Sean Hannity Show - How Far Will Hannity Go? - 11.28

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 29, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:33:46

How Far Will Hannity Go? - 11.28

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.
	So like many of you, I have trouble sleeping.
	I have insomnia.
	No matter what I tried, it wouldn't work until I met Mike Lindell and I got my very own MyPillow.
	It has changed my life.
	What makes MyPillow so different is MyPillow's patented adjustable fill.
	In other words, you can adjust the patented fill to your exact individual needs so you get the support you need and want to help you get to sleep faster and stay asleep longer.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 1-800-919-6090.
	Remember, use the promo code Hannity.
	When you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best offer ever.
	Buy one pillow and get another one absolutely free.
	MyPillow, made in the USA, 10-year unconditional warranty, and it has a 60-day, no-questions-asked money-back guarantee.
	You have nothing to lose.
	So it's time for you to start getting the quality of sleep that you've been wanting and we need.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Promo code Hannity.
	Take advantage of Mike's special two-for-one offer, mypillow.com.
	Promo code Hannity.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Sean Hannity Show.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
	All right, this just breaking as we speak.
	We also, I'm just told that the president may actually speak soon at the White House after the GOP tax meeting.
	And people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi decided, well, it's not in their best interest to show up.
	They don't have time for that.
	So they went for the divide and conquer strategy of say, well, we'll talk to McConnell.
	We'll talk to Paul Ryan, but we're not talking to this president.
	Anyway, the headline on Drudge as we speak is North Korea fires a ballistic missile landing off the Japan coast.
	It's now getting to the point that I hoped it never would get to.
	It's now that it is now inevitable what's going to happen.
	This guy won't stop, Kim Jong-un.
	And Kim Jong-un is going to precipitate a major crisis.
	And I'm guessing the crisis is going to result in the U.S. either taking those missiles off the pad or taking them out of the sky as soon as they're fired.
	Now, them firing Rocketman can fire all the ballistic missiles he wants and ramp up his nuclear program anytime he wants, but at some point, the world is going to have to stop it.
	And it's not a good option.
	And this goes back to Bill Clinton and the thought that bribery of Kim Jong-un's father, Kim Jong-ul, ill, is going to somehow work.
	Oh, we'll give them, we'll give them energy and billions of taxpayer dollars.
	And we're just, I'm just asking that you be a good person.
	I'm going to give you money.
	You be good.
	This is a good deal for the American people.
	No, it was never a good deal for the American people because now they have not only the nuclear weapons, but they are building the ballistic missile program and will soon have ICBM capability.
	And what does ICBM capability mean?
	That means the missiles, the nuclear missiles, can make it to the continental United States.
	And when it makes it to Boston or New York or the West Coast of the United States, and if, in fact, listen, I want more than one shot at taking that sucker out of the sky.
	Because if God forbid it fails, we're going to see a death toll the likes of which we haven't seen probably in world history.
	That's a little extreme.
	Really?
	Well, let's say he does launch a missile.
	And let's say we do have to take out all his missile sites.
	And let's say that in the process of taking out those missile sites, he has another missile site that's hidden.
	Or he has a missile inside of a submarine, you know, or some type of nuclear submarine that is out there that he fires.
	And maybe it's South Korea, or maybe it hits Japan, or maybe he wants to go all out and go after China.
	Well, what happens with the nuclear fallout when we take out the nuclear sites?
	What's going to happen to people then?
	What's going to happen when the bombardment of Seoul and South Korea begins?
	And then what's going to happen when we really have no option and no choice but to use the biggest, most powerful weapons we have to take out those sites?
	What's going to happen then?
	There's no good scenario.
	There's no good answer.
	The mistake was made during the Clinton years and Obama years.
	We did nothing to stop this man and this country.
	And it's this false belief that so many have.
	You know, history books are written.
	And the history of Neville Chamberlain and his belief that after the meeting in Munich with Adolf Hitler that we can have peace in our time did not turn out to be true.
	And we know what happened as a result.
	This naivete, if you will, this false hope that some people have, this willingness to appease and kiss the ass of dictators.
	You know, the same thing is with the Iranian deal.
	You don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure out that, you know, $150 billion in cash given to radical Islamic mullahs in Iran is going to one day end up very badly for the world.
	You know, why do you think there's this unprecedented alliance that has now emerged in the Middle East between the Saudis and the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Israelis?
	What do you think that's all about in the Emirates?
	It's simple.
	They don't want Iranian hegemony in the region and they recognize that the Iranians are capable of anything.
	You know, look at what over the weekend, we didn't talk about it a lot, but you saw the mosque where over 300 people were slaughtered in Egypt over the weekend.
	I was pretty impressed with General Al-Sisi, the president of Egypt's response to what was, we believe, an ISIS attack.
	That's Muslims killing Muslims in that particular case.
	And you have the varying Sunni-Shia rivalries that have gone on for generations and generations.
	It's a very, very precarious situation.
	Anyway, this missile that they fired flew 600 miles.
	South Korea, they took military stages and they are exercising a precision strike exercise.
	North Korea may announce the completion of a nuclear force next year.
	And we got Hawaiians, our fellow citizens out there in Hawaii, scared to death, and they're doing drills because of the short period of time it would take to fly a missile into Hawaii or into Guam.
	And what is Japan supposed to do here but arm up?
	We don't have any choice here because you're talking about radical ideologies married to nuclear weapons.
	It's a worst case scenario.
	I don't think mutually assured destruction even factors in a case like this, which worked during the Cold War.
	Because I don't think Kim Jong-un gives a rip about dying.
	Anyway, so they launched this new ballistic missile.
	It flies for 50 minutes before it splashes down in Japanese waters.
	Now, if I'm Japan today, what am I thinking?
	They're firing missiles over my country, off the coast of my country.
	These are hostile acts.
	Anyway, the South Korean military responded with a missile exercise, but that's not going to do a whole lot.
	And, you know, here it is, no matter how many warnings, it just keeps happening.
	Guam's Homeland Security confirmed the missile launch.
	They said it didn't pose a threat.
	That's U.S. island territory.
	Then you have the, excuse me, the Japanese broadcast, you know, actually went out there, believed it landed in Japan's exclusive economic zone.
