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 My Pillow 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 go anywhere 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 gonna be a guide dog.
	What do you call a service dog?
	And there was no way treat was gonna 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 the who answers your calls.
	Uh that dog listened to nobody except me when I said jump.
	And that dog was never gonna make it.
	Now you saw Treat when he when she graduated from school, right?
	Uh I saw her uh 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?
	Um did she still have a jumping problem, yes or no?
	Slightly, but she had a jumping problem still.
	Now, so what they're gonna do is send her out to California.
	You know they're gonna use the old choke chain on her and train her that way.
	It's gonna happen.
	But but it looks I I am stunned that Treat made it this far.
	And if treat makes it, I am gonna be bewildered how it's possible.
	But do you know what she's gonna be doing specifically?
	No, what?
	She's gonna be uh 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 I'm stoked.
	I'm happy.
	I'm just glad that Linda believed in treat.
	She's a great she is a great judge of character.
	Linda behind your back was telling everybody there's no way that dog That's a lie.
	And no way that dog makes it.
	Oh, excuse me.
	I never why ever.
	If the one freaking person in this world is gonna tell you the truth, excuse me.
	Excuse me.
	First of all, first of all.
	When you're on my time, I can reclaim it.
	Say it, baby.
	Say it for me.
	All right.
	I gotta get to work here.
	I gotta get to the news in anyway.
	Glad you are with you know what you're not gonna 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 gonna 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 has lost focus on the fact the system we have doesn't work, said the OMB director, White House budget director, Mick Mulvaney.
	All right, 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's not, 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's 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 we 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.
	That 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 it's it's 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 seventy-three percent of SP companies have reported earnings exceeding forecasts for both revenue and earnings.
	And earnings for SP 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, uh, and many, many others, not to mention the energy sphere.
	You know, we're gonna create if we truly become an energy independent country, we're gonna create millions and millions of high-paying career jobs for Americans.
	And we'll have the added bonus benefit of not having to kick 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 reach 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.
	And but they always say that about I never liked the stock market.
	I'm not getting into the stock market any more than my my financial advisor makes me now, which is annoying.
	And anyway, Trump has cut sixteen 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 gonna be the number one driver of economic success, growth in our economy.
	And it's gonna help millions of Americans literally change the trajectory of their lives.
	You know, when we were involved in partnering with these these energy companies, we were getting drivers, jobs at eighty or a hundred thousand dollars a year.
	People that were either out of work or were making thirty thousand dollars a year.
	And look, you know, of course, the Saudis, what did they do?
	All of a sudden we're starting 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 that 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 rate wage, which is important to the forgotten men and women of this country, that's up 2.5%.
	One of the key missing ingredients in 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.
	Well, that's up to 34 hours.
	How do people work 34 hours a week?
	I I mean, I work 34 hours if I could in a day.
	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 I 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.
	Well, 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 uh 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 health care.
	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 handity solution so we don't rob our children.
	Pretty fair.
	15% corporate tax rate.
	Wow.
	Corporations will be investing unbelievably, you know, amount 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, health care cooperatives.
	Oh, that's gonna 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 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 she calls the RAIS 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 a 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 bestselling Mitch Rap series.
	Because of unscrupulous members of the Pakistani Secret Service, Rap 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 rap 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 Mitch Rapp novel by Kyle Mills is now in paperback wherever books are sold.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show 800 941.
	I can't wait.
	I'm gonna play this at the bottom of the hour.
	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 uh issue involving Ben Rhodes on top of Susan Rice, on top of the FBI general counsel, and him being in 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, blackberries, 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 building, stays on stays on the payroll, and 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 in 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 Kenton 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.
	We'll be right back.
	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.
	What was it?
	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 to the New York Times, that guy.
	Not the guy James Baker, the general counsel is now being accused of leaking information, uh, intelligence information.
