Sean Hannity Show - Deep State 101 - 8.3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:34:52

Deep State 101 - 8.3

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.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Sean Hannity Show.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	We're going to try and do something that I think is going to be informative today, and that is explain what the deep state, what the intelligence issues are all about.
	I will talk about surveillance.
	Excuse me.
	We'll talk about unmasking.
	We'll talk about intelligence leaks.
	We'll talk about minimization.
	I'm going to try and explain this because it gets very complicated.
	And I keep telling you about five forces that are trying to destroy President Trump.
	And the number one and the biggest danger he faces is from the deep state.
	Then, of course, you got Democrats, then you got a corrupt media, then you got weak, pathetic, visionless identity-less Republicans and never Trumpers who just want him to fail.
	Um, I'll give you a quick example.
	Now we've got full transcripts of the president's calls with Mexico and Australia.
	The Australian prime minister, the Mexican president.
	You got the full transcript up there.
	Now, on top of the the media spin, which is most interesting to me, the one thing is I've read through them all.
	It's amazing how the media takes out a con.
	The president was like, I don't even want to do a deal with you in Mexico.
	I'm just gonna put a tariff on you and you're done.
	But I guess, all right, you want to negotiate, Jared wants to give a shot.
	All right, I'll give a shot, but I'm really happy just putting up the putting up the tariff against you because you guys have played unfair, it's bad for the American people, it's hurting jobs, and we're gonna build a wall.
	And the media takes one little point again when the president says, well, the wall is the least important part of it in terms of dollars.
	And that's all the president was saying.
	That's all they took out of it.
	But if you actually take the time to read the transcript, and our lazy, pathetic, ideological news media today, you know, are trying to create a headline that doesn't exist if you take the time to do your job.
	Now, I have the transcripts, both of them printed out in front of me, and it's about a hundred pages.
	So I took the time to actually read the transcripts.
	A little less than a hundred.
	And reading the transcripts, you get a very different.
	You want to see how the media bias exists?
	Print out the transcripts, read it for yourself, and then make a decision on your own if the media is reporting accurately to you what it is that happened in these phone calls.
	Now, that's not the point I'm really trying to make here.
	Why these transcripts out?
	Did this ever happen to Obama?
	This ever happened to George W. Bush.
	Could you think of other presidents?
	Presidents that have had to deal with the selective deep state leaking of intelligence that should never be leaked to anybody.
	Have we not seen enough of this?
	I know many, many people we go on with our busy lives and we're worried about other things, but General Flynn's life was destroyed because of deep state leaking and a violation of the law and felonies that were committed.
	And then you add to that 125 leaks, and there's many, many more.
	That was only in a 126-day period.
	And we see on a daily basis That this intelligence community, and I want to be very clear who I'm talking about, that it is now an effort to prevent the president to undo an election to delegitimize him to prevent him from from fulfilling the promises that he made to all of us, the American people, of his agenda and getting his agenda accomplished.
	And then the media will come in after the leaks come out.
	They don't care that it's leaked material.
	I mean, everyone cares if Julian Assange does it.
	Everyone cares if somebody on the outside does it, but they don't care that it's even happening from within our own government.
	And that's why I say the deep state is the biggest threat that is now facing this country.
	I want to be very clear here.
	Within the intelligence community, and I know many of them, as a matter of fact, some have been unfairly viciously run out of their jobs because of an internal battle that is going on, which we're going to get to in great detail here in a minute, within the intelligence community.
	People that have been working to expose the deep state, get rid of the Obama holdovers, those people within the government that don't like the president and don't support his agenda, those that are responsible for the leaks.
	So when I talk about the deep state, who am I talking about here?
	Hannity deep state.
	This is a fairly new term, Hannity.
	You use it a lot.
	I'm not fully sure what it means.
	Well, that's why we're doing the next hour with Sarah Carter and Caroline Glick to help you understand it more deeply.
	But when you're leaking transcripts of phone calls with the president of the United States of America and the president of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Australia, those are conversations that are supposed to be private.
	Those are conversations that are supposed to be encrypted end to end.
	But with the weaponry of intelligence, it's possible to tap into anything.
	Bill Benny, longtime NSA whistleblower, he's at the NSA, what, 32 years has been a frequent guest on this program, has explained to you over and over again.
	Every text, every email, every phone call you make is being metadata stored by the government.
	And he has never backed off that claim, and I personally believe him.
	And I'll get to that in a second.
	Now, when we talk about the intelligence community to be very clear, who am I talking about?
	I want you to know, because I know some of them, I've met some of them.
	There are 99.9% people, just like I would argue, cops that's that that sacrifice to serve and protect their communities.
	You get one bad cop, and then all cops get smeared and slandered.
	You get one bad TV or radio host, let's slander them all.
	You know, and that's I'm kidding.
	But you get one bad military guy, and you want to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and sweep with a broad brush and smear and slander everybody because one person did something wrong.
	Now, the people I know, the people I've met, the people that serve you in the intelligence community, they the vast overwhelming majority are great Americans that sacrifice and work hard, and many of them, so you know, are putting their lives in jeopardy for you and me.
	And I thank them for their service.
	They are serving their country.
	Many of them are ex-military people, for example.
	Many of them are just geniuses beyond any knowledge that I would ever be able to accumulate in my life because my brain just works differently.
	And they just think on this whole other level.
	I mean, if you think you can develop a hacking system and hack into Russia or hack into this place or hack into that place and get it done and get the intelligence that keeps Americans safe, you know, thank God we have smart people in the world.
	So I know many of them.
	I know the risks they take.
	I know that their lives are in jeopardy.
	That is our number one priority to protect them.
	That is my my biggest fear when it comes to the fact that we've never learned the lesson of cybersecurity in this country.
	I've said this many times before.
	Julian Assange did us a favor.
	We're too stupid to listen.
	When he hacked into the DOD and NASA at 16, the guy's 45 now.
	45.
	You would think that if people, once you learn that they can do this stuff, that we would set up defenses, we don't have cybersecurity as we've had expert after expert after expert on this program tell you.
	So we see these leaks going on, and we see the leaks against the president, then we see unmaskings increase during the last election cycle, and then we'll start naming names, 350%.
	And you see, this president is subject to more leaks, seven times more leaks than the previous two administrations.
	And you begin to realize that this is a clear and present danger.
	That's what they are doing to this country is you've got the one-tenth of one percent is doing a lot of damage, and they're trying to damage the president.
	Now we give our intelligence community in the world of evil.
	We have an evil world we live in, whether you know it or not or want to face it or not.
	I wrote a book, Deliver Us from Evil.
	There is evil in the world.
	Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, radical Islamic terrorists, they're evil.
	What's happening in North Korea is evil.
	Trust me, the Iranian mullahs that threaten to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America and burn American flags and Israeli flags that are in pursuit of nuclear weapons, those mullers are evil.
	You know, you gotta worry about China, you gotta worry about Russia, and they're nukes, a lot of evil people in this world.
	One of the ways we keep all of us safe is through intelligence gathering.
	So we know what our enemies are thinking.
	Most of us go about our daily lives, we have no idea it's happening, no crime, no foul.
	We're just glad that people are there to protect us, like the military's there to protect us, like cops are there to protect us.
	We don't think about it every day until something happens.
	Well, now something is happening.
	So we give them the most sophisticated weaponry, and it is a form of warfare.
	There is cyber warfare, it is real.
	So we give these guys the tools to prevent us against those that in North Korea that would want to launch nukes against us or South Korea or Japan, and have a madman in charge of nukes.
	There's no good answer there, as I said yesterday, or we want to prevent and find out what's going on in the ground in Iran and China and Russia and maybe some of these other countries that want to do harm to the world.
	So we have developed an arsenal of the most sophisticated intelligence gathering methods that you would ever dream of.
	The things I've learned in the last two years, I it's been an education.
	And the majority of them use those weapons for the right purpose.
	Just like we have people in charge of nuclear weapons.
	Now they have maybe not the access to launch, but you know what I mean?
	You've got to trust people.
	Now we're discovering that people are, in fact, people are in this country are misusing it.
	And they've been leaking like sieves against the president again and again and again and again and again.
	And what have we learned?
	There's an article, for example, out today.
	How is it possible that the UN ambassador Samantha Power, headline in the Washington Free Beacon, unveiled hundreds, unmasked, sorry, hundreds in the final years of the Obama administration, hundreds of them masking requests by the UN ambassador to identify individuals named and classified intelligence community reports related to Trump and his presidential transition team.
	Well, that sounds like the abuse of the tools and the weaponry of intelligence.
	Do you understand what's in play here?
	Because we learned that about Ben Rhodes, and we're investigating him, and we learned it about Susan Rice, and we're investigating her.
	And we see that Comey leaked intelligence, so we can get a special counsel.
	And we know James Baker, the general counsel of the FBI is now being investigated for releasing intelligence.
	In other words, this is the single most dangerous thing when you have the deeper state, some individuals abusing, misusing the tools, the weaponry we give them to keep us safe for political purposes and against the American people.
	That's the deep state danger the president's facing.
	That's why we have transcripts of a prime minister and a president conversation that we never should have.
	That's why all this crap about Russia has been a no-go nonsense from the beginning.
	That's why we've got to get to the bottom of it, and we've got to enforce the laws because the espionage act is being violated every single solitary time.
