Sean Hannity Show - Irma's Here - 9.6

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 7, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:35:11

Irma's Here - 9.6

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	All right, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
	And what's changed?
	Just a pillow.
	It's had such a positive impact on my life.
	And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
	I fall asleep faster.
	I stay asleep longer.
	And now you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
	Now you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two Go Anywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity, to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	You will love this pillow.
	All right, glad you're with us on what is a busy, busy.
	What are you doing back there?
	You're not in your official seat.
	It's this is disorienting to me.
	Do you mind sitting in your official seat now?
	Bad enough.
	No, not you.
	I don't want to look at you.
	I am doing something very important right now.
	Mary, you know what I'm doing?
	No, not really.
	What?
	I'm making coffee.
	Making coffee.
	Do you have to say it with a coffee and the coffee and New York and talk?
	And I mean, is it really?
	I want to be a list of wait for what you're about to tell me.
	You have no idea how anybody asked me, wow, she's got a thick New York accent.
	I'm like, you think?
	Yeah, it's pretty thick.
	Shocking.
	We've got a lot.
	We've got a lot to get to.
	What do you mean?
	Stop.
	I'm trying to do a show.
	Do you mind, Jason?
	You don't have access to put that in my ear every second.
	This is not okay.
	All right.
	Bigger, faster, stronger.
	That's how they are now describing Hurricane Irma and this storm.
	It looks like the track has shifted somewhat now towards the southeastern part of Florida.
	It was headed to the southwestern part, exactly where I live.
	And by the way, I don't want anybody to get hit.
	All of Florida, southern Florida, and middle Florida is going to get whacked and whacked hard.
	Broward County now, Floridians are being ordered out.
	And I just hope we don't have a mayor like in Houston saying, no, go back to your homes.
	Don't listen to the experts.
	Go back to your homes.
	Which was the only dumb thing that I saw that happened in Houston.
	Everybody else was actually great.
	I talked to my White House contacts today.
	What?
	You talked to the White House?
	Not like people think.
	Not like people think.
	Oh, Hannity, he's doing the president's bidding.
	Did anyone ever read my 2014 Conservative Solution Caucus?
	How long have I been talking about the economy, balancing the budget, tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts, living within your means for corporations?
	How long have I talked about energy independence, health savings accounts, healthcare cooperatives?
	Poor Josh Umber put on the show for six years and we got nothing out of healthcare.
	Energy independence, all the above.
	Education, back to the state, school choice, building the border wall first.
	How many times?
	And people, and I'm like, there's a conservative that supports a conservative agenda.
	That's why I'm just scratching my conservative head saying, what's wrong with you, Republicans?
	You're all pathetic.
	Anyway, we have a lot to get to today.
	We will hit North Korea, which is getting more dangerous by the day.
	I think this is going to be the best debate we've ever had.
	We started it last week.
	Katie Hopkins, the gobby one, and Geraldo are going to debate DACA today.
	We've got an update on Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	Luke Roziak, the investigative reporter from the Daily Caller.
	You're not going to believe this news about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and how this guy, Imwa Iran, who actually put out a note to special counsel to get out there or to the federal government to get out there and look at the laptop of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and he put it in a place where they could find it.
	So we'll get into all that today.
	I got a note from Jamie Dupree just a few minutes before airtime today.
	You know, a lot of people ask me, where's Jamie?
	Jamie has had, for I guess, the last year and a half, two years now, which is the worst thing if you work in radio.
	Jamie's been one of the greatest broadcasters I've ever known all my life and career.
	Thank God he doesn't have significant health issues.
	He only has voice issues.
	Now, if you work in radio, that's a big deal.
	And for whatever reason, his vocal cords kind of froze.
	This happened to a guy that I know in Huntsville.
	Same thing happened.
	And, you know, when you really think about it, those of us that talk for a living, it's kind of taken for granted that your vocal cords are going to work every day.
	I met a guy over the weekend that had an operation, and they literally, for the back of his neck, they had to operate through the vocal cords, which is extremely dangerous.
	I think Rush at one point was facing the same exact operation.
	I mean, that's really scary.
	If you rush Limbaugh, that's really scary.
	So Jamie is a great friend of the program.
	He will be with us forever because he keeps sending us information.
	I probably don't mention his name enough.
	And I'm going to say keep him in your thoughts and prayers, but he's healthy.
	He's fine.
	His family's fine.
	He works with us just the way he used to, except we don't hear his voice and him sticking it to me every day with him trying to be a journalist and me trying to get out of him whether he's a liberal or conservative.
	And we do miss his voice on the program, but he's a big part of the show every day and gives us information we pass along.
	He writes me earlier, he says, I can't tell you how weird it is on Capitol Hill.
	He writes, first, the Trump actions on DACA are making a lot of people think that he wants the Congress to pass a bill that legalizes the DREAMers, and that is making many Republicans nervous.
	Why can't these people embrace doing their job?
	What is so hard about the conservative solution caucus that I laid out in 2014?
	I was begging those guys to turn that into a contract with America.
	Begging them, saying this will get you elected.
	And then if you solve people's problems, that's good politics.
	Doing nothing makes people mad.
	And for all the talk about the president's approval ratings, well, has anyone looked at Mr. 18% Mitch McConnell?
	Because people have figured out in his home state that he's frankly useless and pathetic and lazy and spineless and without a backbone and can't keep a promise.
	And then when he made that awful come, well, the expectations were so high, you know, after seven and a half years to expect that we're going to get done something as big as repealing and replacing Obamacare.
	It's just wrong.
	Those expectations were put way out of whack.
	Obviously, the president's not used to how the parliamentary procedures of the Senate work here because if they worked any better, first we have to have our, we have to get up late.
	We work out in the Senate chair and then we go have a Senate lunch in the Senate dining room and then we sit around and smoke a cigar.
	And then after cigar time, then we have a cocktail.
	And then after cocktail, we might talk for a little bit about the people.
	And then we're exhausted.
	And then we go back and we have our appetizers.
	And we have dinner.
	And then it's drinking until 3 in the morning.
	And then we get up and start it all over again.
	I mean, that's the way things have been working around here for years.
	Why should Donald Trump be able to shake that whole thing up?
	Sorry.
	That's the swamp.
	Well, Hannity is a Republican.
	Yeah, they're pathetic.
	Just pathetic.
	You know, it's interesting.
	I'm watching this race going on with Luther, whatever his name is, down in Alabama, and I had supported Mo Brooks.
	You know what's funny?
	There was an article.
	Did you see the article saying Hannity only supports losers?
	Meanwhile, did anyone remember that I predicted Trump would win?
	Here's what I do do.
	I definitely go for the biggest underdogs possible sometimes to make a point.
	And I think I'm going to do that down in Alabama because I think Judge Moore is not going to be somebody that's going to bend to Mitch McConnell and the leadership.
	I really don't.
	Well, do you ever disagree with Trump?
	Yeah, I supported Mo Brooks.
	There, I have disagreement.
	Well, what about trade, Hannity?
	I thought you were a free.
	I am a free trader.
	I believe in free and fair trade.
	And I've always said at the end of the day, I don't think Donald Trump wants a trade war.
	I hope he doesn't, because protectionism is never going to work.
	But I do want countries that are charging exorbitant amounts for American-made products to get into their countries, and they don't pay anything to get into our country.
	I want them to play by the rules.
	And pressuring them to do so is just good negotiating style.
	Anyway, so Jamie goes on about DACA.
	Here's what the brilliant thing about Trump stood by his campaign promise.
	He stood by the principle of the Constitution and the rule of law and DACA.
	And he's not going to usurp the responsibilities of Congress the way Obama did.
	Obama said some 20 times that he didn't have the authority for DACA, that we're a nation of laws that were governed by a Constitution, and that didn't stop him.
	And the president recognizes we have co-equal branches of government, each with enumerated powers, and it's up to the legislative branch to legislate.
	And just because, as Obama said, you don't like a piece of legislation, you still have to enforce the law.
	And if they want the law changed, well, you can thank the president because he's given them eight months since he's been in office, and now he's given them an additional six months to get their act together and do it legally and constitutionally.
	And he gave them six months to get it together.
	That's their job.
	That's what they're supposed to do.
	So, and then they're a little bit, apparently the leadership was taken by surprise over the move by Trump today to combine Harvey aid with a three-month temporary budget.
	In other words, in a short-term debt limit increase.
	Listen, I would like to, I'm the guy that's been pushing the penny plan as a solution to stop robbing for our kids from years.
	I don't like the debt any more than you do.
	But we all know that the debt ceiling is going to get raised.
	The question is, are we going to grow the economy?
	As I've been saying, the challenge for Republicans the next 14 weeks is very clear.
	They're either going to step up and take ownership of getting this economy in order.
	They've asked for the House.
	They got it.
	They asked for the Senate and the House.
	They got it.
	They got the White House, although half of them can't stand the president, which is pathetic on their part.
	Just tell me what part of his agenda you don't like.
	I'd like to know.
	What part of it isn't conservative?
	What part of it isn't good?
	Because I think seven brackets to three is good for the American people.
	I think middle-class tax cuts are good for those people that work hard, play by the rules, pay their taxes, obey the laws, create all the goods and services that make this country great.
	They deserve some relief.
	Then I think the reason you want low corporate rates is because corporations have all the big bucks, and you want them to build in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and in Pennsylvania, and in Pittsburgh, and North Carolina, Missouri, and Florida, and the rest of the country.
	And if they build factories and manufacturing centers, then lo and behold, the forgotten men and women benefit.
	And they have career jobs that will help them buy their first house, home ownership rates at a 51-year low.
