Sean Hannity Show - Saving Our Economy - 11.2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 3, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:36:59

Saving Our Economy - 11.2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	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 GoAnywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity, to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	You will love this pillow.
	All right, Hannity, you are right again, but the mainstream, corrupt, lying, fake Jake CNN news media will never let you know.
	You ever meet such a bigger baby that can't take a punch?
	You play his own words.
	He's crying like a baby.
	I just don't have to.
	If I had the time to engage in these Twitter fights, I would have the time of my life.
	I'm just too busy.
	Oh, I have really good news to start the show.
	I have a really big, big announcement, and I'm very excited about it.
	You know, what happened last weekend is nothing short of a miracle in terms of, and maybe it's because it's such a good movie that stimulates your heart, mind, soul, and emotions, and it's faith-based.
	Everybody that I talk to about Let There Be Light has loved it, absolutely loved it.
	And as a result, we only had 373 theaters.
	We had, it's one of the highest openings for any faith-based movie.
	If you look at it on a per theater basis ever, short of, say, Passion of the Christ or one of those, we're really proud of it.
	We may have as many, and we'll let you know tomorrow, as 700 theaters this week.
	And we're told we'll probably have more of them next week.
	We don't know for sure.
	But that means that the geographic locations have shifted and changed.
	And we are now putting, we've now put all the new theater.
	Yeah, if you go to Hannity.com, it directly links back to lettherebelightmovie.com.
	And we're going to constantly be updating where all the theaters are so that you can see the movie.
	Now, look, if you liked it, if you went, there's only one lady that wrote me that didn't like it.
	And I offered to pay her money back.
	I was like, you must have gotten in a fight right before she saw the movie.
	No, she just said she got so aggravated that Kevin Sorbo, being the atheist that wrote the book Aborting God, she couldn't get beyond it.
	And I said, well, do you want me to give your money back?
	I'll gladly refund it.
	I'm not in the, this was never a, trust me, this was never a money-making proposition at all.
	Anyway, so the so we're really proud you made this happen.
	If you liked it, because we don't have any advertising money, none.
	We've had none.
	Zero.
	I'm it.
	And so if you really liked it, just tell your friends.
	It doesn't matter where they live in the country.
	Much easier to see it this weekend.
	And we updated that on Hannity.com.
	And I did this because I'm sick of Hollywood.
	I did this.
	You know, that's why we're messing around saying, Hannity on the red carpet.
	I would love to go to the Academy Awards.
	By the way, I already picked out my outfit.
	I'm going to wear jeans, cowboy boots, and like a shirt and jacket, no tie.
	Is that okay?
	And a giant cross.
	Yeah, well, yeah.
	Look, I'm the person that needs the saving, so I'm not the preacher person.
	Anyways, but the bottom line is that it doesn't, more people have told me more testimonials almost than anything I've done in my career about how this has impacted their lives and impacted them.
	I've heard people don't leave the theater, people clapping in the theater.
	I heard tissues are being passed all around the theater.
	It's an unpredictable ending, and it's something that I'm very proud of.
	And without any big studio help, you all in this audience made this thing a massive hit last weekend.
	And as a result, we doubled our theaters.
	And we're probably getting more as a result.
	That means millions more can see it.
	The idea if you make a movie is that you want to touch people's hearts, but they have to have the ability to see it.
	And anyway, Hannity.com for that.
	I'll try and mention it later in the show in case you missed it.
	But we're really, really proud of it.
	So the Republicans, there's good and bad in this Republican bill.
	The bad is bad, real bad.
	The good is very, very good for the people I care the most about in this country.
	And that is the forgotten men and women that deserve a break.
	They deserve more money in their pockets.
	Government is now stifling their ability to grow and to prosper and to achieve the American dream.
	What's the American dream?
	You want to live in a nice house in a safe neighborhood, drive a decent car.
	You want to be able to go out to dinner and not have to count pennies.
	And you want to hopefully save a little money, go to Disney, waste your time online for Dumbo because your kids have to go and go on a vacation maybe once a year.
	And then you work hard, play by the rules, pay your taxes, obey the laws, and make the country great, creating goods and services for everybody else that we want, need, and desire.
	That's it.
	That doesn't sound very exciting, but it's everyday life for everybody.
	Life is a grind.
	Life is tough.
	Life is hard.
	And government has now made it harder.
	And we've had so many good indicators over the last number of months.
	For example, just this week, we've had so much great economic news.
	On Tuesday, the National Association of Realtors reported that houses are now selling at their best pace in 30 years.
	That's awesome.
	It means more people are buying homes.
	That means more builders are building.
	That means every trade is being put to work.
	And that means that helps the economy in such a multitude, a multiple of ways.
	I mean, just the multiple on that money is amazing.
	And then you've got the conference board that reports that consumer confidence is now at a 17-year high.
	By the way, the president just nominated Jerome Powell as the Fed chairman.
	Anyway, so 17-year high.
	Yesterday, the Atlanta Fed projected that GDP growth for the fourth quarter will be 4.5%.
	Wow.
	Obama never once in his presidency for a year had 3% GDP growth.
	Not one.
	He's the only president in history.
	Today, we have news that job cuts have now hit their lowest level in decades.
	And all of this happened before the GOP tax cut plan was even announced this morning.
	You know, U.S. employers cut under, just cut under 30,000 jobs in October, bringing the total number of jobs for 2017 to, you know, over 350,000, the lowest 10-month total in 20 years.
	In other words, of jobs lost.
	That's amazing.
	That's great for people.
	You know, government is supposed to serve people here.
	You know, at the end of the day, I'm serving people.
	And that's why we try to tell the truth that nobody else tells.
	And ideology, I'm going to tell you exactly what's wrong with this GOP plan.
	Oh, by the way, I didn't finish my thought.
	We're going to get to this in the bottom of this half hour.
	Donna Brazil has a new book coming out next Tuesday.
	Donna Brazil reveals in this book, Hillary Clinton rigged the Democratic primary.
	I'll give you those details coming up.
	Hillary goes on, what's the guy's name, the late night guy, Trevor Noah, last night, the night before he did this thing, took my monologue, me speaking my monologue on TV, and actually put me doing a rap thing to it.
	And it was pretty funny.
	Did you see I tweeted that out?
	It's hilarious.
	I don't even know the guy.
	He's got a British guy, right?
	South Africa, wherever he's from.
	He's just, actually, it was funny.
	You know, he's a liberal, right?
	Big liberal.
	All right.
	So here's what we've got today.
	Let me break it down for you.
	Some of it's good.
	I'll tell you the good part is what they're doing with corporations, S-Corps, C-Corps, what they're doing for the wage earner in this country.
	You're going to average between $2,000 and $4,000 a year.
	The corporate side of it is the best side of it.
	The best side of it is the repatriation.
	The better side of it is, you know, lessening the number of brackets and things like that.
	But let me give you the overhaul because the bad part is Republicans have totally capitulated to class warfare rhetoric.
	And I'll explain that.
	But the sweeping overhaul of the tax code is going to cap the deduction for property taxes at $10,000.
	It will preserve the mortgage interest rate deduction only for existing mortgages and new purchases with loans of $500,000 or less.
	House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brady said the change was being made to drive tax relief to middle-class, middle-income families, but will also go to offset lower corporate rates that sponsors believe will spur economic growth and job creation, which we need desperately.
	Now, the plan mandates the existing top bracket.
	Now, the top 1% pay 70% of the taxes.
	Their bracket is going to stay the same for those households earning over $1 million, Brady said.
	There would be no taxes charged on household incomes less than $24,000.
	That's good for families because, believe it or not, but the bottom 50% pay nothing.
	So you got to remember that as we discuss all this.
	A 12% rate will be charged on income from $24,000 to $90,000, a 12% federal income tax rate.
	25% if you make $90,000 to $260,000.
	A 35% rate on $260,000 to $1 million.
	The rates will be different for single people and single heads of households.
	The plan would nearly double the standard deduction from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly.
	The personal exemptions in the tax code, now worth $4,100 for every taxpayer, spouse, and dependent, would be eliminated.
	In other words, the personal expenses in the personal exemptions in the tax code, state income tax would no longer be deductible.
	Right there.
	Let me just tell you something right now.
	My rate's not going down, and I'm not, I'm losing a fortune on this.
	This is where the mistake is of Republicans and where they have totally capitulated to Democrats.
	But I continue.
	A new family credit, $1,600, would replace the existing trial credit of $1,000, $300 credits for each parent and non-child dependent, such as an elderly parent.
	The income cap for credits would be increased from $110,000 for a married couple to $230,000.
	Retirement savings, 401ks would not be charged or changed in any way.
	Taxpayers who itemize could also continue to deduct for charitable contributions through organizations representing nonprofits, you know, have warned that the higher standard deduction might make people less motivated to donate.
	The top corporate rate would immediately go from 35 to 20%.
	That's awesome.
	And companies would be able to take an immediate write-off for their investments, new equipment, retroactive to mid-September.
	The plan also creates 25% rate for small business owners, sole proprietors, partnerships that report business income on personal income taxes.
	But Brady said there would be rules to prevent abuse by, quote, wealthy people who try and portray their personal income as business income to avoid the 39.6% personal tax rate.
	And the plan repeals the alternative minimum tax, which was mostly hits higher income taxpayers by reducing the value of other deductions in the code.
	On the estate tax, the plan would immediately double the $5 million exemption and phase it out over six years.
	That means it's not going to happen.
	That's how I always look at it.
	If you don't get it up front, you don't get it.
	Now, here's the problem.
	What they're doing for corporations, brilliant.
	What they're doing for small business owners, brilliant.