	And you got to understand one thing.
	If we don't solve this problem, our Constitution is shredded.
	Our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure are shattered.
	Because what they're doing with unmasking is they're surveilling.
	Maybe in some cases they incidentally pick up Americans, but they're supposed to minimize those conversations.
	They're never supposed to unmask them, and then they're supposed to certainly never release the information.
	800 941 Sean, I'll explain this as we continue today.
	We're going to do a special hour in the next hour on this so you understand it.
	How did we get to a point where there's so much leaking, so much unmasking?
	How are the tools of intelligence now, for the first time that I can think of in my lifetime being turned against one person, one administration to overturn the will of the people, unmasking innocent people.
	When you surveil, well, let's say there's inner incidental pickup of surveillance.
	Let's say there is a target or the the NSA or one of these agencies is doing their job, which we need them to do.
	And they're spying on an enemy country that we've got to protect ourselves from.
	Okay, and Americans on the call.
	Cause nothing to do with anything nefarious.
	And when they recognize it's an American system, uh citizen, the law requires that they minimize, because they don't have a warrant against that American.
	You don't have a right, the government doesn't have a right to spy on Americans, although Bill Binney says they do it all the time.
	But anyway, they're supposed to minimize the conversation.
	And when they write up the report, they'll just say an American.
	Let's say the ambassador of uh Iran or the Ambassador of China or whatever.
	It doesn't matter.
	You're supposed to say American.
	In the case of General Flynn, they said General Flynn.
	That's unmasking.
	Now we know that Ambassador Samantha Power may have made hundreds of unmasking requests.
	Why?
	To identify and classified intelligence reports related to the Trump administration, the presidential transition team?
	Why would she ever do that?
	Why was Susan Rice doing it?
	Why was Ben Rhodes doing it?
	They're all being investigated now for it.
	Why'd the FBI director release classified information?
	Why is the general counsel of the FBI being investigated?
	This is this goes to the heart of our constitutional protections and freedoms.
	And your government, there are some deep state officials that are now weaponizing the tools of intelligence, and they are clearly spying, unmasking and leaking intelligence on American citizens.
	And clearly there's a political motivation here, and clearly the fact that it went up 350% during the Trump years tells us all it's politically motivated to begin with.
	And if we don't get to the bottom of this, you won't have safety, security, constitutional protections, fourth amendment protections, and I'm not overstating this.
	All right, 25 told the top of the yeah, we drive liberals crazy.
	We do.
	800-941-SHAWN, our number.
	And we're going to do an hour in the next hour.
	Sarah Carter is going to join us from Circa News and also Caroline Glick, who is with the Jerusalem Post.
	We've got incredible information about all of these Obama holdover people that are involved in the unmasking of...
	Well, Trump officials.
	Let me let me read to you, for example, from today's Washington Free Beacon, former United States Ambassador Samantha Power is believed to have had made hundreds of unmasking requests to uh identify individuals named in classified intelligence community reports related to Trump and his presidential transition team, according to multiple sources, who said the behavior is unprecedented For an official in her position.
	Power was first identified by the Washington Free Beacon last month as a central figure in a congressional investigation into efforts by senior Obama administration officials to obtain classified intelligence information in what made many alleged was an effort to undermine President Donald Trump and his incoming national security team.
	Samantha Powers believed to be the anonymous official responsible for hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration.
	By the way, the same period that we now know Ben Rhodes is being investigated into.
	According to current former U.S. officials who spoke to the free beacon about the ongoing investigation.
	Now we expect tomorrow we're going to hear from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions on a lot of this.
	Efforts by the former Obama administration to obtain the names of Trump allies, including raw intelligence reports.
	Now, Raw is important because Bro doesn't give the full picture.
	Anyway, it goes on.
	They have fueled speculation that subsequent leaks to the press orchestrated by former Obama administration officials and its allies in a bid to damage the current White House and smeared Trump's most senior confidants.
	Remember Representative Devin Nunes.
	He's the chairman of the House Intelligence Community, which is handling the probe.
	He petitioned the director of national intelligence, Dan Coates last week to request his help in addressing this unmasking issue.
	Nunes disclosed in his letter that the former Obama administration had easy access to sensitive classified information, and that they may have used it to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective anonymous leaking of such information.
	And it goes on from there.
	Congressional investigators uncovered that one official whose position has no apparent intelligence-related function, now believed to be Samantha Power, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration.
	Do you understand what we're talking about here?
	You're talking about people.
	Remember, we keep talking about Obama holdovers.
	We keep talking about deep state.
	We keep talking about some in the intelligence community.
	Only a very small, I want to be clear.
	These intelligence officials are amazing.
	They keep us safe.
	But some of them have other motives.
	And clearly there's a political motive here.
	And if somebody like Samantha Power has the ability to unmask hundreds of Trump and presidential transition team members, we have now weaponized politically the tools of intelligence gathering, and they're using it to advance their own political position and undermine the country here.
	You understand that.
	This is illegal.
	When you're talking about surveillance unmasking for political purposes, that is an abuse of intelligence gathering, and then taking it to another level, and that's leaking raw intelligence, which has happened again and again and again.
	You have now taken the powerful tools that are designed to keep you and me and Americans safe, and you're using them as a political weapon against an opposition party.
	Do you see how dangerous this is?
	Do you understand now what I've been talking about?
	I have known so much more than I have been able to tell up until this point, and I have so much more that is coming out.
	This is not a game here.
	If you believe in privacy, if you believe in your Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, your government needs a warrant, even the FISA courts.
	You gotta have a warrant.
	And then we learned very on, very early on with Sarah Carter and John Solomon.
	Oh, the warrants were issued.
	Remember, there was talk that in fact they were spying on the Trump administration.
	And I went against the media and I said, uh-oh, there were warrants.
	Nobody else talked about them.
	All the media cares about is palace intrigue.
	All the media cares about is Russia Russia.
	Well, this is far more important right now.
	And there's more evidence to prove we now know a 350% increase in unmasking of Americans.
	We know a lot of it was targeted specifically to use intelligence to hurt the incoming president, to hurt the candidate, to hurt his transition team.
	We know it hurt General Flynn.
	He lost his job because of an illegal leak and a violation of the Espionage Act.
	Do you understand how profound this is?
	Do you understand why it is that we have these protections in place?
	Do you understand the dangers?
	Do you know how powerful these tools of surveillance are that we've given our government to protect us?
	Do you understand that the fact that we have not upgraded cybersecurity at all?
	It's a, you know, at some point you can't blame some outside hacker because you were too stupid as a country to protect the data when you know they've been trying to do this for 30 years.
	They've been doing this, people and getting away with it.
	And then when you see that the way that the government is run and the level of corruption, now we got Ben Rhodes.
	Okay, Ben Rhodes, we have circa documents, according to documents reviewed by circa.com, government officials conducted 30,000 355 searches in 2016 seeking information about Americans in NSA intercept metadata, which include telephone numbers, email addresses, the activities at a 30% increase over the prior year.
	Why in an election year?
	Is there such an increase?
	Why is that possible?
	Because they wanted a spy on the Trump administration.
	They wanted to weaponize the tools of intelligence, and they wanted to do it for political purposes.
	And now they're doing it to undermine you, the American people.
	And now they're doing it to prevent the agenda you voted for from getting enacted.
	These are serious issues we're talking about.
	When the general counsel of the FBI is now being investigated for leaking intelligence, we've got a problem.
	If James Comey can come along and use government documents and violate the Records Act potentially and violate the Espionage Act potentially because it's classified information and have his buddy at Columbia leak it to the New York Times, we've got a problem.
	If the UN ambassador for crying out is making hundreds of unmasking requests, we've got a problem.
	Ben Rhodes, remember who Ben Rhodes is?
	Oh, yeah, Ben Rhodes.
	Let me see.
	Ben Rhodes, he rose to the level deputy national security advisor.
	He's now a person of interest in the unmasking investigation of the House Intelligence Committee, along with Rice and Power and other Obama officials.
	You know, what where's Joe Biden's national security advisor?
	Is he going to show up too?
	If you look at Rhodes, there was a good piece in the American Thinker today.
	And they go on to remind us, well, who is he?
	He was the author of the infamous Benghazi Talking Points.
	He's not exactly somebody that tells the truth.
	Remember, he was unable to get an interim security clearance in in 2008.
	The only one of 187 people who otherwise got them.
	With so much, you know, handed to him and his his access to this.
	Okay, he's a serial liar.
	We know that he worked in communications for Obama.
	He's the author of the talking points on Benghazi, which we all know sought to cover up the terrorist planned assassination of a U.S. ambassador.
	And Susan Rice then delivered the talking points on the five Sunday shows.
	He's the architect, apparently, too, involved in the Iranian deal, a giveaway of billions of dollars to the mullahs of Iran, and they continue to spin their centrifuges.
	He's the author too of the great giveaway to communist Cuba.
	So now he's involved.
	And now it gets worse.
	We got Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and we've got John Brennan.
	He eased access of this very sensitive information.
	Why would Clapper ever do that?
	And Clapper now has been politicized on TV.
	You can see now he's working for the fake news Clinton News Network.
