
	I have never seen, starting with Patrick Fitzgerald, the Valerie Plain case, you know, after all those years, he knew day one.
	Kenneth Starling.
	He knew day one that Richard Armitage was the leaker.
	He should have closed down shop.
	They never do, and they're not leaving that place.
	It was Kenneth Star legitimately displayed him.
	I know.
	Hang on a sec.
	They're not leaving that place until they, at the very least, will set somebody up for a perjury trap.
	All right, now answer my question.
	Was Kenneth Starr legit?
	100%.
	So the ones that you like who prosecute the people you don't are straight.
	Jonathan, Bill Clinton was actually impeached.
	Bill Clinton lost his law license.
	Bill Clinton had to pay a judgment of nearly everybody.
	We don't know where this is going yet.
	And Bill Clinton suborned perjury, and we know lied to the American people.
	And by the way, you're right.
	There was an indictment.
	That's right.
	Here's what we don't know.
	We don't know who that indictment was against.
	We do know that there was an indictment.
	I presume you're going to like this, that it was the president, because I know that there had to be discussion over whether or not to use that indictment.
	And that would only be if it was the president.
	But you can't sit here and say that the special prosecutor, who was a Republican, by the way, Ken Starr, who prosecuted Bill Clinton, because you liked what he was doing, that he was an honest guy.
	I'm only saying that I saw real crimes here that we knew of from the beginning.
	Exactly.
	Just because you haven't seen the, I'm not saying they're there.
	I don't know.
	The difference between the Clintons and this is that there were identifiable crimes.
	In this case, like we said the last time we were on this show, this is more like entrapment than it is where they're going out and finding evidence.
	It's first, if you know the investigations going on, that cannot be, by definition, entrapment.
	Yes, it can because what they say is this is what's happening, and then they go out and create the evidence.
	And that's what you think the special, you already know that the special counsel is creating evidence.
	Somebody is creating, whenever they want a leak, they mysteriously, boom, one pops up.
	No, it's a whole, this is the whole thing.
	This is way bigger than that.
	We're talking about the special counsel.
	The special campaign is not.
	Why are you accusing them of creating evidence?
	And you don't even know where to show what evidence they have.
	Because the special counsel falls into this.
	Interestingly, and I'll say this about Sessions.
	I don't know if Sessions was a plant to hang out with the president while he's running.
	No.
	Or if he just got away from the corner.
	So now Sessions is also corrupt.
	But hold on, let me say that.
	Sessions is a good man, I think, but go ahead.
	Well, it's odd.
	Everybody's corrupt.
	In Washington, D.C. is.
	It's weird how somebody who was that close would immediately recuse himself and not tell you.
	Why would you have any respect for the law?
	Every time I start to finish something, you got to let me finish.
	When they got right down to the line, the president gets elected, he recuses himself, didn't even tell the president, and set a chain of events in effect that potentially could have dire effects on the president because they gave unlimited authority for Mueller to just go in and look at it.
	I think that's my turn now.
	I'm the person to defend Jeff Sessions.
	I think he's a terrible attorney general.
	But why are you criticizing him for doing what the rules and the law required him to do?
	If he didn't do anything wrong, why does he need to do that?
	Because the rules say if you were part of that situation, if you were part of the campaign and the campaign is under investigation, whether Jonathan likes it or not, he was obligated.
	And good for him that he did the honorable thing because I actually do think he's a straight-up guy.
	I don't agree with him, but I don't think he's a dishonorable man.
	And he did what the rules required.
	Because you don't like what it led to, you're throwing him under a bus.
	I don't think.
	You're following the rules.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	We can't let that go, Jonathan.
	Why don't you have respect for the law when you don't want to go to the law?
	I've got an answer because I'd never like to be without answers.
	And Linda actually dug it up fast for me here.
	Of the 15 attorneys, and this goes back to July 24th that were on the staff of Mueller, seven had donated to Democratic candidates' campaigns.
	Not half.
	Like I said.
	Including Trump's rival Hillary Clinton.
	The rest did not make political donations according to federal cards.
	And yes, in fact, they did hire the former attorney.
	And one of the prosecutors, Andrew Weissman, apparently in that particular case, I can give you the names.