	The press secretary for the president, President Trump, said the president was briefed while the missile was still in the air on the situation.
	It's the first missile launched since one was fired across Japan into the Pacific Ocean on September the 15th.
	Remember when the president went over to Japan and China, you know, everybody was concerned what would happen then.
	Anyway, so North Korea may announce their completion of a nuclear task force next year.
	Great.
	Unbelievable.
	And Hawaii is to resume Cold War-era missile, I'm sorry, nuclear siren tests because of North Korea.
	Pretty unbelievable.
	Everybody is writing me about this New York Times magazine picture.
	By the way, you asked the author if he wants to come on, Matt?
	What did he say?
	He said no?
	No, he said he was honored, and he said it was only fair that he come on your turf since you were so willing to come on his for so long.
	So when's he coming on?
	And he's clearing it through his superiors.
	Oh, he's got to get permission to come on.
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, so that means he's not coming on.
	I mean, he seems very open to it.
	Did he pick the picture?
	I doubt it.
	Yeah, they have photo editors that do that.
	All right, here's the thing.
	Look, my staff is upset about it.
	People at Fox are upset about it.
	Not me.
	I think it's beautiful.
	You do not think that picture is.
	Absolutely stunning.
	You like it because that's.
	I think shocking is a better word.
	You could use it for your Christmas card.
	Yeah, send it out.
	Merry Christmas!
	Have a great new year!
	But Matt Drudge put up the Mediaite article written by Colby that actually goes into, you know, the New York Times goes for anger.
	And that's exactly what they did.
	And I think he captured everything perfectly because that's exactly what they're trying to do here.
	Anytime the liberal media talks about or portrays a conservative, they want the image of conservatives being angry to be emphasized.
	That's what they want.
	They're not interested, you know, and in some ways it's biographical.
	In other ways, you know, a lot of what's in there was written about me before.
	Is it what I wanted?
	No.
	But this is so predictable because the New York Times, the headline on Mediaite is by Kobe Hall, New York Times angry Hannity photo select confirms host belief of a liberal bias.
	And it was interesting because I actually, when the photo shoot was happening, I said to the photographer, apparently world-renowned, he had recently done a photo for the same magazine, New York Times Sunday Magazine, of who was it?
	Serena Williams showed me the photo.
	I'm like, it's absolutely stunning.
	She looked amazing in that photo.
	It would be like a dream.
	And I'm like, do I get the same treatment?
	And then I said, listen, this is not my first rodeo.
	I'll show this on TV tonight.
	I have a copy of a 1990 article that was written by the Huntsville Times about talk radio.
	And the guy let him in the studio for three hours.
	And he picked the worst picture imaginable.
	I mean, a picture can say as much, if not more, than whatever is written or whatever the interview is about.
	And that picture, what does the picture portray?
	An angry conservative.
	And what's the headline?
	It's how far will Sean Hannity go?
	What does that mean?
	Does it mean how far I'm going to go in my career?
	Does it mean how far I'll go in terms of they think I'm outrageous?
	Does it mean how far will Hannity go before he falls?
	You know, what is the point here?
	And I have my friends.
	God bless my friends.
	I just, they're like, oh, you okay?
	Yeah, I saw the pictures.
	Everything all right?
	You okay?
	And I'm like, yeah, this is like a day at the office.
	That's not even the worst of anything that we have.
	What'd you think of it?
	You can tell me.
	Picture?
	Yeah.
	I thought it was stunning.
	You're lying through your teeth.
	You know, stunning has a lot of definitions.
	Okay.
	You mean stunning in as much as it's like you didn't even think the New York Times would be that blatant?
	I mean, well, that's no.
	No.
	No.
	So you, I personally expected it.
	I talked about it during the shoot.
	I think it's kind of funny, quite frankly.
	I think it's funny.
	I think the three roll pictures are funny.
	I think it's, yeah, I think it's exactly what I expected.
	And the article itself, what'd you think about that?
	I thought it was a tightrope walk between the truth.
	It was carefully worded.
	So as to not make me look too good.
	Yeah, I think.
	Don't make Hannity out to the path.
	Well, listen, I think that's a fine line, you know?
	It's a fine line.
	They have to please their readers, which is solid left, which is solid left.
	However, they realize that having your face on the cover is going to get a new spectrum of readers.
	So there has to be some.
	But it's also, and this is what media now wants.
	That is what we call clickbait.
	They'll put that photo up and people are going to click on it to say, well, whoa, holy moly, who's that idiot?
	I don't think that's what anybody said, but okay.
	What do you think they said?
	I think they all wrote, either people were like, oh, there's that Hannity again.
	There's Hannity.
	We can't get rid of him.
	Or there are people like, is that Sean Hannity?
	Oh, he looks so mad.
	He looks so pissed off.
	You want to know the truth?
	I gave them that picture because I knew that's what.
	So they're like, if they shoot you, it's like a thousand photos in a half hour.
	And the photographer was nice.
	And I actually said to them, you're going to pick the worst one.
	I think they should have done an article on the fact that you let them take pictures.
	Yeah.
	It would have been much more scintillating.
	All right, 800-941 Sean, if you want.
	So is this guy coming on today or is permission being granted by mommy and daddy editors over there?
	I'm not my pay grade, my friends.
	I'll keep you posted.
	Hey, you know what?
	It sounds too good to be true.
	There's a good chance, guys, out there, when Tommy John says their underwear never rides up.
	Well, you can take that to the bank.
	Now, Tommy John is state of the art in terms of they have redefined comfort for men everywhere, including myself.
	Every pair of Tommy John's is crafted from feather-light, breathable fabrics that move with you, not against you, providing the perfect balance of support and, of course, mind-blowing comfort.
	Now, these guys have thought of everything when it comes to giving all men the comfort they deserve, they want, and they need.
	Plus, all their underwear is backed by the best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free.
	Guarantee, you've got nothing to lose.
	So, change out of that unsightly, ill-fitting, multi-pack underwear yet, Tommy John's.
	It's worth it.
	No adjustment needed.
	Experience the comfort you never knew existed.
	Just go to tommyjohn.com/slash Hannity.
	You get 20% off your first order.
	That's tommyjohn.com/slash Hannity, 20% off.
	TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity.
	You will never regret it.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show.