	You know, when you got the likes of Rice and Power and Rhodes and Brennan and Clapper and other Obama loyalists and people that are being accused of unmasking innocent Americans and those on the opposite side of the aisle and political opposition whose names are innocently caught up in intelligence dragnets and they don't use minimization and they don't use they unmask their names and they seek to unmask them.
	This is such a strong surveillance instrument.
	This is such a weapon.
	You have no idea what they're capable of.
	They can get anything they want.
	Anything.
	And now it's clear that they've also like stored on a cloud somewhere.
	All the information that they want that they got illegally to get the president and prevent him from doing the job you hired him to do.
	And they want to use it to try and take him down, politically speaking.
	You know, if an official reading an intelligence report wants to unmask a name, this historically has got to be for a grave national security purpose.
	Well, Clapper eases the ability.
	The sharing is eased by Obama.
	Team Obama finds hundreds and hundreds of grave national security purposes during an election year.
	Sound a little weird to you?
	Sounds weird to me.
	Sounds like the tools of intelligence are weaponized for political purposes.
	And then it even gets worse today.
	And this is where Sarah Carter's gonna come in in the next hour.
	And this, I read this today, and I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.
	This is never gonna end.
	Well, anyway, Sarah Carter doing her great work.
	She comes out with a piece today, and what do we find?
	This makes no sense to me.
	After Susan Rice, a month after she was exposed is unmasking or being investigated and disclosed that Susan Rice was unmasking members of Trump's transition team and other Americans.
	This makes no sense.
	Why did Trump's own national security advisor?
	I've been told apparently was recommended by John McCain.
	H.R. McMaster, why did he send an official letter giving Susan Rice continued unfettered, continued access to classified information and waiving even her need-to-know requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure, tenure, sorry.
	Now this updated and sorry, undated, unclassified letter from McMaster was sent to the mailbox of Susan Rice back in April.
	Trump was not aware of this letter, according to two senior white uh West Wing officials.
	Why would McMaster ever do this?
	We're talking about, you know, names, phone numbers, personal addresses, all blurred.
	I hereby waive the requirement that you must have need-to-know access to any classified information contained in items you originated, reviewed, signed, received while serving.
	What the hell is going on here?
	It also states the NSC will continue to work with you to ensure the appropriate security clearance documentation remains on file to allow you access to classified information.
	What is he doing?
	Why would he allow this to continue?
	This makes no sense.
	Let's see, we got Rice and Brennan and Attorney General Lynch routinely reviewed intelligence reports received from the National Security Agency.
	Incidental intercepts of Americans.
	And they were doing so by taking advantage of Obama's relaxed rules.
	And the House and Tell Committee subpoenaed Rice.
	And you remember she never, and she maintained she never accessed that information for political reasons.
	Okay, I'm going to believe her.
	Under the law and under conditions, it's common practice for senior government officials to be given unfettered access, by the way, on a need to know.
	But it was waived by McMaster.
	In June, Trump called the revelation that Rice and other Obama senior officials were unmasking.
	He said, that's the big story, and Trump was right.
	This letter was signed, it undercuts the president's assertion.
	The point is it lowers the bar for her.
	This makes no sense.
	I want an answer to this.
	We need an answer to this.
	We need it yesterday.
	We're going to spend an hour with Sarah Carter and Caroline Glick on the deep state.
	I know this is new to a lot of you.
	What I'm explaining to you is the accumulation of information and knowledge that I've been developing now for a couple of years.
	And in this particular case, that I've had to hold back some of it.
	And I still have some that I'm holding back.
	Oh, shocking, another leak.
	Oh, grand jury impaneled on the Russia issue.
	Well, I thought we didn't hear about those things.
	800.
	Just the latest.
	All right, we're gonna get to the deep state as much as we can and explain to you what it is we're dealing with, the dangers to the Constitution, our liberties, our freedom, and of course our security and the right to privacy.
	That's next.
	I know nothing about this.
	I was surprised to see uh reports from uh Chairman Eunice on that uh count today.
	I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been.
	Uh the president of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign.
	Nothing of the sort occurred.
	Did you seek the names of people involved in to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people uh surrounding the pre the president elect?
	Let me begin in order to spy on them and absolutely expose them.
	Absolutely not for any political purposes to spy expose anything.
	I really don't know to what uh Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was uh a legal, lawful surveillance, and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
	And I think it's important for people to understand what incidental means.
	That means that the target was a either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation.
	But the fact is that uh in the president did request uh back in December, the intelligence community compile all of the information that it had on what had transpired during the campaign with respect to the Russians involving themselves uh in the presidential campaign.
	And that report was provided uh to the American people in unclassified form and to Congress uh in classified form in early January.
	Did the pace accelerate during the transition?
	Perhaps in early December, uh perhaps when the president ordered an investigation into the hacking, the Russian hacking.
	Did the pace of unmasking requests of your unmasking requests accelerate toward the end of the White House tenure?
	And I can't say the pace of unmasking requests would accelerate, but if you're asking were there more reports provided to senior U.S. officials after the president requested the compilation of the intelligence, which uh we was ultimately um provided in January.
	Yes.
	What happened was as the IC went about the business community business of following up on the president's order.
	Fulfilling the president's request for such a report.
	They went back and scrubbed more reports.
	They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself.
	This is not uh anything uh political has has been alleged.
	The allegation is that somehow uh Obama administration officials uh utilized intelligence for political purposes.
	That's absolutely false.
	All right, that is of course Susan Rice, and she was on with Andrea Mitchell, and I don't believe a word she said.
	Notice she said, well, not for political purpose, we didn't ask unmask people.
	I'm like, okay, but did you unmask Americans?
	We now know because of the investigative work of people like Sarah Carter, Circa News, John Solomon the Hill, and others that in fact there was an awful lot of unmasking going on, and James Clapper and the president, you know, easing the rules, sharing intelligence information.
	Now it went to 16, 17 agencies where it was only two or three before James Clapper easing the rules on the issues of people who had the ability to unmask American citizens.
	We're gonna spend this hour describing why this matters, because we give great people in the intelligence community, and they're great.
	These are people that even risk their lives, many of them, for the purpose of keeping America safe.
	This is a dangerous and it is an evil and diabolical world.
	And when you're up against the likes of North Korea and Iran and China and Russia and radical Islamists and ISIS and Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups, we need the best and greatest intelligence out there available.
	The danger becomes are the if the tools of intelligence can be turned on the American people.
	And I can say with great authority and confidence that the 99.9% of people in the intelligence community that we entrust with this intelligence weaponry are good people that do their jobs, that protect this country, that risk their lives to protect us, but they're powerful tools.
	And if you have one percent within the intelligence community or more that are turning the intelligence weaponry against the American people, it is a grave danger to the ability of this republic to function, because it would render the Constitution meaningless.
	Our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure meaningless.
	And that would mean that they can spy illegally on Americans.
	That what they can do without a warrant.
	They can do it without a Pfizer warrant.
	They can do it without any reason whatsoever.
	And then look at the case of General Flynn.
	There was he was picked up in when surveillance was taking place, incidentally, when he was doing his job, then his name was unmasked.
	Now, when that kind of situation happens, they are supposed to practice something called minimization.
	In other words, if an innocent American is caught up with the target of some type of tap, wiretap, signet tap, it doesn't matter.
	Then the American is supposed to be minimized in terms of what it is they hear and what they're listening to and recording.
	That not only didn't happen in the case of General Flynn, then they unmask what is called raw intelligence.
	In other words, you're only getting, you know, one side of the story.
	You only get a picture in time.
	You don't get the full context and texture of what was actually going on.
	And then they leaked that raw intelligence, which is a violation of the espionage act.
	Now, this is why these investigations and the people like James Comey are so important.
	James Comey not only was using government property, he wrote on a government computer and a government car's notes about Donald Trump, but we found out later some of the information's classified that he's talking to a president of the United States.
	Then he has his friend leak it to the New York Times.
	Now we have an investigation into James Baker.
	He's the general counsel of the FBI and whether or not he is leaking intelligence.
	Then we find out, as we have been discovering just this week, Ben Rhodes, who worked under Obama, National Security Advisor, that Ben Rhodes is now being investigated for unmasking Americans' names.
	And we look and we discover today, Samantha Power, according to, you know, a point in the Washington Beacon today.
	She's now believed to have made hundreds of unmasking requests to identify individuals, Americans named and classified intelligence community reports related to the president and in his transition team.
	Well, that sounds like they're spying on an opposition party.
	And it sounds like all of it is illegal.
	And it sounds like the misuse of the weapons of intelligence that we give people.
	Now, in the case of Susan Rice, it goes even further.
	Earlier today, we learned that Susan Rice, we know earlier that she was unmasking of President involved in unmasking of President Trump's team and other Americans.
	But it turns out that H.R. McMaster, who is the national security advisor of Donald Trump, apparently sent an official letter giving Susan Rice unfettered continuing access to classified information and waiving her need to know requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure, according to Circa and Sarah Carter.
	Now, this the undated unclassified letter from McMaster was sent in the mail to Rice's home during the last week of April.
	Well, that almost sounds like a get out of jail free card to me.
	What is going on here?
	Sarah Carter now joins us, circa news.
	Also Carolyn Glick, Jerusalem Post.
	Welcome both of you to the program.
	Thank you.
	Sarah, I got I count 125 deep state leaks in 126 days.
	350%, 320%, I think is your number, increase in unmasking of Americans with great acceleration during the last political season and in the transition period.