	It'll increase GDP.
	Obama's the first president in history never to have a full year of 3% GDP growth, and then we'll be able to increase revenues to the government and pay down the debt and stop robbing from our kids.
	And if you add to that the millions, and I'm not overstating this, this is not hyperbole.
	And the president's talking about energy today.
	If we get all those energy jobs in the energy sector and we have the goal of being energy independent, and that would be we are, we are the Middle East of natural gas.
	You can run every car and heat every home and cool every home with natural gas.
	We've got enough that'll last hundreds of years.
	If we start being smart and stop importing from countries that despise us, and Americans get to pull all of that gas out and pull all of that oil out and get all of that clean coal out, well, that's going to put millions of forgotten men and women to work, and they're going to go to work.
	They won't be on food stamps.
	They won't be in poverty.
	They'll be able to eventually get a nice house in a safe neighborhood with a decent car or a truck, send their kids to a good school, and the American dream will be alive for them.
	What's so hard about this?
	And then if they build 300 feet of the wall and fund the entire wall, then these guys come chip away next year at the health care that they screwed up in such a colossal fashion.
	Why don't we make the country better for 50 million Americans on food stamps, 13 million more under Obama, 8 million more in poverty, 50 million in poverty, 90, I guess we're down to 94 million out of the labor force?
	This is not complicated.
	What we need to do here.
	Where is the will and the desire?
	I keep arguing the Republican Party is a party without identity.
	Trump has an identity.
	He's advocating things we have talked about for years on this program.
	Years on Fox.
	You notice no cable channel ever talks about solutions.
	You never read about solutions.
	You never read about the forgotten men and women.
	You never hear about how many people are in poverty.
	It's only when Republicans are in power.
	Then they'll start dealing with the homeless issue.
	They're such phonies claiming they have a monopoly of compassion.
	If they did, they would try to find solutions instead of Russia, Russia.
	Racist, racist, race, racist, racist, racist.
	Anyway, 800-941 Sean, Joe Bistardi is standing by for an update on Irma.
	Bigger, faster, stronger is how they are describing Hurricane Irma headed towards the Miami eastern coast of Florida.
	That means West Palm.
	Broward County now is ordering an evacuation.
	That means the highways and byways of Florida are going to be jam-packed.
	It almost looks like even by what day would that be?
	Monday at 8 a.m. when it's close to Jacksonville, probably in the Orlando area.
	And that's where it's going to, it's going to hit as a cat four, we believe.
	At least that's what the forecast is now.
	And, you know, 150 mile an hour sustained winds.
	And it's going to stay and hug the entire state of Florida.
	I mean, literally, it's like going to be the eye of the storm right over all of Florida.
	It looks like it's going to hit on Sunday about 8 a.m.
	And then it looks like by Monday, 8 a.m., 24 hours later, it should be up in and around the Orlando area, headed up, then making a rightward tilt, just missing the outer part of the panhandle and into the Jacksonville, Panavedra area of Florida.
	The bottom line is: if you live in Florida, you're going to get hit.
	And that's how it looks as of today.
	Look, I know it's far out, but this is a very, very serious hurricane that's headed that way.
	And I know a lot of people that are evacuating, and the roads are going to be horrible, and it's going to be miserable, and you're going to be hot and tired, and in brutal traffic.
	And my only advice to you is put your patient hat on.
	And just sort of like when I get into a brand new studio, I know when I have a new studio, like the one we're in, I know the first week is going to be tweak hell.
	We're going to have to tweak this, tweak that.
	This isn't going to work.
	The computer's not going to work.
	Something's going to jam up.
	At some point, something's going to break.
	Somebody's going to press the wrong button.
	And everybody's going to get, expect me to get irritated.
	And I give everybody an entire week of just, I don't say anything.
	Not a word.
	Did I say anything?
	Week one when we started the new studio?
	This doesn't say anything to our audience.
	This is the radio.
	No, you were a prince.
	I should have told the story yesterday about Sunshine.
	I regretted it.
	I feel like she looks at me like she looks at Treat, the service dog, and she gives me the puppy dog.
	Oh, no, are you going to die?
	Look, and oh, no, are you going away forever?
	Look, and oh, no, you're going to hurt my feelings.
	And if you do, please.
	And I just can't.
	It's like people crying.
	When anybody at Fox that works there, I see crying, I give them $100 and I say, but you got to stop crying.
	I can't take it.
	To cheer them up.
	Is that not a nice thing to do?
	Joe, Bestard.
	You're all heart.
	Tonight, this order will go into effect for all residents.
	If you're told to evacuate, get out quickly.
	We can expect additional evacuations as this storm continues to come near our state.
	Everyone must listen to their local officials.
	Listen to your local officials on the evacuations.
	Individuals with special needs will be evacuated from Miami beginning this morning.
	Miami-Dade County officials are also advising residents living in low-lying areas to start evacuating today.
	I cannot stress this enough.
	Do not ignore evacuation orders.
	Remember, we can rebuild your home, but we cannot rebuild your life.
	Real-time traffic information and evacuation routes is available at www.fl511.com.
	www.fl511.com.
	At my direction, all tolls have been waived across Florida roadways.
	This should help families evacuate quickly and safely.
	We're preparing for Irma to directly impact our state, and while it's still too early to tell exactly where the storm will hit, it is incredibly important that all Faridians keep a close eye on this incredibly dangerous storm.
	Do not sit and wait for this storm to come is extremely dangerous and deadly and will cause devastation.
	Get prepared right now.
	All right, that's Governor Rick Scott of the great state of Florida as they keep saying it's bigger, faster, stronger.
	If you're in an evacuation zone, get out.
	Get out of the way.
	Period.
	End of sentence.
	Joining us now from Weatherbell.com, the chief meteorologist of the Sean Hannity Show.
	Our friend Joe Vistardi is with us.
	All right, it looks like what you talked about yesterday that it might take an eastward turn is true.
	It looks like it's just going to miss Puerto Rico and maybe a direct hit on the Bahamas and some of Cuba.
	Well, I think the track is over at Turkish Caicos, which is the southeasterly Bahamas.
	I'm very confident now in our track, and we've moved it to basically a landfall.
	Miami is coming up along the coast offshore again and then into the Carolinas.
	It looks like Sunday.
	So the timetable here starts in Florida late Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, as it moves up the coast.
	And I am really concerned, Sean, that this is going to go to, has not seen its strongest point yet as far as barometric pressure goes.
	It's going to be kind of hard to top that wind speeds that it's had, but the barometer in this may still fall below what it's been down to, which is 914 millibars, and that would be Saturday as it's approaching Miami.
	I wanted to say something too, and I've been getting this out a little bit.
	I think this is a reason watching storms like this why we should be seeding hurricanes again like we used to.
	We conducted some experiments to disrupt the eye wall of these very powerful hurricanes because if you can knock it down a category, you can really try to help out with loss of life and loss of property, mitigate it somewhat.
	But that's for another time.
	The point of the matter is that this is in the genre of the great hurricanes that have hit Florida.
	I don't mean great as far as something nice.
	I'm talking about the legendary hurricanes of 1947, for instance, 1935.
	These years I bring up, and I hope that people go and look and see what happened with the Palm Beach hurricane, for instance, and some of the storms that have come in, because I don't think people understand what the weather is capable of doing.
	And because of that, they say, well, where did this freak come from?
	Well, this is what nature can do, and this thing is going to continue to be a very powerful and expanding storm and may not have reached its strongest intensity yet.
	That's really scary.
	All right, let's go through the timeline and where we are now.
	What I'm seeing is right now it's a category five hurricane.
	What I see is it's literally barely, barely missing the eastern coast of Puerto Rico.
	And it's remaining, as it gets into the Bahamas area, it's remaining a cat five.
	And it looks like half of Cuba is at least going to be on the outskirts of this.
	And then about Monday, Sunday morning at 8 a.m., it looks like it hits the tip of Miami.
	Is that about right?
	Or is it earlier?
	Yeah, the Hurricane Center moved their track over to our track, early morning track that, you know, we send it down for email.
	So they moved it over.
	I think what we're doing is we're just narrowing the window and getting it closer and closer.
	This may weaken some, the wind may come down some over the next 24 to 48 hours because of the interaction with land.
	What happens is you'll be able to see the storm pull in dry air off Hispaniola.
	Remember, these storms will pull in a great deal of moisture, but they also can pull in dry air.
	So it may weaken the storm some.
	I don't want people to let their guard down if indeed it does weaken the storm some, because I think it's going to come roaring right back up to where it is as it's approaching Florida.
	So and by the way, there is nobody's heard anything as far as I've heard from Barbuda, this island, about 2,000 people.
	And from what I believe has happened there, the devastation is going to be unlike anything we've seen as far as a storm in that area of the world.
	And you know me, I'm always looking at these things, trying to put them in perspective.
	But Barbuda may have been hit to a point where the communication isn't back yet.
	And they were hit last night at about 1.45 in the morning is when the eye came over them.
	And here we are 10, 12 hours later.
	Nobody's heard from Barbuda.
	So that's a demonstration of the power and magnitude of this storm.
	And people say, you know, they're going to be people at the end of this and say, well, you overhyped it.
	You know, maybe someplace didn't get it as bad.
	But the fact that.
	Well, let's say let's just stop for a second and say you're right.
	We got 185 mile-an-hour winds recorded in the storm now.
	And by Sunday morning, what time do you think it makes landfall in Miami or if your track is right?
	Well, I think it's making very late Saturday night or Sunday right into Biscayne Bay, it looks to me, like it's coming right up and right along the coast in there.
	And then it goes back out over the water for a while.
