Sean Hannity Show - Major Conflict of Interest - 8.2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 3, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:37:05

Major Conflict of Interest - 8.2

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.
	Glad you're with us.
	Happy Wednesday.
	You know, it's rare that I have to admit I was wrong.
	And as of today, I am wrong about Treat making it in school.
	You know, she's going to be a guide dog.
	What do you call it?
	A service dog.
	And there was no way Treat was going to pass.
	Now, apparently, Treat has graduated and is now in California.
	This is the one that Sunshine here.
	My name is Lauren.
	Okay, Lauren is who answers your calls.
	That dog listened to nobody except me when I said jump.
	And that dog was never going to make it.
	Now, you saw Treat when she graduated from school, right?
	I saw her a couple weeks ago and I said goodbye.
	We played Fetch for about an hour and a half.
	And did she still have a jumping problem?
	Perhaps a little.
	Did she still have a jumping problem?
	Yes or no?
	Slightly.
	She had a jumping problem still.
	Now, so what they're going to do is send her out to California.
	You know, they're going to use the old choke chain on her and train her that way.
	It's going to happen.
	But it looks, I am stunned that Treat made it this far.
	And if Treat makes it, I am going to be bewildered how it's possible.
	But do you know what she's going to be doing specifically?
	No, what?
	She's going to be working with veterans with PTSD.
	Well, I think that's awesome.
	And I just hope the veterans like dogs that jump because Treat is not going to stop jumping.
	I mean, it's in Treat's DNA to jump all over everybody, even if you say don't jump.
	All right.
	Got a lot of news today.
	800-94.
	Well, I am happy for the dog.
	I am.
	And you're proud of you for able to do that.
	And you were crying the day that Treat left here.
	And I said, oh, don't worry, Treat will be back in three or four weeks.
	Treat's going to be back here and be the Sean Hannity show official dog of the show.
	And I would have been very happy to adopt Treat and have her be a part of our family.
	And I offer to pay all of Treat's expenses and take care of Treat as the show dog.
	And but if Treat makes it and can help somebody with PTSD, I'm stoked.
	I'm happy.
	I'm just glad that Linda believed in Treat.
	She is a great judge of character.
	Linda behind your back was telling everybody there's no way that dog and no way that dog makes it.
	Oh, excuse me.
	I never why ever.
	If the one freaking person in this world is going to tell you the truth, excuse me.
	First of all, first of all.
	When you're on my time, I can reclaim it.
	Save him.
	Save him.
	All right.
	I got to get to work here.
	I got to get to the news.
	And anyway, glad you are with me.
	You know what you're not going to hear?
	And the Republicans, I hope you're proud of yourselves because guess what?
	We got some interesting information.
	Senate failure, Republican failure to repeal Obamacare.
	Well, now health insurance premiums under the Obama insurance boondoggle.
	Well, they're going to go up another 30% next year.
	John McCain, are you proud of your vote now?
	Because in the past year, well, Arizona went up a whopping 116%.
	Top health insurance companies, numerous states, are now looking to hike premiums by double digits up to 30% or more for Obamacare plans in 2018.
	Oh, excuse me.
	A lot of us have lost focus on the fact the system we have doesn't work, said the OMB director, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.
	Great job.
	Now, there are good news.
	Let me start.
	I know you don't hear good news almost ever.
	Ever.
	Who talks about good news?
	I mean, all the media cares about is process, palace intrigue, and Russia.
	And they're never going to tell you the truth about real investigations that need to be held, real special counsels that need to be appointed.
	If Republicans would use the power, the authority that you gave them to subpoena and conduct investigations, they would be on it now.
	And I'll get to that in a second.
	You know, but it is pretty amazing.
	I've never been the person that looks to the stock market as the indicator of how the economy is doing, but it's not a bad sign.
	But it doesn't help people out of work.
	It doesn't help people in poverty, and it doesn't help people in food stamps because they don't have any money for the stock market.
	But if it's an indication that, in fact, the economy is growing and that there's anticipation of growth because of the president's economic plans, which I do believe is happening, then that's a sign of really good things to come.
	And I got a lot of economic statistics that you're not going to hear in the mainstream media.
	And it would be worth pointing out, the stock market did do well during the Obama years.
	And that was, you know, we had the Fed and quantitative easing policy.
	You know, that pumped $85 billion into Wall Street every month.
	You know, what about we're bailing out Wall Street?
	We're not bailing out Main Street.
	$85 billion.
	That's quantitative easing.
	That's the Fed's policy.
	At the same time, the Fed artificially depressed interest rates down to zero just to keep the economy afloat.
	Now, quantitative easing is over, and Janet Yellen has raised interest rates three times since President Trump was elected, which is usually a drag on economic growth, especially doing both at the same time.
	Now, if she'd done that during the Obama years, the economy would have collapsed.
	So let's hurt the Republicans' chances of having a good economy.
	It's not difference.
	It's obvious what's going on.
	But anyway, the difference now is Main Street, as well as Wall Street, is surging under President Trump.
	Investors Business Daily today.
	Earnings right now are strong.
	Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that 73% of S ⁇ P companies have reported earnings exceeding forecasts for both revenue and earnings.
	And earnings for S ⁇ P 500 companies rose 15% in the first quarter, likely to grow at double digits again in the second quarter based on incoming data, the fastest growth we've seen in six years.
	Let me tell you right now, it's not an accident.
	It's not a fluke.
	Businesses didn't all just decide that they were going to be investing and things are going to be better.
	You know, you got new products continuing to emerge from the tech industry based on new technologies.
	You got whole new industries such as like the gig economy, Uber, Lyft, and many, many others, not to mention the energy sphere.
	You know, we're going to create, if we truly become an energy independent country, we are going to create millions and millions of high-paying career jobs for Americans.
	And we'll have the added bonus benefit of not having to kiss the backsides of leaders of countries that literally despise and hate us.
	And that makes us less likely to have to get into some type of conflict in the Middle East over the free flow of oil at market prices, which would be good for everybody.
	The president has literally started the U.S. down a path towards substantial economic growth.
	GDP now, 2.6%.
	Remember, they said he'd never reached 3%.
	Well, Obama was the first president in history that never had one year of growth at 3% ever.
	And some have even been so bold to suggest the markets are in the grips of a little bit of a mania and arguing stock prices keep rising.
	But they always say that about, I never liked the stock market.
	I'm not getting into the stock market any more than my financial advisor makes me now, which is annoying.
	And anyway, Trump has cut 16 old regulations for each new regulation he's added.
	His labor department is now considering eliminating Obama's overtime rule, which costs small businesses billions of dollars, and that discourages hiring full-time workers.
	Then there's the energy policy.
	I think that is going to be the number one driver of economic success, growth in our economy.
	And it's going to help millions of Americans literally change the trajectory of their lives.
	You know, when we were involved in partnering with these energy companies, we were getting drivers jobs at $80,000 or $100,000 a year.
	People that were either out of work or were making $30,000 a year.
	And, you know, of course, the Saudis, what did they do?
	All of a sudden, we start making some progress, and they dropped the price of oil to manipulate us to discourage us from staying and becoming energy independent.
	And they have the power to do that.
	Now, the Saudis are literally discussing how can they possibly transform the economy from one that is oil and energy-based into other growth areas because they're scared to death that America's wising up.
	So the U.S. labor market expanded in June, 222,000 jobs.
	That was far better than what Wall Street was anticipating.
	The unemployment rate historic lows.
	More importantly, the labor participation rate.
	We have more people in the labor force than we had before.
	We have the lowest number of people on food stamps than in seven years.
	The average hourly wage, which is important to the forgotten men and women of this country, that's up 2.5%.
	One of the key missing ingredients under the Obama years.
	And another sign of strength, average hours worked also grew in June.
	Average work week for employees on private non-farm payrolls rose to 34.5 hours in June.
	In manufacturing, the work week edged up to 40.8 hours.
	Average work week for production and non-supervisory employees on a private non-farm payroll, that's up to 34 hours.
	How do people work 34 hours a week?
	I mean, I work 34 hours if I could in a day.
	I know there's only 24, Hannity.
	You're not so smart.
	Can't get it up.
	The stuff that they nitpick on me is hilarious.
	The health center, healthcare sector, rather, added 37,000 jobs in June.
	By the way, it's going to be a growing sector with the baby boomers now growing older every day.
	I'm sorry it's good news.
	I'm sorry I'm not breaking bad news here on the program, but it's just a fact.
	You know, I look at what's happening in this country, and then I just sit there, I am bewildered because the things that I advocate, by the way, please key in.
	Will somebody please call Senator John McCain's office, Sean Hannity, is talking about how we can help the forgotten men and women that actually mattered in this election and offering solutions to America's problems.
	Stop listening to the bombastic loud mouse on the radio television and the internet.
	Wait.
	To hell with them.
	Hell with me.
	They don't want anything done for the public good.
	Our incapacity is their livelihood.
	Our incapacity is their livelihood.
	Okay, well, healthcare is going up 30%, Senator, next year.
	And if current trends continue, that means your state of Arizona got 116.
	Let's say it's the 30 on average.
	Okay, that's 146% increase in healthcare.
	Great job, Senator.
	I think you should give him some credit, though, just a little bit.
	I mean, he did admit his incapacity.
	Okay, all I'm saying is keep your word.
	And this is what's missing.
	They're missing, okay, let's balance a budget, live within our means, cut one penny out of every dollar, and don't have baseline budgeting.
	That's a Hannity solution so we don't rob our children.
	Pretty fair.
	15% corporate tax rate.
	Wow.
	Corporations will be investing unbelievably, you know, unbelievable amounts of money.
	Repatriate trillions abroad.
	Multinationals, trillions will be invested in factories and manufacturing centers.
	Repeal, replace health care, create competition, lower costs, health savings, healthcare cooperatives.