	Tell us why, tell us give us the background of this unmasking and leaking, and then give us the background.
	Why would H.R. McMaster ever do this?
	Well, remember this, Sean.
	I don't know if people remember this story, but it it's really significant here.
	It was actually written by the New York March, early March, disclosed that in the last days of Obama's administration, White House officials were scrambling To spread information that they had found this type of classified information that they had discovered about what they said were Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election.
	They were scrambling.
	President Trump had already won.
	Now they were gonna get all this information, gather all of this classified stuff, and find a way to get it out there so that the public would have this information.
	Well, when you look at all the pieces of the puzzle and you connect all of these dots, you know, right now the House Intelligence Committee has this ongoing investigation into unmasking.
	Susan Rice is right there at the center of it.
	Samantha as well, um power, former UN ambassador, uh uh and according to these stories, is now at the center of it.
	We have others within the uh former administration now being looked at, like Ben Rhodes, the story I just published this week, now expanding to him and others.
	So what we see is this consistent uh gathering of information, unmasking of Americans, which used to be, just as you said, used to be very minimal.
	It's like it's so highly classified.
	Nobody even wants to release that outside of their most important.
	Sarah, does Ben Rhodes have this clearance?
	Does Samantha power did they get these letters?
	That's what I would like to know as well.
	What I do know is that this yeah, that this letter was, you know, McMaster has the right to, at his own discretion, give his former NSA advisor the ability to continue with their security clearance, and also have this uh ability to look back at the documents that they were accessing while they were in office, while she was in tenure.
	But the biggest question here is during this type of investigation, and with what has been going on publicly, and remember the president for the president, and he tweeted this out.
	This was the biggest story.
	The unmasking, the spying, if the alleged spying, if that was happening, and getting to the bottom of it.
	But without his knowledge, according to my sources, without the president's knowledge, H.R. McMaster sent this letter at the end of April.
	That's almost a month after John and I first reported about the unmasking, and even almost a month after it was first reported that Susan Rice are we looking at.
	All right, it's uh let me go to Caroline Grick Glick.
	We're having a little problem.
	Caroline, you also wrote Wednesday evening that H.R. McMaster is purging a pro-Israel staff per from the National Security Council.
	Now, there have been in the last two or three weeks now, three people that apparently very knowledgeable and up to their eyeballs in purging the deep state and Obama holdovers that have been walked out of that building.
	It's now being written about finally in the US media.
	Um can you explain what that means?
	And I also read that H.R. McMaster favors the Iranian deal.
	That's not possible, is it?
	Well, it is possible.
	You know, it's interesting.
	One of the things that I learned since I posted that on Facebook last night was that Derek Harvey, who was fired a couple of weeks ago, who was the uh senior uh Middle East advisor or director at the National Security Council had put together a comprehensive plan for the United States to exit the Iran deal.
	And uh McMaster refused to allow him to present it to the president.
	And then McMaster told the president, I'm told, that there is no option for leaving the Iran deal.
	But that he said while he was blocking his own deputy from presenting his comprehensive plan to exit the Iran deal from President Trump.
	Um and then he fired him after the fact and blocked the president from implementing his policy, which is to leave the very bad deal uh that Obama made with the Iranian mullahs that enable them to acquire nuclear weapons and develop ballistic missiles.
	So that's one thing.
	The other thing that he'll stay right there on the other point.
	We gotta take a break.
	Now let me explain what we're doing for this hour.
	We're gonna spend the whole hour on the deep state, on the unmasking, on the surveillance.
	We appreciate all that the ninety-nine percent in the intelligence community do, but these people that are abusing the tools of intelligence, they all need to be held accountable to the letter of the law.
	We'll take a quick break.
	More with Sarah Carter, more with Caroline Glick, more on this breaking news 800-941 Sean as we continue.
	And as we continue, Sarah Carter, big breaking news with circa.com today.
	Somehow H.R. McMaster, the national security advisor, for whatever reason, has given Susan Rice a letter that allows her access to classified information, even wade waiving the need to know requirement on anything that she viewed or received during her tenure.
	I don't know why this happened.
	I doubt we have not gotten an answer.
	Also, there's been a purging with in the National Security uh Council in terms of people that we know are active and involved in trying to eliminate the deep state.
	That is extremely disconcerting to me and a lot of other people.
	I'll let you f finish your point, Caroline Glick, about McMaster and what he's doing here and and his belief on the Iranian uh nuclear deal.
	So the first thing as I said was that he blocked President Trump uh from hearing a comprehensive plan presented uh uh produced by Derek Harvey, who then he subsequently fired that would uh explain that explain point by point how the United States can leave the Iran deal and block them from then turning around and going to full weapons production immediately, the Iranian.
	Um moreover, he Derek Harvey had put together a joint plan to work with Israel to defeat Hezbollah worldwide.
	And McMaster barred him from traveling to Israel to begin carrying out that plan.
	And all of these things are antithetical, of course, to President Trump's stated uh policies, both in regards to Iran and its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah.
	So, you know, this is this is the sort of thing that he did with Harvey, and um, you know, he he did similar things with other people who he purged, who he's recently fired, and some of these firings he's he's carried out without the knowledge of the president, uh without the knowledge of the human resources office at the at the White House, and it's really just kind of stunning.
	Really all right, Sarah Carter, back to you.
	I want to get back to this question of McMaster in this waiver that he's giving Susan Rice is the only other possible person he could have granted it to Ben Rhodes.
	Well, sure.
	I I believe that's the other thing.
	Or there are you because you said former national security advisors.
	Is it possible that I mean how does Samantha power?
	How does a UN ambassador have the power to unmask hundreds of people as especially in Trump and his presidential transition team?
	How did he she get that power?
	Well, remember, Obama loosened the rules.
	Under the Obama administration, Sean, in two thousand eleven, he loosened those rules so that his top advisors could get more unfettered access to to unmasking Americans.
	So basically, they didn't have to go through the 80 pages of explanation as to why they needed this person unmasked, which is normal for most intelligence analysts and people working in those fields that have that kind of classified access.
	They didn't have to do that.
	They just had to have a need to know.
	But if the strange thing is is the need to know in the letter.
	Now, attorneys will say that maybe this has to do with her ability to look back on her um documents.
	Also, possibly for providing testimony to Congress, she might still have to have these security clearances.
	But this is a very detailed you know, letter that says he's waiving under this executive order, you know, uh her need to know that she can have unfettered access to all of the information she reviewed, she received, she looked at anything.
	Would we have a record of what would we have a record of everything she looked at?
	Because I believe we would.
	Yes.
	I want to take a break more with Sarah Carter, her big breaking, a letter that H.R. McMaster said that Susan Rice keeps her top security clearance.
	This makes no sense at all.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean.
	We're spending this full hour of the program to try and explain to the extent that we can what this deep state is.
	How is it that you have Ambassador Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, all unmasking the names of Americans?
	What is this deep state?
	125 leaks, 126 days, selective leaking against the president of intelligence.
	Is the intelligence community being taken over the weaponry of the intelligence community by a very small, small group of people?
	Are they abusing the powers that we give them?
	Who are they?
	Why are people so many Americans being unmasked?
	Why a 350% increase in unmasking?
	Why are there these intelligence leaks that are a violation of law?
	And the big story today from Sarah Carter, why did H. R. McMaster actually grant Susan Rice, who's being investigated for unmasking and intelligence leaking?
	Why, in fact, did he give her a waiver and access to classified information beyond her tenure this past April, and even waiving the need to know requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure.
	What is going on here?
	And why were three and why were three intelligence people that I am told are the masters of knowledge as it relates to the deep state?
	Why were they recently fired?
	I'm trying to understand.
	Here we've got, let me remind you, Susan Rice on the surveillance program.
	James Comey.
	Oh, I'm not aware of anybody unmasking American citizens.
	James Clapper.
	He says uh 1,934 American citizens unmasked in 2016 alone.
	Why?
	Let's play it.
	I know nothing about this.
	I was surprised to see uh reports from uh Chairman Eunice on that uh count today.
	I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been.
	Uh the President of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign.
	Nothing of the sort occurred.
	Did you seek the names of people involved in to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people uh surrounding the pre the president elect?
	Let me begin in order to spy on them in the expose.
	Absolutely not for any political purposes to spy expose anything.
	I really don't know to what uh Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was uh illegal, lawful surveillance, and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
	And I think it's important for people to understand what incidental means.
	That means that the target was a either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation.
	But the fact is that uh in the president did request uh back in December, the intelligence community compile all of the information that it had on what had transpired during the campaign with respect to the Russians involving themselves uh in the presidential campaign, and that report was provided uh to the American people in unclassified form and to Congress uh in classified form in early January.
	Did the pace accelerate during the transition?
	Perhaps in early December.
	Uh perhaps when the president ordered an investigation into the hacking, the Russian hacking.
	Did the pace of unmasking requests of your unmasking requests accelerate toward the end of the White House tenure?
	And I can't say the pace of unmasking requests would accelerate, but if you're asking, were there more reports provided to senior U.S. officials after the president requested the compilation of the intelligence, which uh w was ultimately um provided in January?
	Yes, what happened was as the IC went about the business community business of following up on the president's order.
	Fulfilling the president's request for such a report.