	Andrew Goldstein is another one.
	Janine Rea is another one.
	James Corliss, all of them are left-wingers.
	So I'm just saying, here's the thing.
	Everybody at home is listening or in their car listening to this program right now.
	And I'm sure they're interested because we're talking about things that are really happening and going on.
	But none of this does anything to help the American people.
	Not one thing.
	I agree with that.
	And you know what?
	At the end of the day, between Republicans being spineless, weak, lacking identity and vision, and the Democrats just obstructionist and have no vision.
	All they want to do is destroy the president.
	The media just wants to destroy the president.
	The deep state, nobody's helping the guy that's out of work on food stamps.
	You know, we can all pay our rent in this room that's out of work on food.
	Yes, we agree.
	In poverty, nobody's helping Americans that never owned a home before own a home.
	Nobody's buying new cars.
	And you know what?
	We're not even talking about getting the economic plan passed.
	This is now, this is what this group of government has done for us.
	Yeah, we are.
	They've screwed us.
	We are absolutely on the same page.
	They're the one place where we're going to disagree.
	There we go.
	Did I ask you?
	I will include the White House as part of that group that's caused this.
	That would be the previous Ryaks.
	He's only been in for six months.
	Well, six months of not doing anything that he should be doing to solve the problem.
	How can you do what you're supposed to do with the OSCE?
	I seem to recall you didn't give Obama six months, but now we have to give him how long?
	What's the rule?
	I wasn't in media.
	I was in the FBI.
	What's the rule?
	How long do we have to do?
	You should have directed that right to me, but I'm just watching it.
	I know you didn't give him six months either.
	I'll give him six hours.
	Someone just tell me what the rule is.
	How long do we have to give him a tenant?
	Well, he doesn't even have to do that.
	20% of the people, I think, is what he has in.
	So I'm asking you a straight-up question.
	How long should we wait to give him a money?
	We should wait until Congress gives him the people that he needs to get it done.
	Listen, I can't blame him at all on this.
	I mean, honestly, all of those House Republicans that didn't really want to repeal and replace Obamacare, all of these senators, I mean, especially the ones that voted in 2015 for a bill yesterday voted no on.
	I mean, I don't know what else you do with that because that is a betrayal at the highest level.
	But here's the strange part.
	You made a great statement a few minutes ago when you said we're doing nothing.
	You didn't repeat that in here.
	You did.
	You made a great statement.
	You said we're doing nothing to help the poor, to help the people in need.
	I got to tell you something.
	You know, this is an area I have some familiarity with.
	These bills would do nothing to help those people.
	You're wrong.
	For example, the guy I know you probably hate is Senator Cruz, but his amendment.
	Actually, you don't hate him.
	No, Senator Cruz's amendment would have dropped premiums by more than 30%.
	No, for everyone.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Well, wait a minute.
	Obama.
	Obama, sick pool.
	Well, that was being handled through Medicare and finally affected.
	Here's what I want to tell you, though.
	Well, you can also get catastrophic plans, which were illegal.
	The average premium under Obama went up $8,000.
	That's right.
	And he promised saving $2,500 per family per year.
	And he promised choice and you keep your doctor and keep...
	He lied about that.
	I'm with you all the way.
	And I was the first to call him on that.
	But let's just be honest about the premium increases.
	He lied when he said it would go down.
	It sure as hell didn't go down.
	But it went up when you look at it on a year-by-year basis at the same rate it was going up before.
	So he didn't do anything to help us there.
	But here was the problem with the cruise plan.
	And some of it is justified because the people who have gotten screwed under Obamacare are the young people.
	The young people are paying for old people like me and the paying a lot of people.
	The young people were forced to pay for the old, the elderly, the sick, and the uninsured.
	I do not disagree.
	The problem with the cruise plan, though, is by letting all the young people who can buy insurance for less money in those special plans, and then you have the one Obamacare plan, which is going to get all the older, pre-existing, conditioned people who won't be able to buy the other policies.
	You're going to have unbelievable premiums for those folks.
	Better for the young people.
	I agree.
	But way worse for the older people.
	Don't even ask me about medical insurance.
	I mean, I think this whole thing is going to have it.
	Seriously.