	And each one of those cities along the Florida coast, from Central Florida northward, get the equivalent of Matthew as far as what Matthew did.
	I mean, this is the real devastating part of our track is that area from Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach southward, all in Miami is right in the middle of the worst of this track.
	When a storm passes east, it's a little bit different.
	I'm down in St. Augustine right now for something, and I was looking out over the beach last night at the moon.
	I was going, I wonder what this is going to look like in five or six days because it's scheduled to hit that area about Monday at 8 a.m. by my track, the Hannity track.
	It'll be up there.
	It'll be up there about that time.
	The real big problem and the difference between this and Matthew, Matthew was weakening as it came to the Carolinas and was a category two and was a tremendous rainstorm.
	But this is going to just come right in.
	And I'm trying to figure out, is it Savannah?
	Is it Wilmington?
	Is it Charleston?
	It's probably someplace between Savannah and Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, likely as a category four.
	It may be as strong there as Hurricane Hazel was in 1954.
	So you're dealing with a storm that is the benchmark storm, could be a benchmark storm for Florida and a benchmark storm for the Carolinas.
	All right, really scary.
	Let me just put emphasis on one thing.
	We just heard from Governor Rick Scott.
	He's a friend of the program, a great, great guy.
	We like him a lot, and he's done a great job for the state of Florida, and he fights for jobs.
	I mean, I see him more often than I want to see him because he's up in New York trying to steal companies from the highly taxed state and highly bureaucratic state and burdened state with terms of regulation of New York.
	Anyway, long story short here is, you know, he's working hard for that state and he's telling people to evacuate.
	There's no ambiguity in his voice.
	He's telling them exactly Broward County, for example, get out.
	How important is it that people listen?
	I mean, to me, it's just common sense.
	And I know it's inconvenient.
	I know it's a pain in the neck.
	But if they say get out, get out.
	Yeah, I think he is exactly right.
	But what I do think has to happen so people take this seriously is some of the lesser events where emergencies are declared for 50 mile-an-hour tropical storms.
	I think that hurts sometimes when that goes on.
	But for what the governor is saying now, I mean, if I could echo it and add to that, I would add to that.
	That's how serious this situation is.
	Did you know the U.S. Navy is evacuating their Florida base as Irma is approaching?
	That ought to give you enough indication where to go with this.
	Yeah, well, a lot of times the Navy's the Navy, as I understand it, will take their ships and ride it, take their ships out to sea, maybe 300 miles to the east and ride it out over the water.
	I'm not sure exactly how that works.
	But yeah, it's a very high potential thing.
	And the extreme case is the worst imaginable case.
	We know that that's on the table, and that's why you have to take all precautions.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	We'll talk to you tomorrow.
	But for those in Florida, especially southeastern Florida, southwestern Florida, even Miami and Palm Beach, Poca, all of those areas up the eastern coast, all the way up until you get to St. Augustine and Pono Vedra and everywhere in between.
	It's even going to hit the middle of Orlando for crying out loud in Tampa.
	It's going to hit the IA80, what is it, the I-4 corridor.
	It's going to nail it.
	Anyway, 800-941 Sean, toll free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	All right, let me just tell everybody here, look, I want to tell you something about this president and his whole deal with DACA.
	I really enjoyed Jamie Dupree's point earlier, which is, oh, Republicans, this is so unpredictable.
	And I'm like, yeah, it's unpredictable.
	Donald Trump is never going to conform into the person you want him to be.
	You know, look, I've known him for a couple of decades.
	And you're going to say to this guy, stop tweeting, which I did during the campaign.
	I've come to actually change my mind on it.
	Maybe just 5% less would be better.
	Just 5% less would be better.
	But it's a great way for him to bypass an abusively biased, corrupt media with their anonymous sources and their outright lying.
	So I think it works for him.
	But at the end of the day, everybody was telling him during the campaign, stop tweeting, stop tweeting.
	Can you just get him to stop tweeting?
	I know you interviewed the president, you see him or the candidate.
	Will you tell him we're pulling for him, but stop tweeting, stop tweeting, stop tweeting.
	You know how I'd be at these, you know, interviewing him, you know, with 15,000 people and 10,000 of them will pull me.
	Tell him to stop tweeting.
	We love him.
	We want him to succeed, but no tweeting.
	And he just, he does what he wants.
	He's his own man.
	And he's going to listen to General Kelly.
	I think General Kelly has turned out to be a rock star in the administration in a lot of ways.
	And clearly there's order there that we didn't have before.
	And this is not a diss on Reince Previous.
	I think Reince did a great job.
	But I think everybody that works in that house today is working under the most difficult of circumstances.
	And when you have a media and you have a deep state leaking a leak a day and a media that wants you out of office and hates you, and you have Democrats that don't want to help the country and do nothing except try to undermine you and Republicans that won't keep their promises that they made for eight years.
	And you're having to respond to crap all day, every day for the first year of your presidency.
	It's a difficult environment for anybody.
	But I think, you know, at the end of the day, none of that's going to matter.
	At the end of the day, what's going to matter is, is the country better off than we were four years prior?
	And the best indicator of that is going to be on the top two issues that drive every election.
	And that's peace and prosperity.
	Is the forgotten men and women going to have job opportunities they didn't have?
	Are we going to get people off of welfare, off of food stamps, out of poverty, back in the labor force?
	Are people going to be able to buy their first home?
	That's going to be the measure.
	And is the wall going to be built considering that was such a big promise?
	Certain basic fundamentals.
	Are we going to move towards energy independence?
	Are we going to really fight the enemies of this country like ISIS and al-Qaeda and radical Islam?
	I think it's a good first step.
	Now, everybody's all pissed off about the president and DACA.
	Well, the president did what was constitutional.
	It's what he promised to do, live by the rule of law, and he rightly gave the power and decision-making on legislation back to the Congress.
	And Congress is like they're freaked out that they're getting their power back as if they never should have gotten it taken away in the first place.
	You know, as we have so many things circling around us just at one particular point in time, it's pretty amazing.
	But I'll tell you this on DACA.
	As much as the media screams racism, racism, what's the word that they keep using?
	We got this montage we put together today.
	We'll play it in the next hour, and we'll play it with Geraldo.
	But they keep going out there screaming that this is discrimination, screaming that this is unfair, screaming this is cruel, cruel, cruel, cruel, cruel.
	President Obama, who enacted the original policy, called President Trump's decision cruel.
	President Obama's right.
	It's cruel.
	We are talking here about a cruelty.
	All right.
	We'll play the whole cruelty montage.
	But what he did is stand by the Constitution and the rule of law.
	All right, we got a lot coming up today.
	We'll check in.
	Katie Hopkins and Geraldo are going to debate that.
	Also, Luke Roziak has an update on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the IT scandal.
	It's getting more interesting every day.
	We'll have a North Korea update, and Dana Rohrbacher will update us more on his interview and his time spent with Julian Assange and how he believes there never was any Russia-Trump collusion and the impact of all that.
	All right, as we roll along, all right, we'll continue to follow Hurricane Irmer and the latest on that.
	Also coming up, there is a huge development in the Debbie Wasserman Schultz IT case that you need to know about.
	Looks like a Ma or Ron, a wan, whatever his name is, apparently he's trying to set Debbie Wasserman Schultz up.
	We'll get to that.
	Also, Dana Rohrbacher on his meeting with Julian Assange straight ahead.
	Can you elaborate more on what the DHS's connection with the DNC was or consultation with the DNC was after you became aware of the hacking and they became aware of the hacking as to what was offered them, what they accepted?
	Was there any level of cooperation at all?
	To my disappointment, not to my knowledge, sir.
	And this is a question I asked repeatedly when I first learned of it.
	You know, what are we doing?
	Are we in there?
	Are we helping them discover the vulnerabilities?
	Because this was fresh off the OPM experience.
	And there was a point at which DHS cybersecurity experts did get into OPM and actually helped them discover the bad actors and patch some of the exfiltrations or at least minimize some of the damage.
	And so I was anxious to know whether or not our folks were in there.
	And the response I got was the FBI had spoken to them.
	They don't want our help.
	They have CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm.
	And that was the answer I got after I asked the question a number of times over the progression of time.
	Now, that was, I assume, totally different from the reaction you got from OPM.
	The OPM effort, we were actually in there on site helping them find the bad actors.
	Do you know who it was at the DNC who made that decision or who was making resistance?
	No.
	Do you know if the FBI continued to try to help, try to assist?
	I have read in the New York Times about those efforts sometime earlier this year.
	Secretary Johnson says the DNC rebuffed the help that they offered.
	You're saying that no one ever could.
	Respectfully, Secretary Johnson is utterly misinformed.
	That is simply not accurate.
	And much that has been written about the timeline of events by the New York Times, the Washington Post, that document through multiple sources, including me, that the FBI and other federal agencies did virtually nothing to make sure that when they were aware,
	at the point that they were aware that there was or concerned that there was an intrusion on our network by the Russians, that they did virtually nothing to sound the alarm bells to make us aware of that.
	And they left essentially the Russians on our network for more than for almost a year.
	Under my understanding, the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members' equipment when the member is not under investigation.
	It is their equipment, and it's supposed to be returned.
	I think there's extenuating circumstances in this case, and I think that working through my counsel and the necessary personnel, if that in fact is the case, and with the permission of through the investigation, and we'll return the equipment.
	But until that's accomplished, I can't return the equipment.
	I think you're violating the rules when you conduct your business that way.
	And you should expect that there would be consequences.
	All right, so the entire mystery over why is it possible, why all of these devices, why all the breaking of hard drives and acid washing and deletions and destroying devices like, oh, iPhones and BlackBerries with hammers.