	Oh, that's going to be like the biggest tax cut Americans have ever had.
	These are solutions, Senator, to problems.
	We go through them all the time.
	Energy independence.
	I've been literally screaming this for years.
	The money is under our feet.
	We own it.
	It's ours.
	Let's use it.
	It's so dumb not to.
	Oh, education back to the states.
	I'm all for it.
	These idiots in Washington don't have a clue.
	Securing our country and building a wall.
	And I like the president's plan today.
	He has what he calls the RAISE Act.
	We'll discuss, let's do that.
	But the media doesn't want solutions.
	They don't.
	Democrats don't want to do anything.
	They think that's the plan to win.
	Good luck with that plan.
	Republicans are too weak and too spineless and too visionless.
	And they're a party without identity.
	But what I just outlined for you, it's not that hard.
	What's so hard about anything I just said?
	It's not hard.
	Covert operative Mitch Rapp is ready for anything, but this time, the enemy is ready for him.
	Read Order to Kill, the explosive new novel in Vince Flynn's number one New York Times best-selling Mitch Rapp series.
	Because of unscrupulous members of the Pakistani Secret Service, Rapp finds himself chasing false leads in an effort to keep Pakistani nukes from falling into the hands of terrorists.
	Soon, it becomes alarmingly clear that the forces in Moscow are bent on fomenting even more chaos and turmoil in the Middle East.
	And Rapp must go deep into Iraqi territory, posing as an American ISIS recruit.
	There, he uncovers a plan more dangerous and insidious than he ever expected.
	One that could have far-reaching and catastrophic consequences.
	Written with the same relentless action as Vince Flynn's greatest novels, Mitch Rapp's latest adventure is as timely and provocative as ever.
	Order to Kill, a mid-trapped novel by Kyle Mills, is now in paperback wherever books are sold.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-SHAWN.
	I can't wait.
	I'm going to play this at the bottom of the hour.
	There was such a great beatdown video that I caught up with.
	This was in October before the election, Congressman Ratcliffe with James Comey.
	And I want to just point something out.
	I am convinced now more than ever that the things that we are talking about that everybody else is trying to ignore as they focus on palace intrigue process and nothing about the president's success or policies and, of course, Russia, Russia, Russia.
	I'm just, you mark my words here.
	What you saw yesterday with the unmasking of an issue involving Ben Rhodes on top of Susan Rice, on top of the FBI general counsel, and him being involved, James Baker, him being involved in possible intelligence leaks, just like Comey and the Records Act and the Espionage Act.
	And just like we keep saying, 33,000 deleted emails, acid wash, bleach bit, you know, what do you call them, servers and computers.
	Then you've got devices, BlackBerry's iPhones smashed with hammers, according to all these reports.
	And then you get the FBI getting devices without SIM cards.
	And then Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her IT guy, double billing, stays on the payroll.
	And how did that happen?
	And his connections and people that had no qualifications for the job, you know, getting paid huge sums of money.
	And then, of course, real collusion with Ukraine and the DNC operative meeting with the Ukrainian ambassador at the Ukrainian embassy and political reports.
	It goes back to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	And then I think the biggest of them all is Uranium One.
	And that is the pay-to-play, quid pro quo, the Clinton Foundation kickback, and the fact that the Clintons were offering favors to some of their big donors while she was in office.
	Statute of limitations haven't worn out, although conspiracy statutes, of course, go way beyond, quote, the so-called statute, so it doesn't matter.
	But the idea, she signs off, 20%, America's uranium, to Vladimir.
	Now, it's a big, long list of it.
	And what I am saying is, stay with us.
	Everything you're hearing here, and we've been telling you, and Ben Rhodes was just a small sampling yesterday, is a preview of what I know are coming attractions.
	I will be vindicated on so many different levels, I promise you.
	And the great thing is, I'm able to share with you, bring you in the inner circle here, and tell you everything that I know from my secret sources, and we'll continue to stay on it.
	Holding them accountable.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean, our number.
	You want to be a part of this extravaganza?
	Congressman Ratcliffe, God bless this guy.
	This was just before the election in 2016.
	And he's talking to James Comey.
	You know, the guy that was writing on the government computer, government information, secrets with the president, classified some of it, and then leaked it through his friend of the New York Times, that guy.
	Not the guy, James Baker, the general counsel, is now being accused of leaking information, intelligence information.
	Not to be, you know, in any way tied to Loretta Lynch, who met on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.
	Not, and then, of course, called it a matter, and James Comey just called it a matter.
	Not to in any way be associated with Ben Rhodes, who is now being investigated for unmasking, not to be confused with Susan Rice, similar issue.
	Not to be, you know, I don't want this in any way sort of to make you think the 350% increase in unmasking leading up to an election and surveillance of opposition candidates.
	I'm not talking about that issue.
	I'm not talking about deleting 33,000 emails and destroying the hard drives with acid wash, bleach bid, or then destroying with hammers Blackberries and IPhones and then handing over to the FBI devices without SIM cards, or having Debbie Wasserman Schultz, double-billing IT guy, who has guys that work at McDonald's and car dealerships that are on the payroll at the top rate and the $4 million they got paid,
	and he gave $300,000 to Pakistan and sent it for himself and was going to get out of the country and then, of course, they found government hard drives smashed and bashed in his garage.
	And not to be confused with this woman from the DNC who's paid over $400,000, who meets at the Ukrainian embassy with the Ukrainian ambassador and the politico says is reporting back to the DNC and Hillary, not to be confused with Uranium One and that whole deal, which I've gone into great detail about and 20% of the foundational material of nuclear weapons handed over to Vladimir.
	You know, not to be confused with any of that, but the one thing he does talk about is Hillary.
	And if you look at Hillary and you look at Debbie Wasserman Schultz, what is it about Democrats?
	That they bash devices with hammers, they delete things, they acid wash, bleach bit them, and they have IT guys that have government hard drives in their garage smashed into smithereens.
	And because I dare to bring this up, I am a bad person.
	Hang on a second.
	Ow!
	No, I'm not really hitting myself.
	I'm obviously a different person because, you know, I see this as Congressman Ratcliffe.
	I actually see real crimes here.
	Real need for Republicans to step up and use the power of subpoena, their investigative authority, to get to the truth so we don't have a two-tiered justice system.
	So we have equal justice under the law in America.
	And it's not just about 11 months of Russia and Rachel Maddow conspiracy theories and MSNBC conspiracy theories and CNN conspiracy theories and deep state leaks, 125 leaks in 126 days and abusing the tools of intelligence to go after the American people and all that sort of thing.
	Seven times what happened in the previous two administrations.
	Do you know how hard it is to remember all of this?
	It's not hard for me because this is what I do.
	But that's what we're now up against.
	This is now, that's the synopsis of what we need to be looking into.
	On top of Republicans, it'd be nice if they'd actually legislate.
	It'd be nice if we didn't have a 30% cross-the-board average increase in healthcare premiums again next year.
	It'd be nice if we'd move towards balancing a budget and living within our means.
	It'd be nice for corporations to have a tax so that they can invest the money into factories and hire American workers and manufacturing centers and hire more American workers.
	It would be nice to have trillions of repatriated dollars from multinationals that will just pour money into the U.S. and help those people that we love, our friends and our neighbors and our coworkers.
	And I know people have been fired to Camp Find Work.
	I've never, although things are actually beginning to turn, I've actually been in a position the last 25 years of my life to help people that are out of work to contact me to get jobs.
	And it's a great feeling to be able to do that.
	And it's gotten harder during the Obama years, a lot harder, and I've been unsuccessful at times, which annoys me.
	I don't like to fail.
	Listen to Congressman Ratcliffe and see if you this is right before James Comey's face.
	He does this.
	Listen to this.
	At this point, based on everything, do you think that any laws were broken by Hillary Clinton or her lawyers?
	Do I think that any laws were broken?
	I don't think there's evidence to establish that.
	Okay.
	Well, I think you're making my point when you say there's no evidence to establish that.
	Maybe not in the way she handled classified information, but with respect to obstruction of justice, and you've got a pen here.
	I just want to make sure the record's clear about the evidence that you didn't have that you can't use to prove.
	So this comes from the FBI's own report.
	It says that the FBI didn't have the Clinton's personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton work emails.
	That was never located, so the FBI could never examine it.
	An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton's email archives was lost, so the FBI never examined that.
	Two BlackBerry devices, provided the FBI didn't have SIM cards or SD data cards.
	13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded, or destroyed with a hammer, so the FBI clearly didn't examine those.
	Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI didn't examine that.
	After the State Department and my colleague Mr. Gowdy here notified Ms. Clinton that her records would be sought by the Benghazi Committee, copies of her emails on the laptops of both of her lawyers, Sherry Mills and Harold Mills, and Heather Samuelson, were wiped clean with bleach bits, so the FBI didn't review that.
	After those emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton's email archive was also permanently deleted from the Platte River network with bleach bit, so the FBI didn't review that.
	And also after the subpoena, backups of the Platte River server were manually deleted.
	Now, Director, hopefully that list is substantially accurate because it comes from your own documents.
	My question to you is this: any one of those in that very, very long list to me says obstruction of justice.
	Collectively, they scream obstruction of justice.
	And to ignore them, I think, really allows not just reasonable prosecutors, but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
	Wow.
	That was before the election.
	You know, I know that it's really amazing the world we live in because what we're up against, so you know, in the media is a bunch of sheep.
	I'm serious.
	It's like it's groupthink.
	It's indoctrination.
	It's like a mass hypnosis.
	And they just do the same thing, the same thing over and over and over.
	And there's no free thinking out there.
	I've actually had conversations with people in the media at times, and I'm like, you want to be different?
	Stop hanging out with those other people in your profession.
	Don't hang out with them.
	Because if you watch, you can see it very clearly on Twitter.
	I've been pretty quiet on Twitter lately because I've been really busy.