	The middle class, brilliant.
	What they are doing on the corporate side, repatriation side, brilliant.
	Simplification, brilliant.
	Here's the problem: Reagan dropped the top marginal rates from 70 to 28 percent.
	50 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax.
	Now, the top 1 percent pay 70.
	The top 20 percent pay almost the whole bill, 90 some odd percent.
	That means that Republicans, out of fear of Democratic class warfare, have totally and completely lost their identity on what it means to be a supply-side conservative.
	Because if they believed in it, they would say they would make the case that if we cut taxes on everybody, it's going to benefit everybody.
	Meaning, that means investment is spurred.
	Now, it's a net gain for the forgotten men and women in this country.
	We cannot ignore that this is going to stimulate economic growth.
	But in terms of class warfare, it is a full, complete Republican Party surrender.
	Complete.
	They don't have the guts to fight.
	Just telling you the truth.
	That's my job.
	And I have analyzed this every way and sideways.
	Later on, we'll ask Larry Kudlow.
	He's a smart guy.
	He knows more about the Reagan-Kennedy cuts than anybody.
	Freedom Caucus member Dave Brad will be here.
	All right, we'll get the latest.
	Yes, I told you the truth when I said the fix was in for Hillary.
	Now, Donna Brazil confirms it.
	October 31st marks the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.
	Did the reformer Martin Luther aspire to start a new church?
	Was he a 16th century Che Guevara intending to overthrow institutional authority?
	Or was this movement a conservative reformation?
	Find out with the podcast issues, etc.
	Issues etc.net, real Reformation Radio, issues etc.net, issues etc.net.
	Somebody just wrote me and they just, hey, what do you mean?
	This is, listen, I'm just, I have to tell truth because truth now is a rare commodity anywhere.
	You're not getting truth on fake news, CNN.
	You're not getting truth in your newspapers.
	You're not getting truth on conspiracy TV, MSNBC.
	They don't tell the truth anymore.
	So I am committed.
	As I said, the election for me, I never lied.
	I always said what it was about for me.
	It's about the forgotten men and women.
	I'm the dishwasher.
	I'm the guy whose first paid radio gig was 19 grand a year.
	It's never been about money.
	Never.
	Oh, yeah, right.
	Easy for you to say.
	I didn't have any money.
	It didn't matter to me.
	I could even argue that I was happier then in some ways because life is simpler.
	Didn't have a choice about not going out to dinner.
	There's no choice there.
	Where are you going to dinner?
	I don't want to go to that place.
	Let's go to this place.
	That's kind of spoiled when you think about it.
	So I am looking at this objectively, and this is what I see.
	Corporations, massive gain.
	S-Corp small businesses, partnership, massive gain for them.
	That's great for the economy.
	The repatriation, great for the economy.
	The average wage earner in this country is going to save a lot of money under this tax plan.
	By the way, we have other good news.
	The ADP says the economy added another 235,000 jobs in October.
	We've added, just by getting rid of burdensome regulation, now we have in Atlanta, the Fed there is now predicting a huge, massive, you know, GDP growth of 4.5%.
	So it's a net gain.
	But the problem is, for me, is the surrendering on principle.
	Republicans did not have the stomach to fight what would inevitably come out.
	Now, it's interesting.
	If you read the Washington Post, they actually had to even tell Democrats, stop lying about the GOP tax plan.
	They've gotten so outrageous.
	The Post said, Senate Democrats falsely claim GOP tax plan will raise taxes for most working class families.
	That's a lie.
	There's nobody that pays taxes now in the top 10% that is going to benefit from this bill.
	That means they've given up on supply-side conservative economics.
	That's my biggest criticism.
	Republicans have caved.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	25 to the top of the air.
	Look, Democrats, there is a difference between those of us that are conservative.
	And like, for example, in the Bush years when there were times I had to criticize President Bush, we had no problem.
	This whole DACA thing was irritating me with, and I was disagreeing with President Trump.
	And I probably have some disagreements if it actually came into being.
	I think he's just negotiating on issues involving trade.
	But, you know, you got to be honest.
	This is the problem with everybody else in the media today.
	They just, they don't want to be honest.
	They're all so rigidly ideological.
	You know, what really, who should they be serving in the media by telling the truth?
	And that should be the American people.
	And that's what we do on this program that is different.
	I have no problem saying that I am more disappointed in the Republican Party by far than I am with what the Democrats.
	I expect the Democrats.
	Now, there is a Democratic plan budget out there.
	Nobody will tell you about it.
	Dave Bratt brought us to our attention the other day.
	I didn't even know about it.
	You know, which is $10 trillion in new taxes, $11 trillion in new spending.
	And like nobody's ever going to want their tax plan.
	But I'm just saying that from the corporate side, this is a huge win for the working men and women in this country on the middle class tax brackets in this country.
	It's a huge win.
	If you live in a very liberal state like New York and California, I can't help it that you elect stupid people.
	That's your problem.
	And I'm stuck because of the stupid people my neighbors elect in New York.
	It's just because my job keeps me here, not for any there's not, there is no other reason for me to be in New York except for one simple thing, and that is that this is where my work is.
	It's the only reason.
	And during the break, actually, Sunshine was saying we need to move the show down to Florida.
	Yeah, because they're looking at their taxes and they're saying, oh, great, we're screwed because we live in a state that is highly taxed like New York.
	And that's just part of the way it is.
	But in terms of wanting economic growth, the thing is Republicans don't have the stomach to fight for Reagan supply-side conservative tax cuts as it relates to individuals.
	They just refuse.
	They just can't stomach a fight.
	It was just like all Obama had to do when he was in power is threatened to blame Republicans for a shutdown.
	They would never use the power of the purse.
	And it has rendered this party visionless and impotent in so many ways.
	So they've totally caved on the whole thing.
	It's so frustrating.
	Now, we have other home sales now.
	Their pace is the highest in 30 years.
	Consumer confidence highest in 17 years.
	4.5% GDP forecasted by the Atlanta Fed.
	You've got home prices all-time highs now in August on top of what I just mentioned earlier about home prices.
	So that's all good.
	The economy is beating every forecast.
	And all I care about, the reason it is such a net gain for everybody that, you know, you just, you got to say, who am I in this for?
	Well, I'm not in this for me.
	By the way, I've got, have you ever seen these pictures yet?
	All right.
	So these are pictures.
	The New York Times has been doing this long, long interview with me, and they want pictures of me when I'm a kid.
	I don't have hardly any.
	And here's a, this is my favorite one.
	That one right there.
	Isn't that good?
	I like that one.
	And I like this one.
	In both instances, I'm in a high chair.
	It's kind of cool because I haven't gone back in many, many years and looked at pictures of, you know, I lost my parents years ago.
	And it's kind of cool.
	It's like, oh my gosh, I look older than my dad.
	I'm like, this is bad.
	This isn't good because life goes by so quick.
	You can show it to our friends in there.
	I would introduce you, but I don't want to get in trouble.
	Remember what happened last week?
	Somebody tried to, was abusive to you about the issue I'm talking about.
	That really pissed me off, just in case you want to know.
	All right, nobody cares about this.
	Let me get to some other news here.
	There's a satellite image out there.
	The Korea Herald Asia News Network.
	All right, stay with me for a second.
	They are reporting satellite images that apparently confirm reports from earlier this week that there was a massive cave-in at a North Korea main nuclear weapons test site, which reportedly killed 200 workers and scientists.
	Japan's TV reported that 200 people died.
	100 were trapped when a tunnel collapsed at this particular site in North Korea.
	The collapse happened days after North Korea conducted their sixth and their largest underground nuclear test in September, provoking fears that the site might be falling apart.
	In fact, it looks like it did.
	So, Kim Jong-un, he'll be probably blaming the United States in days.
	Then you got to ask yourself, well, maybe we did do it.
	And if we did do it, I'd be happy to hear we did do it.
	I believe in covert operations with plausible deniability.
	That's all just a necessity in terms of things.
	All right.
	Now, let me get to some news.
	Now, if you go back and go back to the campaign and go back to the primary for just a minute, and when you go back there, what do you find?
	You find that I said many, many times that if I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm pissed off because, you know, just look at the super delegates, because the super delegates, it was all rigged in Hillary Clinton's favor.
	Donna Brazil, I've known Donna Brazil.
	I actually have a great relationship with her.
	I saw her during the campaign a couple of times, and we always get along.
	Look, I know she was on Al Gore's side.
	I know that she's a big Democrat.
	I know she's a big liberal.
	I know when she worked for CNN, she shouldn't have given the questions to Hillary Clinton, but she did.
	Whatever.
	You know what?
	She's honest about who she is in that sense.
	She's actually a very, very religious person.
	And I like people that are real.
	There's a certain realness to Donna that I've always liked.
	And we've always gotten along.
	There's never been any contentious discussions between us about anything.
	It's always a friendly hello, hug, kiss.
	How are you?
	How's your life?
	What do you think of the election?
	What do you think of that?
	Nothing at all contentious.
	You meet some Democrats and they're just nasty, just vicious.
	And I have more bodyguards with me when I go to these Democratic conventions than you could ever shake a stick at.
	You know, been spat at and everything else in between.
	But anyway, put that aside.
	She's now the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee after Deborah Wasserman Schultz got in trouble.
	And anyway, so when she got in based on the Julian Assange WikiLeaks release on the DNC emails and the Podesta emails, well, what did they reveal?
	They revealed that the DNC was in the tank for Hillary Clinton.
	Don't you someday want to see a woman president of the United States?
	Jason, stop.
	So when she got there, she was really doing the Democratic Party a service.
	And the service was: okay, the party's in need.
