Sean Hannity Show - A Tale of Two Presidents - 9.19

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 20, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:34:57

A Tale of Two Presidents - 9.19

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, 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.
	People rule, and the people are sovereign.
	I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people where it belongs.
	In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty.
	Our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens, to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.
	As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first.
	No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well-being of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea.
	It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more.
	Now, North Korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.
	It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict.
	No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.
	The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.
	Rocketman is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.
	The United States is ready, willing, and able, but hopefully, this will not be necessary.
	That's what the United Nations is all about.
	That's what the United Nations is for.
	Let's see how they do.
	It is time for North Korea to realize that the denuclearization is its only acceptable future.
	All right, that was the president at the UN earlier today.
	You know what we've done?
	We'll do it later in the program today.
	Anyway, glad you're with us.
	800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
	If you want to be a part of this extravaganza, we're going to do a comparison, a compare, a contrast between two presidents and Obama's appeasement, capitulation, apologies versus a president that has moral clarity and strength and resolve and a willingness to just tell the truth.
	You know, the president scored when the Democrats and you got Democrats ripping the president's speech is bombastic.
	What does he mean?
	He's going to look out for the American people first.
	What does that mean?
	Diane Feinstein said that the speech ran counter to the mission of the international organization, an organization that does nothing except pass one anti-Semitic resolution after another that does nothing to bring peace and stability in the world.
	And at best, they send in peacekeepers that are ineffective or they send in help after the fact.
	And they've been ineffective at stopping nuclear proliferation in any way, shape, matter, or form.
	I thought it was probably, and I'm not the only one that believes this.
	He did have ABC Terry's Moran suffering a full meltdown today reacting to the speech.
	And he went on to say, bordering on the threat of a war crime, he said.
	No, they didn't listen to the same speech.
	They're just not used to hearing strength in an American president.
	And that is what happened at the United Nations.
	You got to also think all these leaders that are around the world, they're paying very close attention.
	It's great that they know there's a new sheriff in town.
	It is a good thing that they might, again, fear the United States and that there'll be consequences for nefarious activities.
	And we can't allow North Korea to keep firing or rocketman Kim Jong-un to keep firing missiles over Japan and threatening Guam and threatening the entire region of the world.
	We do have some good news on that front.
	The Defense Secretary, James Mad Dog Mattis, hinted yesterday that the U.S., in fact, may have a secret military option that would neutralize any threat caused by North Korea.
	And according to Mattis, the Pentagon has a few tricks up its sleeve that wouldn't involve the decimation of Seoul.
	You know, if we can do something, neutralize them and save lives, I've been saying, and I don't know what option he's talking about, but if we can do anything to prevent the incineration in North Korea in spite of Rocketman, it would be good for the entire world.
	So whatever options may be available to us that I don't know about, otherwise I only see bad options.
	And all I see is, okay, he's going to continue to put these missiles on a launch pad, fire them over individual sovereign countries, and threaten Guam.
	We will have no choice but to engage.
	Anyway, when asked, is there any military option the U.S. can take with North Korea that would not put Seoul at grave risk, Mattis said, yes, there is, but I'm not going into details.
	He wouldn't say.
	He did let slip one interesting comment.
	Just to clarify, you said that there was a possible military option that would not create a grave risk to Seoul.
	Are we talking about kinetic options as well?
	A reporter asked in a follow-up.
	He said, yes, I don't want to go into that, agreeing that his closely held military option involved kinetic action, which is a euphemism to describe lethal military force.
	You got to hope and pray.
	And this is what happens when you have somebody like Bill Clinton promising this is a good deal for the American people.
	We'll give them billions of dollars in energy and we're going to be fine.
	And they agree, no nuclear weapons ever.
	They're going to play nice in the sandbox.
	Well, they didn't play nice in the sandbox.
	You know, so this president has sent a very different measure, very different measured answer.
	You know, I've always said that the one adult on the world stage that has moral clarity because of the dire situation and the proximity to enemies around them, the tiniest country in the world, one of them, is Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
	Well, he had some high praise for the president today.
	He said, in over 30 years of my experience with the U.N., I never heard a bolder, more courageous speech.
	President Trump spoke the truth about the great dangers facing our world and issued a powerful call to confront them in order to ensure the future of humanity.
	He's not using hyperbole either.
	These weapons in the hands of radical mullahs in Iran and elsewhere are an extreme danger to every man, woman, and child that walks this earth.
	And the president got into all of this and he concluded his first address, 40-minute speech, a lot of tough talk for North Korea, a lot of tough talk for Iran.
	He's referring to Kim Jong-un as rocket man, which made me laugh.
	And he threatened to totally destroy North Korea if necessary if the U.S. is forced to defend itself or its allies against North Korea's aggression.
	He also said the Iranian regime is an economically depleted rogue state.
	Well, they were until Obama gave these people $150 billion in cash and other currency.
	And he also said we can't allow the murderous regime to continue to destabilize activities.
	Now, I had an opportunity last night to interview General President El-Sisi of Egypt.
	I'd never met him before.
	And I asked him many of these same questions.
	He was very clear.
	And I thought he took one of the more courageous positions ever and saying that Islam needs to reform and radical Islamists need to stop.
	And it's our job, our part of the world, to make sure they stop.
	And then when Coptic Christians, I believe, what, 24, 27 of them were killed in Libya, he sent his troops in.
	And trust me, his life is in jeopardy for taking on radical Islam.
	I even asked him, well, what about America doesn't even mention the word radical Islam?
	It was a pretty interesting response that he had.
	Anyway, so John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador, said it was the best speech of his presidency.
	And he praised the president for the denunciation of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the criticism of Iran and the deal brokered by the Obama administration.
	He said the best speech in Trump's presidency, I think he was as clear and direct as it's possible to be.
	And I think it's safe to say in the history of the U.N., there's never been a more straightforward criticism of the behavior, the unacceptable behavior of other member states.
	And he said Trump's critiques of the nuclear deal revealed the White House is not going to tolerate half measures and compromises that allow rogue nations and radical mullahs with radical ideologies, Iran and North Korea, to progress and be on the verge of having deliverable nuclear devices.
	And he even got applause, the president did, for blasting the Iranian murderous regime and warning that the mullahs are still working on their nuclear weapons.
	So it was a pretty fascinating day, almost historic at the United Nations today.
	And the president making very clear what the Trump doctrine is all about.
	There will be no more appeasement.
	There's not going to be any more bribery efforts.
	There's not going to be any more attempts to capitulate and beg rogue dictatorships to be nice to us if we give them money and bribe them.
	Bribing them doesn't work.
	Being nice to them hasn't worked.
	Capitulating and appeasement has not worked.
	And so obviously the world is watching.
	Now, we have a number of other issues we're going to hit today.
	There is a last-ditch effort in the Senate before September 30th to get a repeal of Obamacare.
	So we're going to watch that pretty closely.
	And this latest plan basically would send, it's the Cassidy Graham bill, and it would send the Obamacare monies back to the states and let them decide specifically what they want to do with healthcare in their state, something that conservatives generally support.
	I spent a lot of time over the weekend speaking with my sources in D.C., both in the Senate, outside the Senate, in the House, outside the House.
	And what I found was there is broad support for it, but it looks like it's about one, maybe two votes short in the House.
	And the names won't surprise you.
	Murkowski, Collins, McCain, and Rand Paul is dead set against it for reasons that he'll explain on the program today.
	You know, look, it's not the best option.
	And the reason it's not the best option is simple, is because you had seven senators that voted in 2015 to repeal Obamacare.
	And then when they knew Obama would never sign it.
	Then it comes 2017, and you got a president, pen in hand, that's willing to fully repeal Obamacare.
	And those six, seven senators said, no, I don't think so because it's just not working for me this time.
	So you have about seven senators that never had any intention to repeal and replace Obamacare.
	That's the reality now that the Republican Party has to deal with.
	Then you got about 100 in the House that don't want repeal and replace, even though they too had 60 show votes.
	So it's a horrible position.
	There's not the great option.
	The reason that Meadows and Bratt, but again, nobody gets to see the bill, are encouraged by the Cassidy-Graham bill is because it would allow states to set up their own health care cooperatives.
	And then they would allow them to set up their own health savings accounts.
	At least that's a better choice.
	If California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois want to do something stupid and start their own version of a single payer, they can do it, but it's going to be on their dime.
	And the citizens of their state are going to have to figure it out.
	All right.
	The other big story we are following today is the, yes, it's now been confirmed.
	What we reported on this program in March of this year, there was surveillance on Trump Tower.
	There was surveillance on Trump Associates.
	It was done by the Obama administration.
	We're going to give you all the information.
	Now, CNN has had to admit that they were wrong, except they're not saying they're wrong.
	They just forget all of their criticism.
	All the times they called the president a liar.
	Well, we've got the tape.
	We'll get to that.
	And your calls today, 800-941-Sean is on number.
	We'll continue.
	Oh, I see California Moonbeam Brown is not happy with the president's approach to climate change and North Korea calling it stupid and dangerous and silly, sharpening his criticism that the president and comparing his supporters to cave dwellers.
	You should check them out.