	No.
	But I think it's gotten to a point where it is, this is so ridiculous that nothing's going to be fixed.
	Nothing is going to be done because government really doesn't even have a place here.
	We agree on that.
	Perhaps regulating, but the fact is we've got, because of special interest, because politicians wanted to line their pockets with constituents' money and do favors for people.
	We have the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment working against the American people when it comes to this particular.
	We agree on that because what's happening with health care is it's turned into an ideological battle.
	We've been fighting the wrong war for years.
	Both sides.
	Both sides.
	And we're not really attacking the real issues to try and find a real solution because it's become ideological.
	I don't think that's a good idea.
	As Sean says, for all those years, they voted for repeal, but didn't mean it.
	No, they didn't mean it.
	And I said at the time they were show votes because if they really meant it, they had the power of the purse.
	They didn't want to use it.
	Let's say hi to Diane, Providence, Rhode Island.
	Diane, say hi to my good friends Rick Unger and Jonathan Gillum.
	How are you?
	Hey, Sean, how you doing?
	I'm good.
	How are you doing?
	I am doing great, and I want to thank you for what you go out there and do every day.
	I wish I was doing better.
	I wish I was doing a better job for you and getting more stuff done.
	Sean, believe me, you're doing a fantastic job.
	Well, you know, not by the success of Congress and advancing the agenda that the president needs done there.
	I know, but you got to keep doing what you're doing because believe me, people are listening to you.
	Thank you.
	You're very nice.
	What's on your mind?
	Say hi to Jonathan and Rick the Liberal.
	Hey, guys.
	How are you doing?
	I don't want to say hi to Rick Phillips.
	Oh, do you know that's my legal name, Richard the Liberal Unger?
	It's my middle name.
	I'm only kidding.
	Something I want to ask your opinion on, Sean.
	Yeah.
	Because this is how I see it, and the people around me see it.
	We're hardworking people, and we see this as the crucification of the outsider that came in, and no one is going to let him win because in the end result, it's all about money and corruption.
	I will tell you this.
	The swamp, you're right.
	Diane's real.
	You're so right.
	I will give you the last word.
	Because it's scary.
	It's so scary.
	It's scary that they will not.
	I mean, even if you're a liberal, you don't think all of these things that Trump wants to do for this country is good?
	Actually, I think some of them are.
	Some of them I don't think are good, but some of them I do think are good.
	All right, I got to let you both go.
	Good to see you.
	Good to see you.
	I didn't mean to keep you so long, but you know what?
	It was a lot of fun.
	Well, I mean, it's reasonable.
	I loved it.
	Come on.
	You know, Jonathan's great.
	Hey, can I just give one shout out to this woman right here, Sarah Huckabee-Sampson?
	Is she nice?
	She's so nice.
	She is the Tony Soprano of press secretary.
	Why do you say that?
	She smiles.
	She said it's the Clintons that are mine.
	She smiles when she's hammering people.
	Tony Soprano used to do that.
	She has that same look.
	Like, you're not going to get to her and she's smiling while she's hammering them.
	I can't believe that Tony Soprano died.
	That was horrible.
	I wanted that series to come out.
	We don't know that he did.
	No, he died in real life.
	Oh, in real life.
	Yes.
	You should say you're sorry to apologize now.
	I'm sorry, Tony.
	No, to his family.
	You didn't know.
	I know.
	All right, 800-941, Sean.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back 800-941, Sean.
	During Hannity tonight, a lot of votes will be going on regarding health care, and we're going to be following it up to the minute.
	That's 10 Eastern on Fox.
	We'll take a break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue straight ahead.
	Seeking missile of information that you won't get anywhere else.
	Hannity's on now.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	All right, series of votes on healthcare all during Hannity tonight.
	10 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	We'll have the very latest on that full and complete analysis.
	What is it about Democrats and their desire to smash hard drives and phones and use bleach bit and acid wash and delete and how do they get away with it all?
	And the deep state and everybody else attempting to stop the president.
	Can they be successful?
	All right, that's tonight.
	Hannity, 10 Eastern Live, Fox News.
	We'll see you back here tomorrow.
	See you tonight.
	Thanks for being with us.

▲