	They have no chairperson.
	And so she gets in there and she said one of the first things she began investigating was whether or not Hillary Clinton had rigged the nomination process as the emails from WikiLeaks had pointed out.
	And she now has this book coming out next week.
	And she said that that was one of the first things that she said she would fairly investigate.
	And then she said after her investigation, she discovered irrefutable evidence that Clinton had entered into a secret agreement with the Hillary Victory Fund, Hillary for America, because the DNC was basically bankrupt at the time.
	Nobody knew it.
	And that in exchange for raising funds, Clinton would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
	Somebody actually had a great tweet out there today, and they said, oh.
	So, in other words, all the money that was funneled for the fake, phony, salacious dossier.
	Remember, part of the money came from the DNC.
	Part of the money came from Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	Well, it appears if Hillary is running the DNC as a means of keeping the DNC afloat financially, which is what Donna found out.
	And that, of course, then they became an extension of the Hillary campaign and an apparatus of the Hillary campaign.
	That means they paid for all of the dossier except for the million dollars that we learned last weekend that Obama might have kicked in.
	Anyway, so she discovered that in exchange for bailing them out financially, the Clinton campaign would virtually control the party's finances and their strategy and the money that they raised.
	That means that this is beyond the fixes in as it relates to everything here.
	Now, the DNC was required to consult with the campaign about all other issues, staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
	She writes, I've been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn, meaning Brooklyn, New York.
	Well, here was the answer, she said, referring to Clinton's campaign headquarters, which is in New York, in Brooklyn.
	She said, she had to get on the phone.
	She said she said a prayer.
	She didn't know what Bernie's reaction would be.
	This is all after the fact.
	This is after all the collusion is in.
	Hillary Clinton cheated.
	Hillary Clinton, you could use the word, basically did everything she could do, everything within her means to steal the election from Bernie Sanders, the primary election.
	Now, if this had been Donald Trump and Trump found a way to control the RNC and put the fix in for him, imagine how the country would be reacting today.
	So Donna Brazil, being an honest person and she's a Christian, and I know this from my dealings with her, she said, I got to pick up the phone.
	I got to tell Bernie I had promised him I'd do a free, honest investigation.
	She said she picked up the phone.
	She was scared to do it, said a prayer.
	She said, I told Bernie I had found out Hillary's joint fundraising agreement.
	I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee.
	And she said about the call that took place in September of 2016, it's all over by then.
	She's the nominee.
	She said, had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position.
	But here we are with only weeks before the election.
	And she said that Bernie Sanders took it stoically.
	I don't think I would have taken it so stoically because then Bernie Sanders supporters got screwed royally.
	This is going to be a joke.
	I do not believe this is happening.
	I'm literally about to fing kill myself and I'm not kidding.
	You better fix this right now.
	I literally am going to die.
	I need an ambulance.
	I'm just chilling in Cedar Rapids.
	Yeah, Miss Innocent.
	Now, she said when she hung up the call to Bernie, she said she started to cry.
	She said, not out of guilt, but out of anger.
	We would go forward, she writes.
	We had to.
	Brazil had taken over running the DNC after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was ousted because of these leaked emails that showed that party officials conspired to defeat Sanders.
	So what do we know here now at this point?
	Well, and just got to be honest, Donna Brazil helped her with the questions from CNN.
	She admitted it's wrong.
	Okay, fine.
	We'll move on.
	But the fix was in.
	The entire DNC apparatus was being held up financially and supported financially, owned whole cloth by the Clinton campaign.
	Bernie Sanders never had a shot, and he still came within a pretty close margin of having a chance of beating her.
	It's unbelievable.
	Anyway.
	Oh, and then Hillary admits last night, of course there's a difference between my campaign and Trump campaign's collusion.
	We're going to lay out all this, you know, so basically it's a stunning confession that confirms that Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
	That's proof that was all rigged.
	Oh, that's right.
	Donald Trump was right.
	Mike in Minneapolis, what's up, Mike?
	How are you?
	Hey, Sean.
	I'm a truck driver here out of Minnesota.
	And last Friday night, I decided to take my wife on a nice date night.
	So we went up to the movie theater in our city where we live in Coon Rapids that they were playing a movie.
	So I figured, you know, dinner at a date, we'd have a nice time.
	We went and seen the movie.
	Sean, you humiliated me.
	I was crying like a baby in the theater.
	And my wife had to nudge me and say, hey, you're embarrassing us.
	You wrote the biography of my life.
	Almost.
	Seriously.
	I got to be on this.
	There are so many people that have told me the same exact thing.
	Did you notice in the theater that you aren't alone?
	You are not the only person crying.
	Sean, I expected to be the only person in the theater.
	And when we got in, the theater was packed.
	I couldn't believe it.
	Right.
	And there's even a guide dog in there.
	No, everybody, everybody.
	It was very emotional.
	But I just wanted to say, you know, thanks for putting that out.
	I haven't seen a movie in years because I just don't like what Hollywood puts out.
	There's nothing maybe since American Sniper that I've really enjoyed.
	I loved American Sniper.
	Oh, that's so good.
	Listen, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie.
	And it's because of people like you going last week that we're now doubling the theaters this week.
	We just put it up on Hannity.com.
	The reaction Mike has given us is the reaction everyone's given us.
	And that was the whole purpose of me doing this movie.
	No other reason.
	And so we've been able to double the theaters.
	We hope you'll go.
	If you liked it, maybe go see it again.
	Or if you maybe take your grandparents or take your parents or take your kids.
	This is a family-friendly movie and everybody's getting something out of it.
	That was the whole reason I did this.
	On a hundred other levels, I wish I never did.
	It's way too much work for me at this point.
	But the movie is amazing.
	It'll stimulate and inspire your mind, your heart, and soul.
	And I'm telling you, bring tissues.
	Poor Mike is embarrassed.
	It's all right.
	You can cry.
	We don't challenge anything about that.
	That's fine.
	I'll stop it.
	Listen, everybody's telling me.
	95% of people that see Let There Be Light say the same thing.
	All right, we're loaded up today.
	We're going to look at this economic bill coming up the next hour.
	Larry Kudlow and Dave Bratt.
	Also, John Solomon, a huge blockbuster.
	He's breaking it here.
	Uranium One.
	What did Obama know and when did he know it?
	And how did he try to cover it up?
	Now the layers of the onion are unfolding before our eyes.
	People in Wyoming were concerned that the administration was going to approve this sale.
	We talked to the administration ahead of time.
	We wrote to the president right after they approved the sale of American uranium product to a country controlled by Putin and Russia.
	We were very concerned from a standpoint of energy security for our country and national security since most of the uranium that we use in the United States, we have to import that we use for nuclear power.
	And now you see Vladimir Putin owning 20% of American uranium, controlling that.
	And we know that Russia sends uranium to people who are not our friends, to our bitter enemies, including Iran.
	Three months later, we heard back from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
	Not the president.
	Not the president.
	And they said they're going to keep an eye on this.
	They're going to make sure if there's any permits to export, that they'll check into those things and make sure none of this uranium leaves the United States.
	Well, in fact, uranium we do know has left the United States, has gone overseas, and under the direction of Vladimir Putin.
	Hillary Clinton had pressed that reset button with Russia just a little earlier that year.
	So we've had those problems with her trying to, I think, have a new relationship with Russia.
	But I've never trusted Russia in this area, specifically with our energy security and our national security.
	And that's why I was so focused on this sale, this okay to transfer American reserves of uranium to the Russians where they could then do what they want.
	And my concern is Iran.
	I see no benefit to us, and I think it was the administration trying to reach out around the world, show themselves very differently.
	But I think this administration has been very naive, Greta.
	We've seen it in Syria, we've seen it in the Middle East, and we've certainly seen it in Russia.
	The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that you can't export uranium from the United States, even if the Russians own this, unless they get a license to do the particular export.
	Is a nuclear regulatory agency now giving the license for these particular exports to these Russian companies?
	They have not given the.
	They were supposed to contact me immediately if there actually even was a request for a license to.
	Has there been a request?
	Not that I know, but I know that uranium has left the country.
	How does it left?
	But not leave it, not this Russian company hasn't been able to take out the uranium out of the country.
	When you talk to people on the ground, uranium has left the United States, has gone to Canada, has gone overseas.
	And our concern is it's at the fundamental of American uranium, 20% of our capacity here in the United States.
	And for nuclear power, we need to import uranium.
	I would say it's the same baloney they've been peddling for years, and there's been no credible evidence by anyone.
	In fact, it's been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.
	But here's what they're doing.
	And really, I have to give them credit.
	You know, Trump and his allies, including Fox News, are really experts at distraction and diversion.
	So the closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians, as we heard Jeff Sessions finally admit to in his testimony the other day, the more they want to just throw mud on the wall and I'm their favorite target, me and all right.
	That was Senator John Barroso, our two Sean Hannity show, 800 9.1.
	Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	What's fascinating about this?
	That was on Greta Van Sustran's program back in 2015.
	Now, why is it relevant?
	Well, because in part, what we've been talking about here today, after the Obama administration, remember, they knew that there was bribery, extortion, kickbacks, money laundering, racketeering, all going on as it relates to the Uranium One deal.
	And Vladimir Putin wanted a corner of the market here in the United States in 2009.
	They all knew.
	And by that, the FBI had an informant.
	They had evidence.
	They had emails.
	They had somebody on the inside.
	They actually had documents and they knew this unethical, illegal behavior was taking place.
	They knew what the goal was from a hostile regime in Russia and a bad actor, Vladimir Putin.
	Anyway, so you wonder, well, why would you ever give up 20% of America's uranium?