	What, what, what, what, what?
	Why are you in my ear?
	What?
	No, you have to say it on the air.
	Well, you were just talking to me that you wanted to put up a poll, and I just wanted the specification.
	If whether or not they did it on purpose, I was going to do something more generic: like, did people like the photo?
	What did you think?
	Yeah, no, put the picture up and then put the picture when I was little and young and cute and in my heart.
	Hey, which one's better?
	Yeah, which maybe a vote.
	No, I think the question is: did the New York Times do this on purpose?
	Because that's how they want to portray conservatives.
	I think that's what the question is.
	I think Colby over at Media got it right.
	That's the right question.
	And does it reinforce every belief that every conservative has is that the left-wing media in this country wants to make us look bad?
	And this is what Donald Trump has to deal with every hour of every day.
	By the way, the president is about to speak any moment now.
	This is not a scheduled speech on his part.
	Anyway, the president is meeting with GOP leaders.
	That happened earlier today, but the Democrats wouldn't show up.
	That, of course, obviously, there's a big talk about a government shutdown again.
	And the president once said, Yeah, we need a good government shutdown.
	And Chuck Schumer's like having a fit.
	By the way, the government never shuts down.
	I tried to say this when Obama was president.
	The government will never shut down.
	You're not going to have your Social Security check not handed to you.
	You know, basic, yeah, there might be a layoff of people, but those people in Washington are glad to get the days off.
	They'll be happy.
	Imagine if you don't have to come to work for a week or two over a government shutdown, but they're trying to pressure the president to literally go along with every liberal plan from DACA on down.
	Otherwise, it's going to be a government shutdown.
	Now, the people that fear a government shutdown all the time are the Republicans.
	They're so scared of their own shadow.
	They're going to get blamed for this.
	So I'm talking to Charlie Daniels Jr., very important.
	He says that the picture reminds you, reminds him of the green Hulk.
	I thought that's going to know that.
	The Green Hulk?
	It looks pretty menacing.
	Maybe if we put a little green on it, I'm sure people on Twitter, it's amazing how those people can do whatever they do to the pictures on.
	Photoshop.
	Is that what that's called?
	That's what it's called.
	Older generation.
	This friend sends me texts and they like lasers come firing out with the text.
	Can you do that?
	You got to teach me how to do that.
	I'll show you.
	All right, we'll continue.
	Straight ahead.
	All right, as we roll along, we expect any minute the president is going to speak.
	He had a White House lunch earlier today, and, well, there's the president, I guess, from earlier in Capitol Hill, meeting with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republicans.
	Obviously, the push is on now to get this tax bill through.
	We'll have Mike Huckabee's going to check in with us today.
	Freedom Caucus Chairman.
	We'll check in with Congressman Mark Meadows on the program.
	There's a great investigative report by our friend Catherine Herridge over at the Fox News channel.
	And we'll tell you what that's all about.
	It's some breaking news there.
	But look, what it really comes down to with this tax bill is simple.
	You've got maybe eight senators now that are being identified as potential people that could kill this deal.
	And you got Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said he'd vote against the plan as it was currently configured.
	Now there's making some changes, obviously, because they're trying to get the votes in this particular case.
	I just don't know how the Senate can justify their existence if they can't get this bill through, considering the disaster that was the Obamacare repeal and replace.
	Anyway, as of this morning, Johnson was still a no.
	And as of now, he's in the same place he was, and they haven't gotten there.
	Johnson was the first person to say he'd vote against the plan, and his concerns have surrounded the tax rate for business entities that pass through their earnings to individuals on the individual side, a concern repeated to reporters on Capitol Hill.
	Johnson sits on the Senate Budget Committee where Republicans hold just a one-vote majority.
	And that committee is expected to, I guess, vote this plan out earlier later today.
	Without his vote, all the Democrats opposed the bill can't advance out of committee.
	I assume that's going to happen.
	As of today, Bob Corker wouldn't say if he's going to vote for the GOP tax plan.
	What does Bob Corker care?
	Bob Corker's on his way out.
	Does Bob Corker care about the colleagues he's leaving behind and the massive political implications that it will cause those people that stay behind?
	We're going to find out what Corker does.
	And he sits on the budget committee, and he said there's more work to do.
	And he said that he's working in good faith.
	You know, I've got to wonder in some cases here if the hatred that some Republicans have for the president isn't greater than the promises in terms of a pull.
	And rather, in their minds, would be serving up a loss for the president.
	I wonder if that pull is greater than the pull to just do what's right for the American people.
	We're expecting the president any minute when that happens.
	Steve Dane, senator of Montana, as of yesterday, said he's not able to support the measure in its current form.
	He's citing concerns about the pass-through business income tax.
	And he said at a recent meeting with the Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, that he feels optimistic that they'll get to a solution, but they're not there yet.
	And then, of course, you got Senator John McCain.
	Just got to love John McCain.
	He applauded the Senate Finance Committee for passing the bill through regular order before Thanksgiving.
	He won't say how he's going to vote on the bill.
	And you just never know what McCain, because he so hates Donald Trump.
	Who knows what he's capable of.
	Then you got Senator Lankford of Oklahoma said the Senate bill needs to include a backup plan to pay for it in case the economic growth projections don't materialize.
	Well, I mean, what does that mean?
	Backup taxes?
	You know, oh, if we don't reach this rate, we're going to raise your taxes automatically so we don't have to vote on it.
	What does that mean?
	Anyway, he says he's concerned about the income tax on the federal debt, which I agree with him on.
	The whole idea of getting a hold of the debt would be the penny plan, but nobody wants to talk about those ideas because the Republican Party, you know, just like during the whole health care debate, didn't they forgot all about health care savings accounts because nobody except me and Rand Paul made the arguments for that.
	And Ted Cruz, in fairness to him, and the Freedom Caucus in fairness to it was just a small group of us.
	So this is something Republicans have talked about for, what, 15 years?
	Health savings accounts?
	Now, it wasn't even mentioned during that discussion and debate on health care.
	You know, poor Josh Humber, the doctor from Wichita, Kansas, that I dragged on this program day in and day out.
	We don't pay him to be a guest.