	He said, you know, they're people who dwell in deep, dark caves.
	I just sent out a tweet to all my deplorable cave dweller friends.
	Yeah, Hannity's moving to nine.
	Hey, I got one bit of bragging news, although I don't take any brag in this.
	So, you know, we're launching the movie Let There Be Light in October, October 27th, a month from now.
	So we'll start the new show Monday, the 25th on Hannity.
	Everybody's waiting, who's going to win?
	Who's going to?
	Okay, I'm moving back to 9 o'clock.
	Can I have like a week?
	It only took Matt out 10 years of horrible ratings.
	And, you know, once she discovered the conspiracy theory aspect of cable television, which never existed before, now all of a sudden, that's it.
	We're very confident.
	We're very excited about the opportunity.
	And I hope you'll help us spread the word on the time change starting next Monday and tell all your friends.
	And the media is not going to be pulling for me.
	I can tell you that much, which is fine because I don't do the show for them.
	I do the show for you, the people in this audience that are deplorable cave dwellers, apparently.
	Anyway, so we got Best Picture, and I tweeted that out at Sean Hannity.
	If you have a moment to go to Twitter, and we're really proud of it.
	It'll come out on the 27th of October and it stars Kevin Sorbo, his wife Sam.
	And it's got a lot of interesting people in it as well.
	And the music, it was all done by Deion Warwick, and it's phenomenal.
	My buddy Travis Tritton in it.
	Tritta's in it, and I have a.
	How would you describe my role in the movie?
	How big and important?
	You're just stunning.
	It's overwhelming, your role.
	You didn't even watch it yet, did you?
	I watched your part.
	It's very difficult that role you played being yourself.
	Well, I was in it for a few minutes, actually.
	You were.
	You were pretending to be Sean Hannity.
	I have no desire to be in the movies.
	All right.
	When we come back, one of the great lies that was told by the media is now revealed.
	They have egg all over their face.
	Listen to this show one time, and you're hennotized.
	Sean Hannity is back on the radio.
	All right, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the problem.
	Why are you complaining?
	Lauren's got the look of death on her face.
	What have people been saying when they call in that is irritating you?
	You could always just learn from Bo Snerdley, Rush Limbaugh's call screener, who we've known for years and we love.
	He's a great guy.
	He has his own talk show in there.
	I know.
	We each have our different tactics towards call screening.
	What if somebody irritated you or some group of people have been irritating you?
	Why are you letting people irritate you?
	I'm not irritated.
	I'm just annoyed.
	I'm not irritated.
	I'm just annoyed.
	Yeah.
	That's like James Comey saying, well, it was careless, but it was.
	She didn't recklessly mishandle it.
	It was carelessness.
	It's the same thing.
	What's bothering you?
	Listen, I love your audience.
	They are some of the greatest people ever.
	But right now, there's just a lot of commentary that's not adding up to what you're talking about.
	And sometimes that gets a little frustrated because for the most part, we want to take callers on what you're talking about.
	Okay.
	What is the commentary that annoyed you?
	Did somebody say something horrible about me and it upsets you and puts your defense mechanisms in gear or something?
	Because you always get upset on my behalf when somebody calls in and says, he's a blanking blah, blah.
	It upsets you.
	It doesn't upset me.
	It does upset me.
	What?
	No, it does upset me, but you know what?
	I know, but if it doesn't upset me, why should it upset you?
	Because I love you and I care about you.
	You don't have to worry.
	I'm used.
	I've had I keep telling her, let it go.
	Let's put him on the air.
	Let him fight for his life.
	He loves it.
	Find the next one and put them up and I'll put them on the air and I'll show you how to handle it.
	What we really want is people to stop calling in and asking to talk about things that we're not talking about.
	For example, we're not talking about UFOs today, but thank you very much for the information.
	We appreciate too many.
	Too many.
	I don't want to hear about the little green man in your closet, as interesting as you might think it is.
	So thank you very much.
	Please don't call again.
	The trials and tribulations of a call screener.
	I think we ought to turn that into a business.
	And be nice to Lauren, or I'm going to start answering the phone, and nobody wants that.
	Well, people have already dealt with that.
	That's right.
	Enough of that already.
	But you got to remember, there are customers.
	And, you know, although I do enjoy the way that Bo Stirdly handles it, it's a full-on talk show that goes on inside of the control room while Rush is doing his show.
	Rush is in the middle of one of his long signature monologues, and then in comes, you know, Bo is fighting the callers.
	It's almost like two shows in one.
	Anyway, all right, I got it.
	Just stop taking it personally.
	Listen, I just want to let you know, I feel like call screening, when I talk to the callers, I'm a reflection of you.
	So I do try and be as respectful as humanly possible.
	But sometimes when you're not talking about things that are relevant whatsoever to the show, it drives me a little crazy.
	All right, but you're letting people get to you and bother you.
	Don't listen, here's the thing in life: if people can get to you and bug you and bother you, think about all the names you know that I'm called on a daily basis.
	If I took these things to heart the way you're taking it to heart, I would be in a rubber room somewhere, you know, insane.
	You just got to let it go.
	You just got, you got, you can't sweat the small stuff.
	I never read the book.
	I got enough out of the title.
	I get it.
	You can't sweat things you can't control, and people want to irritate you, upset you, agitate you, hurt your feelings, make you sad, emotionalize you, and you can't, you don't give them the power to do it.
	I got you way off topic, and now I'm turning into one of those callers who's talking about something that is not on topic.
	This is not off topic.
	This is life.
	There are people in life that love you and care about you and would never ever be pushing your buttons.
	But the only reason they're pushing your buttons is because you have buttons to push.
	And I'm saying, get rid of the buttons.
	So there's no buttons on you that they can push.
	And then they're going to try harder to irritate you.
	And they'll call back 50 times to irritate you.
	All right.
	I threw the buttons out the window.
	They're no longer here.
	No, you didn't, but it's a nice, nice attempt.
	All right, let me move on.
	So it turns out, remember when President Trump back in the day, I forget the exact date point and time, said that it looked like he was being hacked.
	Remember, President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.
	That was the exact words that he used.
	Do you remember how the media had a meltdown, a complete, utter meltdown?
	And it was one of the many occasions that they go into these days-long rants about the president being a liar and unfit for office and paranoid and on and on and on.
	Well, turns out that not only were we right, a few other people were right.
	Apparently, Levin was right.
	Apparently, Breitbart was right.
	And we had this on the 8th of March, and we talked at length again and again with Sarah Carter, John Solomon.
	They broke the story.
	We had them on the day they broke the story that there had been FISA warrants issued against Trump Tower and the server that was off-site, meaning it's the one that the Trump campaign used.
	It wasn't in Trump Tower, and that two FISA courts had ruled in favor of giving them some limited access to this.
	And it was on March 8th that we had him on the program.
	And then President Trump had tweeted on March 4th, terrible.
	Just found out that Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory.
	Nothing found.
	He said, this is McCarthyism.
	CNN itself at the time called the idea of Trump being wiretapped incendiary.
	Well, now it turns out a report issued late yesterday says U.S. investigators did obtain a surveillance warrant, just as we told you they did, in this case, on Paul Manafort from a secret court, FISA, and had monitored him before and after the election, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Trump, which means they monitored the president.
	This might go to the heart of how we had a leak a day by the deep state since this man has been president, which nobody else has had to deal with.
	It is an obstacle that makes the job infinitely harder.
	And then when you couple it with lying cable news and the New York Times and the Washington Post, well, you've got yourself an administration spending 80% of its time, you know, chasing down information that's either false or full of lies.
	The report said that the secret court that handles FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, authorized a surveillance for an investigation that began in 2014.
	And the Podesta group and another firm's lobbying work for Ukraine's pro-Russia former ruling party.
	We never heard anything about John Podesta's work over there, just Paul Manafort's work over there.
	So the revelation that the Obama administration did indeed wiretap the Trump campaign.
	Now, this comes despite all the denials by Obama officials, by the FBI, and by the intelligence community.
	Even the FBI director James Comey, he disputed Trump's claim in testimony that lawmakers could probably now find misleading because he told the House Intelligence Committee with respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration.
	I have no information that supports those tweets, and we've looked carefully inside the FBI.
	Well, they didn't look apparently deep enough.
	The New York Times also reported that Comey had said Trump's claim was false and that he had asked the Justice Department to publicly reject it, according to the BBC.
	James Clapper, former director, National Intelligence.
	He also told Congress under oath the intelligence agencies did not wiretap Trump, nor did the FBI obtain a court order to monitor Trump's phones, all of which is not true.
	So the president tweeted this out on March 4th.
	Let's go to the Sean Hannity radio program on March 8th.
	Listen to this.
	Now, in this piece, tell me if I'm reading it properly.
	You both confirmed that a surveillance warrant was issued for the main server at Trump Tower.
	Is that true?
	For a server, yep.
	I'm not sure it was the main server, Sean, but it was a server that had to do with email marketing.
	And the FBI wanted to take a look at it because it was appearing to have some sort of communication with a Russian entity.
	Well, I know as a matter of fact that everybody on the campaign, with maybe one or two exceptions that I know, all got on the Trump email.