	They went back and scrubbed more reports.
	They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself.
	This is not uh anything uh political has has been alleged.
	The allegation is that somehow uh Obama administration officials uh utilized intelligence for political purposes.
	That's absolutely false.
	Unmasking, are you familiar with that?
	I'm familiar with that term.
	Okay, has the Bureau ever requested unmasking of an American citizen caught up in incidental collection?
	Oh, yes, yeah, like I did it this week in connection with an intelligence report.
	All right, before I authorized reauthorize 702, and I'm a pretty hawkish guy.
	I want to know how unmasking works.
	Are you aware of any requests by the White House?
	Anybody in the Obama administration to unmask American citizens that were caught up in incidental surveillances in 2015 or 2016?
	I'm not.
	I'm not aware of any request to the FBI.
	Would you know what they who would they make the request to?
	Well, they can make it to to anyone in the FBI who was uh What about the NSA?
	Wouldn't you make it to the NSA?
	Sure, if it was an NSA report.
	Okay.
	There are cases when, to fully understand the context of the communication that has been obtained or the threat that is posed, the consumer of that collected intelligence may ask the identity of the U.S. person be revealed.
	Such requests explain why the unmasking is necessary, and that explanation is conveyed back to the agency that collected the information.
	It is then up to that agency whether to approve the request and to provide the identity.
	And if U.S. person's identity is revealed, that identity is provided only to the person who properly requested it, not to a broader Audience.
	This process is subject to oversight and reporting, and in the interest of transparency, my former office publishes a report on the statistics of how many U.S. persons' identities are en masse based on collection that occurred under Section 702 of the Flystone Amendment Act, which I'll speak to in a moment.
	And in 2016, that number was 1,934.
	All right, we continue.
	Sarah Carter breaking that big story with circanus.com.
	We'll get back to her in a second.
	And Caroline Glick is with us.
	She writes for the Jerusalem Post.
	Let's get back to the issue of what you were saying about H.R. McMaster, and I'll let you finish your point, Caroline, then we'll go back to Sarah.
	So the only thing I just wanted to say in terms of two things that Sarah brought up, the New York Times report that came out a few months ago about how Obama ordered his people to just push out classified information so that it could be slowly leaked during the Trump administration period is really, I think, very tied up with this letter that Sarah reported on today.
	Because if their process is to gradually, incrementally, continuously leak information about what's happening with the Trump administration, administration or anything else, um then her continued access to classified information facilitates this.
	And we just have to look at today's headlines where suddenly we see the New York Times again or sorry, the Washington Post again uh reporting verbatim transcripts of President Trump's conversations with foreign leaders in in their paper, and you see that the president is a very important thing.
	We have the whole transcript of the president of of Mexico and um Australia.
	Yeah, and Australia.
	And I I I know, but I the thing that's most disturbing me is you're saying McMaster does not support Obama on the Iranian deal.
	Well, that's the other thing that I wanted to speak to, because you know, one of the weird things, right, about the Iran deal, and Senator Tom Cotton has talked about this a lot, is that Obama signed these side deals with the Iranians that were kept um that were kept secret from the American people that were kept secret from Congress that nobody was allowed to see, and so nobody knew what was actually agreed to between the Obama administration and the Iranians.
	So you would think that when the uh Trump administration came in that they would have access to side deals that presume presumably um are uh obligate uh the Trump administration, the American people.
	But uh the Obama administration refused to transfer that information to the Trump White House, and they took it all under the Presidential Records Act to uh the Obama archive and there and now uh the uh and one of the things that Ezra Collin, who was fired uh uh this week was trying to do is get his hands on that information.
	And even weirder is that the State Department, which has copies of those side deals, is not sharing it with the White House.
	So that the Trump White House doesn't even have access to deals that the Obama commander in chief not have access to that.
	I don't know.
	I mean I think that's the right.
	That makes no sense.
	Sarah, have you heard that?
	That's insane.
	Absolutely.
	Everything Caroline is saying, I have verified through other sources, her story is spot on, and everything she is saying is what I am hearing as well from our sources.
	She explained it very well, I think.
	And what we have to ask ourselves is one, if the president is not having access to this information and to the information that these people wanted delivered to him, what is he doing about it now that he knows?
	And two, if he did know about it, then we have to ask ourselves that question.
	Has he changed his point of view on Iran?
	I don't believe he has.
	I mean, he stood on that issue as part of his platform to become president of the United States.
	And he has never made an argument as to why that is a good deal now.
	He's always said it was a bad deal.
	It's a bad deal, and I'm gonna get rid of it.
	And another point, it's absolutely true that you know, when you're looking at these leaks and these continuing leaks, if you reauthorize the ability for people like Susan Rice and others to have that type of access to classified information, we don't know.
	We're alleging, but we know that information is leaking out.
	So it was the discretion of McMaster to give her that or to not Give her that.
	And to do that raises a lot of questions.
	He gave her that reauthorization, and then he waived her need to know on all of this stuff with her past, even though the president has spoken out against this.
	So that's another question, I think, for the president.
	Did McCain recommend McMaster?
	That's what I understand.
	That uh McCain recommended McMaster, and he was hired on the basis of a one half hour conversation that he had with President Trump at the Mar-a-Lago uh resort at Palm Beach at a time when the president was really under an enormous amount of strain and stress to find a new national security uh advisor after he was essentially forced uh to fire his trusted national security advisor, Mike Mike Flynn.
	Well, Sarah, then let me get back to you because I I think this now gets to the heart of what this deep state is all about.
	I've also heard McMaster has a horrible temper.
	Is that true?
	I have heard from senior officials in the White House who have witnessed his temper.
	Uh he has lashed out at people in the White House, verbally assaulted them.
	There have been verbal fights, I heard even between him and Steve Bannon.
	There's been enormous uh tension in the White House with him there.
	Uh and you know that there are things that are happening within the White House uh that I have heard from sources very senior level sources that say distress the president with regard to H.R. McMaster.
	Now, those are alleged.
	Let me go to the bigger, broader picture here.
	If you've got Comey now leaking to get a general counsel, and he successfully does so, then you got the FBI's own general counsel suspected of being an anti-Trump leaker.
	Then we've got all of the deep state investigations going on about unmasking and leaking intelligence, and you have top Obama officials, everyone from Samantha Power to Susan Rice to Ben Rhodes and and Clapper and Brennan and maybe others.
	We don't we don't know the full extent of this.
	And then McMaster is giving sort of a a sort of immunity to Susan Rice and maybe others, we don't know yet.
	It doesn't make any sense to me.
	Does it make sense to you, Sarah?
	No, it doesn't make sense to me.
	And I mean the buck stops with the president.
	So the president is going to make those final decisions.
	He's gonna make the judgment as to what's been going on in his White House and his NSC, whether that's been appropriate or not.
	And I think, you know, it's not my place or anyone else's place to say what the president should do or shouldn't do.
	But it would be interesting to hear what the president's going to say at the revelation of all of this information if he says anything at all.
	But it makes no sense whatsoever when you see the policies very so drastically.
	Well, I mean, I think that's the the whole thing here.
	Um were American citizens unmasked, and do you both see that this was done for political purposes?
	In other words, are these very few people within the intelligence community abusing the tools of intelligence?
	Are they doing this to hurt the president and stop his agenda?
	Because it seems to me that would be the only reason they would do it.
	Well, I think that you know you have to look and ask yourself did this ever happen to anybody who wasn't on Trump's team?
	I mean, have we had these kinds of leaks, these damaging reputation destroying leaks?
	Uh from national security uh agency reports being leaked about Obama personnel, even about uh, you know George W. Bush's people.
	Has this ever happened before?
	Um and as far as I know, and I could and and perhaps I'm wrong, but my sense is that it's never happened before.
	Last word we'll give to Sarah Carter with her blockbuster.
	We'll have more on Hannity tonight.
	Yeah, well, Sean, I I have not heard of this happening before either to this extent.
	And certainly there's an ongoing investigation, and hopefully the public will get the truthful, straightforward answers with regard to this.
	And if something was going on and if information is being used for political espionage, they will find a way to stop this because it violates every foundation of our Constitution and our Fourth Amendment rights.
	Very scary.
	Uh we'll stay on this.
	This is a clear and present danger.
	And if the the Constitution itself and our Fourth Amendment protections are in jeopardy here.
	Uh, thank you both.
	Great work, both of you.
	Great article today, Sarah.
	Uh we'll have more on Hannity tonight.
	When we come back, news roundup information overload, and Jim Acosta gets a beat down.
	It's Miller time at the White House yesterday.
	We'll continue.
	All right, when we come back, news roundup and information overload hour.
	Yeah, okay, big shocker.
	This imp You know, I don't understand people in the media.
	Of course, the Mueller with his abusively biased Clinton donating, Obama donating, Democratic donating, staff and hiring Hillary Clinton's attorney.
	Of course they impaneled the grand jury.
	Why is that a surprise to so many people?
	I I hope the time we're spending on the deep state is valuable to you.
	We'll get to that.
	By the way, did you see Stephen Miller?
	It was Miller time at the White House yesterday against Jim Acosta of fake news CNN.
	That's next.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
	Uh aren't you trying to change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country if if you're telling them uh you have to speak English?
	Uh can't people learn how to speak English when they get here?
	Well, first of all, right now it's a requirement that it be naturalized, you have to speak English.