	And he designed a cooperative that's been duplicated hundreds of times around the country, and people are paying 50 bucks a month for concierge care at their local doctor with access 24-7, 365 with a 95% reduction in prescription drug costs, all included in the plan, 50 bucks a month.
	And he's been to Capitol Hill at my behest half the time.
	Or these guys hear him on my show and they say, oh, that's a good idea.
	Then they bring him in and they do nothing.
	Sort of like the Grace Commission when Ronald Reagan was president.
	Ronald Reagan brought the best, smartest, brightest minds in business called the Grace Commission, named after William Grace.
	And their job was to offer ideas on how to run the government more like a business.
	How many of their suggestions did Washington take?
	Zero.
	Not one.
	That's how brilliant they are.
	Then, of course, we got good old Susan Collins of Maine.
	And, you know, she said that she may not be as dug in against the bill as some of her statements have suggested.
	One GOP aide said, oh, I'd take her at her word.
	I don't think she gives a flying rip about how this might impact the people that are going to benefit from this bill.
	It's not going to be, I can tell you right now, this bill hurts me.
	What do you mean, Hannity?
	Why does it hurt you?
	Even if the top marginal rate goes down, because I live in New York, if you live in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, and you pay these confiscatory state and local income taxes, what do we pay in the city of New York?
	3%?
	10% is New York, 9.9%, top marginal.
	That's state income tax in New York, you pay 10%.
	In California, you pay 13.5%.
	So the 13.5% in California, the 10% in New York is on top of the 40% you pay nationally.
	Now, you do have an advantage that, frankly, if I'm from Florida and Texas and I elect conservative governors that balance their budgets and live within their means and don't, they have no federal income, no state income tax in those states.
	Well, the people in New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, that keep putting into office these politicians that just spend and spend and they're corrupt bureaucracies everywhere from Sacramento to Albany to Trenton and in between, well, then you know who's really subsidizing it.
	The states that don't benefit from that deduction of state and local taxes, well, those are the people in Florida and those are the people in Texas.
	And why should they be punished and in part subsidizing a kickback to those people that live in high-tax states that were stupid enough to elect big-spending liberal Democrats in the city of New York?
	That's on top of, all right, so it's 3.5 to 3.8%.
	So in New York, for example, the top marginal rate federally is 40%.
	The state income tax is 10%.
	Then it's 3.8%.
	That's 40%, 53.8%.
	That's my income tax bill when you add federal, state, and local income taxes because I live in the stupid state of New York.
	So the top rate is, what, 9.9%.
	And then you've got New York City income tax that goes up to 3.8%.
	That's another 4%.
	Then you got sales tax that goes up to 9%.
	Property tax is insane.
	In the state of New York, you've got a 45 cent per gallon gas tax, a little more if you buy diesel.
	And I live in the second highest property tax county in the country.
	And you know what I get for it?
	I get a road that they've been trying to fix for three years.
	When did Hurricane Sandy come?
	Well, how long ago was that?
	What, 2011?
	2012?
	Okay.
	Guess what?
	They're still fixing the road.
	Listen, the only good thing that's come out of that one road, and what they did is it had a, I guess one of the retaining walls broke.
	So instead of just fixing that, they decided, all right, we're going to fund the whole thing.
	The only good news, and they have now done it in stages.
	So you go through six months, you have no road.
	There's only one road out.
	And to go the back way, all right, it's 2012.
	All right, just, yeah, it was just before the election with Mitt Romney.
	And, of course, we had the Chris Christie Obama hug.
	He swears it's not a hug.
	It was a hug.
	And anyway, so they've been fixing this road for over four years.
	Over four years.
	And that means 20 extra minutes each way.
	I actually one time called the town, whatever he is, manager, supervisor, executive, or whoever he is, and I said, can you do me a favor?
	Stop fixing my road.
	Just stop.
	I said, I don't want the, I don't care if I ride on pebbles and deep dirt.
	I don't care if it's a red dirt road.
	I'd rather ride on that.
	It's a great Brooks and Dunn song, by the way, if you haven't heard of Red Dirt Road.
	So good that pull it up there, Jason.
	I'll play a little bit of it.
	It's where I drank my first beer, where I met Jesus, and I wrecked my first car, and I tore it all to pieces.
	I learned the road to heaven.
	Is that in the song?
	The sinners and believers.
	That's in the song.
	You never heard Red Dirt Road?
	No.
	So I'm asking for a red dirt road.
	I'm the only person I'm sure that ever called and said, don't fix the road.
	I don't care about fixing the road.
	Don't fix it.
	The only good thing is because I don't follow the rules and they have the cones up and you're not supposed to go through the road.
	I've had my alignment on my car done literally seven separate times.
	And I have to get the car detailed like once a week.
	Hang on, we'll get to that in a second.
	You know, but think about this.
	The alignment, because it's all holes.
	And the great thing is I got to know all the workers.
	And they're like, oh, hey, it's Hannity again, breaking the rules.
	And I just say, listen, guys, can I buy you lunch?
	I'm in a rush, please, please.
	And they're like, yeah, the deal.
	So I just, but they're great guys.
	That's the one thing I can tell you.
	The guys that are doing the work are great people.
	And I got to know them, and they're really nice.
	I think one day my son was going through, and I said, really?
	Well, your dad at least buys us lunch once in a while.
	It was funny.
	But they work hard.
	But it's the longest project in the history of projects.
	I'd prefer the red dirt road.
	All right, so I'm sitting here really wasting time because we've been told any minute now, one minute warning, the president's going to speak.
	One minute.
	Is that before or after you do your Friday sermon, a la Daryl Scott?
	What do you mean?
	Oh, when I went to do the preaching at Daryl Scott's Charleston.
	So that song's all about finding Jesus and sinners and believers, which, quite frankly, if you believe in sin, then you are a believer.
	I believe in sin.
	You would love the song, I believe.
	It's a great, great song by them.
	Now, they got really fun songs and, you know, rock and tunes.
	And Ronnie Dunn has an amazing.
	Ronnie Dunn has an amazing set of pipes, just like the guys at Rascal Flats.
	You know, Jason was a country music DJ.
	Were you?
	How many years?
	Oh, goodness.
	I think it was like three or four.
	Did you like it?
	Yeah, well, you know, it was my first real radio job.
	I figured, you know, you can't go into it saying you just hate the music, and I learned to like it.