	Well, anyway, after the administration of Obama approved the sale of this Canadian mining company that had significant U.S. uranium reserves to this firm owned by the Russian government, well, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured Congress and the public, the new owners, oh, they couldn't export any raw nuclear fuel from America's shores.
	Now, we already learned that as a result of this, yellow cake uranium had been sent to Canada.
	They said, oh, no, no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
	That's what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said, November 2010 press release.
	And then it goes on from there.
	A year later, the same nuclear regulator repeated this assurance to Senator John Barroso.
	That's what we're pulling up here.
	And neither Uranium One, you know, they never had an export license.
	Anyway, this is where John Solomon picks up this important new development in this whole Uranium-1 deal today.
	He writes for the Hill.
	He's like the managing editor at this point.
	What is your title?
	CEO, managing editor?
	Executive Vice President.
	Yes.
	I'm just a reporter.
	I got to call you.
	I'm just a reporter.
	I'm just a dishwasher, and that's how I feel.
	All right.
	So you went back and you found all this information.
	Why is it so relevant in light of everything we reported last week about the everybody Mueller knew and Rosenstein knew and Eric Holder knew and Eric Holder signed off and Hillary signed off?
	Why is this all important now?
	Because haven't they told us the opposite?
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	So to keep us all calm about the Uranium One deal and our relationship with Russia, the Obama administration said, listen, no big deal on selling the uranium-1 mines in the United States to Russia because Russia's going to keep the uranium here because we're never going to give them an export license.
	And then what we found out is a couple of years after all of that quieted down a little bit, after all those assurances were made, the Russian-owned mines and the uranium-1 were given the ability to export through a third party.
	They didn't get a license themselves.
	If Rosatom and Uranium One had been given that license, alarm bells would have gone off in Congress.
	What they did is they licensed a third-party trucking company to take uranium-one and then move it out of the country to Canada.
	And then the assurance was then when we move it to Canada, they'll get enriched from back to the United States.
	But in fact, that's not what happened.
	It got to Canada.
	Then the Canadian company got a license and sent some of that American uranium to Europe and according to Uranium One, possibly to Asia.
	And so what we have now is, first, we're a country that already imports almost all of our uranium.
	Even though we have a lot of uranium under the ground, we've been reliant on foreign imports for much of our uranium the last many years.
	So the question is, if you're already dependent on foreign imports, why would you let some American uranium escape?
	And particularly, why would you let Russian own American uranium escape when you told us you wouldn't do that?
	I think we now have some new questions to ask.
	Those feelings of comfort we were given in 2010 were not fully lived up to.
	There was clearly a sleight of hand backdoor way in which this uranium was allowed to go to Canada and apparently from Canada to at least Europe.
	You think this was done on purpose by design, that they figured out a way to keep Congress calm and keep them out of the loop and by allowing this third party, this trucking company, access to literally export this uranium?
	I mean, was that all done by design and what they said to the American people or specifically, you know, the Obama administration approving the sale of this Canadian company that has the assets that, again, you know, to a firm owned by Russia, that was, number one, that's dumb because number one, for the reason you decided we depend on imports for uranium now.
	That's right.
	Yeah, no, we're already dependent.
	So why make ourselves more dependent?
	Why let some valuable uranium out of the United States to Canada, then Canada to other.
	There's plenty of places in the United States that could have enriched the Canada, including in Metropolis, Illinois.
	And so letting it to Canada and letting Canada then send it on to Europe doesn't make sense to a lot of the people that I've talked to.
	As to intention, here's what we do know.
	Very quietly, there were a lot of other steps that had to happen before this occurred.
	So Uranium 1 gets approved by the Obama administration.
	We know the controversy about that.
	Something else happened that got no controversy because no one seemed to notice it.
	And that is Rossatom, the owner of Uranium 1, the Russian state-controlled uranium company.
	In 2011, it was removed off an export restriction list.
	It had been on this list since the Cold War.
	And very quietly, without much fanfare, the Obama administration allowed them to be removed from this export list, which means they no longer needed special permission.
	There would be no red flags if Rossettam wanted to export uranium or other items from the United States.
	Now, that took care of one of the barriers.
	But still, the NRC, if Rossettam was going to do it directly from uranium-1, they would have needed an NRC license.
	NRC officials told me, people who were there at the time, that it was much easier to do this license, which is just take some trucking company already sending things to Canada and add uranium-1 to it than it would have been if we tried to start an entire new license for uranium-1 and export it out of the country.
	Now, whether that's intentional or just bureaucrats looking for an easy way to get their work done, it's not as clear to me.
	We don't know the answer to that, but there's no doubt that using the third party was sort of a backdoor way, as someone said it to me, to get this uranium to Canada and then eventually Canada to Europe.
	All of this now is beginning to finally surface and get investigated.
	But wouldn't you imagine that all of the bribery, extortion, kickbacks, money laundering that was going on, wouldn't you imagine there's no way that Robert Mueller didn't know?
	There's no way that Obama didn't get this in his presidential daily briefing.
	There's no way that Eric Holder, the head of the Justice Department and the FBI, couldn't know when they had an informant inside knowing what Putin's agents in this country are doing.
	Yeah, I mean, that is the question.
	The question is: who knew that Russia was engaged in criminality when we gave Russia all of these beneficial decisions?
	Now, we're not talking like, you know, the Russian steel industry was involved in criminality and then the Russian nuclear industry got the benefit.
	It was the Russian nuclear industry involved in criminality.
	It was that very company, Rossetta.
	And ordinarily, we talked to an expert yesterday who said flat out: if CFIS had known, the committee that voted on this, if they had known it was criminality, it might have changed the course of their decision.
	It does not appear any of the CFIS members that we've talked to seem to know about the investigation.
	So that means it bottlenecked somewhere.
	Did it stay below Robert Mueller in the counterintelligence division?
	I don't think so when you're talking about Russia.
	I think it's highly likely from our reporting that Robert Mueller was informed.
	And I think it's also highly likely that at some point Robert Mueller or his deputies would have advised President Obama because President Obama had a lot going on with Russia.
	And the last thing you want is the President of the United States to be blindsided.
	We know this for one reason.
	The informant who was undercover for the FBI, his lawyer has told us on the record that he was told by the FBI that his case information, his undercover work, had been briefed to Mueller and Obama both in 2010 and then later in the year.
	So 2010 is important because it's before the Uranium One decision.
	So we think, we have good reason to believe that FBI Director Mueller then and President Obama learned something about this case in 2010, and that should have raised alarm bells for us.
	All right, we've got to take a break more with John Solomon, his big-breaking story today.
	When we come back, there's more details of what Obama's activities were when he reinstated the U.S.-Russia civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement that George W. Bush had signed in 08, but withdrew it before it could ever take effect.
	And that was after the incidents in Georgia and elsewhere.
	All right, as we continue, John Solomon, big-breaking news today as it relates to the Uranium-1 deal and how, in fact, what seems to be part of a lot larger question of what did people know, when did they know it, but a sort of roundabout way that the Obama administration was able to allow, A, this deal to take place in the first place, and then also export uranium to places like Canada, looks like Asia, and even Europe.
	How is that happening?
	Because we were assured that wouldn't happen.
	Well, they used a third-party trucking service's license to get around the licensing they would have otherwise needed and Congress's approval.
	Now, there's another question in all of this that John brings up in his new piece: that Obama had reinstated a U.S. Civilian Nuclear Energy Corporation cooperative agreement.
	And anyway, Obama submitted the agreement for approval to the Democratic-controlled Congress.
	This was May of 2010, and declaring Russia should be viewed as a friendly partner under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act.
	And anyway, let's go from there and let's talk about what did the Democrats do and did they make the world less stable and safe?
	That's a great question, right?
	So when Uranium 1 first came out, we kind of thought that was the total value of what the Obama administration gave to the Russian nuclear industry, but we're learning a lot more.
	I've identified at least a dozen decisions that the Obama administration has made.
	I'm going to write about this next week sometime as I report this out.
	But a dozen different decisions that were valuable and meaningful to the Russian nuclear industry.
	And when we're talking about valuable and meaningful, we're talking about billions of new dollars in new sales, billions, not millions, but billions.
	And they range from very simple things, like we said.
	We've restored the civilian cooperation agreement that Bush had suspended because Russia had gotten into a military conflict with Georgia.
	That's a good reason to suspend nuclear cooperation.
	President Obama came back, said it's okay to treat Russia as friendly again.
	They're making amends.
	They can be trusted.
	And he puts that agreement through.
	The Democratic Congress doesn't object.
	It doesn't hold the vote.
	It just doesn't act.
	By failing to act, it goes into effect in 90 days.
	And then once that civilian nuclear agreement is in place, a variety of different things happen.
	The U.S. Enrichment Corporation signs a $2.8 billion contract to buy Russian uranium.
	The Rossitom is removed off the export list.
	There are a variety of different administrative maneuvers, all of these things designed to create a more favorable market in the United States for the Russian nuclear monopoly that is Rossitom.
	And all of this is occurring while Rossettam's own man, the United States, Audem Mikaram, is committing crimes.
	Let me ask this last question.
	Did the United States get anything out of this?
	They thought they were going to get a better relationship with Russia, and we didn't realize that didn't last very long, right?
	Ukraine occurs.
	We had the military conflict.
	So we had Georgia, Ukraine.
	We had a hope that we were going to make things better in between, and it didn't.
	What we did lose is some leverage over our own uranium future because Russia has a much stronger hold on its urine on the world uranium market as a result of these decisions.
	All right.
	We'll have a lot more on this tonight and a lot more on Hillary.