	I'm just trying to work harder and smarter.
	And if I get into these Twitter fights, that's like three hours of my life.
	And I love it because it's entertaining as hell.
	And I love, I absolutely love being in fights on Twitter because for me, they're fun, but for the egomaniacs I work with in the media, they can't handle it.
	And they bubble and fizz like Alka-Seltzer.
	And every ego is very predictable.
	And they're all egomaniacs, so you know they can't stand it.
	You know that Liberal Joe's trying to use his perch over there at NBC to run for president.
	He thinks he should be president.
	I'll stop it.
	Enough.
	We don't need the monkey house president here mystified.
	We don't need it.
	So I'm only saying this.
	I'm only going to give you this little bit of a track record because I think it's important that you stay with me on these things because I know more than I can tell.
	Oh, you're talking to the White House.
	No.
	But I do talk to sources.
	I do my own work regularly.
	And I have sources that others don't have.
	That's just a fact.
	And I dig deeper than a lot of these people in the media do because they're lazy sheep and they just copy each other on Twitter and then they repeat the same thing and they retweet each other and everything.
	You tweet me and I'll tweet you.
	It's like kindergarten with these people.
	That's why I never wanted to go to a White House correspondence dinner.
	I'm proud I never did.
	But I just want to remind you, in case those of you out there have doubts, I am not worried about the president.
	I'm not worried about his administration.
	I'm not worried about where this is headed.
	I'm not worried about Russia.
	But I would be worried if I'm Hillary Clinton.
	I would be worried if I worried if I'm a deep state leaker.
	I would be worried if I'm Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	I would be worried if I'm a DNC operative that met with the Ukrainian ambassador in the Ukrainian embassy.
	James Comey, I'd be worried.
	James Baker, general counsel, I'd be worried.
	If I was involved, some of you, and I know names involved in Uranium One, and you people don't even think I know, and you're up to your eyeballs in the fact that you didn't go forward with Hillary Clinton and you think your name's not going to be revealed, you are clueless.
	And those of you in D.C., you know who you are.
	You know exactly high-ranking people.
	And if you're Susan Rice and you're Ben Rhodes and your others and James Clapper and Brennan, if you did things wrong, don't think you were clever enough that you covered your tracks with the deep state deep enough.
	You didn't.
	And if you think that the rigged election with Hillary Clinton is not going to be revealed in full, you're not thinking deeply enough.
	So just to give you some background, when I was in Atlanta and Richard Jewell was labeled by the Atlanta Journal Constitution as the lone bomber because he lived with his mother, I was on the radio at the time and I said, that doesn't make you the lone bomber.
	And I asked questions.
	Richard Jewell was listening that day.
	I learned a lesson that stuck with me the rest of my life.
	One day later, many years later, or a year or two later, he thanked me.
	Said, thank you.
	Like the year later, I interviewed him.
	I think I had the first interview with him on the Fox News.
	Came up to Fox to do the interview with me.
	He was innocent.
	He was actually a hero.
	When we vetted Obama, Alinsky, Acorn, Reverend Wright, his radical background, Frank Marshall Davis, black liberation theology, Ayrs and Dorn, I was told by friends of mine not to touch it.
	Out on a limb.
	Proved right.
	He was a rigid ideologue that had absolutely no pragmatic side to him.
	The eight-year statistics that I gave all last year about how bad he did, not even including Iran and other things, it speaks for itself.
	He didn't have Bill Clinton's corruption.
	He didn't have Bill Clinton's pragmatic side.
	You know, other issues have come up like Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
	And we withheld, all we did was withhold judgment.
	Harvard police, Cambridge police acting stupidly.
	The president rushed to judgment.
	President rushed to judgment on Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
	I interviewed George Zimmerman.
	I did it with an open mind.
	And we had an eyewitness that saw Trayvon grounding and pounding his head into cement.
	And George Zimmerman on tape screaming, oops, that changes everybody's perspective.
	Everyone thought it'd be guilty verdicts.
	Ferguson immediately was that first day, hands up, don't shoot.
	Turns out we had many African-American eyewitnesses that said that this guy reached into Darren Wilson's car and tried to, what's it, Michael Brown reached into Darren Wilson's car and tried to steal his gun.
	That's where the first shot went off.
	And that, in fact, he charged Darren Wilson.
	And that hands-up, don't shoot, never happened.
	And then the video of him intimidating a clerk and robbing the store.
	And then we were right about Freddie Gray.
	And once we got some details on Freddie Gray, I went out there with a bold prediction, they're never going to be convicted.
	And then we've got the Duke LaCrosse case, and we kept an open mind about that.
	I actually took time at the time, and I went to see the kids.
	But you didn't know that, did you?
	Because I didn't tell you at the time.
	And I met their families, and I gathered my own evidence.
	And then I realized there's no way that happened the way they said.
	And then I predicted Donald Trump could be president.
	Now, I'm not patting myself on the back here.
	I'm saying we do things differently on this program.
	And we're doing them differently now.
	Nobody is talking about these things that we are.
	But I'm telling you, pay close attention.
	Uranium 1.
	Pay very uranium 1.
	Very close attention to things that are happening.
	I'm not giving ⁇ and by the way, a lot of other things.
	Deep state.
	Hang in there.
	All right, a lot going on today.
	News and information you won't get in the mainstream media.
	I got to give Congressman Trent Franks, he's going to join us in the next hour at some point.
	He is pointing out something that most people don't know, that Mueller's got to go because it's a clear violation of federal code what he's doing because of his conflict of interest.
	And why he doesn't go based on what the law says is sort of mind-numbing to me to begin with.
	I don't understand.
	And on top of that, we need second and third and fourth and fifth and seventh and tenth special counsels.
	But as a matter of law, it is mandatory that he shall disqualify himself, 28 CFR 607, 28 CFRR 452.
	That the language is he shall disqualify himself because he has a personal relationship with somebody involved in the case.
	That's James Comey.
	But when we come back, Sarah Carter, circa news, Tom Fitton, did you know that Ben Rhodes, on top of Susan Rice, that they now are being investigated for unmasking, just like the general counsel, FBI leaking intel.
	We're getting there.
	At this point, based on everything, do you think that any laws were broken by Hillary Clinton or her lawyers?
	Do I think that any laws were broken?
	I don't think there's evidence to establish that.
	Okay.
	Well, I think you're making my point when you say there's no evidence to establish that.
	Maybe not in the way she handled classified information, but with respect to obstruction of justice, and you've got a pen here.
	I just want to make sure the record's clear about the evidence that you didn't have that you can't use to prove.
	So this comes from the FBI's own report.
	Says that the FBI didn't have the Clinton's personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton work emails.
	That was never located, so the FBI could never examine it.
	An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton's email archives was lost, so the FBI never examined that.
	Two BlackBerry devices, provided the FBI didn't have SIM cards or SD data cards.
	13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded, or destroyed with a hammer, so the FBI clearly didn't examine those.
	Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI didn't examine that.
	After the State Department and my colleague Mr. Gowdy here notified Ms. Clinton that her records would be sought by the Benghazi Committee, copies of her emails on the laptops of both of her lawyers, Sherry Mills and Harold Mills, and Heather Samuelson, were wiped clean with bleach bit, so the FBI didn't review that.
	After those emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton's email archive was also permanently deleted from the Platte River Network with bleach bit, so the FBI didn't review that.
	And also after the subpoena, backups of the Platte River server were manually deleted.
	Now, Director, hopefully that list is substantially accurate because it comes from your own documents.
	My question to you is this: any one of those in that very, very long list to me says obstruction of justice.
	Collectively, they scream obstruction of justice.
	And to ignore them, I think, really allows not just reasonable prosecutors, but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
	All right, that is probably the defining indictment against Hillary Clinton and the defining moment about obstruction and lying and bleach bit and asset washing and deletions and hammers and smashing hard drives and all of this that has happened.
	But no, it's still Russia, Russia, Russia, never ending.
	Now, the big story that we have been working on today is also the new revelation, Sarah Carter, circa.com, about unmasking.
	And we've talked about Susan Rice, and we've talked about, well, let's see, the Clapper, and we've talked about Admiral Rogers, and we've talked about Devin Nunez.
	For example, and Admiral Rogers wrote, or Devin Nunez wrote Admiral Rogers saying specifically, please provide a total number of unmasking requests made by Ben Rhodes, the former assistant to the president, deputy national security advisor.
	Okay?
	Yeah, why did we have a 350% increase only during the election season of 2015 and 16?
	How is that possible?
	How is it that Americans now are not only being surveilled without any warrants, okay, if they're picked up incidentally in some type of legitimate NSA surveillance of the enemies of this country?
	Okay, I can understand that.
	We accept that.
	But there are certain processes that need to take place.
	Like we're supposed to minimize the American on that side of that conversation.
	We're not supposed to unmask their identity unless there's a very, very specific need.
	Why did James Clapper make it easier to do unmasking?
	Why was Susan Rice involved in this?
	Why was Ben Rhodes involved in this?
	You know, who's looking into these issues?
	And on top of that, we've got the intelligence leaks.
	Like in the case of General Flynn, nobody seems to care about the one felony we know committed here.
	And that was against General Flynn when they leaked raw intelligence about him.
	Sarah Carter, circanews.com is with us.
	Tom Fitten of Judicial Watch.
	All right, I think your last two articles have been massive.
	One is we've got an investigation into James Baker, who is the general counsel of the FBI, and whether he was leaking intelligence.
	That is a massive story.
	And then now we have, on top of Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes is a person of interest in the unmasking investigation.
	And this is everything that we have been discussing is coming, and now it's here.
	Sarah Carter, tell everybody why this is so important.
	Well, particularly when it comes to Ben Rhodes, Sean, I mean, he's an aide.
	We know he was a national, you know, he worked with Susan Rice and others.
	He was a President Obama's aide.