	It is good, right?
	Yeah.
	Now you're stuck with me.
	What?
	I'd rather listen to Boot Scooting Boogie than listen to it.
	That's one of their songs.
	All right, so we have another missile fired.
	North Korea, we'll stay on that issue.
	We've got the president having met with Republican leadership about the tax bill.
	We'll get an update.
	The president speaking in the next half hour.
	Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, has more insight than anybody else up there in terms of what can actually get done.
	We'll check in with him.
	Also, an investigative report, Catherine Herridge, joins us.
	And we got a lot of your calls in straight ahead, 800-941-Sean.
	Poll-free telephone number.
	If you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
	All right, the President has gone into the Roosevelt room where the media is, and there with him is Paul Ryan and others.
	The headline, by the way, on MSN, Trump flanked by empty chairs.
	Okay, that's the headline.
	Now, here's what the president has to say about the meeting with Senate Republicans today and the North Korean missile that was fired earlier.
	They want it for a lot of other things, but the military is always secondary to them.
	The military, to me, is number one.
	We won't be here without our powerful military.
	We're building it up stronger, bigger, better than ever before, and General Mattis can testify to that.
	And the other thing, they want tax increases, and we want major tax decreases.
	So they decided not to show up.
	They've been all talk and they've been no action.
	And now it's even worse.
	Now it's not even talk.
	So they're not showing up for the meeting.
	I will say this: in light of the missile launch, probably they'll be here fairly quickly, or at least discussions will start taking place fairly quickly.
	I think that we're in a very good position in terms of the meeting we just had over at the Capitol with the Republican senators.
	It was outstanding.
	I think we have tremendous support.
	I was just informed by Mitch that we had a unanimous vote from the Republican side at least.
	We had a unanimous vote on the tax bill.
	And it goes now the next step.
	And I think we're going to get it passed.
	I think it's going to pass, and it's going to be very popular.
	It's going to have lots of adjustments before it ends.
	But the end result would be a very, very massive, the largest in the history of our country, tax cut.
	And lots of good things are going to happen, including the bringing back to our country of it probably will end up being over $4 trillion, money offshore that's stagnant, that companies are just not able to bring it back.
	So I think it's going to be a number over $4 trillion.
	Corporate will be able to compete now against the world.
	If you look at China, if you look at so many other countries, if you look at many of the countries, China's at 15%, they're lower than us.
	We're getting it down to a level that is either going to be lower or right in the ballpark so that we can compete much better with our companies, our great, great companies.
	And that means jobs and it means lots of other things.
	I'm very happy to see that the consumer confidence level is just about the highest it's ever been.
	In fact, I don't want to make any mistakes in front of the press because you'll get me on it, but to the best of my knowledge, it's the highest it's ever been.
	Consumer confidence has been setting records.
	They have confidence in the people leading their country.
	And I will say that I think it's going to go better and better.
	And I do believe that this vote on taxes, which are really tax cuts and reform, is going to be very, very important.
	So we had a good day today.
	We had a phenomenal meeting with the Republican senators.
	We had, it was very special, that meeting.
	In many respects, I wish you could have been inside that room.
	It was very, very special, the camaraderie.
	It was somewhat of a love fest.
	They want to see it happen.
	They want to see it happen not only for the Republican Party, I think much more importantly, they want to see it happen for the country because they know how important it is for us to compete and win.
	And with that, maybe we'll start with Paul Ryan to say a few words about where we stand with different things, and then I'll ask Mitch McConnell.
	Okay, I'll just briefly say I think it's regrettable that our Democratic colleagues and leadership chose not to join us today.
	For a bill to become a law, Congress has to pass a bill, and the president signs a bill.
	That means Congress and the White House always negotiate legislation.
	We have important work to do.
	We have big deadlines to meet.
	We have a military in need of our support, and that work needs to happen now.
	And I just think it's very regrettable that our Democratic colleagues and leadership chose to not participate because we have to negotiate these bills to get this work done for the people we represent, and especially to help our military with these difficult situations we have.
	And I just hope that our friends in leadership on the other side of the aisle will choose to participate so we can get people's work done.
	Thank you.
	Mr. President, I'll just add: I've been in this position under a couple of previous presidents.
	I can't recall ever turning down an opportunity to go down to the White House.
	As the Speaker mentioned, only one person in America can sign a bill into law, and that's the President of the United States.
	You cannot negotiate the year-end, the omnibus spending bill without the person who signed the bill in the room.
	So I think the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate need to understand the way the government works.
	And the administration has to be a part of the ultimate negotiation over what the spending level is going to be for the next year.
	Well, we are very far apart because our views on crime and our views on immigration and the military, so many are different.
	But a lot of things have happened even over the last two hours with respect to the missile launch.
	We want our military funded and we want it funded now.
	It's going to be bigger, better, stronger it already is than ever before.
	But we want to get going on that now.
	So that is the difference in all fairness from this morning when I told them that we're way, way far away.
	And with that, I may just have General Mattis say just a couple of words about what he has found out.
	General, do you want to say just a couple of little pieces of information?
	The President, Senator, Speaker, a little over two and a half hours ago, North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile.
	It went higher, frankly, than any previous shot they've taken.
	It's a research and development effort on their part to continue building ballistic missiles that could threaten everywhere in the world, basically.
	And in response, the South Koreans have fired some pinpoint missiles out into the water to make certain North Korea understands that they could be taken under fire by our ally.
	But the bottom line is it's a continued effort to build a threat, serve a ballistic missile threat that endangers world peace, regional peace, and certainly the United States.
	Thank you, General.
	And we will take care of that situation.
	Thank you all very much.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	Mr. President, the challenge anyway, you're going to have to go to the next step.
	All right.
	So let me reiterate: that was the President talking about a good meeting on the tax bill with the Republicans.
	Of course, Democrats didn't even bother to show up, the do-nothing Democrats, and they're just out complaining, of course, about everything.
	The more serious issue and pressing issue, I think, at the moment is the fact that North Korea launched this ICBM.
	It flew in the air for 50 minutes.
	on the president's taking a few questions pouring into the country no border wall which everybody wants i got elected partially because of a border wall uh you look at the military we want strong funding for the military they don't So many things.
	As an example, they want high taxes.