	Uh, not to be, you know, in any way tied to Loretta Lynch, who met on the tarmac for 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 investigation, 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 the leading 33,000 emails and destroying the hard drives with acid wash bleach bit 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 four million dollars they got paid, and you know, he gave $300,000 to Pakistan,
	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 political 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 in 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 Washam and 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 sec.
	Ow!
	No, I'm not really hitting myself.
	You know, I see this as Congressman Radcliffe.
	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, 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 you know, 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 health care premiums again next year.
	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 and help those people that we love, our friends and our neighbors and our co-workers, and I know people have been fired to camp find work.
	I I 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 get jumps.
	And it's uh 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 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 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 objec uh 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.
	Thirteen 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 up obstruction of justice.
	And to ignore them, I think really allows not just reasonable ro 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 we what we're up against, so you know, in the media is a bunch of sheep.
	I'm 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 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 to be 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 MBC to run for president.
	He thinks he should be president.
	I'll stop it.
	Enough.
	We don't need a 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 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, and 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 were 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 slow the Ukrainian ambassador in the Ukrainian embassy.
	James Call me, I'd be worried.
	James Baker, general counsel left, I'd be worried.
	If I was involved, some of you, and I 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 DC, you know who you are.
	You know exactly high-ranking people.
	And if you're Susan Rice and your 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, uh that's 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, Olinsky, Acorn, Reverend Wright, his radical background, Frank Marshall Davis, Black Liberation Theology, Ayers 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.
	They 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 and 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.
	Whoops, that changes everybody's perspective.
	Everyone thought maybe 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 Aaron Wilson.
	And that hands up, don't shoot never happen.
	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 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 one.
	Pay very uranium one.
	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 gotta give uh Congressman Trent Franks, he's gonna join us in the next hour at some point.
	Um he is pointing out something that most people don't know that Mueller's gotta 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 I 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 CFR 452.
	That the language is he shall disqualify himself because he has a personal relationship with somebody uh 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 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 object uh 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.
	Thirteen 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, uh, 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 rock 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 uh indictment against Hillary Clinton and the defining moment about obstruction and lying and bleach bit and acid washing and deletions and and hammers and and smashing hard drives and all of this that has happened, but no, it's still Russia, Russia, Russia, uh, 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 uh uh clapper, and we've talked about Admiral Rogers and we've talked about Debbie 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 percent 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 and in some type of legitimate NSA surveillance of the enemies of this country.
	All right, 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 with this?
	Why was Ben Rhodes involved in this?
	You know, who's 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, circuit news.com is with us, Tom Fitton 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.
	Um it is not common for Ben Rhodes or even Susan Rice or UN ambassador then, UN ambassador Samantha Power, uh, 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 unmasking.
	A lot of them centered around Trump and uh the people in his uh 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 is 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 uh and looking at personal, maybe phone calls, emails, things of that nature.
	So there definitely needs to be an investigation into this because one of the biggest concerns is is political espionage.
	But you reported with John Solomon a a three hundred and fifty percent increase in unmasking just during the political season.
	You both that was from that was from 2011 until the end of until the end of the presidency.
	What we did see was that massive increase after they relaxed the life, and then a super increase during the election season, where uh like a large majority of unmaskings occurred with 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 first, 2016 to January 20th.
	What about What about an early report when I first started interviewing you and John was that in fact Trump Tower 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?
	Well, 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.
	Uh 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.
	Um 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, um, the AG, and then by Brennan himself.
	We saw the relaxed rules at the CIA.
	We know that the FBI was conducting um 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, uh, 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's your take Tom Fitton and in all of this?
	Where is it going to end up?
	Well, the the trick is is their special counsel going to look at this?
	Uh, because right now uh 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 Pfizer that people knew about in a large way uh was the targeting of James Rosen.
	Where they accused him falsely of being a foreign agent uh in a court filing related to a Pfizer warrant.
	And whose FBI was behind that?
	Mueller's.
	So do you trust uh Mr. Mueller, who is a former he was 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, uh, and they're covering up their role in the and this unmasking scandal and the targeting and and who knows what related to the leaks uh related to all of that.