	It is not common for Ben Rhodes or even Susan Rice or UN Ambassador then, UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Brennan even, to be unmasking at the rate that they believe they were unmasking.
	And now we can see, based on what the intelligence community has, you know, committee has put out there that there were hundreds of unmaskings.
	A lot of them centered around Trump and the people in his circle.
	And they appear, because remember, these are classified, so they have to go view these documents in a skiff.
	They can't share these documents outside of those protected walls.
	But it appears that a lot of this didn't have anything to do with national security issues.
	And this is alleged.
	They don't have anything to do with it, national security issues or anything of that matter.
	But instead, they appear to be very curious.
	It appears to be that they were unmasking people in the Trump campaign then and people surrounding Trump and looking at personal, maybe phone calls, emails, things of that nature.
	So there definitely needs to be an investigation into this.
	But we saw the biggest concerns is political espionage.
	But you reported with John Solomon a 350% increase in unmasking just during the political season.
	You both.
	That was from 2011 until the end of the presidency.
	What we did see was that massive increase after they relaxed the laws and then a super increase during the election season where a large majority of unmaskings occurred was from those dates.
	And this is one of the reasons why I believe the House Intelligence Committee is asking for a specific date.
	With Ben Rhodes, it's very specific.
	It's that last year from January 1st, 2016 to January 20th.
	What about 2017?
	What about an early report when I first started interviewing you and John was that, in fact, Trump power during the transition, that there was a Pfizer warrant that was granted in association with this and some type of other criminal warrant, but it didn't deal specifically with the president-elect himself.
	Did we ever find out what those were about?
	What we do know, and this is what we did know when we started to investigate that, that it was a server off of Trump Tower that was connected to Trump Tower, that they went into the server and they looked inside that server, and then they immediately pulled out when they didn't find anything.
	At least that's what we were told.
	And that is how that investigation went.
	So they went into the server.
	They went into a Trump Tower server, which was located outside of Trump Tower.
	They viewed material inside that server and felt that there was nothing significant there and then backed away.
	But remember, there's a lot of pieces of this puzzle that, I mean, are a mystery to everyone.
	We're trying to connect these dots.
	And every day something new comes out.
	And every day we discover something more.
	You talked about it like peeling back an onion.
	And I think that that's the right way to approach it because we're peeling back an onion layer by layer, ensuring that what we're looking at is factual and what we get out is factual and what they did is exposed if it needs to be.
	So we look at this, the unmaskings, we started out with Susan Rice.
	Eventually that led to others like John Brennan.
	We saw a lot of officials unmasking.
	A lot of these rules that were relaxed were signed.
	We have the documents, I mean, by Loretta Lynch, the AG, and then by Brennan himself.
	We saw the relaxed rules at the CIA.
	We know that the FBI was conducting warrantless searches, which the FISA courts, which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, this very secret court, chided them about and said that this was unacceptable, sharing information with outside parties, one which was a forbidden party.
	So there is more than enough here to say there really need to be a serious investigation.
	And the American people deserve to know what was going on.
	What should take Tom Fitton and all of this?
	Where is it going to end up?
	Well, the trick is, is their special counsel going to look at this?
	Because right now, there is no other vehicle for examining these issues.
	And I don't trust Mr. Mueller to look at this.
	Remember, the first abuse on FISA that people knew about in a large way was the targeting of James Rosen, where they accused him falsely of being a foreign agent in a court filing related to a FISA warrant.
	And whose FBI was behind that?
	Mueller's.
	So do you trust Mr. Mueller, who is a former, who's looking to become FBI director and obviously is still close to the agency, to look at what the FBI was up to under President Obama.
	By all reports, Sarah, and I'm sure you agree, the FBI has been stonewalling information requests about this issue, and they're covering up their role in the NIFA masking scandal and the targeting and who knows what related to the leaks related to all of that.
	And this ought to be the focus, in addition to the issues with the conflict with Mueller, is getting the special counsel to look at the serious crimes out there as opposed to the unicorn theory of the election and the unicorn theory of the Russian collusion that is obviously the target of the day.
	You know, Sarah, I'm looking at Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.
	Or, of course, palace intrigue is the next biggest thing that the media is fixated on.
	Not the success of the president, but more importantly, not how the DNC operative went to the Ukrainian ambassador and met in the Ukrainian embassy and reported back to the DNC and to Hillary's campaign, as Politico reported.
	Not the Uranium One deal, which I think is the most outrageous in terms of a pay-to-play kickback scam with $145 million, not the deleted emails, bleach-bit hard drives, busted up recording devices or phones and BlackBerries or Debbie Washerman Schultz's case, not the general counsel of the FBI, not Loretta Lynch, not James Comey.
	There's real evidence in all of these cases, but nobody in the media seems to want to pursue the truth at all.
	Well, this is something that, I mean, the FBI or anybody else with common sense would want to investigate.
	I know there are people within the FBI, good people, good agents, people that want to do their job within the Bureau that believed there was enough evidence to bring a case to a grand jury on the Clinton Foundation and on many other issues.
	And so we look at this on its face, Sean.
	They're going after President Trump and basing this on what now we know to believe and believe to be an erroneous dossier filled with lies, which we have been told by people in law enforcement, over-exaggerated.
	So they're using a dossier or they use this dossier to move forward with an investigation.
	Hold on on the dossier.
	Yeah.
	Now hold on on the dossier.
	We've got bills to pay here.
	We'll continue with Sarah Carter and Tom Fitton and a lot more.
	Oh, Congressman Trent Franks is going to join us at Arizona.
	Rightfully, he's outraged that Mueller is allowed to stay on a special counsel and he's citing laws that demand that he step down.
	And as the law says, that it's not really an option in any way, shape, matter, or form that he himself must resign.
	Otherwise, it's a clear violation of law.
	We'll get into that.
	All right, as we continue with Sarah Carter with Circa.com and Tom Fitton is with Judicial Watch.
	We're talking about this fusion GPS group.
	That's another thing that needs to be investigated.
	And you got this former MI6 spy comes up with this dossier, got some of the information from Russians.
	And didn't he pay people for some of that information?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	He paid people for some of that information.
	And another thing that is fascinating here is that nobody's looking at this as if you want to look at a Russian operation, they were trying to disparage President Trump during the campaign.
	So it kind of moots the idea that it would be an operation to put Trump in office, right?
	And if you look at the history of Fusion GPS and the connections they have with Russia, and I mean, down to Natalia Veselnitskaya, the woman that everyone has been talking about, the Russian lawyer, the McGinsky Act and Prebizon Holdings, all of these connect back to Russia.
	So it kind of takes that idea away.
	Now, if they're willing to look at this erroneous dossier, the salacious dossier, as everyone wants to call it, as some type of platform to conduct an investigation, Sean, isn't it curious that with all of the information out there on the Hillary Clinton Foundation, the questions that still arise out of the Uranium One deal, the deals with Ukraine, on and on and on, there's not one special counsel or no investigation that we know of into any of those deals.
	If a dossier that's been now disproven is the reason that all of this started for President Trump, I'm just saying, let's be equal here.
	That's so well said.
	That's what I've been saying.
	Tom, you actually were able to, through Freedom of Information Act requests, to get info on Hillary Clinton emails.
	Again, top secret, classified special access program information that we didn't even know about until you got them.
	Tell us about it.
	Yeah, well, there's 22 or so TCI classified materials on her system.
	And now just today, we found more records from Yuma Abedin's email account, which was also on Hillary Clinton's secret system, where there was classified information on it.
	So she's getting and receiving, both Aberdeen and Mrs. Clinton are getting and receiving classified information, and it's coming out and drips and drips through the Freedom Information Act process.
	And in addition, there's all this new pay-for-play material where everyone is going through the Clinton Foundation, who are big donors, to get favors from the State Department.
	So why is it now this Justice Department, after six or seven months of disclosure after disclosure of more misconduct by Mrs. Clinton and her people, not taking steps necessary to figure out what went on here?
	You know, I think the White House needs to order the Justice Department to do this because it is not going to be done on its own.
	And you've got to wonder who's running the show over there.
	You know, I think Senator Sessions, or Attorney General Sessions now, has recused himself also from the Clinton email matters.
	So it's a double issue in terms of lack of leadership at the Justice Department.
	And Rosenstein has his own issues because he's implicated in the mess of the Mueller appointment.
	In the end, though, the Justice Department is responsible for doing this, and they need to prove to us, the American people, that the techniques isn't still infecting their investment.
	Well, it's called equal justice under the law, Tom.
	Well, you guys have both done phenomenal work.
	Really appreciate you being with us.
	800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we're going to look at all the legal aspects of this and the weak side of the Republican Party.
	We have Joe DeGenova and Victoria Tunsinger going to stop by.
	Quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We've got an amazing Hannity tonight at 10.
	about that and more straight ahead.
	America deserves to know the truth about Congress.
	At this point, based on everything, do you think that any laws were broken by Hillary Clinton or her lawyers?
	Do I think any laws were broken?
	I don't think there's evidence to establish that.
	Okay.
	Well, I think you're making my point when you say there's no evidence to establish that.
	Maybe not in the way she handled classified information, but with respect to obstruction of justice, and you've got a pen here.
	I just want to make sure the record's clear about the evidence that you didn't have that you can't use to prove.
	So this comes from the FBI's own report.
	It says that the FBI didn't have the Clinton's personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton work emails.
	That was never located, so the FBI could never examine it.
	An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton's email archives was lost, so the FBI never examined that.
	Two BlackBerry devices, provided the FBI didn't have SIM cards or SD data cards.
	13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded, or destroyed with a hammer, so the FBI clearly didn't examine those.
	Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI didn't examine that.
	After the State Department and my colleague Mr. Gowdy here notified Ms. Clinton that her records would be sought by the Benghazi Committee, copies of her emails on the laptops of both of her lawyers, Sherry Mills and Harold Mills, and Heather Samuelson, were wiped clean with bleach bit, so the FBI didn't review that.