	We want cut taxes.
	We're going to cut taxes.
	We're going to reform.
	We're going to simplify.
	They want high taxes.
	We want low taxes.
	So there's a lot of big differences.
	So we'll see what happens as to shutdown.
	We'll see.
	But right now, things have changed over the last two hours because two hours ago a missile was launched.
	I think that will have a huge effect on Schumer and Pelosi.
	I think.
	We'll see.
	We're going to learn very soon.
	They should be calling immediately and say, we want to see you, but probably they won't because nothing to them is important other than raising taxes.
	That's the only thing they like doing is raising taxes.
	Thank you all very much.
	Appreciate it.
	Are the North Koreans thumbing their nose at you after you're very much everybody?
	Thank you.
	Thank you, everyone.
	All right, you always wait till.
	All right, there was Mad Dog Mattis.
	General Mattis was in there, as was McConnell and Paul Ryan.
	And the meeting went well.
	And of course, the Democrats, well, he's right.
	All they want to do is raise taxes, and they're putting out insane demands.
	I think the bigger issue right now is this North Korean flight, this North Korean missile launch just off the sea of just outside the coastal areas of Japan.
	That is a flight record for them.
	It is an intercontinental continental ballistic missile, and it flew for 50 minutes.
	South Korea did make targeted strikes back.
	This was about 600 miles this missile flew.
	And that's saying that we're now getting to the point as, as General Mattis said, it can reach any place in the world.
	And North Korea now completing their nuclear force.
	And yes, the president's saying they will address soon.
	And it goes back to what I said at the start of the program here.
	There are no good options here.
	You know, the Japanese prime minister has now ordered an emergency meeting of their cabinet members following this launch.
	And a missile being launched from North Korea appears to have landed within Japan's exclusive economic zone.
	Now the question is: this is China's region of the world.
	President recently got back from China, apparently had a good relationship, has a good relationship with the president of China.
	So we'll be watching that.
	Here's an interesting story by Cokie Roberts.
	You know, she actually admitted that she's known for years that John Conyers could have been abusing female aides.
	Town Hall reports that Cokie Roberts, speaking in ABC's this week, confessed that every female in the press corps knew to avoid being in an elevator with John Conyers and apparently has known about this for years.
	She said, don't get in an elevator with him.
	You know, every female in the press corps knew that, right?
	Don't get in the elevator with him.
	Now people are saying it out loud.
	And I think that that does make a difference.
	Roberts said that while this has been the status quo for decades, she believes that things should change now.
	Okay.
	What does that mean?
	Don't get in an elevator with somebody.
	By the way, so a lot was made over the president.
	The fake news media, ginning up the one Trump scandal after another for the past 24 hours, breathlessly reporting the use of the term Pocahontas.
	And for Elizabeth Warren, who tried to pass herself off as a minority.
	Well, anyway, the president said, referred to her again as Pocahontas.
	In this meeting that he had yesterday, the media became apoplectic.
	Senator Warren took the cue, and of course she says, well, it's a code word.
	It's racist.
	Donald Trump is a racist.
	Well, one of the code talkers who the president was supposedly offending actually said the Pocahontas remark wasn't offending in the least.
	Anyway, Thomas Beggies broke his silence and literally said the Marines made us yell Geronimo when we jumped out of planes.
	That didn't offend me either.
	There is a new poll out by Change Research.
	I don't know who they are in Alabama that shows Roy Moore up by five, so we'll watch that.
	In other news we have today, now the GOP tax plan, according to the Wall Street Journal, and I know that there are those opposing it, they're now complaining, by the way, that it increases the national debt by $1.4 trillion over a 10-year period.
	But what the critics won't tell you is the CBO assumes a growth rate at an anemic 1.9%.
	That was the GDP under Obama.
	Under Trump, we're headed for 3-plus GDP growth.
	And if that holds for 10 years, that would more than cancel out the $1.4 trillion in additional debt.
	It's all how you do the math.
	And do you want economic growth?
	And the president also very clear in this press conference that he'll let the government shut down rather than flood the U.S. with illegal immigrants.
	And he said, meeting with Chuck and Nancy today about keeping government open and working, the problem is they wanted illegal immigrants flooding into our country unchecked.
	They're weak on crime, and they want to substantially raise taxes.
	I don't see a deal.
	I don't see the president giving in on that either.
	And the government never shuts down anyway.
	All right, 800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number, if you want to be a part of the program, we'll get your reaction to all this when we get back.
	All right, let's hit our busy phones here.
	All right.
	I know a lot of people are angry over this tax bill, and I want to deal with some of this.
	Let's say hi to Angela's in Virginia.
	What's up, Angela?
	How are you?
	Hi, Sean.
	How are you today?
	I'm good.
	What's going on?
	Okay.
	Well, I sit down and did some figuring on this new tax thing.
	And the best I can tell, my adjusTedros income goes up and not down.
	We're just, you know, middle class.
	Both my husband and I work.
	I'm not trying to be nosy.
	How do we define middle class?
	That's always a question you got to ask.
	I mean.
	Well, we make about $60,000.
	Maybe we're lower middle class for that matter.
	I don't know exactly where it falls, but I know Mr. Meadows is coming on soon.
	Well, in your case, you should absolutely be getting a tax cut.
	Why do you add that it's a tax increase?
	Explain it to me.
	Sean, they're getting rid of the exemptions, the dependent exemptions.
	You know, right now you can claim $4,050 a person.
	So they upped your standard deduction, which no longer we will, we will no longer be able to itemize since they're upping the standard deduction.
	But we lose our exemption, our dependent exemption.
	So our adjusTedros income will go up with this tax plan.
	My understanding, it was a net plus for people in your category.
	And that's after reading an awful lot about it because, you know, look, a lot of things are in play here.
	I can tell you in my case, for sure, my taxes go up, even though I might even end up with a lower rate based on the lack of deductions.
	Now, I got to imagine, what is the state income tax in the Commonwealth?
	Do you know?
	You know, off the top of my head, I don't know what it is.
	It's not high, though.
	It's not bad.
	It's maybe 2% or 3%.
	It's not like New York or California or something.
	Oh, no.
	No, it's not like that.
	Virginia is a great place to live.
	despite our leadership here.