	In other words, the Trump organization email server.
	Right.
	So there is a possibility that everything involving the campaign was possibly surveilled once that FISA warrant was issued.
	Is that possible?
	It's possible, though.
	Our understanding is that this server was actually narrowly construed to do email marketing.
	It predated the campaign and wasn't specifically a server that was used for campaign email.
	That's our understanding.
	Now, let's go to the corrupt establishment, Destroy Trump Media.
	And that means especially over at NBC and CNN, fake Jake News over at CNN, and listen to how they call the president basically a liar and paranoid and crazy.
	Listen.
	Good evening.
	Thanks for joining us.
	Tonight, we know the President of the United States has no facts, no facts to back up his startling allegation that the former President of the United States, President Obama, wiretapped him in Trump Tower during the campaign.
	Keeping in mind, as we know this tonight because bipartisan members of the Senate Intelligence Committee say they've seen no evidence that President Obama ordered Donald Trump's phones tapped during the campaign.
	We know this because House Speaker Paul Ryan also says he's seen no evidence.
	Now, remember, the president asked Congress to investigate, and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been doing just that for the last dozen days.
	We know the president has no facts to back up his early morning Saturday tweet storm because in today's White House briefing, Press Secretary Sean Spicer read a long list of media reports that he seemed to believe back up the president's claims.
	Media reports.
	Sean Hannity, Judge Napolitano, Heat Street, the New York Times.
	Do you want to see Billy Madison?
	The game show scene.
	Everyone in this room is dumber for having listened to that.
	I hope that you're not dumber and I hope we're providing you some information.
	Just to be clear, no one mischaracterized what this Senate Intel said.
	Here's a statement.
	Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government, either before or after Election Day 2016.
	Jake, you and I both know they have broadened the definition of wiretapping in the days since the president put out that baseless tweet to include all forms of surveillance because the original tweet is a false claim.
	It's a falsehood.
	And so they're trying to tap dance around this and tiptoe through the tulips.
	But as you know, it's very cold in Washington this week, and those answers are just not penetrating.
	And that's why you saw so much skepticism in the room today and so many people trying to get an answer to this.
	It is a sort of stupefying thing to watch, Jake.
	Then when it became clear that both the former director of national intelligence and the current FBI director were saying this did not happen, they started trying to walk it back by claiming that wiretapping was in quotes and therefore what President Trump was referring to was any kind of surveillance.
	And moreover, not only did President Trump not mean, hey, I was wiretapped at Trump Tower, me personally, now, of course, the definition had been expanded to include there was surveillance conducted and maybe somebody, somebody talked to, had something to do with somebody on the Trump campaign.
	It's amazing to watch the White House continue to argue that the earth is flat.
	This is CNN.
	Where are all the retractions, NBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post?
	And it even gets worse than this.
	Obama holdovers at the FBI are in overdrive.
	You know what they're trying to cover up?
	The truth behind the golden shower dossier.
	Now, that was another big lie that was leaked against Trump that was false from the get-go.
	Comey paid this guy or wanted to pay this guy 50 grand.
	And after two previous deadlines have come and gone now, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is now demanding the FBI director and the Attorney General come clean, explain what the hell's going on.
	No documents were produced by the latest deadline, September 14th.
	Now, Nunes has sent a new letter to the FBI director and the Attorney General.
	He set a deadline of Friday for the documents to be produced.
	Now, who paid for this?
	Looks like Democrats paid for this.
	This is the one about hookers in a Ritz-Carlton in Russia, which turned out to be false.
	You know, you add all this together.
	You literally had surveillance, unmasking, leaking intelligence, which got General Flynn in trouble, all was illegal and a violation of the Espionage Act.
	We've got eavesdropping on the Trump team, Manafort, Carter Page, probably others.
	I've told that I have been unmasked numerous times.
	Anyway, and I have no doubt the Obama administration, why was Samantha Powers the UN ambassador?
	Why is she unmasking hundreds of Trump people and Trump conversations?
	Now, okay, if they went to the FISA court and they got it, that would be legal.
	Although that doesn't talk about their obligation of minimization, it doesn't talk about leaking intelligence, both of which are illegal.
	And why the high degree of surveillance?
	In other words, we give intelligence and the intelligence community the tools to do the most powerful things, and that is spy on our enemies in the most sophisticated ways.
	And we have a Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment protections.
	And if they're using those tools and turning them on the American people and weaponizing them for political purposes against a political opponent in an election year, well, then there is no law in this country.
	And I've been trying to warn everybody now for almost a year about how bad this is.
	And it's now only beginning to come to light.
	And the complicit media is up to their eyeballs in lying for the Democrats and lying for the government and lying about illegal activities.
	And I'm telling you, TikTok, this is only the beginning.
	There's so much more that is going to be coming out.
	Stay here.
	We will have it all for you.
	And we'll continue.
	So my staff is giving me the, why are you giving me a hardest time?
	You know, so the movie that we that I produced as executive producer, and this has been in the works for two years now.
	I haven't talked a lot about it yet.
	It's coming out October the 27th.
	Anyway, in Toronto, it won the best picture.
	And it won.
	It's the Canadian International Faith and Family Film Festival.
	And it won Best Picture.
	And Linda and Lauren are laughing at me.
	Why is, oh, is it going to win an Oscar now?
	Are you going to go out to Hollywood and walk the red?
	Well, no, I'm not.
	Why would you say all those mean things?
	Why would you do that?
	I would never say something that mean.
	I don't know what you're saying.
	You're lying to the audience.
	You were just making fun of me, both of you.
	I make fun of you regularly.
	This movie has nothing to do with it.
	So I'm not going to Hollywood.
	Good grief.
	The most beneficial aspect of this bill as follows.
	If you don't like Obamacare, who do you complain to?
	You can complain to me, but I sure as hell don't run it.
	If I can get South Carolina in charge of this money that would have been spent in Washington by a bureaucrat who's unelected, I promise every South Carolinian the following.
	If you don't like your health care, somebody will listen to you.
	It's your governor and your state house representative.
	All right, that is Lindsey Graham talking about his health care proposal, and that is the Cassidy Graham bill.
	And this would have to be done before September 30th if the Senate ever hopes to use the reconciliation process or only needing 50 votes to get it done.
	It looks like after I've spoken now with a number of members of the Senate that they are probably about one vote away from having the votes to pass this.
	I have spoken to the Freedom Caucus Tuesday group members and some of the leadership in the House.
	And as they talk about the issue of federalism or the issue of sending issues back to the states and allowing them to pick what works best for them, it seems like they would have the majority in the House if, in fact, the Senate passes this.
	It looks like the four people that were watching closely on this, Lisa Murkowski again, we also have Susan Collins again, and then it would be John McCain and Senator Ram Paul who joins us now.
	And for your programming purposes, Lindsey Graham will be on this program tomorrow, a rare appearance.
	Rand Paul is a regular on the program and a friend of the program.
	And I know you have some strong reasons why you're not supporting it.
	How are you?
	Very good, Sean.
	Thanks for having me.
	Yeah, you know, as a physician, I've seen Obamacare up close and personal, and it doesn't work.
	It's a horror.
	So I think we all agree that it's a terrible system, but I want to repeal it.
	You know, I've been going to Tea Party rallies for six years.
	We had hundreds of thousands of people gathering on the mall here.
	You were here at some of these Tea Party rallies.
	They were for repeal.
	They weren't for keeping Obamacare.
	The Graham-Cassidy bill keeps 90% of the spending, 90% of the taxes, and then just reshuffles the formula to send the money to Republican states.
	And this is not the first time Lindsey Graham got confused about the Constitution or federalism.
	The 10th Amendment says that those powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.
	You know, it doesn't say you can have a federal tax and then we're going to divvy it up to the states and that's somehow federalism.
	No, federalism would be saying Kentucky can tax its people and have a government-run system if they wish.
	But it doesn't say, oh, we're going to have a federal tax and then we're going to disperse it.
	That being said, would I vote for a block grant?
	Yeah, if you want to block grant before the Obamacare spending, I don't want to keep Obamacare and block grant it.
	If you want to go back to before Obamacare, before we started adding a trillion dollars of spending, sure, I'll block Grant what we traditionally have done on Medicaid.
	I'll reform Medicaid.
	I'll vote to get rid of the mandates.
	I've voted for every repeal that has come down the pike and will continue to do so.
	But people who have followed the career of Lindsey Graham will realize that this is smoke and mirrors and this is keeping Obamacare.
	Their sales pitch is exactly that.
	Cassidy's gone around the country saying if you like Obamacare, you can keep it.
	That's his sales pitch.
	Here's where I agree with you and where I have maybe a slight disagreement with you.
	And, you know, I have a lot of questions too.
	I spent probably an hour and a half talking to Mark Meadows of the Freedom Caucus, and there are certain specific things that he and Congressman Bratt and Congressman Gomert and a few others in the Freedom Caucus are looking at specifically before they can support it.
	Here's where we are, though, and this is just the reality.
	Now we're facing some hard truths here.