	And uh this ought to be the focus.
	In addition to, you know, 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 uh obviously the uh target of the day.
	You know, Sarah, I'm looking at Russia-Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, or the of course Palace Intrigue is the next biggest thing that the media's 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, you know, recording devices or phones and blackberries and or Debbie Washam and 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 look at this on its face, Sean.
	Um they're going after uh President Trump uh and uh basing this on what now we know to believe and believe to be an erroneous dossier filled with uh lies, which we have been told by people in law enforcement, over exaggerated.
	Uh so they they're using a dossier or they use this dossier to move forward with an investment.
	All right, hold on on the dossier.
	Yeah, 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 and oh, Congressman Trent Franks is gonna join us at Arizona.
	Rightfully, he's outraged that Mueller's 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 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.
	You were 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 from Russians, and didn't he pay people for some of that information?
	Uh yeah, absolutely.
	He paid people for some of that information.
	And another thing that is fascinating here is that nobody is looking at this as uh if you want to look at a Russian operation, they were trying to disparage uh President Trump during the campaign.
	So it kind of moots the idea that it would be uh 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 uh I mean, down to Natalia Veselnitskaya, the woman that uh that everyone has been talking about, the Russian lawyer, uh the McGinski Act and Previson 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.
	It's it's that's so well said, and that's what I've been saying.
	Tom, you actually were able to, through Freedom of Information Act request to get info on Hillary Clinton emails again, top secret classified special access program information that we didn't even know about till you got them.
	Tell us about it.
	Yeah, well, there's uh, you know, 22 or so uh TCI uh classified uh materials on her system.
	And uh now just today we found more records from Uma 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 in drips and drips uh through the Freedom of 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 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 I and I and you've got to wonder who's running the show over there.
	You know, pr I 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 Justice Department, and Rosenstein has his own issues because he's implicated in the mess of the Mueller appointment.
	Uh in the end, though, the Justice Department is responsible for doing this, and they need to prove to us, the American people that's still infecting their investments.
	Well, it's called equal justice under the law, Tom.
	And well, you guys have both done phenomenal work.
	Really appreciate you uh being with us, 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	We're gonna look at all the legal aspects of this and the weak side of the Republican Party.
	We have Joe Degenova and Victoria Tunsinger gonna stop by.
	Uh quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We got an amazing Hannity tonight at 10.
	you about that and more straight ahead.
	We'll be right back.
	Holding them accountable.
	Sean gets the answers.
	No one else does.
	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 objec 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.
	Thirteen 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 Miss 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, uh, 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 up obstruction of justice.
	And to ignore them, I think really allows not just reasonable rock 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.
	Um, but it is it is everything you need to know.
	Oh, we got Debbie Wasserman Schultz smashing, or her 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, Blackberries, 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 the 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 Pranks 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 upon Robert Muller to resign as the special counsel in the Russia investigation.
	And he cited very specific laws governing the special counsel, 28 CFRs 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 passages, 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 Muller is surrounding himself with.
	And that is, let's see, Hillary Clinton's own lawyer who worked at the Clinton Foundation.
	We got what, sixteen 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 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 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 I have to tell you that after hearing the opening uh that you did with Congressman Ratcliffe and and your own uh uh dialogue there, I uh it's really hard for me to know how to add a whole lot because uh it was so compelling what you've already said.
	But uh I'm just convinced sometimes there's two reasons why there's such a um a dual standard here, because the dual standard is obvious to any reasonable observer.
	One of them is that our friends on the left uh are committed to rule or ruin, no matter what.
	They're willing to just their their 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, uh 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 of someone that was really uh, even though they worked in other administrations, an Obama holdover, that appointed this special counsel that uh 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 uh I know this president doesn't speak diplomat, but you gotta call things for what they are, and there's an injustice here that's occurring.
	It 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 and I'm be on trial and I'm being charged, and 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 uh that's a perfect example of what you're bringing up because uh Mr. Muller, if this were a court case, would be eliminated as a juror because of the obvious bias that he has.