	We love Virginia.
	Because a family that's, I don't know, that makes say 24, couples that make $24,000 a year, you're not going to pay any taxes on your first $24,000.
	So taxes you might pay would be after the fact, but you're saying that you're losing a specific deduction that kind of offsets that.
	Is that what you're telling me?
	Exactly.
	To me, it's just a sleight of hand.
	They raised the standard deduction, but they got rid of the $4,000.
	Let me know.
	Listen in tomorrow.
	I'm going to get a tax expert on, and we'll go over all of that.
	Particularly, I'll bring your case up.
	Personal blowback to me, to my family, to my office.
	I've heard people say this is overblown.
	I've heard people say this is much ado about nothing.
	Had the information been released, there would have been harm to national security.
	So putting lives at risk.
	Absolutely.
	Sources of methods, lives, operations.
	He read through these affidavits very thoroughly, and he said, this is extremely reckless.
	And he mentioned something about the campaign will have heartburn about that or something.
	All of a sudden, I became a shill of the right.
	I was told by members of Congress, be careful, you're losing your credibility.
	There are people out to get you.
	There was certainly a coordinated strategy.
	In fact, I not only think it, I think it very, very much so.
	Based on evidence.
	Yes.
	There was an effort on the, certainly on the part of the campaign, to mislead people into thinking there was nothing to see here.
	Frankly, the thing that disappointed me the most was the president saying there's classified and then there's classified.
	A lot of people in the Intel community spend a lot of time keeping secrets secret.
	And to sort of inject that sense of confusion into people, I don't think was altogether responsible.
	I was told that we would be the first two to be fired with her administration.
	That was definitely going to happen.
	Is that how it's supposed to be?
	Certainly wasn't that.
	No, I was, in this context, a whistleblower.
	I was explaining to Congress, I was doing exactly what they had expected me to do, and all of a sudden I was the enemy.
	Former I.G. McCullough is accusing you of retaliating against him.
	What's your response to that?
	Former I.G. Charles McCullough is accusing you of retaliating against him, but in regards to the Clinton email investigation, what's your response to that?
	I have no idea what he's talking about.
	Did you try to get him to resign from his position in regards to the investigation?
	No.
	Not at all?
	Not that I know of.
	Did you co-sign a letter to do so?
	I don't remember.
	All right.
	That was Kerry Pickett asking that question of Diane Feinstein.
	So what you have is an Obama-appointed inspector general saying he was marginalized and threatened when he raised the alarm about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a private email server.
	Charles McCullough, who oversaw the intelligence community, said that he contacted then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about this specific issue.
	And McCullough was told, later told, not to report his concerns to Clapper and received personal blowback to his family and his office and emails beyond top secret passed through that unsecured server.
	Anyway, Catherine Herridge of the Fox News Channel is the one that broke this story wide open and she joins us now.
	Catherine, how are you?
	Thanks very much for having me.
	Okay, let's start at the beginning here.
	You got a government watchdog playing a role in the email investigation during the Obama era that his family and staff faced intense backlash.
	Tell us the whole story.
	Okay, so Charles McCullough is someone who devoted 26 years to government service.
	He's someone who is highly specialized in investigations.
	He worked for the FBI, the Treasury Department, the National Security Agency before becoming the internal watchdog for the U.S. intelligence community.
	So this is someone with a lot of experience and a lot of credibility.
	His job with the Clinton emails was to take the findings of the different intelligence agencies that reviewed them and then to collect them and then to report them as fact.
	So it wasn't Charles McCullough saying these emails are classified, these emails are not.
	It was the CIA telling him, this is our information, we got the information, we have final say on the information, and this was top secret at the time it hit the Clinton server.
	And based on our reporting and covering this issue now for a couple of years, to me, Sean, it's a case of almost shooting the messenger.
	He was the one with the findings from the intelligence community, and when he delivered it to Congress, he says he was immediately marginalized as, in his words, a shill of the right when he was doing exactly what they had confirmed him to do, which was to report the findings, the independent findings of the intelligence agency into this exposure of classified information on the Clinton server.
	It seems like though a web is cast much wider as your report that he was told by members of Congress, you better be careful, you're losing your credibility.
	You need to be careful.
	There are people out to get you.
	And meanwhile, he is talking about a vulnerability of really severe proportions and national security issues that are at stake because he's saying that things beyond top secret were put on that server and they had information to confirm all of that.
	And the right thing to do would have been to put a stop to it, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, listen, the intelligence community confirmed that there were at least 22 emails beyond top secret or top secret and including what they call SAP programs.
	These are special access programs.
	These are the most closely held government programs.
	You have to sign in and then be briefed and then you sign out of the program.
	So this is a very compartmentalized piece of information.
	By the way, SAP or what we call special access program information, that is the highest level of confidentiality, top secret that you can have.
	That's correct.
	That's right.
	This is, I mean, I don't want to use a cliche, but sort of the crown jewels of the U.S. intelligence community.
	These are the most closely held programs.
	And some of this information was identified in the Clinton emails, not by Charles McCullough as the Inspector General, but by the agencies that own the information and got the information.
	And you're alluding to, I think, one of the most important headlines in the interview, which is that this issue of national security became immediately politicized once the agency said there was classified information in the Clinton emails.
	And if you go through some of the Podesta emails, as I sort of refresh my memory on WikiLeaks, what you can see is that the campaign had really nailed down their talking points, that there was nothing classified, nothing marked classified, nothing sent or received at the time was classified.
	Even though this review of 30,000 emails had barely begun, they had reached their own conclusion because that was the talking point for the campaign.
	This was not a reflection of the facts, the amount of classified information, and how this spillage really impacts national security.
	Charles McCullough, Sean, said, you know, people put their lives on the line to protect the information.
	And it's not a political issue.
	It's a lies on the line issue.
	And he took great offense that the campaign only approached it politically.
	And then he said to us in the interview he felt several senior Democrats also politicized the issue as well and pushed the national security piece into the background.
	You know, I really just have to wonder as I look through all of this, you know, that Clapper, you quote in your article saying this is extremely reckless.
	And then he mentioned something about the campaign.
	I assume the Hillary campaign will have heartburn about this.
	So he's acknowledging that it's dangerous, reckless.