	After those emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton's email archive was also permanently deleted from the Platte River network with bleach bit, so the FBI didn't review that.
	And also after the subpoena, backups of the Platte River server were manually deleted.
	Now, Director, hopefully that list is substantially accurate because it comes from your own documents.
	My question to you is this: any one of those in that very, very long list to me says obstruction of justice.
	Collectively, they scream obstruction of justice.
	And to ignore them, I think, really allows not just reasonable prosecutors, but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
	All right, 25.
	Well, 24 now till the top of the hour.
	That was Congressman Ratcliffe.
	I think one of the most concise, hardest-hitting takedowns of Hillary Clinton and obstruction of justice I've ever seen in my entire life or heard in my entire life.
	There is a video of it.
	Linda, if we get time later, maybe we'll link it on Hannity.com and maybe we can even tweet that out because I think that's just a great idea.
	But it is everything you need to know.
	Oh, we got Debbie Wasserman Schultz smashing, or all those IT guys smashing hard drives.
	Well, at least hard drives, government hard drives smashed in his garage.
	How did it get there?
	Then you got, let's see, BlackBerry's other devices smashed with hammers.
	Then we've got deletions, 33 plus thousands.
	Then we got bleach pit, acid washing.
	And then we've got, oh, let's send these phones over to the FBI.
	And what do we do there?
	We send them over to the FBI, and the FBI says, what?
	Oh, geez, there's no SIM card in here.
	Now, Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona has done something that I think has needed to be done for a while.
	And he sits on the House Judiciary Committee.
	That's the same committee, by the way, demanding Comey and Clinton and Loretta Lynch and others that, in fact, they be subpoenaed and brought in and talk about what are potential crimes that they are involved in.
	Anyway, he sits on the Judiciary Committee.
	He's called upon Robert Mueller to resign as the special counsel in the Russia investigation.
	And he cited very specific laws governing the special counsel, 28 CFR 600.7 interpreted even the appearance of conflict is sufficient for qualifying as a violation.
	The same code of federal regulations defines what constitutes a conflict, and that is a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or the prosecution.
	In the same code, 28 CFR 45.2, the same passage's language is mandatory saying the employee shall disqualify himself, not should.
	It's not a suggestion.
	It is shall.
	That means do when you look at legal language.
	And he's in clear violation of law, but that's not the only issues that I have brought up, and that is the group of people that, in fact, Mueller is surrounding himself with.
	And that is, let's see, Hillary Clinton's own lawyer who worked at the Clinton Foundation.
	We got, what, 16 lawyers?
	The vast majority of them have donated to Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Democrats significant amounts of money.
	Well, if the deck isn't stacked there, if that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
	I give Congressman Trent Franks a lot of props here because I've been trying to get people's attention on this now for a long time.
	And, Congressman, I give you a lot of credit because you're doing the right thing and you're actually following the law.
	Well, Sean, thanks for having me on.
	I appreciate it so much.
	And I have to tell you that after hearing the opening that you did with Congressman Ratcliffe and your own dialogue there, it's really hard for me to know how to add a whole lot because it was so compelling what you've already said.
	But I'm just convinced sometimes there's two reasons why there's such a dual standard here, because the dual standard is obvious to any reasonable observer.
	One of them is that our friends on the left are committed to rule or ruin, no matter what.
	They're willing to just, their commitment to power is so significant that they simply do not hold themselves constrained to the truth, and they are intense and they are committed.
	And unfortunately, the second reason is sometimes Republicans are not.
	We're so busy trying to look respectable that we forget to speak the truth.
	We forget to tell it like it is.
	And I think sometimes we become sort of victims of our own decency or our own desire to look respectable.
	One probably perfect example, you know, Senator Sessions is a personal friend of mine.
	I love this man.
	He's a great man.
	But I think he kind of got kind of caught as a victim of his own decency, really, because he was trying to do everything absolutely ethical and step back from anything that looked, you know, like there was some duplicity or some bias or some conflict.
	Now, he was really committed to that.
	And yet what that did is it put the hands in the hands of someone that was really, even though they worked in other administrations, an Obama holdover that appointed this special counsel that Comey suggested was his reason for creating leaks, was to try to create a special counsel.
	And so the president just kind of got hung out to dry here.
	And I know this president doesn't speak diplomat, but you've got to call things for what they are.
	And there's an injustice here that's occurring.
	It'd almost be like having a jury.
	Let's say there was some type of political issue.
	And by the way, liberals would love this.
	And I'm on trial and I'm being charged and there's a jury.
	And let's just put Democrats and Bernie Sanders and Hillary and Obama supporters on the jury.
	Would that be a fair trial for me?
	No, and you know, it's a perfect example of what you're bringing up because Mr. Mueller, if this were a court case, would be eliminated as a juror because of the obvious bias that he has.
	This notion that you can have a close, personal, long-term friendship with the guy that's really the only main witness in this presidential discussion that ostensibly took place.
	He has to judge between those two as to which one is telling the truth.
	And that has a clear impact on his motivation in which way that the case goes or which way that his discussions go and how he proceeds to prosecute or investigate the case.
	So there is a clear, clear conflict here, and Mr. Mueller would never be allowed on a jury that would adjudicate this case.
	What do you make?
	Is it true?
	And there were reports that Comey and Mueller met before he spoke and gave testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	Is that confirmed?
	I've heard that same thing, Sean.
	And my background is engineering, and we try to stick to what we do know and what we don't know.
	And so I'm not going to speak to that directly, but I think it's certainly an object that should be considered.
	I mean, it says it should be investigated.
	We should ascertain whether that's true or not.
	Now, we do know, we've ascertained that in a government car and a government computer, and we have the Records Act, that James Comey wrote these notes after seeing then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
	That's a violation of law to leak that to the press, isn't it?
	Or a violation of the Records Act?
	To use the government resources like that, I absolutely believe is at least a technical violation of the law.
	But here's what's astonishing to me.
	In open committee, Mr. Comey said that the reason he deliberately leaked or caused this to be leaked, he used a friend to cause this to be leaked was because he hoped that a special counsel would be appointed.
	And then, surprise, surprise, that special counsel happens to be someone that is a very close friend of his.
	I've seen excerpts of their conversations, transcripts of conversations, and this is a close friend.
	And to suggest that somehow now that Mr. Mueller is going to be an unbiased or unconflict, conflicted leader of this investigation is just ridiculous.
	It's just not possible.
	And no matter what a person might say, without attacking Mr. Mueller's motivations, I mean, no man knows the other man's heart, but any reasonable or even unreasonable person should be able to say there's clearly an appearance of conflict, and that alone is enough for him to be legally required to resign.
	Well, I agree on all fronts here, and I think the conflicts are obvious.
	Do you believe if he doesn't do what you're saying, and you've cited the law here, what is the penalty?
	And again, the law says shall disqualify himself.
	If he doesn't recuse himself, if he doesn't resign, is that a violation of law that is prosecutable?
	Well, I absolutely believe it is.
	And the strange thing about this, you know, the Democrats have been, or the left has been so committed to this total politics of destruction here that we could see a special counsel investigating the special counsel.
	And it's just insane where this is going.
	I said early on, you know, that Mr. Mueller has a good enough reputation, and I don't seek to sully his reputation.
	I truly don't.
	I'm simply saying here that there is a clear conflict, and the appearance of conflict is beyond comprehension, beyond contestation.
	And so he should, for the sake of the law that he says he upholds and wants to uphold, follow that law and step down.
	And I hope that somehow the American people are paying close attention because some of the people.
	I'm not letting it go.
	I'm not letting this go.
	I'm not letting Ukraine go.
	I'm not letting Comey off the hook or Loretta Lynch or Hillary Clinton or any of these Uranium One, deleted emails and obstruction of justice.
	Debbie Wasserman shows, I've never seen such corruption and obstruction in my life, Congressman.
	Never.
	Well, the left is far better at playing this out in the media and in the public square than we are.
	They can do almost anything, and they will rally around Charles Manson in terms of protecting their own.
	And somehow, our friends on the right, that includes me, sometimes we don't look at the big picture and how much is at stake for our children and future generations.
	And we stand there and get so committed to being respectable and not trying to get in the fight and get bloodied up a little bit that we let these things go that the left does that are absolutely off the charts in terms of corruption.
	So I'm glad that you're doing what you're doing, and I hope somehow that we've catalyzed a little closer scrutiny to all of this.
	All right.
	Thank you, Congressman, for what you're doing.
	We really appreciate it.
	Congressman Trent Franks, by the way, bucking a trend of establishmentism in Arizona.
	And you know what I'm talking about, Congressman.
	I won't drag you into it.
	800-941-Sean is a number.
	We'll get to your calls when we get back.
	All right, let's hit the phones here as we say hi to Patty is in Houston, Texas.
	Patty, hi, KTRH.
	What's going on?
	Glad you called, and welcome to the program.
	Thank you, Sean.
	And thanks for taking my call.
	I'm actually on vacation in Montana, and everyone here loves you when we got here.
	Wow.
	The TVs were on.
	The TVs were on Sean Hannity.
	My son-in-law had Hannity on the radio when we got the car.
	So I feel very welcome here, and you should too.
	You know what, Patty?
	I'm going to tell you, when I one day, when my time has come to go off into the pasture and retire, you know what, all I want to do is I want to get away and live in a place like Montana.
	And I want to get a couple of cattle, a little baby ranch, or maybe Texas.
	And I just, I don't want to talk to anybody anymore.
	I'll just go away.
	I'll talk to myself.
	You're going to need that.
	And listen, I love Texas.
	I've been there many, many years, but this is different.
	This is just no one's trying to impress anyone, and it's really not.
	You know what?
	That's real America.
	These are people that work hard, that are responsible, that pay their taxes, obey laws, play by the rules.