	We now have Donna Brazil admitting that Hillary rigged the Democratic primary.
	If I'm a Bernie supporter, I'd be pretty pissed off.
	How far did it go?
	And Clinton even admitting, yeah, she colluded with Russia by paying for that phony, salacious dossier.
	We've got a lot of news to get to.
	Also, the Republicans' tax plan and the latest on investigating the investigators and a corrupt media in America.
	That's all coming up tonight.
	800-941-Sean.
	Toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Quick break.
	When we come back, we'll be joined by Larry Kudlow and Freedom Caucus member Dave Bratt as the Sean Hannity show continues.
	This plan is for the middle-class families in this country who deserve a break.
	It is for the families who are out there living paycheck to paycheck who just keep getting squeezed.
	You know, about half the country today is living paycheck to paycheck, and a lot more people are about a paycheck away from living paycheck to paycheck in this country.
	And this is going to help give people relief.
	The Tax Cut and Jobs Act will deliver real relief for people in the middle, people who are also striving to get there.
	With this plan, the typical family of four will save $1,182 a year on their taxes.
	For many families, having an additional $1,182 more will make a real difference.
	That $1,182 more covers about a year's worth of gas for your car.
	It covers your family's phone bill for the year, depending on how much data, of course, your kids use.
	That $1,182 more, it can help you pay down your debt faster.
	It can help you start and renovate your home faster.
	That $1,182 more for the average family, that will help you put more money away for college.
	It will help you save through retirement.
	It will help you save for a rainy day.
	With this plan, we are getting rid of loopholes for special interests, and we are leveling the playing field.
	We're making things so simple.
	We're making things so simple that you can do your taxes on a form the size of a postcard.
	With this plan, we are making pro-growth reforms so that, yes, America can compete with the rest of the world, but we're also making it so that families like these that are here can have more take-home pay.
	Three major points I want to make.
	When I was 20 years old, I started my first small business.
	Small business creates more jobs than any other thing in America.
	In this bill, they'll get lower taxes to go to 25%, the lowest it's been in 40 years.
	More small businesses, more jobs.
	Second, every single American is going to keep more of what they earn.
	The single American, when you talk about a standard deduction, instead of the first $6,000 you earn tax-free, it's $12,000.
	For these families and couples, the first $24,000 you earn, tax-free.
	You get to keep it.
	You get to determine what's best to invest.
	We're going to bring the money that's sitting overseas back to invest in American businesses.
	Even before this bill goes into effect, I believe you're going to hear from businesses saying they want to come back to America.
	And the cornerstone of what ways and means of what President Trump has worked so hard about at the end of the day is that middle-class family able to get more.
	As you heard from every other speaker up here, almost $1,200 in your pocket.
	That's the difference.
	This is about tax cuts.
	This is about America first.
	And this is about the future.
	Not only will America grow, we'll show the rest of the world how to lead.
	You're going to see Democrats who have been tromping at the bit to play the economic warfare, and they say, well, the rich would pay more.
	Well, guess what?
	The rich live in Boston, New York, and San Francisco.
	As Doug just said, they argue for higher taxes until higher taxes are on the horizon and wait and see what Democrats do when we deliver what they've asked for.
	Where they can pay a little bit more.
	They're going to hate it.
	So it's a talking point.
	But on the policy side, they're going to freak out.
	All right, 24 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean, toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	All right, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, and the tax plan that came out today.
	We were great anticipation, but when you look at the tax plan, it's not exactly what I would consider the most Reagan-esque as the plan, you know, maintains the top racket at 39.6% for households.
	It does do good things.
	It gets the corporate tax rate down to 20%.
	That's a big improvement.
	The repatriation, it certainly is helping the middle class in most ways.
	Although, if you're in a state with high local taxes, deductions, and so on and so forth.
	But anyway, there is a deduction for property taxes at 10%.
	It preserves the mortgage interest deduction only for existing mortgages and new purchases with loans of $500,000 or less.
	And Kevin Brady said the change was made due to the drive tax relief of middle-class families, but Reagan dropped the top marginal rates.
	Remember, 50% of income earners in this country pay no federal income tax.
	Anyway, the top rate exists for those that earn more than a million dollars, Brady said.
	No change in there would be no tax charged on household incomes less than $24,000.
	A 12% rate would be charged on income from $24,000 to $90,000, 25% $90,000 to $260,000, 35% on $260,000 to $1 million, and the rates would be different for single and single-head of households.
	And the plan would nearly double the standard deduction from $1,200 to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly.
	And the personal exemptions in the code would now be worth $4,100 a year for each taxpayer, spouse, and dependent.
	That would be eliminated in this.
	A state income tax would no longer be deductible in this.
	That means if you live in New York like me, we're paying a lot more.
	Anyway, here to weigh in on all of this.
	It's not about me.
	I'm just telling you what the facts are.
	Larry Kudlow is with us, Freedom Caucus member Dave Bratt.
	Larry, let's start with you.
	I think we missed the premise of your book, which was the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts.
	Reagan went from 70 to 28 percent top marginal rate.
	That's not happening here.
	No, you're right.
	I mean, in a nutshell, Sean, the business side of this is really good.
	Very good pro-growth.
	In fact, I don't know why Ryan didn't use this number, but average wage earners, you know, people earning $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year, probably get about $4,000 more in after-tax income just from the business side alone.
	And that's very pro-growth.
	That will drive the growth rate by itself through 3% so they can pay for all this.
	The individual side, though, is not nearly as much pro-growth as you pointed out.
	And I will say this: the one good thing they did was they really expanded the brackets.
	So that's good.
	That means, you know, down around the 12% bracket, the 25% bracket, they're getting a big, nice break on raising the income thresholds.
	Nice break.
	Top rate, no, they didn't bring it down.
	They should have.
	I happen to like rich people, and the trick is to make more and make the non-rich rich.
	So all the Democrats are going class warfare.
	It's odd because the top 10 doesn't really get much here.
	But on the whole, the business thing, lower the corporate rate to 20%, full expensing for new investment, repatriate the overseas earnings.
	That stuff is just what we wrote, Steve Moore and I and others, Mnuchin, in the campaign.
	And that is powerful pro-growth stuff.
	And I think that alone is definitely worth supporting this bill.
	David Bratt, what do you think?
	What is the Freedom Caucus thoughts on this?
	Yeah, well, I agree with everything Larry just said.
	I think he had it just right.
	The corporate and the S-Corp, the S-Corp, we're going to see there's going to be a few hiccups hidden in there as well.
	I think we may have to do a little bit more technical fine-tuning to get the S-Corps where they need to be a little bit better.
	But overall, that's what Larry was saying.
	We're going to get 3% plus growth.
	Today, the Atlanta Fed, based on current projections, has us grown at 4.5%.
	And so that's just based on expectations right now.
	And then you always got to compare this to the alternative product.
	The Democrats, two weeks ago, had a progressive budget they put in.
	It raises taxes $10 trillion.
	It raises spending $11 trillion and has more debt and deficit than we do.
	And you won't hear a word of that from the mainstream press.
	They're already haranguing us, and the mainstream media is concerned about deficits for the first time in decades.
	And so the good news for me in Virginia, which is very different than New York, and there are some concerns at the higher income levels, but in Virginia, the average family income is $60,000 for a family of four, and they're going to see about $1,200.
	And that's a huge chunk back in the pocket.
	That pays a lot of bills.
	And so that's a winner.
	And basically, the leadership did a good job.
	I'll credit them when they get it right.
	They got this right.
	They stuck to their promises.
	They promised us kind of fourfold four pillars, the international tax system.
	We're going to be competitive again.
	The S Corp, the C Corp, and middle class tax cut.
	And we were bound by the Senate rules a little bit, right?
	A trillion and a half deficit limits because they wouldn't let us dynamic score.
	And so we had to, you know, do the best work we can, be pro-growth with that $1.5 trillion limit on us.
	And so, you know, maybe next time we can keep improving.
	Like you said, it's not fully Reagan-esque, but it's a pretty good move.
	I'm pretty happy with it.
	You know, Sean, one point here on the scoring is really, really important.
	The Senate has got to put in a 3% economic growth rate for the next 10 years.
	They have got to disregard the low-ball, non-dynamic scoring that's going to come from the Joint Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office.
	And they've got to work through the parliamentarian and the Senate and perhaps overrule her.
	But if they don't get the 3% score on growth, you know, that's worth a lot of money.
	It's about $2.5%, maybe $3 trillion of money over 10 years.
	If they don't get that, this thing's not going to work.
	It's just not going to work.
	And then they're going to have to go back and start raising the corporate rate and all kinds of things that we don't want them to do.
	The scoring, and I want it, political will by Mitch McConnell and company is going to be crucial.
	I have no faith in Mitch McConnell.
	Look, the only thing that's missing, I agree with your analysis about the corporate side of this.
	It's actually everything that we'd ever want, and yet it's extraordinarily pro-growth.
	Here's where I run into a sort of mental block on this: it seems on a psychological level that the Republican Party doesn't have the stomach to fight the battle that, well, the top 10% pay 75% of the taxes already, and that when you look at 20%, they pay 99% of the taxes.
	Let's be honest here.
	And you got 50% of Americans paying nothing.
	And so the rates for the bigger taxpayers in this country, you know, Reagan believed in cutting taxes for everybody, and that would stimulate the economy.
	And it worked.
	There are two sides.
	I'm not disagreeing that there's a lot of corporate rate.
	I mean, look at the rate and growth we've had and the good news that we've had.
	You've got the National Association of Realtors reporting houses are now selling at the best pace in 30 years.
	You've got literally a seven-year low in food stamp participation.
	That's all great.