	I never expected, as you never expected, that seven Republicans in the Senate that voted for full repeal when Obama's president in 2015 would turn around when it could become a reality and literally stab their constituents in the back and the party, for that matter.
	That's the reality.
	That's the current situation that exists in the U.S. Senate.
	In the U.S. House, we learned very quickly that there were probably about 100 Republicans that had no intention of ever repealing and replacing Obamacare.
	All those votes, those 60-plus votes to repeal and replace when Obama was president, were nothing more than show votes and political posturing on their part.
	So understanding the reality, any option we discussed from here moving forward is never going to be the option that Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Sean Hannity of the Freedom Caucus wants.
	You do agree with that.
	Well, what I would say is, though, but we haven't dwindled to one option.
	So if they get Graham Cassidy to the floor, I will offer an amendment for straight repeal.
	And people, once again, will have a choice.
	And so people can direct their ire towards someone who doesn't vote for what I think is immortalizing Obamacare, keeping it forever and diving it up among the states, or they can vote for a complete repeal that I'll put forward.
	And so then Republicans will just have to decide which they want.
	But I think if you put up on a ballot in any Republican primary anywhere in the U.S., my proposal for a complete repeal with a replacement of legalizing inexpensive insurance, health associations, et cetera, I think I went on the ballot every time.
	So I'm not really afraid of Republicans.
	Why do you think that's not happening?
	Why?
	Because we elected a people of the swamp.
	Have you not seen the swamp?
	It's full of people who promised to repeal Obamacare, got up here and there.
	But you're reiterating my point.
	Here's a truth that I am just facing.
	I am facing a reality that the swamp people that include Republicans.
	And if you watch my show, you listen to the radio show when you can.
	You know how harsh I have been towards the Republicans, especially your buddy, your fellow senator from Kentucky.
	You know that I'm disgusted.
	You know that everybody that is listening to you now, those people that were with us in 2010, part of the Tea Party movement, those that want the president's agenda of repeal and replace done, we wanted the promise kept.
	That promise is not going to get kept.
	It's not happening.
	Right.
	And the promise won't be kept with Graham Cassidy because it keeps Obamacare and just splits up the president's.
	Well, let me ask you this.
	This is the Red Care Light, and it is not a repeal bill.
	Listen, I supported you and the repeal bill.
	I pushed like you did to get that repeal bill vote, and you were asking for it, and you got it.
	And was it six or seven senators, you know, six of them, I believe, voted for it in 2015 when it was never going to get signed?
	Now they wouldn't vote for it in 2017 when it would get signed.
	Well, here's what I predict happens.
	Let's say that Graham Cassidy fails, which I'm hopeful that we do not keep Obamacare and that it fails.
	Then Obamacare that exists won't be a Republican plan.
	The Democrat plan will still be out there and it will fail horribly over the next six months to a year.
	And then maybe we'll develop enough backbone among the swamp creatures that inhabit the Republican caucus to see if we can get a vote.
	But I'll tell you one other positive thing.
	Look, I'm still working with President Trump.
	We had that vote, what, two months ago?
	That vote failed to make the pressure.
	But I think as it unfolds, I think as Obamacare unravels, there may well be a change of opinion.
	But here's the other thing I'll tell you.
	I spoke with President Trump yesterday.
	I'm still working with him on the health care associations that I think he can do through presidential authority.
	That's the money.
	There's a 99% chance he does that within two weeks.
	He's promised me yesterday it's going to get done, that we are going to expand health care associations and that individuals are going to be able to purchase insurance across state.
	I'll ask Graham this tomorrow.
	One of the reasons that I think it was attractive and the arguments, and you love the Freedom Caucus guys, and they love you.
	And the reason they're inclined to support it is for the very reason you said is that health care cooperatives, and look, I have been, I have had on this program, how many years, Linda, have we had Dr. Josh Umber on this program talking about health cooperatives?
	For at least the past five years.
	I think it's longer than like six, seven years.
	And I've been talking about health savings accounts for at least 15 years when I first read Cato Institute's Musgrave and Goodman patient power.
	So I'm listening in an ideal world center, I'm with you.
	But what even they are interpreting the world, this is going to happen, John.
	This is happening in two weeks.
	Millions of people are going to be eligible to buy insurance across the state.
	Why do we have to wait two weeks?
	Why do we have to wait two weeks then?
	Why don't we just do it now?
	It's just, well, I'm not controlling this.
	The president is, but it is coming.
	They have been working on it for months.
	They're writing the regulations, and it is coming within two weeks.
	And the thing is, is there's about 11 million people in the individual market.
	Most of them, if not all of them, would be eligible to join an association.
	So instead of subsidizing the problem, instead of putting money in, instead of just having this massive program, Graham Cassidy keeps all that money and it doesn't reduce the spending.
	It actually just gives the money back to the states.
	I want to actually get to a marketplace where people have the freedom to buy inexpensive insurance.
	The president's going to go a long way towards this.
	Well, there are three questions that I got answered from the Freedom Caucus.
	One, it would allow people once again to buy catastrophic plans, which we both know is illegal under Obamacare.
	Number two, it would facilitate states and their rights to go forward with health savings accounts.
	That's a checklist for me.
	Number three, it would allow the health care cooperatives business like Atlas MD and Josh Umber and ones that you've advocated and I've discussed with you for years, that would be part of it too.
	So that is the only appealing part for me.
	Well, actually, the health care cooperatives, the health care association plans are not part of Graham Cassidy.
	Expanding HSA is the states would be able to choose it.
	Perhaps.
	I mean, it'll still be a good process.
	Like, in other words, don't they like the idea?
	But then it would be a state plan.
	It wouldn't be a national plan.
	Why does it have to be a national plan?
	Don't states run things better?
	Don't we want to send education back to states?
	Well, no, I'm not talking about government.
	I'm talking about for a health care association, the bigger they are, the better.
	So if they can buy across state lines, then you get millions of people involved in them.
	But I'm not talking about government.
	I'm not talking about private associations.
	Couldn't Kentucky partner with, say, Ohio or Kentucky partner with another agenda?
	I've advocated for that if we don't get the national, but I think we're getting ready to legalize nationwide associations, and it's going to be huge as far as trying to bring down prices.
	It may be the biggest reform we've ever had to health care, and it's coming within the next week or two.
	So really, there are parallel tracks.
	What I'm saying is the only game in town is not this Graham Cassidy thing.
	And I also would want people to know that it keeps Obamacare spending and taxes and then just redistributes to the state.
	That's not really federalism.
	In fact, if you ask your listeners with pure federalism, I'm not disagreeing with it.
	It's not.
	But would they vote?
	Ask your listeners, would they vote for a trillion dollars in taxes if we said, well, once we collect the money, we're going to pass it back to the states, and the states will be in charge of spending it.
	So if in 2010 the choices were Obamacare that we got or a Republican Obamacare that had the same taxes but then sent the money to the states to be stent in block grants, we still would have just gone crazy.
	We just said, no way.
	We have $1 trillion in taxes.
	The last iteration of this bill, as I understood it, it took away a lot of the Obamacare taxes.
	But, you know, I won't know until I listen.
	Hang on a second.
	I won't know until I get the bill, and that's the problem.
	You can never get the bills to read them.
	So I don't know specifically, nor can I promise this audience.
	And so neither of us know exactly, but I know that the negotiations that did go on talked about eliminating most of the Obamacare taxes, if not all of them.
	All right, got to take a break.
	Senator Paul, stay right there.
	Lindsey Graham will be on us on the program tomorrow to take the other side of this.
	It would be ideal if we could have them on together.
	Anyway, we'll do it this way first.
	And we'll take a break, come back, we'll continue.
	All right, as we continue with Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky, I was told specifically it gets rid of the individual mandate and the employer mandate.
	That is true.
	That is true.
	So you can't.
	So slow down one second.
	Senator, I don't want to be, I'm not on the wrong, I'm not on the opposite side of you here.
	I just want you to listen to me.
	I totally agree with you.
	If what you're saying is an option, I choose the option of the president allowing the health cooperatives, and I think that's the better option.
	If he has the power and ability to do that, are you saying that he's going to do it through the prerogatives and authoritative power that exists in the Obamacare bill and Secretary Price would have the ability to do all this?
	It actually comes from a 1974 law called ERISA.
	And right now, the one thing, and this is one thing that's really important that people don't quite get, there's one part of our insurance market that actually works, and it's called large group insurance across state lines and with self-insurance.
	And these are ERISA plans.
	And the interesting thing about it, if you work for a large corporation that's in 20 different states, you have what's called large group insurance.
	The premiums have been going up like 2% or 3% a year.
	You're protected against pre-existing conditions.
	You have all the things you want in this insurance.
	And guess what?
	Because of this large group nationwide ruling, you're exempt from most of the ACA requirements.
	Most of the Obamacare requirements, you're exempt, and you're exempt from state regulations.
	So this is a unique thing where you're exempt from both state insurance regulations and from Obamacare regulations.
	And it's sold right now.
	Last third of the marketplace.
	The timeframe in which you're discussing this happening, and this would be, I assume, through executive action of the president, the timeframe, I think what you're discussing here is, and Obamacare still would be the law of the land, as I understand it, would be after the reconciliation date of September 30th.