	So the notion that speaking English wouldn't be a part of immigration systems would be actually very ahistorical.
	Secondly, I don't want to get off into a whole thing about history here, but the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of liberty enlightening the world, is a symbol of American liberty lighting the world.
	The poem that you're referring to that was added later, is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty, but more fundamentally, the history they but more fundamentally.
	I'm saying that I'm saying that the notion of the notion of the end of this.
	I'm saying the notion Stephen, I'm sorry.
	No, it's like that sounds like Jim, let me ask you a question.
	That sounds like some uh national part revisionism.
	No, Statue of Liberty has always been a good thing.
	Jim, let me ask you a hope to the world for people to say, do you believe people to this country and they're not always going to speak English, Stephen?
	They're not going to be highly skilled, they're not always.
	Jim, I I appreciate your speech.
	Jim, I appreciate your speech.
	So let's let's talk about this.
	It was a modest Jim, let's talk about this.
	In 1970, when we let in 300,000 people a year, was that violating or not violating the Statue of Liberty Law of the Land?
	In 1990s, when it was half a million a year, was it violating or not violating the Statue of Liberty Law of the Land?
	Was it violating the city?
	When it was 700,000 years of the city.
	No, tell me what years in the future.
	Tell me what years, tell me what years meet, tell me what years meet Jim Acosta's definition of the Statue of Liberty home law of the land.
	So you're saying a million a year is the Statue of Liberty number.
	900,000 violates it, 800,000 violates it.
	You're sort of bringing a press one for English philosophy here to immigration, and that's never what the United States is going to be.
	Jim, Jim.
	Do you really want to do that?
	I want to be serious, Jim.
	Do you really at CNN not know the difference between green card policy and illegal immigration?
	Sir.
	I mean, are you really don't know that the immigrant came to this country in 1962 uh right before the Cuban Missile Crisis and obtained a green card?
	Yes.
	People who emigrated.
	Okay, so eventually people who do race to this country.
	Jim, as a factual question.
	Do obtain a green card at some point.
	They do it through a lot of hard work, and yes, they may learn English as a second language later on in life.
	So but this whole this whole notion of well, they could learn, you know, they have to learn English before they get to the United States.
	Are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?
	Jim, actually, I honestly say, I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English.
	It's actually, it reveals your cosmopolitan uh bias to a shocking degree that in your mind, no, this is an amazing, this is an amazing moment.
	This is an amazing moment that you think only people from Great Britain or Australia would speak English is so insulting to millions of hardworking immigrants who do speak English from all over the world.
	Jim, have you honestly, Jim, have you honestly never met a an immigrant from another country who speaks English outside of Great Britain and Australia?
	Is that your personal experience?
	Of course there are people who come to the city.
	But that's not what you said.
	And it shows it shows your cosmopolitan bias.
	And I just want to say you're trying to engineer the racial ethnic flow of people into this country.
	Yeah, that is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant, and foolish things you've ever said.
	And for you, that's still a really notion that you think that this is a racist bill is so wrong and so insulting.
	Jim.
	Wow.
	Checkmate, game over, Stephen Miller, presser yesterday, and fake news CNN exposed.
	That's supposed to be their objective, discerning and fair and balanced reporter.
	The level of ignorance is breathtaking.
	Glad you're with us.
	News roundup information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity show.
	We have our good friends Jonathan Gillam and Rick Ungar are with us.
	And you got to admit that was a checkmate moment.
	Why why is CNN's reporter acting as though they're with the ACLU?
	Who are you asking?
	You.
	Well, why would I give Jonathan the easy question?
	I mean, Acosta clearly uh wandered over the line into opinion.
	Uh that it was sounded like you.
	You as a matter of fact, you're smarter and more reasonable.
	It was not his shining moment.
	I gotta say that.
	You know how disarming you are?
	So here you think we've got Rick Unger, John Jonathan backed in a corner.
	And every time I back him in a corner, you're right.
	Uh I can't defend that.
	It's like he can't defend anything they do.
	I don't I don't I don't think you should defend Miller either.
	I mean, the point of a news of a conference like that is to give us information.
	He made it personal.
	Did you hear him make it personal about Stephen Miller?
	Say that, say what again?
	He was making it personal about Miller.
	I think they were both making it personal, and it was silly.
	And what we didn't get out of that pressing uh gaggle was any information about the bill that's being proposed, no discussion about it, just this little war between a reporter who clearly wasn't reporting.
	He was telling us what he thought and uh Miller, who tends to be, you know, not very pleasant, let's put it that way.
	Most people don't think he belongs in front of the TV camera.
	I I disagree.
	I thought it was a checkmate moment.
	Uh I could watch that every day, all day.
	And Sarah Huckabee Sanders is doing great too.
	You know, I've been saying way a long time ago when Stephen Miller first started getting introduced to the public when he was uh working with the Trump campaign, that he should have been the press secretary.
	But I do think that both he and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, I think I said last week on your program, I've been trying to get this word to uh to uh Sarah that she's like the Tony Soprano of the press secretary.
	She she does not have a vicious tone.
	She smiles at people and crushes them at the same time.
	It's the most fascinating thing I've ever seen.
	But Stephen Miller, man, that guy what Trump has in those two people, he should just stop with the communication stuff, wrap it up, he's got his team, and go on.
	Those two people are all he needs to worry about uh for the rest of his uh his time as president to to handle communication.
	What is I I would be absolutely thrilled if he would make Steve Miller the press secretary from my side, it's the nicest thing you could do for us.
	Well, but he's factual.
	You said a second ago, you said that uh that this was uh uh go back and forth between the two, but Jim Acosta started that.
	It wasn't Stephen Miller just he did start it.
	I don't I don't disagree.
	He absolutely started it.
	Uh that doesn't mean that that Miller's behavior is what you want at a press secretary, as I say.
	Even Warrior, my side of the fence, happy, go for it.
	I love it.
	But uh and no, I'm not cutting Acosta any slack.
	He's not there to give us his opinions and to uh to to force his point of view.
	He's there to ask questions to get us news.
	He didn't do that yesterday.
	But don't at the same time, Miller accommodated him by getting into a personal fight instead of explaining the bill to us, which is I thought what the point was.
	Jonathan?
	Well, I've done listen.
	That's what these press conferences don't really make a whole lot of sense because they are more uh out to get a soundbite than they are an explanation of a bill.
	And the thing about Stephen Miller and Sarah Huckabee Sanders is that if that's the game the media is gonna play, because you've got to remember these press conferences uh they're for clarity and transparency, and uh the administration is offering these people up so they can give these explanations, but the media shows up with their bias and they try to get in there and these people up.
	Did you see the other media doing that yesterday?
	I saw Jim Acosta doing it.
	I even saw Glenn Thrush doing it a little bit from the New York Times.
	But you had a room full of people there.
	So rather than say the media, if if you have a beef, which I think is deserved, uh, with Mr. Acosta, then state, you know, have have the problem.
	But what's the point of saying all the media didn't get into that discussion with Steve Miller?
	They're perfectly normal because Acosta is he never shuts up and he runs his mouth.
	I think he should be kicked out of the White House.
	If they're not gonna kick him out, then they need to allow Stephen Miller to pull out his verbal sword And stab him directly in the heart, which he did yesterday like a warrior.
	I mean, that's what has to be there.
	Yeah, but this is happening more and more.
	Look at Kellyanne has been amazing.
	She went on CNN and crushed them.
	I mean, it was a beatdown and or MSM.
	Well, I don't even know which channel's the same because they're all fake news.
	And Sebastian Gorka going on both uh with Alison Camarata and with Anderson Cooper saying, hey, your ratings are lower than Nick at night and hey boo boo, let's get a book and basket.
	Fifty year old Yogi Bear reruns.
	I mean, if you're getting ratings lower than Yogi.
	What?
	You're funny.
	I love Yogi Bear report.
	Okay, because you're living in your childhood.
	I mean, you're never grown up.
	You have never grown up in all the time I've known you.
	I made millions of dollars living on my sales.
	You have you made millions of dollars watching Yogi Bear.
	It's impossible.
	But what the problem we have is let's look at Russia, Russia, Russia.
	Okay, we got a Ukraine collusion story.
	Ukrainians wanted Donald Trump defeated the DNC, a paid operative met with the Ukrainian ambassador at the Ukrainian embassy.
	Politico says reporting back to the Clinton campaign, reporting back to the DNC.
	There's no difference between that and Russia.
	And if you want a really bad Russia scandal, go to Uranium One.
	There's a real scandal.
	And and Rick, that's the point.
	Are you doing this every day?
	No, I never talked about that.
	I am making a point that the news media is abusively biased and fixated only on palace intrigue and Russia, and they're doing a disservice to the American people.
	Does that include Fox News?
	Fox News is the only listen, I you know, people write me all the time about this host and that host and this host and that host.
	We have a lot of liberals on the air.
	A lot.
	A lot of people that disagree with me on the air.
	And you know because you've been there.
	I'm like the only I am I am the only one that is as strongly supportive of the uh of the president of anyone else at Fox.
	I think that's a fair statement.
	There are a couple of others.
	Okay, so is that a fair statement, Jonathan?
	Uh I well, yeah, I absolutely believe that.
	And I I do I think they're supportive, but nobody is much.