	And why would you keep on somebody that you know that double-billed?
	Why would you keep these people around?
	What is it?
	And is it even connected?
	Hillary Clinton deleting subpoenaed emails.
	Hillary Clinton bleach bit acid wash.
	Hillary Clinton destruction of iPhones, BlackBerries, Hillary Clinton sending the FBI BlackBerries without SIM cards.
	And then you've got Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you know, with all of her might and glory trying to intimidate the police into giving back a laptop.
	What is she afraid that is on there that they may see?
	She keeps the IT guy on.
	The IT guy is getting paid an exorbitant amount of money.
	He's found to have double-billed.
	People that he's hiring include people that worked at McDonald's and got fired and one guy that worked at a car dealership.
	Well, how does that qualify you to be an IT person with top security clearance for members of Congress?
	And it just raises so many new and different questions.
	So anyway, we bring back Luke Roziak.
	He is with the Daily Caller, and he's got a new piece out today.
	Slowly but surely, it's like one big puzzle in the middle of a room, and we have it squared off on the outside, and now we're filling in the middle, and a picture is beginning to emerge here.
	And Imran apparently appeared to have wanted police to find Debbie Wasserman Schultz's laptop.
	So we add a level of intrigue here that we didn't have before.
	This obviously was before he tried to scoot the country after forwarding $300,000 to Pakistan.
	We'll stay on this story that the media ignores.
	Anyway, Luke, welcome back.
	Let's talk about this laptop of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	Sure.
	So this is the laptop, the infamous laptop.
	We heard that video back in May where she threatens the Capitol Police with consequences if they don't give it back.
	And she says very clearly and repeatedly that the reason she wants it back is because it's a member's laptop and a member has lost it.
	And then last month, she changes her story and says, actually, it wasn't a member's laptop.
	It was Imram's personal laptop, but it was bought with government funds, but it was his and I've never even seen it.
	And now we find what really happened going back all the way to April.
	And it turns out that Imram entered a house building around midnight one night and placed this laptop in this little cubby that used to be a phone booth in a public area of a house building, not even the one that Wassman Schultz's office is in.
	So he places this laptop along with letters to the U.S. attorney and some other weird evidence like Pakistani documents and walks away.
	And this is like, it doesn't appear to be an accident.
	You know, why would you go into this little cubby and leave all this very important evidence?
	It wasn't like he just went into this room for some reason and then just forgot that all this stuff was in there.
	So when we see Wasserman Schultz saying, oh, I just wanted to protect his rights.
	I was concerned about his due privacy.
	Who found the laptop, though?
	Do we know that?
	What's that?
	The Capitol Police, were they tipped off to finding this?
	No, so this used to be a phone booth that was in the hallway of a building, and it was visible from the hallway.
	Around after midnight on April 6th, the Capitol Police got a call that said someone was walking down the hallway and they noticed this backpack with a number of things inside.
	And the Capitol Police checked it out and they found this laptop and it was in that backpack with some Pakistani documents, Imran Awan's driver's license, his congressional ID, a copy of his congressional ID badge, letters to the U.S. attorney, and then this piece of paper that said attorney client privilege on it.
	So these are all things that tied the laptop to Imram, made police aware that he was a criminal suspect, and that's exactly the rationale that they gave in that infamous video.
	They say, well, this laptop was tied to a criminal suspect.
	So that police officer, let's go back to this tape of Debbie Wasserman Schultz trying to intimidate the Capitol Police guy.
	So what you're saying is as this exchange was going on, the police officer knew all of this existed.
	Is that fair or likely that this laptop had been found?
	And Wasserman Schultz, it seems, was being misleading about the circumstances.
	It seems the Capitol Police found it, and it seems that Imram intentionally placed it there.
	So I think lost is probably a mischaracterization just based on a lot of circumstances.
	Well, it seems like he's throwing her under the bus, and she is fighting desperately to get this because she doesn't know what's supposedly on the laptop, and she's lying, saying that it's a member's laptop, and it wasn't.
	Is that a fair characterization?
	Yeah, whatever's on that laptop that Wasserman Schultz desperately doesn't want the police and others to see, it turns out that Imram very well may have wanted them and wanted us to see it.
	All right, let me play this tape.
	This is Debbie Wasserman Schultz with the Capitol Police.
	Under my understanding, the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members' equipment when the member is not under investigation.
	It is their equipment, and it's supposed to be returned.
	Well, I think there's extenuating circumstances in this case, and I think that working through my counsel and the necessary personnel, if that in fact is the case, and with the permission of through the investigation, then we'll return the equipment.
	But until that's accomplished, I can't return the equipment.
	I think you're violating the rules when you conduct your business that way.
	And should expect that there would be consequences.
	There will be console, but it wasn't a member's laptop.
	And this was directly given to the U.S. Attorney.
	Well, what was in the letters?
	Do we know?
	We don't know, but here's the twist after twist: is when Capitol Police opened up that laptop, they found that the username was Rep DWS.
	So here she is saying it's her laptop, but then it's not her laptop, and she's never even seen it.
	Based on this username, and we don't know exactly the circumstances of this laptop, but based on the username, the username appears to be hers.
	So this was a guy who was banned by the police from the Capitol Network months prior.
	Wasserman Schultz had kept him on.
	Also hired his wife after that point.
	The wife fled the country while subject to a criminal investigation.
	She still keeps paying him.
	He's not allowed to touch computers, but he's still walking around with a laptop with her username on it.
	And he comes in around midnight, takes this laptop with her name on it, and puts it in a hallway where he knows it's going to be found with a bunch of legal documents on top of it.
	So there's no reading of this that isn't like out of a spy novel, like extremely serious stuff.
	So we don't know specifically yet what was on the laptop, but we do know the other government computers were found in his garage and the hard drives were smashed into little bits, right?
	Right.
	And so this is a savvy guy.
	Imram is not sloppy.
	I mean, the reason he was able to run this double billing and cybersecurity theft and cybersecurity scheme, which did involve a secret server that he was sending members of Congress's data on, the reason he was able to do this for so long is because he's very savvy, he's very organized, and he's not sloppy.
	All right, stay right there.
	Luke Roziak with the Daily Caller.
	We're going to continue our investigation.
	Is this the type of thing, you know, what was on there?
	What did Debbie Wasserman Schultz desperately want to hide?
	And is this go-to-jail stuff?
	Because it's looking more suspicious by the hour.
	Anyway, we'll get into that.
	We also have a lot more coming up today as we look into the issue of North Korea, which is way in the news more than we thought.
	Dana Rohrbacher is back on the issue of his meeting with Julian Assange.
	And Julian Assange says there never was Trump-Russia collusion, and they weren't responsible.
	And much more.
	800-941 Sean, toll-free.
	Telephone number.
	If you want to be a part of the program, quick break more with Luke Roziak of the Daily Caller and much more coming up.
	All right, as we continue, Luke Roziak, he has single-handedly been blowing open this entire Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Ama Rwan is what Ron is what his name is, and blowing this case wide open.
	Why did this guy, we've already established that he hired people that he shouldn't have hired that seemingly have no experience.
	We've already established that everybody else that he worked for fired him after he was caught double billing.
	Then you got Debbie Wasserman Schultz saying something is not hers, saying something is hers when it's not.
	Then you've got the smashed up hard drives in this guy's garage.
	So my question is, Imran Awan, when we talk about him, what was he trying to hide and was he trying to hide it on Debbie Wasserman Schultz's behalf based on what you know so far?
	It almost seems like the opposite.
	It almost seems like Debbie Wasserman Schultz was trying to hide what's on that laptop and he may have said, if I'm going down, you're going down with me.
	This could have been essentially a suicide bomb where, you know, he realizes that he's kind of busted.
	He wants Wasserman Schultz to protect him, but she's not, they don't know if she really has the power to do that.
	So he goes in late at night, and, you know, there's a very plausible reading of this.
	In fact, it's hard to see how this is not the case, that he steals her laptop and leaves it for the police to find.
	So, you know, this could have been information that he's blackmailing her with, and then he says, well, if I'm going down, you're going down with me.
	And where is the investigation at this point?
	How come we're not hearing much about this except through you?
	I mean, no offense, but you seem, you know, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the leader of the Democratic National Committee.
	I mean, and she got thrown out of the convention the day before.
	Do you think any of this is connected to what was discovered, what WikiLeaks revealed?
	It's hard to.
	So when Wasserman Schultz is told just weeks after those emails are stolen by the police, she's told that her own IT guy, Imran Wan, is a criminal suspect in a cybersecurity investigation.
	And she says, no, he wouldn't do that.
	The FBI is framing him.
	It's pretty hard to see a plausible reason where that's an honest response, that she's just been hacked, and then the police tell her we found a suspected hacker, and she blows up at the police instead of this guy.
	It's hard to see how this is a normal relationship that she has with Imran Wan.
	Yeah.
	Where do you see this going now?
	I would assume here, just based on everything you're breaking today, that Imran Awan flipped.
	And it seems like he's talking.
	So I've got to assume that means she's in severe legal jeopardy here.
	Do we have any understanding of where she might be in all of this and whether or not she's been interviewed by the FBI or other law enforcement over this?
	So, you know, to get back to your last question, one of the reasons the media hasn't been covering this is because he's only been charged with bank fraud at this time.
	And when you look at this latest information that came out in my article today, they're saying he put this laptop with all this information about an ongoing case and letters to the U.S. attorney.
	Well, this was all before the bank charges.
	So that's an acknowledgement right there that the reason this all started was cybersecurity and theft investigation on Capitol Hill.