	Does that impact anything?
	It doesn't have to go through Congress because the law in 1974 set out these parameters and then regulations, as you know, the executive branch looks at the regulations and interprets these regulations.
	Our understanding is that we've looked at the law, they've looked at the law, and their belief is that the existing law allows for more expansive understanding of who can form a health care association.
	So really what we've had is we've had people in the past turning down health care associations.
	We believe that the new interpretation will allow things like the national regulation in the courts.
	Don't know that, but I do know that they would be suing to stop people from getting inexpensive insurance.
	So I think the public relations of trying to sue to prevent people getting cheaper insurance won't be great.
	All right, we don't disagree.
	I mean, and the reason we even have to have this discussion is beyond the pale to me because Republicans in your body and in the House stabbed their constituents in the back with phony promises.
	So really, none of these are the ideal option.
	This is the next best thing we can do in either case.
	Agree with that.
	Well, we're going to keep promoting real repeal.
	And so, when this comes up, don't hold next week.
	Well, the thing is, is that that's what voters will have to decide, though.
	If we have a real repeal and a fake repeal, which one are they for?
	If they are still for a real repeal, they're going to see how people vote.
	And I will make a vote.
	After what happened on your bill that you got on the floor, and they've the same one as 2015, and they voted against it, the same people that had voted for it.
	I just threw my hands up in disgust.
	Well, we're going to try to do even one better than 2015.
	We're going to put forward a real repeal bill.
	And if we get cooperatives, you know where I stand?
	I think I'm the only person in the country that talks at length about cooperatives and health savings accounts.
	I do it all the time.
	It's a big part of the answer, a huge part of the answer.
	I agree.
	I totally agree.
	All right, Senator.
	We love you.
	Thank you.
	All right, thanks.
	800-941-Sean.
	We'll have Lindsey Graham respond to all those tomorrow.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	A lot of news today on the other side, including, yeah, oh, guess what?
	There was surveillance of Donald Trump and his campaign.
	That's next.
	Good evening.
	Thanks for joining us.
	Tonight, we know the President of the United States has no facts.
	No facts to back up his startling allegation that the former President of the United States, President Obama, wiretapped him in Trump Tower during the campaign.
	Keeping them honest, we know this tonight because bipartisan members of the Senate Intelligence Committee say they've seen no evidence that President Obama ordered Donald Trump's phones tapped during the campaign.
	We know this because House Speaker Paul Ryan also says he's seen no evidence.
	Now, remember, the president asked Congress to investigate, and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been doing just that for the last dozen days.
	We know the president has no facts to back up his early morning Saturday tweet storm because in today's White House briefing, Press Secretary Sean Spicer read a long list of media reports that he seemed to believe back up the president's claims.
	Media reports.
	Sean Hannity, Judge Napolitano, Heat Street, the New York Times.
	Do you want to see Billy Madison?
	The game show scene.
	Everyone in this room is dumber for having listened to that.
	I hope that you're not dumber, and I hope we're providing you some information.
	And just to be clear, no one mischaracterized what the Senate Intel said.
	Here's a statement: Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government, either before or after Election Day 2016.
	Jake, you and I both know they have broadened the definition of wiretapping in the days since the president put out that baseless tweet to include all forms of surveillance because the original tweet is a false claim.
	It's a falsehood.
	And so they're trying to tap dance around this and tiptoe through the tulips.
	But as you know, it's very cold in Washington this week, and those answers are just not penetrating.
	And that's why you saw so much skepticism in the room today and so many people trying to get an answer to this.
	It is a sort of a stupefying thing to watch, Jake.
	Then when it became clear that both the former director of national intelligence and the current FBI director were saying this did not happen, they started trying to walk it back by claiming that wiretapping was in quotes and therefore what President Trump was referring to was any kind of surveillance.
	It's amazing to watch the White House continue to argue that the earth is flat.
	This is CNN.
	Well, CNN is now reporting something very differently that in fact it did take place and Paul Manafort was the one that was wiretapped.
	Oh, a CNN exclusive U.S. government wiretapped former Trump campaign manager is the headline.
	Shocking.
	That was all CNN calling the president a liar.
	That was all CNN being wrong.
	That was all CNN calling anybody that saw this.
	And again, our sources were very different that in fact it all had happened.
	And we were the earliest to tell you that it had happened.
	Remember, we had Sarah Carter.
	We had John Solomon on this program.
	Early March, we were talking about how it had all happened, how there were FISA warrants, how, in fact, there was a criminal warrant, how, in fact, there was surveillance, unmasking, illegal leaking of intelligence, violation, espionage act, and on and on and on.
	So, what's very clear here is that, yeah, the Obama administration, you know, why was Samantha Powers unmasking hundreds of people, mostly Trump people?
	And Susan Rice, why was she involved in it?
	Why was Ben Rhodes involved in it?
	Why is it that nobody that was in a high-ranking position in the NSC or the CIA or any of these other positions under Obama, why didn't they question what was going on here?
	We give them the most powerful tools of surveillance for a reason, and that is to protect Americans from our enemies.
	Those tools of surveillance are not to be turned on the American people.
	I had said at the time, I'll say it again: if it happens, it's the beginning of a police state.
	Manafort, Carter Page, others.
	So, Trump was right.
	Trump was right, and I was right, and many others were right.
	And I have zero doubt they were listening in on Trump conversations.
	The only question is whether it was legal.
	When was the FISA warrant obtained?
	If so, that portion would be legal.
	And if there is a FISA warrant, well, did they practice what they're supposed to practice, which is minimization?
	Once they recognize an American voice on the call, they're supposed to minimize and certainly never unmask that individual.
	But we know, in fact, they did it to General Flynn.
	And beyond this, we know the Trump transition team and officials were caught up in incidental collection of surveillance.
	And Susan Rice and others, Samantha Powers, why is the UN ambassador asking for the unmasking of people in the Trump campaign?
	And so now the real question is: is what they did legal or illegal?
	You know what?
	It's another reason at this point that FISA and the FISA courts and warrants need to be, this all needs to be revised because the powerful tools of surveillance, where they can listen to anybody's conversation now, could be used against the American citizen.
	And that would take away everybody's Fourth Amendment protections.
	Joining us now, Dan Bongino is with us.
	By the way, he has a great brand new book out today, Protecting the President, an inside account of the troubled Secret Service in an era of evolving threats.
	It gives a rare glimpse inside what the Secret Service is involved in and what they do.
	And I can tell you, walking around the city of New York today and yesterday, it's unbelievable how hard their job is.
	Anyway, Dan Bongino, congratulations on the book.
	Welcome back to the program.
	Let's get your reaction first on how wrong the media has been on such an important issue.
	And I've yet to hear the words: we apologize, we were tracked, we were wrong.
	Where's fake Jake Tapper in fake news?
	Where's Humpty Dumpty over there?
	Yeah, Stelter.
	What a clown.
	You know, Sean, this would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious situation.
	And I'm glad you opened up on a somber note because you're right.
	I mean, this is absolutely the end of the republic as we know it.
	If we are allowing political appointees to spy on their political opposition, still, Sean, by the way, with no legitimate reason put out there for the public to consume, and nobody seems to think this is a big deal.
	Let me ask your audience: how is this not the biggest political scandal in the modern era of politics?
	Please explain to me as a rational person how a sitting president of the United States had a political appointee, Sean, Susan Rice.
	She was not an investigator.
	Don't let her National Security Advisor title fool anyone.
	Andy McCarthy's pointed this out at National Review.
	She was not an investigator.
	She was a political appointee.
	And Susan Powers, how are they listening in or demanding the unmasking of Trump campaign official identities, listening in on phone calls?
	It's been exposed, by the way, by you, by Mark Levin, by Sarah Carter.
	And nobody thinks this is a big deal.
	They're gaffing this off.
	Sean, this is, I mean, I share your fear with this story that if this doesn't become a bigger deal than this, forget your politics for a minute.
	We're finished if we just accept this as a people.
	This is a Fourth Amendment issue.
	This is a constitutional issue.
	And if they can do this to any one American, especially an opposition presidential candidate in a campaign season and get away with it, then there's no telling where this surveillance, unmasking, and Espionage Act violations end.
	I mean, it basically means they can take down any president they want at any time, right?
	Absolutely.
	And as a former federal investigator and local police officer with the NYPD and understanding the unbelievable monopolistic power of the government when it comes to use of force and the ability to take freedom, the problem we have here summed up in a to make it easy for the liberals to understand if they would just, you know, take the cotton out of their ears for a minute and stick it in their mouths is once you start targeting people using the power, the force power that only the government has and not crime,
	Sean, targeting people, we're in a dangerous new era of a police state.
	And what I mean by that is very clear.
	When I was a Secret Service agent, right, we were investigating, say, counterfeit crimes, whatever, computer crimes.
	You don't walk in the office one day and go, you know what?
	That bouncer in that bar last week looked at me kind of funny.
	Let's go find something on that guy.
	Because you know what, Sean, I guarantee you will.
	You'll find something on everyone.
	I promise you, you ripped a tag off a mattress once.
	We could nail you on that if we wanted to.