	Okay, have you ever watched some the news people?
	Have you watched Brett's panel?
	Have you watched The Specialist?
	Have you watched the five?
	Have you watched any of these other shows that you know, Brett Bear's Fair and we have other Martha's Fair, but the rest of these programs, I mean, you have liberals and conservatives.
	You ever seen Geraldo on my show?
	He drives me nuts like you do.
	And I love both of you.
	I don't know why.
	Actually, I agree.
	I think I think Brett Bear does a perfectly good show.
	Yeah, because he puts and he has tons of never Trumpers on, tons of weak Republicans on.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	No, and the only reason I ask the question, I don't disagree with any of that, is that everybody lumps in the media, and remember, you've got conservative media too.
	I agree that there's liberal media, but there's also conservative media.
	Let me take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	Rick Gunger, Jonathan Gillam straight ahead.
	All right, as we continue, Rick Unger and Jonathan Gillam here.
	All right, so what are we to make of this?
	I mean, this is really scary.
	A month after it was disclosed that the President Obama's national security advisor, Susan Rice, among many now, and Ben Rhodes and Samantha Powers and all these other people are involved in on masking of members of President Trump's team and other Americans.
	Trump's own national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, sends an official letter giving, in this case, Susan Rice, unfettered and continued access to classified information and waiving her need to know requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure.
	I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.
	That is the single dumbest decision I think I've ever heard, Jonathan Gillam.
	Well, let me tell you, there's a McMaster is persona non grata with anybody that knows anything about national security right now.
	And uh the American public are starting to figure it out that McMaster is another one of these uh swamp insiders.
	And I gotta tell you, I I know that you're very close with the president, and he I he has to realize, Sean, that they're two things.
	One, the people that he's chosen.
	I know he likes big things.
	He's uh, you know, he likes flashy things, he's a flashy guy, but he's gotta realize these aren't expensive trinkets.
	These people are deadly insiders, and but just because they have general behind their name doesn't mean that they know any more than an E7 that's a chief.
	I think he needs to Take a step back, and he needs to start interviewing people that are contractors and chiefs and people who have been vetted with their experience and bringing those people in and getting rid of the McMasters, getting rid of all these people that have that are just retreads.
	I mean, he there's nothing he can do now about Christopher Ray.
	But Christopher Ray is another example of this.
	He is just another DOJ attorney, and he is close with Mueller, Comey, and uh the acting attorney general.
	Why is it taking so long to clean house on Obama holdovers?
	Why what possible reason would would H.R. McMaster ever make that decision to ostensibly give her immunity?
	Because these people come from the same universe.
	They scratch their back and then they get their back scratched by those people.
	And these are relationships.
	You don't become a general overnight.
	These are people that have built their careers since the Clinton era.
	And so they came up to Clinton, Bush uh 43, they work for Obama.
	So they are not a good thing.
	But the master has to understand, uh, and I'll throw this to to my good liberal friend that is here.
	Sorry about that.
	Um but in all seriousness, we've had a 350% increase in unmasking since we we know what happened with uh Clapper, and he changes the rules and Obama changes the rules.
	That goes back to 2011.
	Then we see unmasking at unprecedented levels, then Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, Clapper, who's now working at CNN for crying out loud, allowed a lot of this to happen.
	Obama lets it happen, and I'm sure by the time all said and done, it's going to be more people.
	Why would you allow this to happen when there's 125 leaks in 126 days, and clearly the deep state, Rick Unger, is trying to take out the president.
	Guys, this is an easy one.
	If you want to eat your own, why would I stand in your way?
	Well, I don't think it's eating own.
	It's either, you know, eat uh you can't have people that make really dumb decisions.
	You can't have people that is the president's choice to be the top national security advisor in the country.
	I you know, I would have thought you'd be more supportive, but as I say it's decision, I'm not gonna stop you.
	800 941 Sean, thank you both.
	When we come back, the gobby one, Katie Hopkins will get the Great Britain perspective next as we continue the Sean Hannity Show.
	We'll be right back.
	you'll hear what everyone really thinks in DC.
	This is the Sean Hannity show.
	God I hate this music.
	Oh my gosh.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
	If you hear the British music, you're probably watching the tele, listening to the radio, the baby C and spot of T, and that can only mean one thing that Katie Hopkins is back, our friends from the Daily Mail.
	You know what, Ethan, who works on our team just said, why don't you let Katie Hopkins, because we've had Diamond and Silcon uh for the last two weeks doing the the last word on my TV show, why not let Katie Hopkins do the gobby one do the last word on our television show?
	And I'm sitting here thinking that's a great idea, but I'm just wondering how much we're gonna have to edit out if we give you that opportunity.
	I don't know if America is ready for a final word from Casey Hopkins, but I don't think I'm that much more frightening than Diamond and Silk, who I love, by the way.
	Um, I think a little Hopkins final word would be good, and I can guarantee you we wouldn't have to edit out anything.
	We might just need your viewers to promise not to be offended that evening.
	I don't care if that they're offended every evening.
	Every liberal in this country hates me and wants to destroy me.
	You know that, just like well, you're kind of hated a little bit in Great Britain.
	Well, maybe you're hated even more than me.
	Yes, but you can you know, if it's that many number of liberals want to hate you or constant you, that means you're definitely doing something right.
	You know, If you annoy enough people, it means you must be getting them where it hurts.
	And that's what's happening because you speak the truth, you're telling it how you see it, and you are also articulating the views of so many people who can no longer have their voice heard.
	I personally think you should be given a medal for services to America.
	And I will be putting that idea forward to Mr. Trump.
	I think Mr. Trump will be laughing the minute you push forward that idea.
	But he does have a good sense of humor if uh you know him.
	Linda told me you went to LA.
	I went to LA.
	I did.
	And I was in Pasadena and then I was in downtown LA.
	And uh I got a little taste of your road system and you crazy drivers in America, and I was there for Politicon, which is essentially where a whole bunch of democrats argue with a whole bunch of Republican commentators, and unfortunately they thought it would be a good idea to put me on a panel with women, uh female liberals from the uh women's marches.
	So and a nation's that were wearing the vagina outfits and everything?
	Those ones, you know, and I think the lady is called is it Anna Navarro?
	I don't know.
	I think she works on like MSNBC or something, right?
	Yeah, like um she must be a democrat, I think.
	Anyway, her and I didn't get along, what would we say?
	We didn't get along so well.
	You didn't get a you didn't get on so well with her.
	How did it go?
	Well, I told uh the uh assembled room of a thousand or so uh women's marchers that I'd never been so disappointed by women that they'd utterly let me down, that they failed to have a single uh point to their lives, and that standing around marching with stupid hats on,
	holding a banner somewhere cosmopolitan, like the center of a nice city, doesn't get anything done, and I'd much rather see their ugly little faces outside uh the courts where people are being tried for grooming gangs, where we have Muslim grooming gangs, or we have women assaulted by men uh who are here because we have to tolerate multiculturalism.
	I never hear anything from the feminists apart from a deafening silence.
	And so I brought that message to them in conversation.
	And how did they react?
	Well, I got out of there alive, and then like all of the shy conservatives came up to give me a hug and say, Thank God for you.
	Well, there was one conservative in a room I I've never understood this mindset of mentality.
	And let me make one serious note.
	I say on this program all the time, and this really irked me about Hillary Clinton, because when it comes to money in the Clintons, it's okay to hand over twenty percent of our uranium to Vladimir Putin and get 145 million kicked back to the Clinton Foundation.
	Uh that apparently in the media's mind is not a Russian conspiracy, but and when she would take money from all of these countries that abuse women, women are told how to dress, they can't drive, they can't vote, they can't travel abroad, they can't even leave their house in some instances without a male approval.
	Um, and and the women are beaten and you know, they just need three times for their husband to say, I I divorce you, and the divorce is complete, and they get nothing, and they're they're ostracized.
	And women, of course, are we have genital mutilation around the country.
	You know, there's real abuse of women.
	There's real murder of gays and lesbians, there's real mistreatment of Christians and Jews in these countries, but you give Killary money, she'll take it.
	That's such hypocrisy.
	It it is it is a madness, and that's precisely the point I was kind of trying to make in this blooming woman's panel.
	You know, I hate seeing I don't see myself as a woman anywhere.
	I don't know why people identify just because of a chuffing chromosome that they get born with.
	That does not, you know, just d dictate whether you're good at your job or not.
	But I always say to these women, you know, they sort of seem to conflate their viewpoints with their identity, you know, so that if you therefore attack their viewpoints, you're somehow making a massive attack on their humanity, which must be nonsense.
	But absolutely they fail to stand up for women who are repressed by a religion.
	We've just got, I must send you the link actually, uh uh propaganda uh news channel, the BBC, the state broadcasters putting out stuff, you know, it's got women in burqa's sitting around having a laugh with each other, you know, joking to try and normalize women behind the burqa.
	And what I want to say is, why don't why don't we watch them eat?
	Because if you've ever watched someone in a burqa eat, it's really quite something in a full free.
	By the way, did you did you ever see their images, and I'm not making this up.
	Some people listening will say that I'm making this up.
	I'm not, of women in burkinis.
	That they actually make women swim fully clothed.
	Now I swim with a t-shirt on because I'm too fat, but that's different.
	You need to step away from the fridge, Mr. Hannity.