	You've got in terms of the job market, we have more people working than ever before.
	The conference board reported consumer confidence 17-year high.
	The Atlanta Fed, I think it was Dave Bratt that said it.
	One of you guys said it.
	They're projecting GDP growth for the fourth quarter at 4.5%.
	That would be stunning.
	And we have news today that jobs cuts have now hit their lowest level in two decades.
	So for the forgotten men and women in this country, this is a net net gain, but it would be a bigger gain if we followed the full Reagan model.
	That's just a fact.
	And I don't think the Republicans have the stomach to say or explain that tax cuts for the people that pay taxes is good for everybody.
	Yeah, you know, I'll tell you.
	And by the way, Larry, you know I'm right.
	Of course you're right.
	I mean, look, already, already, the GOP is being allowing itself to be Mau Maued by the class warriors in the Democratic Party.
	I mean, it's really bizarre.
	I was on the air this morning, and the head of the DNC, this Tom Perez, all he could do was talk about how rich people win.
	We can't let that happen.
	The estate tax is bad, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	That stuff, you know, the growth message always wins.
	Reagan proved that, by the way, John F. Kennedy did too.
	But the growth message wins.
	Lower marginal tax rates create incentives to work, save, invest, and take risks.
	We should reward success, not punish it, and we should end the war on business.
	Now, that's what Donald Trump's trying to do.
	And the GOP has, as you say, has got to gear itself.
	It's got to have the internal fortitude to fight back on this silly class warfare stuff.
	And unfortunately, they caved in, as you can see, what they did with the top rate and some of the deductions.
	Having said that, Sean, I'll take it.
	All right.
	I'll take it for now because the business side is so darn good.
	And the biggest benefits from those business tax cuts, I don't know why they press this.
	It comes to the wage earners.
	Kevin Brady said this, and he's right.
	The wage earners are the big winners here, not the rich people.
	Well, I know, but it does, psychologically, this is a big as we continue.
	Larry Kudlow, CNBC, and Freedom Caucus member Dave Bratt were talking about the Republicans unveiling their tax plan today in some specificity.
	As we've been saying, good for corporations, good for growth, good for basically the wage earners in America, those people that are the middle class, which is what the main focus of the tax cut was going to be.
	It will be a tax increase, significant tax increase for people that are by the government standard, anyway, defined as rich.
	And it's going to be a double whammy if they don't get rid of the deduction for the state and local taxes, right?
	Congressman Bratt.
	If you live in New York or Illinois, New Jersey or California, you're dead.
	Yeah, no, right.
	We're going to have a little work to do there.
	But you laid it on right.
	Larry's always Reagan-esque and positive, and I love it.
	And so this is the first step.
	And if you see growth, right, I mean, the problem, the election wasn't just President Trump.
	It was Bernie all the way through the Midwestern states, right?
	Pennsylvania, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, et cetera, all the way through President Trump, because the middle class hasn't seen a wage increase in 40 years.
	Wages have been relatively flat.
	The people know the system's rigged.
	The swamp is getting all the benefits.
	So the first thing you got to do in this country is pay attention to this populist piece, right?
	We got to do right by the middle class.
	So this will do that.
	And then we are in their confidence.
	And then our leadership says, hey, we have unity in the Republican Party.
	We're taking care of the middle class.
	We got the psychological confidence, like you just said.
	Then we can go full growth.
	We are scared right now.
	We're scared to talk about this.
	By the way, Congressman Bratt, let me just, I don't want to go down this rabbit hole.
	I don't believe that for a second.
	I don't trust members of your party.
	Not for one second do I believe that's ever going to happen.
	I just think that they're just too weak to fight for the old Republican Party would have fought for it, not this new, weak establishment party that is afraid of their own shadow.
	It's never going to happen.
	But I'm not trying to, I'm not, listen, I'm not trying to be negative.
	I always care more about the working men and women in this country.
	Not about Sean Hannity.
	It's about this is good for them.
	It's a net win for them.
	I'm cheering for them.
	I think they've been screwed over the years dramatically, and it's not everything that we conservatives believe in by a long shot.
	But I got to run.
	Larry, thank you.
	And Dave Bratt, thank you.
	800-941.
	Sean, quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue.
	Jonathan Gillam, Geraldo Rivera, shoot it out next.
	Hillary, is there a difference between your team paying for this opposition research and Donald Trump's people working with the Russians to influence the election?
	Is there a difference?
	Of course there is.
	And, you know, I think most serious people understand that.
	This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary.
	And then when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer and said, you know, would you like us to continue it?
	And he said yes.
	He's an experienced lawyer.
	He knows what the law is.
	He knows what opposition research is.
	And, you know, from my perspective, it didn't come out before the election, as we all know.
	And what also didn't come out, which I think is an even bigger problem as I write in the book, is that the American people didn't even know that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because of connections with Russia starting in the summer of 2016.
	So I know that voters should have had that information.
	That's something that may have influenced some people.
	And it's part of what happens in a campaign where you get information that may or may not be useful and you try to make sure anything you put out in the public arena is accurate.
	And so this thing didn't come out until after the election and it's still being evaluated.
	But the fact of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia should have come out.
	When you see Donald Trump speaking and when you see his rhetoric in and around what happened, how does that make you feel and what do you think you would be doing differently?
	Well, it's so disappointing, Trevor, because, you know, I was a senator from New York on 9-11.
	I was with President Obama through a lot of difficult decisions as his Secretary of State.
	I obviously saw my husband responding to tragedies, attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing.
	And what you want in a president is what I think the three men I just mentioned delivered, and that is trying to bring the country together, talk about what happened with the event that they are concerned about, but not to point fingers, not to scapegoat, not to try to set Americans against each other.
	And unfortunately, that just is not part of the job that our current president accepts or is willing to perform.
	You know, of course, he can have his own point of view and push his policies.
	That goes with the job.
	But not to continue to divide Americans against each other.
	So he just doesn't have any empathy.
	And you can disagree with somebody over all kinds of partisan issues, but you want to have a president who can try to put himself into the shoes, the feelings of somebody else.
	All right, as we continue Sean Hannity's show, and there you have Hillary Clinton, of course, there's a difference between my collusion and that of Donald Trump's collusion.
	And then, of course, criticizing Donald Trump for pointing fingers and scapegoating after tragedies after she had just done it.
	And Hillary Clinton is how could it not be different if they're funding a dossier that we know is filled with salacious lies, propaganda, misinformation, and distortion from the Clinton campaign.
	And now from Donna Brazil, we know she was running the DNC and the fix was in.
	Anyway, Geraldo Rivera is with us, as well as our good friend Jonathan Gillum.
	Welcome both of you to the program.
	Geraldo, if I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter today, I am one pissed off Bernie Sanders supporter hearing that, yeah, Hillary Clinton ran the DNC and as I had been saying, the fix was in from the get-go.
	They're probably too stoned to take it too seriously.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	By the way, I have to bail you out of trouble.
	You know, you used to have to bail me out of trouble.
	Now I'm bailing you out of trouble every night.
	It's unbelievable.
	You're amazing.
	You are like the last standing knight of the right.
	You are how you battle these people, whether it's Jake Tapper or the Imams, the various Imams.
	I see you.
	I marvel at your energy and your focus.
	You really are.
	Hey, listen, Geraldo.
	They're trying to kill me, but, you know, it's all right.
	You're amazing.
	You're amazingly resilient.
	You're a tough guy.
	I love your spirit, and I think that's you.
	I'm telling you, if you existed in the early 70s, you would have changed history.
	But I think with Donna Brazil and the DNC and Bernie Sanders, I'm not surprised by any of that.
	Are you?
	It was pretty obvious.
	First of all, Bernie Sanders way, way over and outperformed.
	And I think that a lot of his popularity came from the sense among that disgruntled group of Democrats that the fix was in.
	And they were all right, turns out.
	Yeah.
	What's your take, Jonathan?
	Well, first of all, if Geraldo's calling you, what do you call him a macho guy?
	Are you calling him a tough guy?
	That's pretty, that's incredible.
	Well, Jonathan is even afraid of my five-day training now going on.
	He's like, I got to catch up.
	Oh, no.
	I know.
	Listen, once you leave the SEAL teams, I went to the air marshals.
	It killed my physical fitness program.
	Never recovered since then.
	If you're an air marshal, you can't have a beer on the plane, can you?
	No, no.
	You have to stay away.
	It's a brutal, brutal job.
	It hasn't paid just for that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So let me just say this one thing from an investigator standpoint.
	Having been in the FBI and worked around individuals who were part of criminal organizations.
	And when the organization starts to fall, people start to sing.
	And Geraldo's seen a lot of this stuff in his investigative reporting.
	And I think that a lot of this has to do with that.
	I think that these collusions are now being exposed.
	We all knew it was there.
	It's starting to be exposed.
	And when Hillary Clinton is admitting that she colluded with the Russians, I'm just wondering at what point, it's kind of like Hollywood with the Harvey Weinstein incident.
	At what point does everybody just start singing?
	I just foresee that happening.
	I see it a little differently, Jonathan, in this sense, and with all due respect.
	I think that there is a recognition now that the era of the Clintons is finally over.
	That, you know, the history that stretched all the way from the, you know, the late 80s until right now, finally, the era of the Clintons is over in the Democratic Party.
	They've got to remake themselves.
	They're scrambling to find an identity.
	Now they don't know who they are.
	Are they going to be Bernie Sanders?
	Are they going to be some middle-of-the-road Democrat?
	Where do they go from here?
	How do they compete against the potent populism of Donald Trump?
	You know, I think this is a kind of...
	Wait a minute.