	I promise you.
	There have been questions that have been brought to me that I might have been surveilled and unmasked.
	If that's true, I will bring legal action.
	It's the only way to stop this.
	And you have to sue people personally.
	You have to hurt them in the pocketbook because this will never stop.
	We know personally.
	Listen, they make it hard and next to impossible to sue the government, but they better have a good reason to be surveilling me.
	And also, I have protections as a, quote, journalist in the journalistic field.
	And I will absolutely use every one of them.
	Absolutely.
	Sean, I mean, this is really serious stuff.
	I mean, if someone went in there and said, hey, I mean, I remember people get excited about these kinds of things in law enforcement and even in the intelligence arena.
	Hey, look, we got Hannity on a call, too.
	I mean, your name carries cachet.
	I mean, I remember criminal cases in the federal government brought to me that, frankly, were kind of crappy.
	They were real crimes, but they had a known figure in it.
	I mean, I remember one specifically, and they wanted to run with the case just because they thought they'd get on TV for it, a couple of the people involved.
	And I said, listen, this is a garbage case.
	But we don't target people in the United States.
	We target criminality, and then we find the people who committed the crime later.
	We don't do it in reverse.
	And this is a really, really dangerous standard that's being set.
	And if somebody doesn't do something to correct it, I mean, I don't see any way back.
	I mean, and I know, Sean, I know you feel the same way as I do.
	If this was the Trump administration doing this on the 2020 nominee, you would absolutely feel the same way.
	Well, the difference would be people would be investigated properly and they'd go to jail.
	You know, just like everything involving Hillary Clinton, nobody understands why it's important to follow through in the crime she committed.
	The real reason of importance is otherwise we don't have equal justice under the law.
	We have a dual justice system and our justice system has been politicized.
	And once that happens, then that basically means they'll go after only the people that they want to go after and the laws are meaningless and people can commit all sorts of crimes and get away with it.
	And Sean, you know what?
	Really, the saddest part of this whole sad, disgusting legacy of the wiretapping and the surveillance and the unmasking is, you know, you and Levin and Carter were using reports that the mainstream media put out themselves.
	Remember the January New York Times article where they said, I'm quoting, one official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House?
	That's the New York Times own reporting.
	He said, hey, guys, you reported on this wiretap and you're now saying isn't happening.
	It's like these media people cannot get their heads out of their collective computers.
	How many times I have falsely been called a conspiracy theorist over this and other issues when I know I have them dead to rights wrong, and you just have to sit and wait for it totally to evolve and come out and how ahead of the curve we've been on this and how lazy these people are with zero desire to actually get to the truth and how we know for a fact that they know they're reporting false information.
	And you'll get, you know what?
	I'll maybe I hope I stand corrected, but I doubt you'll get any kind of apology.
	I mean, that stealter guy at CNN was all over you guys.
	I mean, he was on top of Levin.
	Oh, you guys are a bunch of conspiracy theories.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	I mean, I saw the tweets coming from him and CNN people, you know, sparking the flames.
	This is right-wing radio or right-wing radio.
	As if if you're a conservative, anything you say is to be discredited immediately, despite using the left-wing media's own reporting against them.
	You really can't win in this business.
	It's sad.
	You really, listen, you really can't continue with Dan Bongino.
	He's got a brand new book out today, Protecting the President, Inside Account of the Troubled Secret Service in the Era of Evolving Threats, and it is getting more dangerous every day.
	Hey, listen, I don't sleep well, but I sleep better than ever.
	And like many of you, I have insomnia, but it's a pillow that changed my life.
	And I'm talking specifically about Mike Lindell, who invented my pillow.
	And now I fall asleep faster.
	I stay asleep longer.
	My life is better, and yours can be too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	If you use the promo code Hannity, you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
	You get 40% off two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two Go Anywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty, or you can spend more sleepless nights staring at the ceiling and it's not working and you're wondering why am I not sleeping?
	Right now, go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity.
	Mike Lindell's special four-pack, two my pillow premium pillows, two go-anywhere pillows, 40% off.
	They arrive.
	You start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, comfortable, deep healing, recuperative sleep you have been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	Dan Bongino is with us, and we have a lot more coming up at the top of the hour as we'll be checking in with Sarah Carter and Luke Roziak on the very issue Sarah Carter reported back in March of this year and that the media mocked and ridiculed and called a conspiracy theory.
	Straight ahead.
	The final hour of the Sean Hannity show is up next.
	Hang on for Sean's Conservative Solutions.
	All right, as we continue with Dan Bongino, he also wrote this brand new book.
	It's out today, Protecting the President, an inside account of the troubled secret service in an era of evolving threats.
	Well, I can't think of a more dangerous time to be protecting the president of the United States, as divided as this country is.
	The threat level's through the roof.
	And then you have the media refusing to call out a lot of people, not all, but a lot of people in the media refusing to call out Antifa and these far-left groups, which sanction violence as a legitimate means of political protest, which, of course, is absolutely absurd.
	Violence is violence.
	It's not political protest.
	So it is a dangerous time.
	And, you know, I've been holding on to this book in my head for a really long time, but it was really that second fence jumping incident where I said, you know, something's got to change over there.
	Because I know, actually, first I tell the story every time I'm on the air with you.
	First time I met you is when I was a Secret Service agent.
	You were at the White House visiting with President Bush.
	I know you know a lot of men and women over there.
	They're the best.
	They do a terrific job.
	It's not them.
	It's really horrible politicians and atrocious managers that are ruining the place.
	And it's really sad.
	And something's got to stop.
	Regardless of your political affiliation, that president of the United States needs to be able to do his job safe and secure.
	And it's falling apart over there.
	Yeah, look, for me, it was simple.
	I mean, during the Obama years, when threats happened, remember the guy that actually ran in the front door and literally had access to go upstairs to the residence?
	Remember that?
	And run into several rooms?
	Okay.
	I said at the time, and I said it many times, we've got to protect our presidents.
	We've got to protect our politicians because an attack on them is an attack on the country.
	And, you know, and then we got all these actors and insane people on the left.
	We got severed heads.
	When's the last time an actor?
	actor killed a president, Johnny Depp is asking, or Robert De Niro wanting to punch him in the face or Madonna wishing to blow up the White House.
	I mean, never happened to me.
	I think if I did that in the Obama era, I would have been arrested.
	Yeah, and Kathy Griffin with the disgusting, fake, decapitated Trump head.
	I mean, this is the kind of stuff, thankfully, and I mean this, that if it were to happen under Obama, conservatives would be the first one going, hey, gents, ladies, we draw the line at this crap.
	There's a red, a real red line here.
	We don't do that, okay?
	But again, liberals, and not all of them, but where was the massive outcry against this kind of stuff?
	You know, if the management and the politicians don't leave the agents alone and let them do their job, I mean, some of the stuff I talk about in the book, I was very hesitant to talk about because I don't want it to seem like a bash fest.
	It's not.
	But they have this commitment over there, the management, because of political pressure, to this, you know, diversity thing, Sean, which, as you know, with the left never really means diversity.
	It just means whatever they think it means for the day.
	And they're putting people literally in front of the president, President Trump right now, to protect his life, who I'm telling you are not qualified.
	They were pushing people through in some respects.
	People are not qualified to do the job.
	Well, in that position, you can't be hiring people that don't have the capacity to lead and do that job and do it to the best of their ability.
	It's a dangerous job.
	It's a necessary job.
	And I want to see those guys succeed and I want to protect our politicians.
	This transcends all politics, or at least it should.
	All right, Dan Pongino, congrats on the book protecting the president.
	We appreciate it.
	And we'll put it up on Hannity.com for our audience.
	Sarah Carter, Luke Roziak are next.
	All right, news roundup information overload hour.
	This is the Sean Hannity show, 800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
	If you want to be a part of this extravaganza, one of the big stories that we are following today has to deal with former campaign manager for Donald Trump, and that is Paul Manafort.
	Even CNN is now finally given in and are admitting the truth, even though people were mocked and laughed at, and it was ridiculed and pushed aside at the time.
	And that is that investigators had wiretapped the former Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, under secret court orders before and after the election.
	Sources telling CNN and now other news sources picking it up.
	An extraordinary step of a high-ranking campaign official, which is now in the center of all this.
	Very early on, we can go back in this program and back on the television program.
	And it was Sarah Carter and it was John Solomon.
	And they pointed out they were the first to talk about surveillance warrants being issued in Trump Tower against Trump and against Trump associates.
	Everybody in the media at the time dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.
	It never was, was always true.
	Now vindication has come.
	Let's play, this goes back to March 8th of 2017.
	Let's play it.
	Now, in this piece, tell me if I'm reading it properly.
	You both confirmed that a surveillance warrant was issued for the main server at Trump Tower.
	Is that true?
	For a server.
	I'm not sure it was the main server, Sean, but it was a server that had to do with email marketing.
	And the FBI wanted to take a look at it because it was appearing to have some sort of communication with a Russian entity.
	Well, I know as a matter of fact that everybody on the campaign, with maybe one or two exceptions that I know, all got on the Trump email.
	In other words, the Trump organization email server.
	Right.