	And here's one other thing they do.
	They make this a great country.
	I want to talk to them.
	When I say I don't want to talk to me, I don't want to talk to this.
	I don't want to talk to the people that are pushing and shoving me on the streets of New York or the swamp people and the sewer people in D.C.
	I want to talk to real people.
	So just to clarify.
	I know the property manager here of the place we're staying.
	He started talking about you right off the bat.
	I didn't even ask.
	Wow.
	And he just started going on about, you know, that's the only channel I really need.
	Why do I have cable?
	I only need Sean Hannity.
	Maybe I can get that on YouTube or something.
	It was funny.
	I have a question for you.
	Yes, ma'am.
	And I trust your judgment.
	You know, I think just from hearing me that I'm certainly a Trump supporter.
	I just want your opinion on something because I don't think our president is trying to enlarge his base.
	I know that he's got a strong base.
	I went to a Trump rally in Denver.
	I recognize that.
	But I don't know, and I want you to tell me what you think he's doing to make those people who voted for him, but are kind of cringing every time they hear something that maybe they think, oh, boy, he went two steps forward and now he's one step back.
	Do you think our president's doing everything he can to increase his base?
	The answer is if the president creates millions of high-paying career jobs in the energy industry by becoming energy independent, he'll increase his base.
	If the president gets his economic plan through and is able to get people out of poverty off of food stamps, back in the labor force and buying homes, he'll increase his base.
	If the president succeeds, if he makes a better health care system, for example, he'll increase his base.
	So as long as he fights for the right agenda and wins, and this is where Republicans need to actually do something because they're so pathetic, if he gets his agenda done, he'll increase his base.
	And that is just mathematically a certainty.
	All right, quick break.
	News roundup, information overload.
	A Hannity on-Air fight is coming.
	Emily Scheier and Kevin Jackson next.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right, Sean Hannity Show News Roundup Information Overload Hour 800-941 Sean.
	I want to play this.
	This is so good, Congressman Ratcliffe.
	I want to just play it one more time so you can hear this, and then we'll get to my friends and attorneys, DeGenova and Tunsing.
	Listen to this.
	At this point, based on everything, do you think that any laws were broken by Hillary Clinton or her lawyers?
	Do I think that any laws were broken?
	I don't think there's evidence to establish that.
	Okay.
	Well, I think you're making my point when you say there's no evidence to establish that.
	Maybe not in the way she handled classified information, but with respect to obstruction of justice, and you've got a pen here.
	I just want to make sure the record's clear about the evidence that you didn't have that you can't use to prove.
	So this comes from the FBI's own report.
	It says that the FBI didn't have the Clinton's personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton work emails.
	That was never located, so the FBI could never examine it.
	An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton's email archives was lost, so the FBI never examined that.
	Two BlackBerry devices, provided the FBI didn't have SIM cards or SD data cards.
	13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded, or destroyed with a hammer, so the FBI clearly didn't examine those.
	Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI didn't examine that.
	After the State Department and my colleague Mr. Gowdy here notified Ms. Clinton that her records would be sought by the Benghazi Committee, copies of her emails on the laptops of both of her lawyers, Sherra Mills and Harold Mills, and Heather Samuelson, were wiped clean with bleach bits, so the FBI didn't review that.
	After those emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton's email archive was also permanently deleted from the Platte River network with bleach bit, so the FBI didn't review that.
	And also after the subpoena, backups of the Platte River server were manually deleted.
	Now, Director, hopefully that list is substantially accurate because it comes from your own documents.
	My question to you is this.
	Any one of those in that very, very long list to me says obstruction of justice.
	Collectively, they scream obstruction of justice.
	And to ignore them, I think, really allows not just reasonable prosecutors, but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
	So that just outlines in every bit of detail.
	Joe, what are you doing?
	Are you fixing the microphone?
	What happened over there?
	So I've known Joe DeGenova and Victoria Tunsing, and even though they have different names with Victoria, with Tunsing and DeGenev or DeGenovan Tunsing, how did his name get to go first in this alphabetical?
	Is that how it worked out, seriously?
	You're so full of it.
	Well, the D is small.
	C, in our logo, so it makes it easier to get to the T.
	The T overwhelms the D. You got to speak into the mic.
	I know you're used to being on the phone.
	You can pull it up.
	Don't worry.
	You can move it.
	See?
	There you go.
	The T, Lord, Dover the D. Looms.
	Looms.
	Looms and Lords.
	Looms and Lords over the D. You know, you were, what were you?
	You were associate assistant.
	You were working.
	I was the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
	Okay, U.S. I was Mayor Barry's best friend.
	Oh, my.
	Was that during the she set me up?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Actually, that happened after me, but I did the major investigation into the mirror prior to that.
	Did you know he was doing that stuff?
	Oh, yeah.
	Everybody knew and the police department, and the police department was covering up for him.
	That's what was so disgraceful about it.
	The reason we got so deeply involved was that the cops knew that he was doing cocaine.
	They knew he had a dealer, and they weren't doing anything about it.
	Wow.
	I mean, when you think of the insanity of those that work in this bubble, it's crazy.
	But here's what I want to ask both of you about.
	So we live in a world where the media is fixated on either Palace Intrigue.
	Certainly don't want to say a good thing about the president.
	We live in a world that's Russia, Russia, Russia.
	Now, you guys are both superb lawyers, investigators.
	If I'm in a dogfight, I want you both on my team.
	And here's my question.
	You've got Ukraine collusion in this past election and a DNC operative meeting at the Ukrainian embassy with the Ukrainian ambassador, feeding information back to the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
	You got the whole Uranium One deal.
	Hillary signs off, $145 million kickback to the Clinton Foundation.
	Okay, that looks horrible to me.
	Then you've got Hillary deleting 33,000 emails, bleach-bitting the computers involved in this, hammer-smashing, according to reports, BlackBerries and iPhones, and then sending the FBI devices without SIM cards, which render them useless.
	Then you've got the latest with Debbie Washington Schultz and what she did, and our IT guy smashing those hard drives.
	Then you've got James Comey.
	We got the Records Act.
	This was government information, apparently classified, leaking to the New York Times, setting up a special counsel.
	Then you got Robert Mueller's conflicts.
	Now we've got the leaking with Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice and James Clapper loosening the rules.
	We're unmasking Americans.
	To be honest, it takes a lot of work to keep up with this.
	But in each case I'm describing, we have real evidence, real proof of crimes committed.
	And the only thing we hear about is Russia where there's no evidence.
	Help me out, Joe.
	Bottom line is this.
	For eight years, the Obama Justice Department did nothing about evidence of criminal activity involving the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and other things involving Russia.
	The operation that former President Clinton and Hillary Clinton set up involving the State Department was clearly a pay-to-play operation, which involved kickbacks to the Clinton Foundation.
	She used her official office to generate those funds.
	The fact that not a single U.S. attorney in the Obama administration or Maine Justice opened up a grand jury to investigate activity shows the corruption of Loretta Lynch and the people who preceded her.
	She's another one.
	It was outrageous that there was no formal investigation.
	And you know what else it shows you?
	Comey didn't do a thing about it.
	He never ordered an FBI investigation.
	He never worked with any U.S. attorney or anybody at Maine Justice.
	If he's such a good FBI director, and you see all these facts that you've just outlined, there is no way that a professional law enforcement person does not demand a grand jury investigation of the Clinton Foundation and everybody involved with it.
	And now the unmasking, the unmasking, and the leaks of those names to the papers, that is clearly criminal activity, and that requires, and I hope that your session doesn't want to announce grand juries.
	Let me add, Sean, that was such a great list.
	But you forgot that Bill Clinton personally pocketed $500,000 from a Russian entity.
	Twice his normal fee.
	Yeah, it's a little more than mine.
	And nobody said a word.
	Now, she's Secretary of State, and he's getting $500,000 for a foreign entity.
	In fact, he got $6.2 million total from foreign entities while she's Secretary of State.
	Why should any spouse of a Secretary of State get one red cent from a foreign government?
	But I'm going to add something else.
	Joe went to the Justice Department and talked about how they didn't do anything.
	The Republicans.
	They suck.
	They do not know how to message.
	Now, you listen to the Democrats.
	War on women, war on women, war on women.
	They repeat it over and over again.
	You listen to Republicans conducting a hearing.
	Not one can repeat a thematic.
	There is no motif to anything that they do.
	The Republicans on the Hill are an embarrassment when it comes to oversight.
	This is disgraceful.
	What they have not done, what they've been unable to uncover, the refusal to issue subpoenas.
	What in the world are they there for?
	They're only starting, Joe.
	I mean, and to be honest, I have been pounding this, and I feel like a voice in the wilderness here at times.
	I'm not patting myself on the back.
	I'm so frustrated because we have a two-tier justice system.
	This is not equal justice under the law, and the media is so corrupt, worse than I've ever seen it, where they don't do their job.
	This is why it's very important that the Attorney General authorize grand juries into the leaks of classified information.
	This is not about the leaks from the White House, about who shot John and all this backstabbing stuff.
	The leaks of classified information to embarrass the president, the leaks of his conversations with foreign leaders.
	Deep state.
	There is no question that civil servants have committed crimes, that political appointees have committed crimes.
	And if this Justice Department does not investigate this thoroughly, they will have abdicated one of the most important responsibilities that this election created.
	The American people made a statement.
	They didn't like what was going on.
	And when the government turned on the new president and Comey cooperated with that turning, Comey was interested in one thing: regicide.
	He wanted to destroy a president.
	Every bit of his actions, when you go back and look at it, was calculated to find a way to kill the president of the United States politically, Donald Trump.
	Comey will go down in history as the rasputin of this administration.
	He was one of the most disgusting immoral.
	Yeah, a tell-all.
	And you know what?
	I'd like to see the FBI clear that book before they allow it to be published.