	And then he fled the country with all this money resulting in these ancillary charges.
	So at this point, the media has basically removed the goalpost because they said they had one reason for not covering it before.
	And, you know, all of our worst fears were confirmed.
	And then the media comes up with a different reason not to cover it.
	But this has all the hallmarks of a major political scandal with national security implications.
	All I could say is Lou.
	It's really amazing that they're still not writing about it.
	If the name was Donald Trump, if the name was Reince Prievis, trust me, the media would be covering every single aspect and detail of all this.
	But in one sense, you're pretty lucky because you're going to be way ahead of the curve and you will be at the forefront of breaking, I think, a pretty big scandal the way this is unfolding.
	And we appreciate you sharing your information with us and we'll continue to get back to you on it.
	Thank you for being with us.
	Thank you.
	800-94-1 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
	So what are America's options when it comes to Kim Jong-un and North Korea?
	We'll get to that coming up next.
	We got my friend Geraldo debating the one and only Katie Hopkins over the issue of DACA and so many other issues.
	And Dana Rohrbacher will weigh in part two.
	He's going to join us and talk more about his meeting with Julian Assange and what message Julian Assange wants to send the president on how he has proof that it was never Russia-Trump collusion.
	That and more as the Sean Hannity show continues.
	Before I take your questions, I'd like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallushi signed this morning.
	This is a good deal for the United States.
	North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program.
	South Korea and our other allies will be better protected.
	The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.
	South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing.
	And they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
	The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.
	Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.
	All right, that was Bill Clinton promising something that was not true.
	Good deal for the American people for the United States going to freeze their nuclear weapons program and we're going to carefully monitor baloney.
	None of which is true.
	None of which is true.
	Now, this is becoming, I think, one of the biggest issues we actually have, and that is North Korea putting the world at risk.
	We saw over the weekend the rogue regime conducting their, what is now their sixth nuclear test of a hydrogen bomb that it claims they can fit on the end of a long-range missile that could meet that could make it to the continental United States.
	And so you got Pyongyang once again threatening America.
	They're saying they're going to send, quote, love gift packages to the United States.
	Well, what do you think the love gift package is about?
	And according to South Korea's military, Kim Jong-un appears to be preparing for yet another ICBM test, an intercontinental ballistic missile test.
	And that comes after the rogue regime flew a missile over Japan last week.
	Meanwhile, the president, his administration, Mad Dog Mattis, they continue to turn up the heat on North Korea.
	And the president announced that Japan and South Korea will be able to buy a, quote, substantially increased amount of sophisticated military equipment.
	President tweeted out the U.S. is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.
	And last week prior to the hydrogen bomb test, the U.S. and South Korea, well, they carried out a massive show of force and conducted a simulated live-fire bombing raid.
	Now, there are, as I've been saying, there's no good solutions to deal with this madman, and in large part because of how we were put in this position.
	Bill Clinton thought he could bribe his way into safety and security and that they'd be honest and uphold their end of the bargain.
	He believed in peace in his time, just like it is going to come back and bite us right in the backside.
	Peace in our time with the mullahs of Iran and the $150 billion that Obama sent them.
	Well, what's clear is we're just making one mistake upon mistake upon mistake.
	You know, it's, you know, the New York Times said, oh, Bill Clinton cut this deal, agreed to give billions of dollars in energy aid in exchange for Pyongyang and their promise to end their nuclear program.
	And the framework agreement, North Korea would allow inspectors into their sites, but they'd also be allowed to keep their nuclear fuel rods, which is what they wanted because that's what could be used to make weapons for an unspecified number of years.
	So the North Koreans get the money, the bribe doesn't work, and now they're threatening the world with a possible incineration of certain places.
	Harry Kazianis is with us.
	He's director of defense studies at the Center for National Interest.
	And Lieutenant Colonel Buzz Patterson, he carried the nuclear football under Bill Clinton.
	When he said back in the 90s, Buzz, or Colonel, I should say, Colonel, that this is a good deal for the American people.
	I've got to believe he believed that.
	I don't think he purposefully did it.
	Yeah, I think he did at the time, Sean.
	But I will tell you this, that immediately after he made those comments, we agreed to that framework.
	We knew in 96, 97, 98 that they weren't playing by the rules.
	We knew that they were advancing forward with their technological research, and they knew what they wanted was a nuclear weapon, and they got pulled that off.
	You know, if you talk about what's been happening in the last 10 or 15 years since then, he has really been ramping up.
	North Korea has, at alarming rates, because there was 80 missile tests under President Obama and four detonations, and it's been increasing ever since then.
	Yeah.
	What's your take, Harry, on this?
	Because I don't see any good.
	Look, we really have two options at this point, because we don't know if one of these missiles is going to be armed at some point.
	So don't we at some point have to assume that it's going to be armed?
	And doesn't that mean that we have to shoot these missiles either A out of the sky or take them out on the launch pad and say we're not going to allow you to endanger the whole world?
	And doesn't that run the risk now that he starts firing into South Korea and Japan and God knows if he'd launch a nuclear weapon?
	Because nobody knows how insane this guy is.
	You know, Sean, the situation with North Korea, I don't think the American people truly appreciate how bad this is.
	And let me just give you a quick example because I think this will illustrate the point.
	As you pointed out in the earlier segment, the North Koreans are going to test an ICBM.
	They're going to test it any time between right now and possibly Saturday.
	Saturday is actually North Korea's national founding day, and they love to do things big.
	Last year, they detonated their fifth nuclear weapons test, so we know they like to do these things.
	But here's what's going to happen.
	Sometime in the next couple of days, the North Koreans are going to test an ICBM.
	What they're going to do, though, this is going to be a very different test than the last one, Sean.
	They're not going to fire it up straight into the air and go back down like they have the last two tests.
	Oh, no.
	What they're going to do is they're going to fire the ICBM, but they're going to fire it over Japan, and they're going to drop it into the Mid-Pacific.
	Now, if they want to get really gutsy, what they can actually do is drop it maybe 100 or 200 miles off the coast of California or the West Coast.
	They have to do this because they need to test that ICBM in battlefield conditions.
	They can't get any more data by shooting it straight up in the air.
	The challenge here, Sean, is that the Japanese can't shoot down ICBMs.
	The South Koreans can't shoot down ICBMs.
	We're the only ones who can do that with our interceptors in Alaska.
	The problem is we only have something like 20 of them.
	So in order to do that, you're probably going to want to shoot three or four in an ICBM to make sure you take it down.
	That degrades by something like 25% our missile defense capabilities against other ICVMs.
	So when I tell you this is a bad situation, it just keeps getting worse.
	See, from my perspective, once somebody has nuclear weapons and they now have the missile capability to launch those weapons, it becomes a worst-case scenario.
	And this is why the Iranian deal similarly, I mean, it's more modern, but this is why Bill Clinton made his mistake.
	This is classic appeasement, Neville Chamberlain appeasement, in my view.
	And I think the Mullahs are just maybe 10 years behind or less, maybe five years behind.
	But they're going to get the technology as well.
	And we recently read that we had some of the top-ranking military officials from Iran inside of North Korea.
	And I have no doubt that they're sharing information.
	So the question is that if we think this is going to happen, well, that opens up the possibility of either A, a preemptive strike, risking shooting it out of the sky.
	And I don't think any of them are good options.
	And if the U.S. has to go after North Korea, we're going to incinerate the place because we have to worry if this guy is going to launch a nuclear weapon in South Korea or Japan or maybe even China.
	Who knows?
	Yeah, Sean, the options are all bad here.
	Back in 2013, a group of colleagues and I got together and we wargamed this out.
	And we actually had this scenario happening in 2020 because that's when we thought the North Koreans would be at this point.
	So they've even sort of jumped the shark and gone even further.
	And I have to tell you, all the options were bad.
	Back in those scenarios, we actually plotted out the United States going into North Korea and imposing regime change.
	The campaign was going really well until we discovered that our forces, us being the U.S. side, missed two North Korean nuclear weapons and they incinerated Seoul in Tokyo.
	We broadened this out a little bit more, and we had situations where parts of the West Coast were basically obliterated by North Korean ICBMs.
	So thanks to Bill Clinton and a lot of others, this situation has gotten far worse than it ever had to.
	What is your take on that, Colonel?
	Yeah, I agree completely with Harry.
	I think that we're really kind of approaching the 11th hour here.
	Not much local time is left.
	And I think, you know, at this point in time, we have some options, but as Harry also says, most of them are not good options.
	But I think we should start somewhere around increasing our military presence in the region, maybe putting more assets in there.
	I wouldn't want to get too top-heavy in that area because we've got other threats around the world, but I think that's a good place to start to show that we mean business.
	And then, you know, if we have to take action of some sort, we can probably defer to a special operations type thing or try to disrupt their grid.
	What about what Pat Buchanan said?
	Should Japan and South Korea go nuclear?
	I think we should definitely arm Japan.
	I think it's time for us to arm Japan, and I'm pretty sure they would agree with that wholeheartedly with China and North Korea in their neighborhood.
	So I think it's time for us to look at our policies over there and strategy and say, okay, listen, this guy's for real.
	These weapons are for real.
	China's not helping yet.
	Let's go ahead and increase military presence in the region and get Japan to developing more missile defense and also giving us some guns and some bullets.
	Bill Gertz, Colonel, had a piece on the Free Beacon today where he talks about Pyongyang and their desire for the first time.
	They revealed plans for using their nuclear arms for space-based electronics, which would disrupt an electromagnetic pulse attack in addition to direct warhead ground blasts.