	So there is a possibility that everything involving the campaign was possibly surveilled once that FISA warrant was issued.
	Is that possible?
	It's possible, though.
	Our understanding is that this server was actually narrowly construed to do email marketing.
	It predated the campaign and wasn't specifically a server that was used for campaign email.
	That's our understanding.
	Joining us now, Luke Roziak with the Daily Caller and Sarah Carter responding.
	Sarah, we talked at length about what, two specific FISA warrants that you had discovered.
	And also, you had believed at the time that there was a criminal warrant issued, and it was pretty broad, and it was on the Trump servers, which were at a different location other than Trump Tower, but it was for Trump Tower, correct?
	Yeah, correct.
	And I mean, we saw that one of those Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants was issued in October of that year.
	And they were stressing that it was to help further along the Russia investigation.
	But remember, there was a lot of concern then, even from the president, from other people that were aware of what was going on in the periphery, that maybe this wasn't all it, and that there was a very high likelihood that President Trump's phone conversations were intercepted, wiretapped by these investigations.
	And that's kind of why he put out those tweets.
	And I think when you look at the process of this, and I was talking to a federal law enforcement official, and I won't say who right now, but about this, they call it like the backdoor wiretapped, too, right?
	So you've got Paul Manafort.
	He's making phone calls.
	You've got, you know, what CNN broke, which is that he was wiretapped, but you have him making phone calls to, you know, President-elect Trump or to then, you know, President Trump right before the election.
	And all of those phone conversations, right?
	We don't know for certain yet, but those phone conversations, if they were within that time period, they were being listened to.
	It wasn't like they cut out Trump and just listened to Paul Manafort.
	They would have listened to everybody that Paul Manafort was speaking with, and that would have been part of their building the case.
	And in fact, they had none because even in the CNN story, they said there was really no, they gathered no evidence from this, no real evidence that could, that could move a case forward that we know of yet.
	So I think really in the end, there was vindication here.
	I mean, there were wiretapped.
	But it seems like they're trying to squeeze Manafort and get Manafort to flip at this point.
	That's my interpretation of things.
	And they're putting out all the public pressure.
	And by leaking the story that there was surveillance going on, that's making him in the back of his mind say, okay, did I say anything way back in the day that could have implicated me in any crime?
	And if he thinks that maybe something that they may find, then he's thinking, okay, I'll give them what they want.
	They'll give me a deal and I'll stay out of jail and I won't get in trouble, but I can flip somebody.
	And that's the way prosecutions work, doesn't it?
	Absolutely.
	And I've said this, you know, Sean, you and I have talked about this in the past.
	I truly believe that that's what's happening here.
	That's the modus operandi.
	It's put all the pressure on Paul Manafort, try to get what they can get out of him.
	We don't know what Paul Manafort knows and what he has already said to FBI officials.
	I think that's probably he's very concerned right now.
	He's probably wondering, yeah, who did they, what did they listen to?
	Who was I talking to?
	And I'm sure there is intense pressure to get him to divulge or to talk about situations within the campaign or even within President Trump's past businesses.
	So it'll be very interesting to see, one, what Manafort says, what Manafort has, what kind of, if they are going to cut a deal, what kind of deal would that be?
	And if there is anything there.
	And so far, you know, according to the officials that I've spoken with, I mean, look, Paul Manafort has his own cross to bear.
	He has his own past and his own history.
	But according to the people that I've spoken with, they're not seeing anything on Trump's side.
	But if you go back to the reporting at the time, be it CNN or even a front-page headline in the New York Times on Inauguration Day that Trump aides had been wiretapped, it was all dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
	In other words, a conspiratorial rant by conservatives, including me and Levin and Breitbart and everybody else.
	And the L.A. Times called the wiretapping story a phony conspiracy theory.
	Now, I'm arguing that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
	A lot of the reporting on Russia, a lot of the reporting that you have done and John Solomon and Luke Roziak, who we're going to get to in a second, has been dead on accurate.
	The media has ignored it for political and ideological purposes.
	And all of these things are now beginning to be proven true.
	And their whole House of Cards Russia conspiracy also seems to be falling apart.
	Is that accurate?
	I think that's very accurate.
	And I think if you look at just the fact, Sean, that the dossier, right, what did they, and this is something Senator Grassley's been asking.
	Let's go back.
	What did the FBI rely on to conduct these investigations?
	Did they rely on this unsubstantiated dossier where the only stuff in that dossier that anybody's ever been able to prove even remotely comes to the truth is a meeting here or there.
	Everything else is unsubstantiated.
	It's fallacious.
	They say a lot of it's false.
	So what people want to know is, how did this investigation start?
	Did they rely on this fallacious dossier?
	And if so, I mean, that's a very telling sign of some very serious problems within our government.
	And then go to the stories that John and I have been breaking over the last year with regard to the foreign intelligence surveillance courts, you know, backlashing at the FBI and at the NSA for these expanded powers and for unwarranted surveillance.
	I mean, this is not stuff coming from just sources out there who don't want to give a name.
	This is coming from actual documents that we reported on.
	We have to be very careful that our government isn't using our intelligence community for espionage against the people.
	Well, I kept using the term weaponizing intelligence.
	In other words, we give them the most sophisticated tools for surveillance.
	We have very specific rules about unmasking.
	We have very specific rules.
	You're not allowed to leak intelligence.
	That's a violation of the Espionage Act.
	All of these happen with regularity.
	And let's bring Luke Roziak into this before we get an update on the Awan situation with Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	What is your reaction?
	Is this a vindication not only for the president, but for those of us that were reporting that, in fact, it did happen?
	It's a complete vindication, and I think it's a lesson about SNARK.
	I mean, let me read you some headlines from CNN from back in March.
	Trump's baseless wiretap claim.
	Another story from March.
	Donald Trump just flat out lied about Trump Tower wiretapping.
	So using this strong language, and then a few months later, they're reporting the opposite.
	Another interesting question, though, is the date that they obtained this warrant, this most recent one.
	I mean, was it specifically after that dossier?
	That's kind of a piece of information that I noticed is missing from the CNN story is we don't know the exact date that this was authorized.
	And that could be a pretty important piece of information.
	Right.
	I think it's really important.
	Right.
	So where are we with the Awan breach and investigation?
	There's information saying, well, we're not sure that anything horrible happened here, but there's a lot of intrigue.
	Why do I suspect there's a lot more than intrigue now that Awan left the computer so that officials can find it and a letter to law enforcement?
	Well, we've been talking for a while about how it was about theft and cybersecurity.
	And you've often said, you know, they were doing double billing.
	And I keep saying, no, Sean, they were doing cybersecurity stuff too, and we're going to be able to reveal some of those details soon.
	Well, that day has come, and we found out.
	We can talk about the details now.
	They had a secret server and they were routing information from dozens of members of Congress's servers onto this secret server where it was completely outside of their control in their possession.
	It wasn't supposed to be there.
	And this server was housed inside the House Democratic Caucus, which was chaired by Xavier Becerra.
	So this was a total, massive breach of the custody of members of Congress's data.
	And worse, it was also being backed up to Dropbox via a personal account that the House could not shut down even when they banned these guys.
	So that data was still out there.
	And the worst, one of the most interesting parts is after they were caught, see, Xavier Becerra, remember, he went on to become the California Attorney General in January.
	So he said, I need to wipe this server in my office.
	And the cops said, not so fast.
	Your server is the subject of massive cybersecurity violations.
	It's evidence we're going to need a copy.
	And stay right there, Luke.
	I want you to pick up that thought when we get back.
	We'll come back, continue.
	We're also going to do a tale of two presidents.
	President Trump, probably his best speech before the UN today, moral clarity, talking about Rocketman Kim Jong-un and taking on the Iranian mullahs.
	And what a contrast to the speeches of apology and capitulation and appeasement of Obama.
	So we'll compare those two in the next half hour.
	And we'll do it also on Hannity tonight.
	And as we continue, Sean Hannity show write down our toll-free telephone number.
	It's 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, well, it turns out that Sarah Carter, John Solomon, and this program and others were right when it comes to surveillance of Trump, of his campaign, of his transition.
	And the information is getting more damning every day.
	And that means everybody else in the media that was yelling and screaming conspiracy theory has been proven wrong yet again.
	Mainstream media, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, all wrong.
	So we have Sarah Carter with us.
	Luke Roziak is with us.
	He has been all over the instance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her IT guy, Awan.
	Is it now set that Awan has agreed to make a deal with prosecutors to tell them the truth and hand over all evidence in some type of deal?
	We can only speculate because basically his wife left the country with all this money.
	The FBI said she had no plans to come back.
	There was a bunch of reasons why that seemed pretty clear.
	And now she's talking to prosecutors and say, well, if I come back, will you promise not to arrest me in front of my kids?
	And they said, okay.
	So we're going to find that out next week.
	They've got a court date that they set strategically for Friday afternoon right before Columbus Day, which is a great day for a media blackout.
	And we're going to see if she's on that plane.
	And if she is, it raises the question of she's already home free.
	She's got all this money in Pakistan.
	Why would she come back?
	Does she have some reason to believe that she's not going to face a long prison term?