	We've heard a year now about Trump-Russia collusion.
	She goes on this program last night, whatever this guy's name is.
	Trevor Noah.
	I had never even heard of the guy.
	And he put out this me dancing, me reading my monologue and doing it in rap.
	It was hilarious, actually.
	I retweeted it.
	So anyway, she's on with him, and she's saying, oh, there's a big difference between my collusion and Trump's collusion.
	I'm like, you spread lies, salacious Russian lies during the campaign bought and paid for by you.
	I think that the whole aspect of collusion has been one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people in this respect.
	There is no crime of collusion.
	That's not a crime.
	You could look anywhere in any title of the U.S. Code you want, up and down, sideways.
	It's not a crime.
	Donald Trump did it on stage.
	He said, they want the Russians to send me more emails.
	Send me Hillary's 33,000 emails.
	That was collusion or attempted collusion.
	It's not a crime.
	It's called either opposition research, bare knuckle politics.
	You call it whatever you want to.
	It's not a crime.
	That's why it's so frustrating when I see otherwise reputable, well-regarded journalists talking about the imminence of the impeachment of the 45th president.
	It is so bogus that it is infuriating.
	I look at it differently on the other side.
	And I'm trying not to be biased here.
	I really, Geraldo, I really try to look at this stuff from a neutral investigator standpoint.
	And I agree 100% with what you're saying.
	And I'm not saying this because I think Hillary Clinton, or I know Hillary Clinton's a liberal, but when she used her office, her official position for monetary gain, that goes far beyond collusion.
	That actually goes where you are actually breaking laws and involving themselves in that.
	And I think one thing I always liked about yourself and people like Rick Unger is that you are ideologically more liberal than I am, but it's not an act.
	It's not a game that you're playing.
	And with these individuals, they're politicians.
	And I just look at this, and I think it's clear, and it gives credence to what you're saying about a lot of these journalists siding on the side of criticizing Trump for something that's not against the law.
	And it's an act for them, it seems like, in a lot of ways.
	Not much different than the guy who did this meme for Sean.
	It's an act.
	I haven't seen it yet, but I do.
	Oh, you're going to love it.
	You've got to see it.
	I think I would love that.
	There's one point I definitely want to strongly agree with you, Jonathan.
	And it's when you see that Bill and Hillary Clinton together are worth a quarter of a billion dollars, having never had a job, a real job outside the public sector.
	To me, that is a very telling number.
	And it speaks to what President Trump talked about when he talked about the swamp.
	That is so swampy.
	That is the definition of swamp, Sean.
	All right, let me take a break here.
	We got Geraldo Rivera and Jonathan Gillum with us, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Still a lot of news that we have yet to get to in the course of the day's program today.
	Our good friend Phil Haney is coming back.
	We want to talk to him at the bottom of the hour.
	He's the guy that was part of the NSC for, what, 30 some odd years in the DHS, one of the founding members.
	And he's out there saying, oh, Obama got rid of all of the intelligence he had gathered over the years.
	So we'll have that explosive report straight ahead.
	Quick break, more with Geraldo and Jonathan Gillum straight ahead.
	All right, as we continue, Jonathan Gillum and Geraldo Rivera.
	All right, so Geraldo, we've we kind of, the last two nights on TV, you've had pretty big fights with Pam Geller.
	And you got, you know, if Chuck Schumer didn't brag, oh, I authored the diversity visa program, this New York terrorist, you know, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have come in, but there's a greater likelihood he wouldn't have gotten in that way.
	We would have been a little safer.
	And de Blasio ending the NYPD surveillance program, I interviewed one of the cops that was involved in that surveillance program, and he was looking at that very mosque.
	He said there were at least 20 radicals associated with that mosque, and out of political correctness, de Blasio stopped it.
	That too could have prevented this from happening.
	These are just facts.
	I think that in terms of the surveillance of the mosque and Pamela's suggestion that the surveillance program has ended, I think is very naive.
	Just because the NYPD, and I've known John Miller forever.
	I've known him when he was a local reporter in New York City.
	He's one of the last guys to interview Osama bin Laden, the deputy commissioner of the NYPD in charge of terrorism.
	I do not for one single second believe that the surveillance program has been discontinued.
	Geraldo, Geraldo, he made a public display.
	I can even tell you and read to you what he said at the time.
	It's disinformation, Sean.
	They can't not look at these mosques.
	They can't ignore them.
	Just because an NYPD detective may be not doing the NYC.
	Let me quote surveilling these people.
	Comrade de Blasio said the following, that he promised a police force that keeps our city safe and is respectful and fair.
	This reform to eliminate the surveillance program is a critical step forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities that they serve so that cops and our citizens can help one another go after the real bad guys.
	He ended the program just like he ended Stop and Frisk.
	You know, when I was in the FBI, I got out at the beginning of 2013.
	I was already seeing and was privy to the drawback in the Bureau where we couldn't even utilize certain language referring to Muslim terrorists.
	And I saw, we saw the writing on the wall with this type of surveillance program being pulled back.
	And what you have to realize is that when we say actively surveilling, what they're relegated to now is not putting undercovers inside mosques.
	Now they're relegated to depending on sources.
	And if they don't have those sources, that means they're not going to get the information.
	And Geraldo, the biggest problem with this is that they eliminate programs like the surveillance, and they don't have anything to counter that.
	So there's a vacuum left.
	And that's where the nefarious people hide within that vacuum.
	It all comes down to the fact that these people in charge, they refuse to name the problem.
	They want to call it radical.
	They want to call it ISIS.
	It's Islam.
	That's the problem.
	And even Islam is not trying to fix it.
	Well, that's a big statement there, Jonathan.
	Putting aside the overview that the problem is Islam, I think that just, you know, maybe I'm wrong, but I've been around a long time.
	I've been around a lot of cops in my life and my career as an investigative journalist and so forth.
	I cannot for a second believe that we are still not using undercovers.
	I can't for a second believe we're still not collecting megadata.
	I still, I do not believe for a second that if there are known connections to radical groups that we're not wiretapping and surveilling, that would be such gross neglect.
	With all of the 9-11-01, we both lost friends that day.
	We did.
	That's right.
	And what did we find out later?
	The CIA, the FBI, they weren't even talking to each other.
	And on top of that, you know, the fact that political correctness, where they can't even say the words radical Islamic terrorism, why would you doubt that somebody as liberal and left-wing as de Blasio would end a program that would actually work because he doesn't want to offend people?
	If you look at the ground, the foundation of what de Blasio and other mayors like him come in and do, for goodness sakes, in New York City, I can go out right now and urinate on the sidewalk.
	It's not even against the law.
	You're not going to get wrapped up for that anymore.
	If you have a mayor that is that out of touch with keeping his city clean, I can guarantee you it's going to work its way up into the higher criminal or terrorism type investigations.
	He's got his hand in too much of this stuff, and he's taken away from the ability for the police to do their job.
	And quite frankly, what you guys just said about 9-11, the biggest problem we had then was complacency and a lack of communication.
	We still have those problems, but now they're compounded by ridiculous, overwhelmingly corrupt politics.
	I refuse to acknowledge this.
	I got to take a break here.
	Thank you both.
	We appreciate it.
	Geraldo Rivera and Jonathan Gillum, 800-941-Sean, Toll Free telephone number.
	All right, the man that actually helped form the Homeland Security Committee, Phil Haney, and said that Obama forced him to get rid of all of the data intelligence they had gathered.
	Well, he's going to join us.
	And much more in your calls, 800-941-Sean, as we continue.
	In 2005, when Ray Kelly expanded his intelligence program to outside New York City, I was one of the first people to go out there.
	And that was one of the first mosques that we started looking at.
	And we didn't look at it just blindly.
	We looked at it because we had leads and sources telling us that there are people going there that have anti-American views, involved in certain different things that you should be worried about.
	And that's the leads that we followed.
	And just like you said.
	So you saw this particular mosque.
	You are directly involved in monitoring it.
	Were there radicalized people there?
	And how long did we know it?
	Absolutely.
	There was radicalized people there since the 90s.
	The mosque in Patterson, the mosque that the blind chic was involved with on Kennedy Boulevard in Jersey City.
	The reason we went out there was we knew that we said, who is looking at these locations?
	They're going to plan outside of New York and come into New York.
	But who's out there watching that?
	We know the FBI is, and they do a great job, but they're inundated.
	They're swamped.
	So Kelly said, I want my people, my offices, to go out, follow the leads that they get from their sources and protect our city.
	All right, that was yesterday's program, and that was Lieutenant Bill McGrarty.
	He was a lieutenant in the NYPD.
	He was talking about Ray Kelly, then the new NYPD police commissioner, and he was in charge of the surveillance program.
	He had actually monitored the mosque in New Jersey that this New York terrorist this week had attended and said while monitoring, there were at least 20 people that he felt were radicalized in and around that area.
	And he also looked nationwide, doing this as part of a broader New York City Police Department program, and they had identified over 1,000 people.
	It gets really scary.
	Now, that program, as we have been discussing at length here, has ended since 2014.
	It was ended by the mayor of New York City who's up for re-election this November, Comrade Bill de Blasio.
	Between that and Chuck Schumer, New York senator, you know, basically bragging, I authored the diversity visa program.
	You've got to ask, are these decisions made by liberal Democrats now putting all of us in danger?
	Because there's no way this terrorist would have gotten in to this country without the diversity visa program that we have.
	And number two, had we not ended the surveillance, perhaps we could have picked up that this guy was up to no good.
	And now that he was in his hospital bed, he's asking for an ISIS flag and bragging and happy he killed innocent people.