	That should be a threat to every man, woman, and child on this earth, because if that happens, I've seen predictions where in the U.S., millions of people could die if, in fact, that all happened.
	Yeah, there's so much out there right now, Sean, that's being developed that nuclear weapons are probably the most worst case scenario right now.
	But in the very near future, we're going to have the capability or it means we're going to have things that are non-nuclear, which are going to be equally as destructive or more possibly more destructive than even a nuclear weapon coming over and hitting like San Francisco or Los Angeles.
	Yeah, it's beyond scary.
	Do you think it would be wise the next time that Kim Jong-un fires any missile that we take it out of the sky or take it off the launching pad, or is that viewed as too preemptive?
	Well, I would do that.
	I don't think that's preemptive enough, actually.
	I would go ahead and do that.
	That wouldn't surprise me, though, as Harry said.
	I think it wouldn't surprise me if this next test is something that he flies a missile over Guam or he flies one off the coast of Alaska or the west coast of the United States just to kind of push up the ante and kind of push our buttons a little bit more.
	That would not surprise me.
	In fact, I expect that to happen in the next couple of weeks.
	Well, China, even their scientists have warned that North Korea's nuclear test site is at risk of imploding, obviously releasing radiation into the sky.
	And then, you know, I don't think that anybody should be in a rush to take on North Korea because even if we attempted Harry to take out the nuclear sites, if we made that attempt, we don't know what he has where.
	And, you know, he could have, you know, we even heard that he's building some submarine-launched nuclear missiles.
	You know, what would that mean for South Korea?
	How many would die in Seoul?
	And if you take out all the nuclear facilities, don't you run the risk you incinerate the whole country?
	I'm sorry, you broke up there a little bit.
	There you are.
	Yeah, no, I think this whole situation is just really completely out of control.
	And just to throw this into the mix, Sean, the North Koreans have a lot of other ways to escalate that we're not even thinking about right now.
	So take, for example, the South Koreans have a very large civilian nuclear program to generate power and all these type of things.
	Imagine a scenario where the North Koreans wanted to launch a preemptive attack.
	If I'm Kim Jong-un, I'm not going to strike first with nuclear weapons or even chemical weapons.
	I'm going to take the crude missiles I have that are short range and I'm going to start lobbing them into their nuclear power plants.
	The level of destruction and sheer chaos that you'd create would be unfathomable, to be honest with you.
	So this is why the American people and really all of our allies in Asia need to wake up to the problem that we're facing here.
	Kim Jong-un might have a train wreck economy that he's running.
	It might be one-third the size of Ethiopia.
	His people might be starving, but he's put so much into his military capabilities that he doesn't have to do that much to spark a crisis.
	All right, guys, we appreciate your insight.
	Thanks for being with us.
	We'll have you back.
	We'll watch and monitor this closely.
	We've got a great debate coming up at the top of the next hour.
	Katie Hopkins and Geraldo battle it out over DACA and assimilation in the case of Europe and what we could learn from Europe.
	Also, in the next hour, we'll check in with Dana Rohrbacher, California, on the issue of his meeting with Julian Assange.
	A nation, do you take 800,000 documented people and make them undocumented?
	In other words, there's a cruelty there.
	And it's a signal to say, I can do something that a lot of people think is cruel.
	This is one of the most cruel acts we've seen in the presidency in a long time.
	So, one, this was a cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary move.
	The Trump administration's latest immigration policy move has been called cruel.
	It's a very cruel and unfortunate decision to end the president.
	As kids, his critics say the decision was cruel.
	The decision by the Trump administration is cruel.
	This amounts to cruel and unusual punishment to innocent children.
	Immigration advocates say the move to cut them off is cruel.
	A cruel decision cold-hearted.
	As an undocumented immigrant and a DACA beneficiary, then has been today with cruelty.
	What do you say to those who say there are mixed signals coming from the White House over DACA?
	You punch it.
	No mixed signal at all.
	Congress, I really believe, wants to take care of this situation.
	Really believe it.
	Even very conservative members of Congress have seen it firsthand.
	If they don't, we're going to see what we're going to do.
	But I will tell you, I really believe Congress wants to take care of it.
	We discussed that also today.
	And Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I.
	And I said, if we can get something to happen, we're going to sign it, and we're going to make it make a lot of happy people.
	All right, when we come back, Katie Hopkins and Geraldo debate the issue of DACA.
	By the way, the Robert Menendez trial is going on, and some of the opening comments by the assistant U.S. Attorney, he said, this is what bribery looks like.
	These two defendants corrupted one of the most powerful offices in our country.
	The defendants didn't just trade money for power, they also tried to cover it up.
	By the way, Chris Christie rumored to throw himself in there, if in fact, Menendez is out.
	That'll be interesting to watch.
	All right, quick break, we'll come back.
	Geraldo versus Katie Hopkins and Dana Rohrbacher, all coming up.
	Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	Quick break, right back, we'll continue.
	President Obama, who enacted the original policy, called President Trump's decision cruel.
	President Obama's right.
	It's cruel.
	We are talking here about a cruelty of quite a magnitude.
	Look, at the end of the day, this may go down as the most cowardly and cruel move ever by a president in the modern United States.
	And we're just going to go and cruelly just take them away from this life.
	To end the DACA program is one of the most cruel and ugly decisions ever made in the modern history of this country by a president.
	Today's actions by the president and Jeff Sessions is nothing short than cruel as well as compassionate.
	So you're the president needlessly tormenting hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans with a cruel and capricious policy.
	And Joe Biden has just tweeted, brought by parents, these children had no choice in coming here.
	Now they'll be sent to countries they've never known, cruel, not America.
	Well, the statement reads, it's wrong because it's cruel to send these young people to places many of them have never lived and do not know.
	Only in a cruel nation do you take 800,000 documented people and make them undocumented.
	Getting the bejeebras out of all these kids.
	In other words, there's a cruelty there.
	And it's a signal to say, I can do something that a lot of people think is cruel.
	This is one of the most cruel acts we've seen in the presidency in a long time.
	So, one, this was a cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary move.
	The Trump administration's latest immigration policy move has been called cruel.
	It's a very cruel and unfortunate decision to end the power rule.
	As kids, his critics say the decision was cruel.
	The decision by the Trump administration is cruel.
	This amounts to cruel and unusual punishment to innocent children.
	Immigration advocates say the move to cut them off is cruel.
	A cruel decision cold-hearted.
	As an undocumented immigrant and a DACA beneficiary, then Husband today was cruel.
	Oh, I wonder if they got a talking point that said, well, portray it as cruel.
	Now, what we know, and we're only listening to Barack Obama, and I'm going to play a little of this here.
	Barack Obama is the one that told us before he did DACA that he didn't have the authority to do DACA.
	So he admitted he would be transcending what is the law and the Constitution, the rule of law in the Constitution.
	And you can criticize the president all you want.
	He hasn't done anything with DREAMers and those impacted by DACA.
	And they're not all children, as everybody tells you, as we pointed out in our morning minute this morning.
	They happen to mostly be adults.
	But anyway, and not only that, the president didn't do anything for eight months, but he now has given Congress six more months to do their job.
	We have co-equal branches of government.
	They legislate, and they didn't want to do their job.
	Listen to Obama admitting he didn't have the authority to do this.
	Here's the problem that I have, Jose, and I've said this consistently.
	My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed.
	Congress has said, here's the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement.
	It's something that I've struggled with throughout my presidency.
	The problem is that, you know, I'm the president of the United States.
	I'm not the emperor of the United States.
	My job is to execute laws that are passed.
	And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.
	And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.
	Now, what you need to know, when I'm speaking as President of the United States, and I come to this community, is that if, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so.
	But we're also a nation of laws.
	That's part of our tradition.
	A nation of laws.
	And it goes on another two minutes.
	He said it so many times.
	Joining us, News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
	The one and only gobby one, Katie Hopkins of the Daily Mail, UK, Geraldo Rivera, Fox News legal analyst.
	Just from a legal standpoint, Geraldo, Obama admits that he didn't have the authority for DACA, but he did it anyway.
	And when you do that, you're usurping the legislative role in government, usurping power from them.
	You're stomping on the Constitution and the rule of law.
	And so it was wrong from the get-go.
	And I actually think if you're pro-DACA, you should be thankful that Trump gave you eight months and six additional months and let Congress do what their job is.
	Well, two parts.
	I think that you're obviously correct on the legal analysis.
	Congress passes laws.
	This was de facto a law that gave 800,000 very deserving young people, by and large, you know, they cut them some slack.
	Now, it should have been a law.
	Instead, it was an executive order.
	Obama, President Obama, was probably overstepping his authority.
	The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that issue.
	Well, you and I both know.
	It's very obvious.
	The president himself, then President Obama, admitted he didn't have the ability to use a stroke of a pen, and he had to enforce laws even if they thought they were wrong.
	Let's say that's absolutely true.
	Where do you go from there?
	You can't, in my view, Sean, as you know, you can't torture the children for the act of the president.
	The 44th president exceeded his authority, and he did something he should not have done, perhaps.
	But he's done it, and now to make the beneficiaries of his largesse, however misguided, make them pay for it, I think is really.
	Nobody's paying for it.
	It's six months.
	Congress has the right to pass any law they want.
	And now people like you can go out there and say, okay, I want people to pass DACA, and people like me are going to go out there and say, I want a wall.
	Great, great.
	Why not have both?
	Why not make a deal?
	I'm okay with that.
	You're my brother.
	I'm not giving you the upper hand in a deal.
	But let me go to Katie Hopkins.
	Katie, coming from Great Britain, you have a little different perspective because you've had unbridled open borders, and it is now changing dramatically what Europe used to be.