	Uh this this notion that you know you can have a close personal long-term friendship with the guy that's really the only main witness in this presidential discussion that essentially took place.
	Uh he has to judge between those two as to which one is telling the truth, and that has uh a clear uh impact on his motivation, um, in which way that the the case goes or which way that his um you know his his discussions go and how and how he proceeds to prosecute or or i investigate the case.
	So there is a clear, clear conflict here, and Mr. Muller 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 Muller met before he spoke and gave testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	Is that confirmed?
	Uh I've heard that same thing, uh, Sean, and I you know, my background is engineering and we try to stick to what we do know and what we don't know and uh and so I'm not going to to speak to that directly uh but I think it's uh certainly uh 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 violation of the records act i i i it it's it's to use to use the the uh government uh 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 to cause this to be leaked was because he hoped that a special counsel would be appointed.
	And then surprise surprise that special counsel has happens to be someone that is a very close friend of his.
	I've seen um you know excerpts of their conversations transcripts of conversations and this is a this is a close friend and to suggest that somehow now that Mr Muller is going to be an unbiased or unconflict uh conflicted uh um leader of this investigation is just it's just ridiculous.
	It's just not possible.
	And no matter what a person might say uh 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 uh for him to be legally required to resign.
	Well I agree on 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 you know resign, is that a violation of law that is prosecutable.
	Well I I I absolutely believe it is and the the f the strange thing about this, you know the Democrats have been or the the the left has been so committed uh to this a 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 uh Mr. Mueller has a good enough reputation and I don't seek to 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 be beyond beyond contestation.
	And so uh he should for the sake of the law that he says he upholds and wants to uphold uh follow the law and and step down and uh and I hope that somehow the American people are paying close attention because some of the things I'm not gonna let it show I'm not letting it go.
	Yeah.
	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 you know 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 uh playing this out in the media and in the in the public square than we are they can do almost anything and they will rally around Charles Manson uh 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 to 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 and I hope somehow that we've catalyzed a little closer scrutiny to all of this.
	Alright 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.
	Uh 800 nine four one Sean is a number we'll get to your calls when we get back's hit the phones here as we say hi to Patty is in Houston, Texas.
	Patty Hi, K T R H, 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 him on the radio when we got the car.
	And so I feel very welcome here and you should too.
	You know what Patty I'm gonna tell you when I one day when my time has come to to go off into the pasture and retire.
	You know what all I want to do is I want to get away and and live in in a place like Montana.
	And I want to get a couple of a couple of cats, a little baby ranch, or maybe Texas, and I just I I don't want to talk to anybody anymore.
	I'll just go away.
	I'll talk to myself.
	You're gonna need that.
	And listen, I love Texas, been there many, many years.
	This is different.
	This is just no one's trying to impress anyone, and it's really not.
	They're real m 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 the s uh 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 DC.
	I want to talk to real people.
	So that 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 table?
	I only need 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.
	I you know, uh, I think just from hearing me that I certainly a Trump supporter.
	I just want your opinion on something because I don't think our president is trying to enlarge his bank.
	I know that he's kind of Sean Banks.
	I went to the 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 are 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 it'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 uh 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 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 they 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 coming.
	Emily Shire 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 nine four one 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, the Geneva 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 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 objec 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.
	Thirteen 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 Miss 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, uh 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 rock 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 de Genova and Victoria Tunsing, and even though they have different names with Victoria with Tun Sing and De Genevore or DeGenovan Tunsling, 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, see, in there in our logo.
	So it makes it easier to get to the T. The T overwhelms the T. Yeah, you gotta 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 back.
	See?
	There you go.
	T over the T l Lords over the D. Looms.
	Looms and Lords.
	Large, right?
	Looms and Lords over the D. You know, you were what were you assist you were associate assistant.
	You were working on the United States.
	No, I was Justice Department.