	The president's still thinking about enemy combatant status for him, although it is, as Greg Jarrett pointed out on Hannity last night, a more difficult way to get this guy and find him guilty.
	Now, the broader, bigger question in all of this is: okay, how bad is this on a nationwide basis?
	We're only talking about New York here.
	And we've had on the program before Phil Haney, he's the author of See Something, Say Nothing, founding member of the Department of Homeland Security.
	He talked about the red flags that were available and ignored by members of our intelligence terrorism units and how Obama himself wanted all of the intelligence that had been gathered since the formation after 9-1101 to actually be destroyed.
	He joins us now, along with Chris Gobbits.
	And Chris, welcome to the program.
	Glad you're with us, National Security Consultant, Vice President of Understanding the Threat, Philip Haney.
	Always love having you on, my friend.
	You just heard what I said about Schumer and what I said about de Blasio.
	How is this different with what Obama did after you had founded the Department of Homeland Security?
	It's built right on top of the foundation of the precedents that President Obama set in cooperation with the Department of Justice.
	The great purge of material out of law enforcement training, and that's what we call it, the Great Purge, was in 2011 and 2012.
	That started inside the federal government.
	This lawsuit that you've been talking about, Raza versus City of New York, the aka, the surveillance lawsuit, started in 2013.
	It was a tag team effort.
	CARE, Council on American Islamic Relations, and ACLU were the secular driving organizations to push this lawsuit through the court system starting in 2013.
	It almost got dropped, and then it got revived again.
	And by March of 2015, CARE and ACLU were putting out press releases thanking people in the New York City police department for shutting the program down.
	Mayor de Blasio himself endorsed it and was an enthusiastic supporter of the effort to shut the case down, I should say, the investigation.
	And they called it the whole approach that the NYPD discredited junk-based theory on how individuals transform into terrorists.
	And they were also required to purge all of the anti-terrorism material that Muslim advocate groups deemed offensive to Muslims.
	So they built it right on top of what had been going on inside the federal government.
	And they went against the largest law enforcement organization in the country.
	And perhaps the best one, the New York Department of Police.
	Police.
	New York Police Department.
	NYPD, right?
	I got it.
	It's a sequence of events.
	It started inside the federal government and worked its way right through the entire country.
	You founded the Department of Homeland Security, and you have told us on this program before that you were directly ordered to destroy all of the intelligence that you had gathered over how many years?
	I was.
	I was ordered to destroy it, and then other people within the structure of the Department of Homeland Security took it out as well.
	That was related to the San Bernardino shootings, which has been proven several times over now.
	Are there backups to all of the intelligence that you had gathered?
	Congress has it.
	Unbelievable, but they haven't restored it as far as you know.
	As far as I know, no.
	The closest effort that we've come to a public arena discussion of this subject was Senator Cruz's willful blindness hearings that Chris Galbits and I both testified at in June of 2016.
	If you want to go back and look, you can see what we said a year and a half ago, what we said in public to Congress.
	So, something's going to happen, and then I'm going to interview you, and we're going to play interviews I've done with you, and we're going to say, oh, we knew this had happened.
	We knew we could restore all this, and we're going to find out that some of the intelligence probably you had gathered years prior will have ended up saving lives.
	Let me bring Chris Gobbitson here.
	Chris, your reaction to all this and your thoughts on it.
	Well, first of all, thanks for having me on, Sean, and it's good to talk to you again, Phil, as well.
	Yeah, the thing that really strikes me about this attack is the aftermath of this attack really displays, from a national security perspective, our catastrophic failure to address the root cause of this issue.
	And I will just point to the statements that Deputy Commissioner for the NYPD's counterterrorism division, John Miller, made after these attacks in Manhattan, where he stated that this problem is not about Islam and it's not about the mosque.
	And that is just factually untrue.
	All of the jihadis that are fighting across the planet right now, whether it's the Taliban, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, which CARE is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, they are all telling us universally that their Muslims wage in jihad to establish an Islamic State under Sharia.
	Sharia is the enemy threat doctrine.
	Sharia is taught at mosques all over the country.
	And this jihadi was simply practicing Islamic law.
	Everything that he did was perfectly lawful.
	And yet, if CARE or the Muslim Brotherhood were to write a response statement, what John Miller said is exactly what they would have written for him, that this problem has nothing to do with Islam, and it has nothing to do with the mosque.
	And since 9-11, that has been the direction of the entire national security apparatus.
	You know, the fact is that almost after every attack, we learn, oh, that these guys were all telegraphing what their plans are.
	We're beginning to see the same thing happening here.
	And then one has to ask, why is anybody surprised considering in many ways what you're both saying is America, in many, many ways, out of political correctness, has surrendered in its battle, its intelligence fight against the sworn enemy that wants to destroy us.
	Is that a fair statement, Philip Henry?
	That is a fair statement.
	Yes, we're talking about sovereignty here, friend.
	What's the real threat we're looking at?
	An effort to undermine the sovereignty, the right of the American people to live under a constitutional form of government.
	Islam insists that Sharia is superior to all man-made forms of law.
	This is more fundamental than even terrorism.
	This is a threat to our sovereignty.
	Speaking of motive, we keep hearing that they don't know what the motive is.
	The original al-Qaeda was founded by five individuals, including Osama bin Laden, and it had 12 affiliated groups that were part of it.
	And one of the groups was the jihadi group of Uzbekistan.
	The failure to recognize that an individual like Saifulo could have been influenced by jihadist ideology back in his home country is a massive failure to recognize the facts that are right in front of us.
	Of course he was influenced.
	Uzbekistan is part of the original al-Qaeda.
	You know, Chris Matthews said the other night, why would somebody from Uzbekistan want to be a part of terror?
	I just sit there and I go, you guys have no clue that this is a worldwide threat against every man, woman, and children, and it's a convert or die ideology, and it is now spreading like a cancer.
	Chris, I'll ask you, then I'll ask Philip, knowing what you know, knowing what we're doing or not doing, knowing that they have surrendered in many ways in terms of fighting this battle on the intelligence front and doing things that would be otherwise smart and prudent to do, I've got to imagine it's pretty frustrating to you.
	Oh, it's incredibly frustrating.
	You know, at understanding the threat, we have a three-day training program for law enforcement where we outline for law enforcement the enemy's threat doctrine in this war, which is Sharia.
	We lay out the jihadi network for them here in the United States, and then we give them tools to investigate and prosecute jihadis.
	And we get pressure from leftist groups, and we get pressure from Muslim Brotherhood groups like Click Care to they pressure the law enforcement and the venues to shut that training down because they know once law enforcement hears this training, that when they see statements made by someone like John Miller saying this has nothing to do with Islam and it has nothing to do with the mosque, they know that that is factually untrue and they're able to defend that position.
	And it also really gives them the tools that they need to investigate and prosecute these jihadis in their communities.
	The war for our enemy in this here in the United States domestically is to keep us from talking about this issue.
	That's why you see the slander of Islamophobia thrown at anybody that speaks truthfully and factually about this threat.
	It really is true, by the way.
	I mean, if you say anything that is deemed politically incorrect, you're a target of attacks, even though you're talking about those that are radicalized, those that would use a religion as a means of killing innocent people.
	That's what we're talking about.
	That's what we do talk about.
	Yes, they know that if they can shut that discussion down, Sean, that we can't defeat an enemy that we refuse to recognize.
	It's unbelievable to me.
	Philip Payney, I mean, I've known you.
	I hear the frustration in your voice.
	I know you.
	Well, you know, I've talked to you several times in the past about what I call indicators.
	And you know how I approach media stories.
	I dissect them and I look for particular indicators within stories.
	And one of the ones that really struck me or stood out was a statement that he was an admirer of al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.
	And that's supposed to be a dismissive statement like, well, that guy's just some fringe guy that hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam.
	But here's the ominous point, friend.
	Al-Baghdadi was born in Iraq.
	When he was seven years old, he began to read the writings of Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
	He grew up and became a PhD in fiqh, that is the law of Sharia, and naturally found himself in the leadership position.
	ISIS is Muslim Brotherhood.
	Al-Qaeda is founded on the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is exactly the reason why, Sean, we need to refocus our attention on designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, because they are actually the father of all of Islam.
	Do you remember when I was making a big deal about Muhammad Morsi?
	And he was a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
	And remember, he had made the statement that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs.
	And remember, he got the support.
	He got, you know, F-16s.
	He got billions of dollars from Obama and the administration.
	And I was saying, this is a really, really dumb idea.
	You're supporting somebody with the most radical beliefs.
	And here's his history.
	And they didn't want to pay any attention to the likes of me or anybody else.
	And they supported the guy anyway.
	They were already committed in the foreign policy arena.
	They backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.
	That's what Benghazi is all about.
	We've been finding more about that lately, too, through the Defense Intelligence Agency's declassified documents.
	But the Muslim Brotherhood morphed into ISIS.
	You know, I literally could talk to you guys all day long.
	I hope people are listening because one day I'm going to remind you sadly, I hope to God I'm wrong, but I think I'm going to be reminding you of these conversations that we've been having with Philip Haney and Chris Gobbitson.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	800-941 Sean is on number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	Hillary Clinton admitting, yeah, there was a Russian dossier sheet paper and the fix was in for Bernie Sanders, corruption at an unbelievable level.
	And that means Trump was right.
	We also have massive Uranium One news today.
	That's all coming up tonight.
	Nine Eastern Hannity, Greg Jarrett, Victoria Tunsing, Sarah Carter, John Solomon, Peter Schweitzer, Sebastian Gorka, and Imam Ilahi.
	Nine Eastern Hannity Fox.
	See you tonight, back here tomorrow.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