	In other words, you're inviting people in.
	You have no go zones.
	You have 80 Sharia courts in your country.
	No Go Zones in France, although people deny them.
	I've interviewed people that have been to them.
	You have all these terrorists.
	There's been no assimilation.
	All these terror attacks.
	All this migration without any vetting whatsoever.
	How has it impacted the culture of Europe?
	Absolutely.
	I think, you know, this is where you have someone like Geraldo, who obviously hasn't lived through these types of experiences, hasn't watched their entire culture being swashed away.
	And Nonsense phrases like, we're gonna torture these children.
	No one is trying to torture children.
	You're being so overdramatic, which is typical of you kind of lefty liberal types.
	All Trump is trying to do is restore order.
	All he's doing is saying you've got six months to sort the house out.
	And at that point, those that need to be deported will be deported.
	You might remember, he said, I'm going to build a wall, but he also said, I'm going to build a wall with a great big door in it.
	And I will welcome people when they come here legally, and I will welcome people when they want to become day workers.
	So all he's trying to do is re-establish a system of law and order.
	And I do not understand why those that belong to the Democrats and whatever cannot understand the simple process of law.
	Well, all I can tell you, Katie, is that I know very well how immigration has impacted Europe.
	You may recall my daughter was caught in the terrorist attack in Paris.
	She was inside the stadium, and I went to be with her for the next three weeks and was on the scene when the Muslim extremists were taken down by French security.
	I know very well.
	So why, why?
	Why would a gentleman in the UK?
	Why would you then say 800,000 young people?
	These are 800,000 young people, all of whom have been vetted, who are now documented, who would become undocumented.
	It is a notion that benefits absolutely no one and will hurt the Republican Party in the United States.
	I mean, that's nonsense.
	They want this president to succeed.
	That's complete nonsense.
	You just said it will benefit absolutely no one.
	That's just a massive bunch of words that mean nothing.
	You just said some words that were totally empty.
	We've already had proof.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to reply to you.
	We've already had Zuckerberg coming out and saying when these guys become undocumented, 700,000 people within Facebook will lose their jobs.
	We've already had him say 700,000 illegals.
	It strikes me that will be very good news for American kids that might want to get a job that are unable otherwise because someone else is already in that job.
	All we're asking is for people to respect America and to abide by the law.
	And Obama just sat there with his phone and his pen, as he put it, and rode roughshod over your Constitution.
	That is neither respectful of your Constitution nor respectful of the American people.
	I am respectful of the President of the United States, who happens to be a friend of mine, and I don't.
	I don't care if he's your brother.
	I don't care if he's your brother.
	It makes no odds to me.
	What is it with Americans?
	Why do you think being friends means anything?
	This is an unnecessary act that is more political than the people.
	Oh, go on.
	Come here, it's cruel.
	Go on, use the word cruel, sweetie.
	Do it.
	Do it.
	I know you want to.
	Today that he will revisit it if Congress does not.
	And I trust his instincts.
	I've known him for four decades.
	He's not a cruel person.
	I think he will heed the counsel of his family and his own heart, and he will cut these kids some slack.
	Now you can talk about the wall.
	Now you can talk about other restrictions.
	Now you can talk about enhanced border protections and all the rest of it.
	But these 800,000 are in a very special category.
	They came through no fault of their own.
	Most of them were, the average age was six years old.
	Now they are no longer children.
	They are in their 20s, but every single one of them is either in the military, in college, or working.
	What's the point of disrupting all these lives?
	For what do we do it?
	To appease.
	Are you going to breathe?
	Are you just going to talk constantly without stopping?
	Because if you let me know, I can call back when you shut up.
	Because frankly, from my perspective, seeing what we see, and you say that you understand the problem here in Europe because your own daughter was caught up, and I'm so sorry for her.
	My heart goes out to anybody caught up in the terror that we face.
	But I am sick with people telling me the majority of the Muslim population here are good people.
	You've just done precisely the same thing.
	The majority of these dreamers, I love the way you use these terms when you want to talk about people.
	They are illegal immigrants.
	Don't tell me they're dreamers.
	Don't try and pretend that you're going to give me a free unicorn with every dreamer.
	You know, that's typical of you guys.
	These are illegal migrants in the same way that over here I'm told to believe that all Muslims are nice people.
	I'm sorry, I can't because the Muslims that I've seen that are extreme Muslims have taken hunting knives to people when they've been dining out and have blown up people like that your daughter was involved in.
	I think we need to respect the law.
	We need to recognize that American people are going to be able to do it.
	Hang on, we'll go on to a break.
	Quick response, Geraldo.
	Well, my response is that the president is following his conscience, and I think he's going to do the right thing in this regard.
	The issue of immigration can be debated.
	I want Congress to get off their butts and finally pass some comprehensive reform that lays out some very clear laws.
	And then if you want to use valuable infrastructure dollars to build the wall, go ahead.
	But first, you've got to rebuild Texas because of Harvey.
	You've got to rebuild because of Irma.
	You've got to rebuild Puerto Rico.
	It's heading to Florida.
	You really want to spend that infrastructure dollars on a wall when you're going to be trying to repair bridges and highways and public schools.
	I think that this is the debate the American people need to hear.
	Stay right there.
	Katie Hopkins, Geraldo Rivera.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue on the other side.
	It's the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right, as we continue Sean Hannity Show, debate over DACA.
	We continue now with Geraldo Rivera, Fox News Channel, and Katie Hopkins.
	And, you know, when you look at, for example, Geraldo, what has happened in Europe, and I remember the incident with your daughter very well, and that's every parent's worst nightmare.
	But this has happened now again and again and again.
	Who would have ever thunk it, if you will, that Great Britain has 80 Sharia courts?
	80.
	Over 80, as a matter of fact.
	Or that you have people coming into the country, migrants that have clearly no intention at assimilation and being a part of society and they separate themselves.
	And then you have the increased violence by the extremists that come with people that genuinely want a better life.
	How do you ascertain?
	How do you do it in a way that's safe and secure?
	Well, the thing is, the advantage we have, and I'm curious, Sean, I don't mean to put you on the spot.
	I'm curious what you would advise President Trump to do in the current situation.
	What's the upside for Trump's legacy if he treats these children?
	We always get the tax increases.
	We never get the spending cuts.
	You always get the amnesty.
	You never get the wall built.
	Well, I think that you're right.
	My answer is this: build the wall first.
	That's my answer.
	Well, I think that the wall, I've told you now, if elections have consequences, if a majority of the people who voted in the majority of the states still insist on building the wall, then have at it.
	Many, many nations.
	But I think that in the current situation, it is impossible for anyone not to understand the humanity of the 800,000 dreamers, Sean.
	What's your response, Katie?
	I just find, I think, you know, when people say, oh, elections have consequences, you know, oh, yeah, they do.
	And guess what?
	We voted for Trump, or you guys did.
	I just kind of celebrated wildly because for 18 months on a campaign trail, he told us, I will sort out immigration and I will build a wall.
	The reason so many people queued for so many hours to put their little cross in that box was because he said he would build the wall.
	I wonder if Great Britain, how great Great Britain will be when it builds its wall on the channel and divorces itself from Europe.
	We'll see.
	History will.
	Well, Obama told us we'd be going to the back of the queue, honey, which is why most of us voted to do the opposite of what Obama said, because we see that he's a whole bunch of talk.
	He talks a good talk, but sadly he did very little.
	And that's why we voted for you, Hannah.
	I'm going to ask you very directly.
	I'll tell you this.
	We don't have time to do that.
	He didn't do anything directly.
	It takes you four hours to say anything, but go for your life.
	I mean, Sean's got a show a week.
	Fine.
	I've got to be honest.
	If you two weren't both married, I think this would be the perfect foundation for a great relationship listening to you two.
	Great debate.
	We'll bring you both back together.
	We'll see you next week.
	Katie Hopkins, the Gabby won Heraldo Rivera from the Fox News Channel.
	I wish I had more time.
	When we come back, Dana Rohrbacher met with Julian Assange.
	He believes Julian can prove that there was no Russia-Trump collusion.
	So is Robert Mueller?
	Is Congress going to pay attention?
	What's next?
	That's big
	government.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	We had a very good meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Jack Schumer.
	We agreed to a three-month extension on debt ceiling, which they consider to be sacred, very important.
	Always will agree on debt ceiling automatically because of the importance of it.
	Also in the CRs and also in Harvey, which now we're going to be adding something because of what's going on in Florida.
	We had a very good meeting.
	We essentially came to a deal, and I think the deal will be very good.
	We had a very, very cordial and professional meeting.
	So we have an extension which will go out to December 15th.
	That'll include debt ceiling.
	That'll include the CRs.
	And it'll include Harvey, the amount of money that to be determined, but it'll include, because everyone is in favor, obviously, of taking care of that situation.
	So we all very much agree.
	Mr. President, what do you say to those who say there are mixed signals coming from the White House over DACA?
	No mixed signal at all.
	Congress, I really believe, wants to take care of the situation.
	Really believe it.
	Even very conservative members of Congress have seen it firsthand.
	If they don't, we're going to see what we're going to do.
	But I will tell you, I really believe Congress wants to take care of it.
	We discussed that also today.
	And Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I something.
	We have had many discussions about how to go forward.
	We have this emergency created by Harvey and Irma, which must be addressed this week.
	We have the debt ceiling expiring because there's more borrowing the Secretary of the Treasury needs to do than the current debt ceiling allows him.
	This isn't the definition of an emergency.
	I don't know what is.
	In the meeting down at the White House, as I indicated, the President agreed with Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi to do a three-month CR and a debt ceiling into December.