	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 set me up?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Actually, that happened after me, but I did the major investigation into the mayor prior to that.
	Did you know he was doing that stuff?
	Oh, yeah.
	Everybody knew in covered.
	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.
	Well, 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.
	They're not 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 a dog fight, 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 in 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 bidding 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 got the latest with Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	And what she did and and her 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 Muller's conflicts.
	Now we've got the leaking with Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice and James Clapper loosening the rules.
	So we're unmasking Americans.
	I'm 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 pre former President Clinton and Hillary Clinton set up involving the State Department was clearly a pay-to-play operation, which involved kickbacks to the uh 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.
	She was 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 he 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, the subst that is clearly criminal activity, and that requires and I hope that Jeff is going to announce grand juries.
	Let me let me add, and Sean, that was such a great list, but you forgot that Bill Clinton personally pocketed five hundred thousand dollars from a Russian entity.
	Twice as speaker twice as normal fee.
	Yeah, it's a little more than mine.
	And um nobody nobody said a word.
	Now she's Secretary of State, and he's getting $500,000 for a foreign entity.
	In fact, he got six point two million dollars total from foreign entities while she is Secretary of State.
	Why should any spouse of a Secretary of State get one red cent from a foreign government?
	But I'm gonna add something else.
	Joe went to the Justice Department and talked about how they didn't do anything.
	The Republicans suck.
	They do not know how to message.
	Now you listen to the 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 and to be honest, I have been pounding this, and I feel like a voice in the wilderness here at times.
	And I'm not patting myself on the back.
	I am so frustrated.
	Yeah.
	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 rasputant of this administration.
	He is one of the most disgusting.
	Oh, he's writing 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 and the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald knew on day one who the leaker was, that wasn't a leak of Richard Armitage as a few.
	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 Cheney.
	The Vice President, yeah.
	If you just give up Dick Cheney, this will all go over.
	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 Muller 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 I think he has to recuse himself given Comey's centrality to all the people who are not a very strong.
	Trent Frank says he was violating the law if he doesn't get out of the way.
	Well, 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 appointment.
	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 de Genova, Victoria Tunsing, different last names, same law firm.
	And uh they've been friends of uh 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 uh some type of of legal matter facing them.
	Anyway.
	All right, as we continue with attorneys, Joe de Genova, Victoria Tunsing.
	They are with the same law firm together.
	How about 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 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 unmasking, everything Loretta Lynch, everything now the general counsel of 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 with how obvious it is that crimes have been committed, that they've been ignored, that the FBI has done nothing, the DOJ politically refused to do anything.
	When I 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 Aravona with former President Clinton, no self-respecting attorney general would have ever agreed to mission.
	Not an investigation.
	He hadn't even played golf.
	It was a hundred and four degrees.
	Why do I think that he said something to her that scared her off?
	That's just my instincts.
	That's just my gut.
	I don't know.
	We don't know what he said to her.
	We don't.
	But it certainly tasted...
	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 of a of uh 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 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 uh 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 the 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 it's 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.
	Yeah.
	Do you think at the end of the day the truth is gonna come out?
	Do you think that this is a powder keg that is just about to blow and be exposed to 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 and I've always thought the world of him, and I'm hoping he is great guy.
	Great guy.
	We like them too.
	We love him.
	I just want him to do that job because the we need equal justice under the law.
	And his crimes committed here.
	His persona is a Southern gentleman.
	That's who he is.
	Uh Victoria Tunsing, Joe de Genova.
	Thank you both for being.
	Great to see you in New York.
	I don't know what the hell you're doing in the you come from one sewer to the other.
	Great job.
	We'll continue.
	Exposing left-wing media bias.
	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 and Senator Purdue of Georgia, put in what is the RAISE Act or the what 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 immigrant uh 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 four trillion in net worth and GDP is growing, and you know, Foxconn might spend up to thirty billion dollars 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 was 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.
	It's gonna go higher too.
	We're doing a job.