	You know, seriously, you're gonna start on it.
	I it's it's not that.
	I I I it is that.
	It uh listen You're not telling me you've got big bones.
	Is that what you're about to say?
	No, I'm not saying.
	You're about to tell me you've got big bones or it runs in a family because, sir, we're not gonna we're not we're gonna, you know, part ways at this point.
	No, I don't have big bones.
	I do eat.
	Well, what is it then?
	Because I'm constantly having a diet because if I eat Well, it's because you're constantly shoving food in your face.
	No, I'm not constantly shoving food in my face.
	I I am totally good, but it if I have one bad week, like the Fourth of July week, and I eat everything that I love, I I blow up like a a balloon.
	I blow blow up like a blimp.
	Mr. Hannity, one mouth, two ears.
	Yes.
	I need you to listen, um Katie.
	I put on fifty-two pounds in three months and lost it again to prove that fat people are lazy.
	You, sir, are lazy.
	I am not lazy.
	I work out four days.
	You are.
	Linda, if if you can say a lot about me, am I lazy?
	No, boss, you're not lazy.
	I'm not lazy.
	I am not lazy.
	You can say a lot about me, but I've gotta taser you if you say You might be able to say when it comes.
	No, this would be a true fact.
	There are times with food I am undisciplined.
	I'm saying that.
	I know that because you're a chubber.
	But listen, I am not a chubby.
	Linda, am I am I really that fat?
	I'm just fat enough that I don't want to swim without a t-shirt on.
	I'm just saying, I don't know if you know this, Katie, but we call him manorexic here.
	He's not fat at all.
	He wears a t-shirt because he's a pale Irishman.
	No one wants to see him.
	By the way, it's it's translucent.
	There's no doubt about it.
	Is he so pale, he's nearly purple?
	But my I do have my arms are tan, and my legs are tangled.
	You have a farmer's tan.
	I don't know if you should write it.
	Okay, that is a that is an attractive image.
	You naked in your farmer's tan, barely translucent, slightly purple, and quite overweight.
	That's quite an image for your father's.
	I am not quite overweight.
	I said I just I uh look.
	We how do we get off on this topic?
	I said Okay, so I I don't want to get sunburned.
	That's really the main reason, but I also have a little bit of a beer gut, and I don't even drink that much beer.
	We call those daddy tummies.
	I quite like a daddy tummy.
	You like a daddy's hammy.
	Well, good then.
	Burkinis madness, bikini madness, that's what I say.
	And a lot of feminine uh feminine um uh sort of the women marchers over here, the kind of real aggressive man haters, they wear bikinis in solidarity with their Muslim sisters here in the UK.
	Well, they're not wearing burkinies.
	Uh all right, let me play this.
	I mean, this is how insane these people have gotten, and these are like my favorite cuts.
	You got Ashley Judd and Madonna.
	I'll I'll remind our audience.
	And to our detractors that insist that this march will never add up to anything.
	Thank you.
	You but this is the hallmark of revolution.
	Yes, I'm angry.
	Yes, no kidding.
	I am outraged.
	Yes.
	Yes, I'm lazy off sister.
	An awful lot about blowing up the White House.
	I don't even know what to say.
	I I I have nothing to say to that insanity.
	She she I was there because obviously I was there for the inauguration of Trump.
	I wasn't there for the woman's march, but I went to the woman's march so I could watch these curious women in action, and I remember hearing them speak, and I remember that conversation she had on stage, which made no sense at all to anybody gathered there.
	I remember one of them yelling, you are we and we are you.
	And I was just like, yeah, maybe.
	And then Madonna, you know, her eyes now, because she's pulled them back so far, they are so close to her ears.
	When she cries, tears come out from behind her ears.
	I swear to God.
	Oh she is.
	You've got to be nice.
	I mean, you first you're making fun of me now, Madonna.
	Wow.
	What did you call me a chub?
	You call me a chubby.
	Yeah.
	Well, when I come to New York, I'm gonna take you walking.
	Maybe we'll do the final word like when we're warming.
	No, I'll take you.
	No, you can come to my dojo and we can do a martial arts workout, and you're not gonna be able to keep up with me.
	Okay, the challenge is on, but I warn you.
	I warn you.
	I warn you, I warn you.
	I will very, very gently have you on your bottom.
	Better be a promise, not a threat.
	Oh, jeez!
	You don't need to be sensitive, Sean.
	It's okay.
	What what is okay?
	I'm not doing anything wrong.
	I work out four days a week.
	I do boxing, I do Kenpo, I do jujitsu, I do I crowd my goddamn I do punching and hitting and grappling.
	What do you want me to do?
	So you purposely you purposely you purposely gained 56 pounds and lost it.
	Yes, I can send actually later I'll send you.
	How did you gain it?
	How do you gain fifty-six pounds?
	I'm gonna put send you pictures of me when I was at my fattest, and it will put you off food for life.
	I send them out for people to put on their fridge doors, and I'm gonna send you one and it will make you walk away from the fridge.
	I put it on by still.
	How did you lose the weight?
	Because the people really do struggle with this.
	This is a serious problem.
	Yeah, of course.
	And it, you know, and I did do it um for a purpose.
	You know, I did it to kind of prove that no matter what, if you've got medication, you've got a health issue, you've got whatever you've got going on in your life, um, that if you sit down too much and you put too much food in your face, you will get bigger.
	And that's all I did.
	I sat down for three months and shoved food in my face and put on half my body weight, and then to lose it, I I made sure I did it like anybody, so it was accessible to all your lovely listeners.
	So I I didn't have a trainer, I didn't have a nutritionist, I didn't join a gym, I did it outside of work hours.
	And what did you what did you eat?
	Because uh, in all seriousness, I mean when I do gain weight, it's a hard thing to lose those pounds.
	It's pain.
	Yeah, it's it's hideous.
	Look, and I do as much as I'm joking, it's only because I've been there.
	I felt the most wretched I've ever felt.
	You know, it was a documentary on TLC, my fat story, and America bought it actually from the UK.
	And um, I uh I do the serious point is is that most of us our relationship with food is not is not about food at all.
	It's an emotional relationship with food.
	And then I spoke to so many.
	It's not emotional, it's I like how it tastes.
	Yeah, for sure.
	And that's nice, and that's comforting, and I totally get it.
	And I also totally get, you know, how hard it is and how disappointing it is uh to when people try and lose weight.
	And really, because I'm a lovely person, I just want people to feel nice about themselves.
	And I want you to feel that weight too.
	All right, Katie Hopkins.
	So can I ask what you ate really quick?
	How did you lose it?
	Yeah, of course.
	So to to put it on, um, you know, and it that people say, Oh, it must have been lovely.
	You could have eaten anything you have.
	I was eating eight thousand five hundred calories a day.
	So that's like three or four roast dinners a day.
	And it and I was miserable.
	I was horrible to my husband, I was horrible to my children, and I became a nasty, nasty woman.
	More nasty than Madonna, but without the facelift and the issue.
	Oh.
	Yeah.
	That was Ashley Judd who said she was nasty.
	Okay.
	But what did you eat?
	What did you how did you lose it?
	And then I lost it by just so I made a commitment so that I wanted people to be able to do this, so I said 10,000 steps a day.
	So I made myself do 10,000 steps a day.
	I stopped shoving 8,500 calories in my face, and then I picked up a few other women and a few men that also wanted to shift weight, and we started my fat club and we did it together, and a few of those people lost a couple stone each.
	So that's my Sean Hannity challenge, and to your listeners.
	Well, I don't take 10,000 steps a day.
	I mean, I do walk from the you know all right, like I I like that idea.
	But you can't hang with me in the dojo, I can tell you that.
	You're gonna get hurt.
	Can I say something, Sean?
	Yeah.
	Um, so the thing I keep hearing at the moment in America, especially from LA and wherever, is uh people um democratic uh or democrats standing up talking about uh a sort of repeal and replace and uh um you know Obamacare, and they keep using Western Europe as an example of what successful medicine and medical practices can look like.
	And I just want to kind of scream, Sean, because our NHS is not something anybody ever wants to copy.
	You do not want state medical kind of provision.
	You need uh to have the insurance market running.
	It needs to be run by the free market.
	You don't want uh state provision of health care.
	I really kind of want to get that message across because all that happens is you wait for three years to have the surgery that you needed to have straight.
	And if you've reached your life expectancy, you're never gonna get your hip replaced or your knee replaced, are you?
	No, not at all.
	You're not gonna get that here, and people will just opt out and take private services.
	So really people like me end up paying twice.
	So I would just say, anyone that says, oh, look at Western Europe, look at Sweden, look at the UK.
	We have the one of the worst um, survival rates in their own.
	National Health Services, it's a disaster.
	All right, Katie Hopkins, the Gobi one, uh, we're gonna work on you being uh final word next week on TV.
	God help America at that point.
	God helped it.
	God help Madonna and Ashley Judd and God help fat people like me.
	You're gonna make fun of.
	All right, eight hundred nine four one Sean is a number.
	All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
	Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern Sarah Carta's blockbuster.
	Why is HR McMaster protecting Susan Rice?
	We'll have the latest on the Mueller Grand Jury impaneled.
	Who are these people and why are they so linked into the Democratic Party with donations?
	And why did they hire Hillary's attorney?

▲