	And that's what I will be offering based on the president's decision to the bill.
	All right, so there it is, the Congress funding the debt ceiling or raising the debt ceiling three months on that so they can get funding for Hurricane Harvey and the president, obviously, and McConnell and Schumer and Pelosi, and they're all giddy.
	But meanwhile, nothing has really gotten done for the forgotten men and women in this country.
	We welcome back to the program Dana Rohrbacher, California congressman.
	And Congressman, welcome back.
	What is your take on the relief funds for Hurricane Harvey and this raise of the debt ceiling and this deal for three months?
	Well, I think that there's a signal, and I think it's an important signal that the legislative branch of our government is providing with the president's leadership that says, no, helping these people in a crisis who now have found their lives upside down and everything that they've owned disappears or whatever in danger.
	Yeah, that's the priority is helping these fellow Americans out.
	So I think that what we're talking about is a good way to do it and it would justify some of the spending and restrictions to be limited right now until we take care of that business.
	So you think it was the right thing to do?
	Yes, I do.
	And look, these are Americans who are in trouble.
	How can we spend money in the rest of the budget for overseas and helping people around the world, all sorts of other priorities, but not just immediately go to help our people when they're in danger?
	Well, let me ask you, you have put forward, and I know this gets controversial, and we won't spend a lot of time about it.
	I want to go back to your meeting with Julian Assange here in just a second.
	All right.
	But I want to ask you about, you wrote a piece about my fellow conservatives should protect medical marijuana from the government.
	That's correct.
	What we have now, if we are conservatives, if we are, look, I was Ronald Reagan's speechwriter for seven years, spent my whole life being a right-winger.
	And I thought we always believed in states' rights.
	And the bottom line is medical marijuana now has been approved by all but four states, and they don't want to waste resources, police resources, on trying to prevent people from getting treatment as they would like with using medical marijuana.
	And my amendment is to the appropriations bill that's now being considered in the House right now today, the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice so that if a state has legalized the medical use of marijuana, that the federal government cannot, and the Department of Justice cannot jump in and supersede the state law with their own activities.
	Did you ever see the movie Dallas Buyers Club?
	And I know this may sound a little odd as I'm asking this question.
	You ever see that movie?
	What was the name of it again?
	The Dallas Buyers Club.
	Matthew McConaughey is in it, and it ends up he's a person that has AIDS.
	And he goes to Mexico, and he's literally pretty much on his deathbed.
	And he runs into this doctor, and this doctor has prescribed him different medicines that weren't available at the time up in the United States.
	And he ends up getting well.
	And it was much different than the trial he was taking like AZT, but half the people didn't get the drug and half didn't get the drug.
	Some had a placebo.
	Anyway, long story short, it worked for him, and he started bringing this medicine up to the, you know, different medicines up to the United States and selling them.
	And he built what is called the Dallas Buyers Club.
	And my attitude is: if it's your body and your life and you're an adult and you're going to die and you want to try any medicine where it may have any hope whatsoever, I don't think the federal government should get in any way in the way of your trying to save your life and doing what you think is right.
	I agree with you totally on that, and especially if the state government that we believe supposedly in limited government and state government, we believe in individual freedom, and if the states have actually legalized the medical use of it, and there have been, you know, our veterans are telling us it's helped them in many cases.
	We have senior citizens with arthritis and kids who are going through seizures.
	A lot of things have been proven that it might be of great help.
	Let's let the states determine that in terms of whether someone should be arrested for using or supplying medical marijuana.
	And I think that's consistent with what we believe in.
	Unfortunately, they're not going to let my amendment go in.
	It's already passed several times in the last five years, and they're trying to nix it so that now the federal government can step in and supersede states' rights.
	In the next couple hours, is when they will determine whether or not my amendment will even be able to be permitted.
	Now, where are most Republicans on this?
	Because you addressed your fellow conservatives in the Washington Post.
	I just am a freedom person.
	Look, but on the other hand, I don't care what people do if they're sick, but people, I think, use so many drugs so recreationally.
	I mean, we have become a drug society at a level we've never seen before.
	It's permeated.
	There's no doubt about that.
	And we need to make sure that we give people, we can have drug tests in high schools and things.
	I don't believe putting people in jail will help them in their consumption.
	But remember, there's a practical application.
	We are trying very hard to convince people, especially young people, not to use marijuana.
	But we have legalized it for medical purposes when people have a prescription from a doctor, etc.
	Well, this is now billions of dollars are in that industry.
	And guess what?
	If my band doesn't pass, what's going to happen is billions of dollars now going to businessmen who are trying to be responsible, try to see how much, how strong this is and where, you know, and have to make sure everything's labeled.
	Instead, it'll go right back to the drug cartels.
	Billions of dollars go right back to the drug cartels if we try to have the federal government outlaw what the states have already done.
	Let me ask you, and I think it's an interesting argument you're making, and I have a more libertarian side than, say, I did even 10 years ago in my life.
	But I just think that if you're sick, you ought to be able to take any medicine you want, experimental.
	Right, but it takes how many billions of dollars to get something approved, and meanwhile, people are dying.
	That's right.
	And if what state, the state governments in all but four states have liberalized this whole issue and said, look, there's state laws regulating it so that we don't have a bunch of drug feddlers out there, but instead they make sure that we're dealing with people who've got prescriptions for taking care of their arthritis.
	Senior citizens sit in their own folks' homes suffering from various maladies.
	There's no reason for that to happen.
	There's no reason for them only to be offered opiates in order to help deal with their pain.
	And this is wrong.
	Well, and they're so addictive.
	I mean, I know people that took it for a bad back and they get addicted.
	That's another problem.
	Let me ask you this.
	Medical marijuana should be an alternative.
	This has nothing to do with the fact that you're a deadhead and love the Grateful Dead all these years and have been a surfer, does it?
	Well, I was in a debate culture.
	Let me put it that way.
	No, listen, it's fine.
	All right, let me ask you this.
	You met with Julian Assange.
	Julian Assange has a message.
	You're convinced, as I am, having interviewed him five times, that he would be the only person that knows where the leak came from, in terms of the DNC and the emails.
	And you're convinced as I am, he has the ability to prove it's not Russia.
	I do believe that WikiLeaks has never been proven wrong in 11 years, and I've not seen any Russia-Trump collusion evidence to date.
	And I think the special counsel is running roughshod over what its original mission is.
	So my question is, how does this information ever get out?
	Because I'm assuming the president's lawyers are afraid to put you near him.
	The meeting that I was am hoping that will still happen with the president is vitally important to the American people to understand this propaganda campaign, this basically lies that they were fed over and over and over again during the time when President Trump was trying to establish his new presidency.
	This was done to undermine his rightful authority as given him by the voters.
	And right now, we need to let them know that that was a lie.
	That was a total lie, and that the Russians weren't colluding with Donald Trump for the elections.
	That this was that when the Russians weren't involved in this, that that disclosure came from someone totally different than that.
	And basically, that basically unveils this crime that has been committed in our country of undermining the democratic process, which is what they were doing when they were trying to prevent our president from having the appointments, being able to function as a president of the United States.
	And I think that if we disclose it, and actually my hat's off to you, my hat is off to you, and I'm trying my best.
	Let's just hope that the president gets the word and that his staff doesn't try to protect him from himself so that we can actually disclose this information to the American people.
	Well, I hope so.
	And what is the method?
	Is there another method short of seeing the president by which you think you can get this information out?
	I think that it is important for me to be able to give the president directly the message that was given to me and so he will understand the solid nature of the proof that is going to be offered.
	And thus, and the reason that's important is because the American people, again, they were fed a lie.
	This was a con game of the highest order.
	It shows that our CIA, our FBI, our intelligence services have been politicized during the last administration and that that puts us at risk as well.
	The American people have to understand that.
	And this one bit of information will, I believe, is a game changer.
	And so it'll enlighten the American people to the dastardly tactics that have been used by the left in order to try to undermine this president.
	And it's your belief that this has been one big orchestrated lie and it can be proven wrong.
	What would that say if that ⁇ do you believe it's also people from within the DNC?
	Because we had Luke Roziak on earlier in this whole issue with W. Wasserman Schultz.
	And that case seems to be blowing up.
	Do you think it's something that they wanted to hide, something they orchestrated?
	We have, let me put it this way, I am convinced that this also served two purposes of what this horrible con game, it's the biggest con game in American history for sure.
	It wasn't just aimed at undermining our new president and preventing him from and obstructing him from having the appointments and the policies that he was aiming at.
	No, there was something else there, and I believe that what it is, they didn't want the American people to understand the criminal type of activity that was engaged by Hillary and by other people in the Democratic Party with Russia and the Russians.
	And by shifting the spotlight, they were able to hide on this side of the spotlight while they shined it on Trump.
	And while their own dirty deeds need to be documented and need to be exposed, and frankly, some people need to be convicted of crimes and put in jail.
	All right, Dana Rohrbacher, California, thank you so much.
	We're going to continue to follow it.
	We'll have more with you on TV tonight, and we'll let you tell that story.
	It's very important.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	Big show, Hannity tonight.
	Important opening monologue as the president now pitches tax reform, DATCA, Hysteria on the Hill, and what is the big liberal lie.
	We got Kelly Ann Conway, Dana Rohrbacher on his meeting with Julian Assange, Sarah Carda and Greg Jarrett, and Jay Seculo debate whether or not there's no Russia collusion.
	We'll have more on the DACA debate with Ari Fleischer debating Geraldo and all of Clinton's election excuses.
	10 Eastern, Hannity Fox.

▲