	And you're gonna see uh jobs are pouring back into the country.
	Uh factories and uh plants are coming back into the country.
	We're gonna start making product in America again, and that's happening all over.
	As I mentioned yesterday, FoxCon is going to spend ten billion dollars in Wisconsin and other places.
	And I think the ten billion dollars is gonna end up being thirty billion dollars.
	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, uh 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 Shire, 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 Spear, who's been a longtime friend of mine, and he's a syndicated radio host.
	Uh welcome both of you back to the program.
	Emily, I'll start with you.
	Um, do you disagree with this 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 relative ancestors coming and not knowing English and then learning it and also retaining some of their native language skills along the way.
	Um 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 uh for admittance to our country.
	Well I'm not saying it's the need of reform and 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 and to all the positions that that we need to fill that are going to help grow the economy and and I'm not saying they 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 that 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 uh France for a while.
	And one of the major immigration issues, the the barriers and I'm thinking of Scandinavia right now is people can't speak the languages.
	Whether you go to say Iceland Iceland is a difficult language.
	You can't just go there and expect to get work.
	So the 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 sell yourself if I want to go to Mexico I should probably go legally and I'm gonna 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 to all the other things culturally you should learn the the culture.
	Before I lived in France I learned the culture of the French.
	It 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.
	Um the language part is you know perhaps interesting but I think the heart of the issue is that we're going to cut down on legal immigration which could potentially create only exacerbate our problem with the legal immigration.
	I think that's the prime policy concern in this bill.
	Um and while the language part certainly is fast saying 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 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 problems.
	I said we need uh ch a channel that doesn't slash legal uh immigration because I've read people that if you're pressed legal there's more illegal.
	Okay, but 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 the law breakers that's when you get the ire of conservatism.
	I don't think we're only looking after the optic of lawbreakers.
	I think we have a serious problem uh where we do have huge numbers of illegal immigration and cutting down legal venues is not the answer to it.
	Also Alex Norte, 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 and that what's funny about that is w 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 they tax every system that is really meant to help bring America.
	Well, Kevin, I haven't heard the word scabies in how many 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 I had an outbreak of the my freshman year of college, and it was, let's just say a Tony uh privileged institution.
	It happened 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 were there was an outbreak.
	All right, two or three is not way.
	But listen, uh th 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's been impacted.
	And you know, to say that we're gonna 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 I just think that uh I know for New Zealand and Australia and a bunch of other countries, if you want to get into their country, you have to you have to contribute to the economy.
	This is not new.
	Well, Sean, let me 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 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 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 drain on the system because why not?
	America is an amazing place to live if you live on three dollars or five dollars 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, um, regardless of skill set level.
	And I can certainly tell you, and I know you're gonna 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 set, 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 uh for immigration is the way to maintain that ideal.
	Emily, first of all, uh you you keep talking about your people coming over.
	You uh it sounds to me like this it wasn't in the last twenty, thirty years.
	We're talking about f decades ago.
	We can all can 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 at it?
	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, a 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 own.
	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 it 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 call me being investigated.
	Then you got Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and then on 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 were Trump and not Clinton, wouldn't it be a bigger scandal?
	I don't believe so because the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
	Excuse me.
	There's a recent study—excuse me.
	65% of coverage of Clinton was never compared to— 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— 93%.
	A few politicians.
	You can turn to the Harvard Kennedy's one Card Kennedy.
	And that was that was for the election.
	We're not talking about the election.
	Kevin, uh 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 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.
	There, you just gave plenty of evidence.
	I'm talking about this is uh 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 the I got I am 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.
	music
	All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
	Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern.
	All right, I got a killer monologue, and we're gonna put it all together.
	And we're gonna 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 will have all of it.
	Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Jay Seculow tonight.
	Also Sarah Huckabee, Stan Sanders, the hardest job in America.
	Herman Kane, 10, and Lou Dobbs.
	Ten Eastern.
	Thanks for being with us.
	See you tonight back here tomorrow.

▲