	And Comey has a history of this because he did it back in the Bush administration when he went after Dick Cheney.
	They went after the Valerie Plain, so-called leak, which wasn't a leak, and she was not at all covert.
	By the way, and the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew on day one who the leaker was.
	That wasn't a leak of Richard Armitage.
	And he was never charged, so there was no crime.
	And yet they went after Scooter Libby and said to him numerous times, well, if you just give up Dick.
	Vice President, yeah.
	If you just give up Dick Cheney, this will all go away.
	What do you make of the people that Mueller has appointed?
	All Obama, Clinton, Democratic donors.
	One was Clinton's own attorney.
	Some with ethical issues about doing the exact thing you're describing here.
	Patrick Fitzgerald should have shut that down on day one.
	He didn't.
	I think the optics of his hiring is disgraceful.
	No matter how good a guy Robert Mueller may be, when you couple that with his close personal and professional relationship with James Comey and these hires, it is disgraceful.
	The optics of this, all these people being donors to Hillary Clinton, he couldn't find some good Republicans to put on the staff.
	Nobody is that naive.
	And I think that Mueller owes, has a duty.
	At this point, I think he has to recuse himself, given Comey's centrality to all of us.
	Trent Frank says he'll be violating the law if he doesn't get out of the way.
	It's the same kind of ethical consideration that Jeff Sessions had to go through in order to recuse himself.
	I thought that was a mistake.
	Do you think that was a mistake?
	No, not at all.
	He had to do that because it was not Russia.
	It was involved in the political campaign.
	And the words are clearly there in the regulation.
	But that didn't mean there had to be a special counsel appointed.
	In other words, he could recuse himself.
	Rosenstein and the department could have handled that case.
	That did not have to be given to a special counsel.
	That was a big mistake.
	We'll take a break.
	We'll come back.
	Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing, different last names, same law firm, and they've been friends of this program and friends of mine for years, and they're really good at what they do.
	I would not want to be on the other side of some type of legal matter facing them.
	Anyway.
	All right, as we continue with attorneys, Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing, they are with the same law firm together.
	I guess I first met you guys during impeachment.
	Is that when we really began to understand each other?
	Yep.
	You know, so we've been through a lot of different wars together, and we followed a lot of different issues together.
	One of the things that I guess I have in my mind is: have you ever seen when I give my list, and I don't even have time to repeat it, about everything Hillary Clinton, everything Ukraine, everything Comey, everything I'm masking, everything Loretta Lynch, everything, now the general counsel the FBI.
	Has it ever been this bad or this corrupt that you can remember?
	I can't.
	No, and I'll say when you did this the other night on your show and you did that incredible list, it just, even for those of us that are informed and follow it, when you hear it all at the same time, it almost bowls you over with how obvious it is that crimes have been committed, that they've been ignored, that the FBI has done nothing, that DOJ politically refused to do anything.
	When I go back and I think of people that have been Attorney General and the great people that have been there, and look at Loretta Lynch and look at what a hack she was and what she did to destroy that department, that meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona with former President Clinton, no self-respecting attorney general would have ever agreed to meeting 45 minutes talking about grandchildren in golf.
	Give me a break.
	He hadn't even played golf.
	It was 104 degrees.
	Why do I think that he said something to her that scared her off?
	That's just my instincts.
	Just my gut.
	I don't know.
	We don't know what he said to her.
	It certainly takes a lot of time.
	It certainly wasn't about grandchildren.
	And now, if I'm FBI director, when that occurs, I call in all the FBI people who are around her because that's who guards her.
	And I ask, what happened?
	Do you think that was done?
	Comey never did that, apparently.
	Didn't care to know.
	Well, why did Comey accept her classification of an investigation into a matter?
	How does he accept that?
	Well, you know, Comey is a scheming, manipulative individual.
	He's Dickensian.
	He comes out of a Charles Dickens novel as a manipulative lawyer because that's what he was.
	That man does not, all this nonsense about what a guy of integrity is, he's not.
	He's a manipulator.
	He's a pal.
	He's self-interested.
	The only thing he cared about was James Comey.
	This book, which is going to be a tell-all about all the great moments he's had.
	How does he get permission to do that?
	You know what the story is?
	Well, he may not get permission to do all of it.
	The story about him in the Justice Department that everybody talks about, he would always have the same answer when he was Deputy Attorney General to anybody that he disagreed with.
	He said, your moral compass is askew.
	Can you imagine?
	And he would do it repeatedly.
	This is this high, this phony, high ground that he put.
	He was the only honest man left in Washington.
	Nonsense.
	Comey was politically corrupt and always was.
	For those of us who are lawyers and practice this, we argue all the time about whether something is proper.
	I'd hate to be in the middle of that fight.
	I mean, if you two are arguing all the time, I don't want to get in the middle of that.
	We're used to it, and then we kiss and go ahead.
	Okay.
	I mean, thanks for sharing.
	I appreciate it.
	But I mean, but that's what that's what you're supposed to do in the Justice Department.
	One side says, you know, this is why we should indict and another side says unless you affronted the Cardinal Cardinal Comey, which is what they used to call it.
	To call it a moral.
	Don't disagree with him.
	It's so anti-the legal process.
	Do you think at the end of the day the truth is going to come out?
	Do you think that this is a powder keg that is just about to blow and be exposed, all this corruption?
	Because I do, but it's a race.
	I'll tell you what the key is.
	Fusion GPS.
	That's the key.
	Everything falls apart when they finally get Glenn Simpson to talk about who gave him the money, and then it's going to all go back to the Clintons.
	Is it?
	The money, everything.
	Is there a subpoena?
	Not yet.
	I can't figure out when they're going to issue it.
	Does Jeff Sessions need to step up his game?
	I love Jeff Sessions.
	Does he?
	He can quietly start a revolution with grand juries.
	We hope he's doing it behind the scenes.
	Yep.
	Yeah, and I've always thought the world of him, and I'm hoping he is.
	Great guy.
	Great guy.
	We love him, too.
	We love him.
	I just want him to do that job because we need equal justice under the law when there's crimes committed here.
	His persona is a southern gentleman.
	That's who he is.
	All right, I got a roll.
	Victoria Tunsing, Joe to Jennifer.
	Thank you both for being.
	Great to see you in New York.
	Great to see how you're doing.
	You come from one sewer to the other.
	Great job.
	We'll continue.
	No stone left unturned.
	The Sean Hannity Show is back on the air.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean is our number.
	So the president today, along with Senator Tom Cotton, who I'm very, very fond of, and Senator Perdue of Georgia, put in what is the RAISE Act, or introducing the RAISE Act.
	Let me play the president from earlier today.
	It's a merit-based immigration system called the RAISE Act.
	He goes into details of what it is, ending chain migration, replacing low-skilled system that favors applicants who speak English, which is the language of success, and financially support themselves and their families and demonstrate skills for contributing to the economy.
	And then the president did something the media will never do, touting great economic news and picking up $4 trillion in net worth and GDP is growing.
	And, you know, Foxconn might spend up to $30 billion in the stock market.
	It's at its highest level ever, over $22,000.
	Here's the president from earlier today.
	As a candidate, I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers.
	And that is why we are here today, merit-based.
	The RAISE Act, R-A-I-S-E, the RAISE Act, will reduce poverty, increase wages, and save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.
	It will do this by changing the way the United States issues green cards to nationals from other countries.
	Green cards provide permanent residency, work authorization, and fast track to citizenship.
	For decades, the United States has operated and has operated a very low-skilled immigration system, issuing record numbers of green cards to low-wage immigrants.
	This policy has placed substantial pressure on American workers, taxpayers, and community resources.
	Among those hit the hardest in recent years have been immigrants and very importantly, minority workers competing for jobs against brand new arrivals.
	And it has not been fair to our people, to our citizens, to our workers.
	We've picked up substantially now more than $4 trillion in net worth in terms of our country, our stocks, our companies.
	We have a growth rate, a GDP, which has been much higher than, as you know, anybody anticipated, except maybe us.
	But it's going to go up.
	It's going to go higher, too.
	We're doing a job.
	And you're going to see jobs are pouring back into the country.
	Factories and plants are coming back into the country.
	We're going to start making product in America again.
	And that's happening all over.
	As I mentioned yesterday, Foxconn is going to spend $10 billion in Wisconsin and other places.
	And I think the $10 billion is going to end up being $30 billion.
	They make the iPhones for Apple and others, and it is a truly incredible company.
	So we have a lot of things happening that are really great.
	But again, today, the stock market hit the highest level that it has ever been, and our country is doing very well.
	All right, joining us now to discuss and debate all of this.
	We have Emily Scheier, journalist who appeared in the Washington Post, Daily Beast, and the New York Times, all three of my favorite places.
	And Kevin Jackson, Fox News contributor, executive director of the Black Sphere, has been a longtime friend of mine, and he's a syndicated radio host.
	Welcome both of you back to the program.
	Emily, I'll start with you.
	Do you disagree with this merit system, this RAISE Act?
	And don't you agree that you have to have no English in America because it's the language of success?
	I mean, I think we have a history of, I can speak to my own relatives' ancestors coming in, not knowing English, and then learning it, and also retaining some of their native language skills along the way.
	I'm not opposed to what I know of this legislation so far.
	I don't know if I would say English should be the prime prerequisite for admittance to our country.
	Well, I'm not saying it's the prime need of reform.
	So in other words, if we have limited slots available, we can't take everybody that wants to come into this country at any point.
	We only have limited slots.
	Shouldn't we first look for people that can contribute to medicine and engineering and to all the positions that we need to fill that are going to help grow the economy?
	And I'm not saying take people just based on what they offer, but for the most part, I mean, we want to make sure that they're not going to be dependent on the government from the first day they get here, right, Kevin?
	Well, you're exactly right, Sean.
	But I want to cover the language issue first because that's a hot topic.