	And there are a number of options why that could be the case.
	And none of them are, all of them are kind of concerning.
	Sarah?
	Yes, I'm here.
	I think one of the bigger issues, Sean, too, and Luke's brought this up in his story, and I think this is something that a lot of people aren't really thinking about.
	But when all of these emails were pushed to the secret server, when all of those emails were accessed possibly by the A1 outside of the realm of working on Capitol Hill and being able to maybe move those emails, those batches of emails all the way to other countries like Pakistan, their homeland, we have to think, what were in those emails?
	What did they have?
	Could they have, and Luke's brought this up before, could they be used for blackmail?
	And one of the things that crossed my mind, and I think Luke will understand this, is we saw a lot of classified emails being shuffled from, you know, when we talk about Hillary Clinton's email server, and it's been proven that there was classified information moving back and forth.
	Who's to say that some of these congressional members that are part of the House Intelligence Committee didn't put classified information in some of these emails?
	We just don't know.
	Well, we don't know, but it seems like we have to get to the bottom of it.
	Look, one last question.
	There seems to be a lot of unfinished investigations.
	We've had almost a year of Trump Russia with zero evidence presented.
	Now the question is: now that the fix was in with Comey and Hillary Clinton, are we going to go back to that?
	Does that mean does that open up Uranium One?
	Is Debbie Wassum and Schultz now the target of an investigation?
	Luke.
	Sean, we got to get back to this secret server.
	They had a secret server that they accessed 6,000 times, and these were people who weren't authorized to access it.
	They had terabytes of information being transferred off of it.
	And the explanation that they gave the Washington Post is that it was their kids' homework.
	I mean, this is like when they said that Hillary Clinton deleted those 40,000 emails because they were emails about yoga.
	I mean, it defies belief.
	There's been no explanation for these terabytes of information being funneled out of the congressional network.
	I mean, the idea that it is kids' homework is just astonishing.
	Yeah, it really is.
	All right, last words, Sarah, and we got a break.
	Well, I think we can only hope that not only Congress takes this seriously enough, that our Justice Department takes this seriously enough.
	This is a serious national security breach.
	And I don't think it ends here.
	I think, like you said, Sean, like you said, Luce, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and there's going to be a lot more to come.
	All right.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	We appreciate it.
	We're not going to stop.
	Media conspiracy theories.
	They accuse conservatives.
	They have been guilty of false reporting from the get-go.
	They've been wrong from the get-go.
	And I can only tell you, TikTok, this is only the beginning of the troubles for the mainstream media.
	800-941 Sean, toll-free number.
	You want to be a part of the program?
	We got to take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue.
	It's the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, in 30 years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never heard a bolder, more courageous speech at the United Nations.
	And the president drawing applause at the UN for blasting the Iranian murderous regime and warning Tehran's mullahs are still working on nuclear weapons.
	I think the funniest thing is calling Kim Jong-un-un Rocketman again and again, and he will force us to defend ourselves.
	And Rocketman is on a suicide mission.
	You know, it just, I want to give, because I thought this was an example of how America has moral clarity and leads.
	For so many years, I have said there's really only one person on the world stage that gets and understands the difference of and has the moral clarity and understands the battle against evil in our time.
	Now, interestingly, I'm going to air part of an interview that I did with President El-Sisi, who took on radical Islam as the president of Egypt in that part of the world, was extraordinarily courageous on his part.
	But this is like a tale of two presidents, two visions, one of strength, one of resolve, one of clarity, versus a president that blames America, apologizes for America, and is a classic appeaser in his time.
	We'll start with Obama.
	It's 2015.
	It's before the United Nations.
	Let's listen.
	Yes, in America, there is too much money in politics, too much entrenched partisanship, too little participation by citizens, in part because of a patchwork of laws that makes it harder to vote.
	Now, while we've made our share of mistakes over these last 25 years, and I've acknowledged some, we have strived, sometimes at great sacrifice, to align better our actions with our ideas.
	And we can only realize the promise of this institution's founding, to replace the ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations like my own accept constraints.
	Sometimes I'm criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms.
	I've noticed as president that at times both America's adversaries and some of our allies believe that all problems were either caused by Washington or could be solved by Washington.
	And perhaps too many in Washington believe that as well.
	So just as I've pursued these measures here at home, so has the United States worked with many nations to curb the excesses of capitalism.
	Not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it.
	A society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from within.
	In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared.
	Surely we can rally our nations to solidarity while recognizing equal treatment for all communities, whether it's a religious minority in Myanmar or an ethnic minority in Burundi or a racial minority right here in the United States.
	Everything you don't want to hear from a president.
	That's why nobody on the world stage respected him.
	And then the plane loads of cash going to Tehran, you know, some, what, $150 billion in cash and other currencies going to the rogue regime that threatens to wipe Israel off the map, threatens America, the great Satan, burns American flags and burns Israeli flags.
	Here is the comparison, the contrast.
	And this was the president, I think, one of his finest moments now since being president at the UN earlier today, President Trump.
	As President of the United States, I will always put America first.
	Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first.
	All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.
	The United States will forever be a great friend to the world and especially to its allies.
	But we can no longer be taken advantage of or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.
	As long as I hold this office, I will defend America's interests above all else.
	America does more than speak for the values expressed in the United Nations Charter.
	Our citizens have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall.
	America's devotion is measured on the battlefields where our young men and women have fought and sacrificed alongside of our allies.
	From the beaches of Europe to the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Asia.
	It is an eternal credit to the American character that even after we and our allies emerge victorious from the bloodiest war in history, we did not seek territorial expansion or attempt to oppose and impose our way of life on others.
	This is our hope.
	We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife.
	We are guided by outcomes, not ideology.
	We have a policy of principled realism rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.
	That realism forces us to confront a question facing every leader and nation in this room.
	It is a question we cannot escape or avoid.
	If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent.
	The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based.
	They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights. of their countries.
	No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well-being of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea.
	Now North Korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.
	It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict.
	No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.
	The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.
	Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.
	The United States is ready, willing, and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary.
	That's what the United Nations is all about.
	That's what the United Nations is for.
	Let's see how they do.
	It is far past time for the nations of the world to confront another reckless regime, one that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.
	The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy.
	It has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.
	The longest suffering victims of Iran's leaders are in fact its own people.
	It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran's government end its pursuit of death and destruction.
	The Iranian regime's support for terror is in stark contrast to the recent commitments of many of its neighbors to fight terrorism and halt its financing.
	In Saudi Arabia early last year, I was greatly honored to address the leaders of more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations.
	We agreed that all responsible nations must work together to confront terrorists and the Islamic extremism that inspires them.
	We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation and indeed to tear up the entire world.
	We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology.
	Last month, I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan.
	From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operations, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians.
	For decades, the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western Hemisphere.
	We have learned that over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries.
	For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms.
	For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.
	The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22% of the entire budget and more.
	In fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes.
	The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals, especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be well worth it.
	Major portions of the world are in conflict, and some, in fact, are going to hell.
	We have also imposed tough calibrated sanctions on the socialist Maduro regime in Venezuela, which has brought a once thriving nation to the brink of total collapse.
	The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.
	While America will pursue cooperation and commerce with other nations, we are renewing our commitment to the first duty of every government, the duty of our citizens.
	This bond is the source of America's strength and that of every responsible nation represented here today.
	If this organization is to have any hope of successfully confronting the challenges before us, it will depend, as President Truman said some 70 years ago, on the independent strength of its members.
	If we are to embrace the opportunities of the future and overcome the present dangers together, there can be no substitute for strong, sovereign, and independent nations.
	Nations that are rooted in their histories and invested in their destiny.
	The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one.
	Are we still patriots?
	Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures?
	Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?
	History is asking us whether we are up to the task.
	Our answer will be a renewal of will, a rediscovery of resolve, and a rebirth of devotion.
	We need to defeat the enemies of humanity and unlock the potential of life itself.
	Our hope is a world of proud, independent nations that embrace their duties, seek friendship, respect others, and make common cause in the greatest shared interest of all.
	A future of dignity and peace for the people of this wonderful earth.
	This is the true vision of the United Nations.
	So let this be our mission and let this be our message to the world.
	We will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the Almighty God who made us all.
	Thank you.
	God bless you.
	God bless the nations of the world and God bless the United States of America.
	Amazing contrast, isn't it?
	One is somebody who has moral clarity, one who understands evil in our time, one who understands the battle that is before us, one that wants to keep good people safe.
	And the other is saying, well, if we be a little nicer to you, even though you're threatening us, will you be nice to us, please?
	I mean, a level of naivete beyond words to me.
	All right, that's the rest of the world today.
	Media now proven wrong egg on their face.
	Donald Trump, his campaign was surveilled by people in the Obama administration.
	Will people now pay attention to the risk of a masking?
	The president's bold speech before the UN today, Newt Gingrich, Greg Jarrett, Monica Crowley, Ambassador Bolton tonight, Mike Huckabee.
	And I'm very proud we will have the president, President El-Sisi of Egypt on tape talking about radical Islamic terrorism.
	10 Eastern tonight on Hannity.

▲