	I can tell you, I just got back from Paris and I've traveled throughout Europe, lived in China, lived in France for a while.
	And one of the major immigration issues, the barriers, and I'm thinking of Scandinavia right now, is people can't speak the languages.
	Whether you go to, say, Iceland, Icelander is a difficult language.
	You can't just go there and expect to get work.
	So if you're going to immigrate to a country, you should respect that country enough to learn its language.
	It's going to give you a barrier to that.
	And what's funny, Emily didn't answer the question.
	She decided to tell you about a personal thing about her family.
	Look, it is a common sense thing to tell yourself, if I want to go to Mexico, I should probably go legally, and I'm going to have a lot easier time in that country if I speak the language.
	Why is it so difficult for leftists to just say the obvious?
	But they won't do that because they know by answering your question, Sean, it's going to set the narrative off the wrong way.
	Now, you can look at the other impediments to all the other things.
	Culturally, you should learn the culture.
	Before I lived in France, I learned the culture of the French.
	Was it absolutely necessary?
	No, but it was a good thing to learn because it endears you to the culture you're going to.
	Final point: I didn't go there to change the culture.
	I went there to embrace it.
	Emily?
	Well, I think what we're missing in this whole debate is that the bigger issue with this bill is that it's going to slash legal immigration by leaps and bounds.
	The language part is perhaps interesting, but I think the heart of the issue is that we're going to cut down on legal immigration, which could potentially only exacerbate our problem with illegal immigration.
	I think that's the prime policy concern in this bill.
	And while the language part certainly is fascinating, we can talk about it and have a charge debate.
	I think the real-life implications and what it's going to mean for Americans, particularly the American workforce, is if we're reducing past and potential for legal immigration, I have to think it's only going to increase illegal immigration, which is a problem that I think everyone, regardless of their side of the aisle, we know needs major reform.
	Yeah, but look.
	So, Emily, the argument for you is that we don't know what the implication is going to be.
	Therefore, we should allow illegals to come over, not worry about language issues and all the other things.
	I said we need a channel that doesn't slash legal immigration because there's a race that's more legal, there's more illegal.
	Okay, but the point is this: America has a legal immigration system that is wholly ignored.
	And in fact, if you were to listen to the left, you wouldn't even know that we had a legal system.
	If you want us to address legal immigration, I don't think there's a conservative on the planet who doesn't want to address that.
	And in fact, I think most of us would even go to tell you that these dreamers, some of these kids that are brought over at the age of two, and their parents won't even have the guts to tell them that they're here illegally, we would even be willing to take our compassion and understand their situation.
	But when the only way that we look at a problem is through the eyes and the optics of the lawbreakers, that's when you get the ire of conservatism.
	I don't think we're only looking at through the optic of lawbreakers.
	I think we have a serious problem where we do have huge numbers of illegal immigration, and cutting down legal venues is not the answer to it.
	Also, Alex Norris Nazerta, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, has looked at this bill and he sees no evidence that the way it's structured will actually bring in more skilled workers.
	Well, see, what's funny about that is when you guys are arguing a point, you always want to go to somebody that's a quote expert.
	How about we go to the people who are impacted by these issues, the people who are impacted by the MS-13 gangs, the people who are impacted by the lawlessness that's created, the people who are impacted by the long wait lines.
	I will speak for the minority community because we get the brunt of it.
	These are not kids who are going to school with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed's children.
	They're going to school in places where I live.
	I live in the city of St. Louis on the south side of St. Louis where we have to deal with the fallout of this because these kids don't speak English.
	These kids, at one point, were bringing scabies into the country.
	They overflood our hospitals.
	They tax every system that is really meant to help bring American people.
	No, Kevin, I haven't heard the word scabies in how many years.
	Are you serious?
	Right.
	Yes.
	No, I mean, is that true?
	Yes.
	I don't even know what it is.
	Isn't that a vitamin A or something?
	I had an outbreak in my freshman year of college, and it was, let's just say, a Tony privileged institution.
	It happens sometimes.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not being critical.
	I just, I haven't thought about it.
	I haven't heard.
	Linda, have you heard about it?
	No, there was an outbreak.
	There were two or three outbreaks that came from kids that came over through the same way.
	But listen, there's no doubt that we now pay billions and billions and billions because of illegal immigration.
	Our educational system is impacted.
	Our health care system is impacted.
	And our criminal justice system has been impacted.
	And, you know, to say that we're going to try and bring in the best of the best of the best, I kind of like that idea in terms of it's a merit-based system.
	Absolutely.
	To help Americans.
	By the way, and that doesn't, that competes, that doesn't compete with Americans that need jobs.
	They're hopefully bringing jobs with them and bringing creativity and brilliance with them.
	And, you know, I just think that I know for New Zealand and Australia and a bunch of other countries, if you want to get into their country, you have to contribute to the economy.
	This is not new.
	Well, Sean, let me say one quick thing.
	Look, what's funny about when we look at immigration, when we look at it strictly through the eyes of the left and what it means, they talk about the humanitarian aspects of it, et cetera.
	Well, we could do the same thing with education.
	The left will not allow people to go into Harvard, willy-nilly, but they'll give you community college, willy-nilly.
	I contend America is the Harvard of countries.
	Why is it that we can't set a standard that says if you want to get here, and you alluded to it, we used to bring the best and brightest.
	We no longer do that.
	We allow anybody to come over.
	It doesn't matter whether they want to come over to work and go after the American dream.
	And I think Emily would even contend that in many cases, these people come over and they become a drain on the system.
	And I will even go further and tell you that some come over knowing they only want to be a dream on the system because why not?
	America is an amazing place to live if you live on $3 or $5 a day.
	I mean, I would just like to counter studies consistently show that immigrants as a whole commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans and actually contribute tremendously to our economy, regardless of skill set level.
	And I can certainly tell you, and I know you're going to harp that as a personal anecdote, but I don't think I'm the only one that my ancestors who came over did not necessarily come with tremendous skill sets, but they worked hard, and then their children worked hard and became educated.
	And I do believe that is part of the American story.
	And I don't think reducing legal venues for immigration is the way to maintain that ideal.
	Emily, first of all, you keep talking about your people coming over.
	It sounds to me like this wasn't in the last 20, 30 years.
	We're talking about decades ago.
	We can all concede that the immigration system at the time brought over people that didn't speak the language and all that, but they came over with a work ethic.
	If you want to ask me, do I think the majority of people coming to America today are coming over in search of the American dream?
	Yes.
	Are they bringing that same work that work ethic?
	The answer is no.
	Because they've learned that the American system, welfare system, the system of entitlement, will let you live better by doing nothing.
	And we have far too many of those folks.
	So look, as far as the legal system goes, should we relax it and figure things out?
	To Sean's point, yes.
	If you have a skill set and we need that, get into our mindset.
	All right, let me change the topics just a little bit.
	Here you have more scandals.
	I went over earlier in the program.
	All the economic success and every indicator we have is rising.
	And all the media cares about is palace intrigue and Russia.
	And we have Ukraine and we have Uranium One and deleted emails and acid wash, bleach-bit hard drives and busted up hard drives and busted up BlackBerries and busted up iPhones.
	And then we've got SIM cards removed from phones and devices sent to the FBI.
	Then we've got unmasking and leaking of intelligence.
	Now we even have the general counsel, the FBI being investigated for that and Comey being investigated.
	Then you've got Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	And then on top of all of that, you know, you've got more scandals out here than anything I've ever seen with real evidence.
	And I want to ask you a serious question, Emily.
	Do you see the media bias the way I do?
	Do you see how abuse, for example, name any one of those scandals and put the word Trump or Trump campaign in there?
	The leading, smashing, breaking, acid-washing, bleach-bidding, or 20% of America's uranium sent to Russia, $145 million in kickback.
	If any of those were Trump and not Clinton, wouldn't it be a bigger scandal?
	I don't believe so because the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
	Harvard Kennedy School did a study of mainstream news publications during the election.
	They didn't even.
	Excuse me.
	There's a recent study 65% of coverage of Clinton's.
	There's a recent study of NBC, CBS, and CNN, 93% negative Trump.
	Did you know that?
	I'm not surprised.
	There's a lot of negative news, but if we're going to compare to policies over a period of time where we can actually assess negative coverage, you can turn to the Harvard Kennedys and see unfortunately negative coverage.
	And that was for the election.
	We're not talking about the election.
	Kevin, you're laughing because it's funny.
	I'm chuckling at this because, first of all, Emily, look, I don't need to refer to studies.
	It's a very simple thing.
	Trump has done nothing, and they've got this witch hunt going.
	It quite frankly is going to be the death spiral of the Democrats, the progressives, whatever they call themselves.
	You just gave plenty of evidence.
	I'm talking about this is irrefutable evidence of what happened leading up to Debbie Washington.
	Schultz being a crook, Hillary Clinton being a crook, Podesta being a crook.
	It's got Barack Obama's fingerprints all over it, and yet we find ourselves debating this.
	Look, if this I'm just out of time, I'm looking at the clock.
	I want to tell you both.
	The fact that you see things so differently is mind-numbing to me because the evidence is so overwhelming and incontrovertible.
	But then again, if you just turn on NBC or ABC or CBS or CNN or MSNBC, I mean, it's an alter universe to me.
	It's an alternative universe.
	They're clueless and they're going to be proven wrong.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern.
	All right, I got a killer monologue and we're going to put it all together.
	And we're going to name names about the corrupt people, the Democrats that Mueller's putting on his investigative team, investigative creep.
	And yeah, we've got now Ben Rhodes on top of Susan Rice and Unmasking and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	We'll have all of it.
	Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Jay Seculo tonight.
	Also, Sarah Huckabee, Sanders, the hardest job in America.
	Herman Kane, 10, and Lou Dobbs, 10 Eastern.
	Thanks for being with us.
	See you tonight back here tomorrow.

▲