	And didn't we at Fox, I think it was Brett Baer who first reported that 99% likelihood that foreign intelligence agencies had picked up information from that private server.
	We reached out to the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, with our questions.
	Doesn't he work for CNN now?
	He does, but in a case such as this, I would always reach out to them because I would never put a story out with the gravity of this information without getting the questions to him.
	And I can confirm I got the questions to him.
	But in this particular case, he chose not to respond.
	But, you know, extremely reckless.
	I don't know what the difference is between extremely reckless and gross negligence.
	But McCullough says that Clapper was also very unsettled about what was happening with these emails.
	And, you know, only DNI Clapper can really explain whether he knew there was an effort to marginalize McCullough at that time or whether he took additional steps to try and support this investigation.
	All right.
	What about do we have any confirmation that the 22 top secret Clinton emails deemed to be too classified to release under any circumstances, according to McCullough and according to standard operating procedure and protocol, do we have any belief, knowledge, that in fact they ended up in the hands of foreign entities?
	There's been no confirmation of that, but what I would say is that when you look through the sort of the entire calendar, if you will, of 2015 and 2016, you can see that virtually every network was under cyber attack at that time.
	So it would be quite striking if the Clinton server was the only server that was not somehow attacked or compromised during that period.
	Unbelievable.
	I mean, this is so big and so blockbuster.
	You know, one of the things, and I guess people would say that I politicized it, but I mean, I don't know and have never heard of a case where Congress subpoenas 33,000 emails and they get deleted.
	And just to make super sure, they use bleach bit to delete it.
	And then devices like BlackBerries, they take a hammer to and smash them into smithereens.
	And all the FBI got that was handed over, and correct me if I'm wrong, was a Blackberry without a SIM card.
	Well, they got a little bit more than that.
	You know, they got the server or servers, as it turned out, and they got these thumb drives from Hillary Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall.
	But the bigger issue here is, to me at least, is that you have someone who is confirmed into this position to be truly independent.
	I mean, that is their job.
	And when they are independent and they present facts that were certainly very inconvenient for the Democratic nominee, he says that really the tide turned against him.
	So much so that sort of word was put out through the system that if Hillary Clinton became president, that he would be among the first to be fired.
	And that really raises a question over whether there was, in fact, an abuse of power, right, using the government for political payback.
	And I asked the Clinton campaign, their former spokesman, to respond to our questions, and he did not respond either.
	But I think that's a really legitimate issue to pursue further.
	And McCullough is someone, you know, almost 30 years in the government, working in public service, trying to do the right thing, but then the facts made it very difficult for people to get their arms around these issues.
	And I can tell you as a reporter who works in intelligence, I felt I sort of crossed over into some of the politics, you know, the sort of political coverage.
	But so much was said to reporters that really was extremely misleading, like terms such as retroactively classified or upgraded to classified.
	Remember, the emails weren't classified at the time, but then when they were reviewed, they were found to be classified.
	This is not the norm.
	This is really the exception.
	This is just not how it happens.
	In fact, if you think about it logically over time, as the intelligence gets older, in fact, it becomes less and less classified, right?
	It doesn't get more and more classified.
	You're right.
	No, I'm listening.
	No, I just, I look at it now and I look at the terms and I look at what happened.
	And Charles McCullough himself said he felt that there really was an effort to mislead the public, so it became a kind of nothing to see here.
	But the public, you know, the American public is very smart and they have a way to see through a lot of things and make up their own minds.
	But Charles McCullough, I think, deserves a lot of credit for stepping forward and really, I think, speaking very candidly about his sort of eyewitness to history and what happened in 2016.
	Well, amazing reporting, as usual.
	Catherine Herridge, a colleague at the Fox News Channel.
	And by the way, she has, I've never known one, not one iota where you stand politically.
	I've never asked you.
	I appreciate that.
	All right, we'll take a break.
	We'll come back more with Catherine Herridge of the Fox News Channel.
	Hi, Catherine Herridge continues with us, investigative reporter with the Fox News Channel.
	If I could just say one last thing about Senator Feinstein, what I wanted to make clear is Charles McCullough told us that in March of 2016, he and the Inspector General at the State Department, so the State Department's internal watchdog, they received a letter from seven senior Democrats, and they said they had serious questions over whether this review was impartial, whether there was an anti-Clinton bias.
	And the Democrats are absolutely within their lane to send a letter like that and to raise these questions.
	This is how our system works.
	But let me just say, he was under tremendous pressure to respond to that letter.
	And about six weeks before the election, he said he told Diane Feinstein's chief of staff that he would not respond to the letter.
	It was too close to the election.
	It would hyper-politicize the issue.
	Remember, we're coming right off the Comey statement in the summer.
	And he said, you can tell her that I will resign if that's what's required.
	So that's how that all went down.
	And I did not receive a response from Senator Feinstein's office either to our questions.
	And that's really worthy of additional exploration.
	But he was trying to do the right thing.
	Six weeks before the election, he's like, I can't weigh in on this now.
	We can't do that.
	That's not how we operate.
	And he threatened to resign.
	And this is no small thing for someone who had been in the government for 25 years.
	Yeah.
	Unbelievable work.
	Catherine Herridge, reporter, our D.C. reporter, Fox News Channel.
	Thank you for sharing the great work that you've done.
	Great, great legwork on all of this.
	Coming up next, our final news roundup, an information overload hour.
	Do you believe that this vote on taxes, which are really tax cuts and reform, is going to be very, very important.
	So we had a good day today.
	We had a phenomenal meeting with the Republican senators.
	They want to see it happen.
	Not only for the Republican Party, I think much more importantly, they want to see it happen for the country because they know how important it is.
	Well, we are very far apart because our views on crime and our views on immigration and the military, so many are different.
	They want high taxes.
	We want cut taxes.
	We're going to cut taxes.
	We're going to reform.
	We're going to simplify.
	They want high taxes.
	We want low taxes.
	So there's a lot of big differences.
	So we'll see what happens as to shutdown.
	We'll see.
	If the president isn't interested in addressing the difficult year agenda and wants to make the government shut down, we'll work with those Republicans who are interested in funding the government, as we did in April.
	We have so many things to do.
	We have to fund the government.
	We have DACA.
	We have the children's health insurance program.
	We must reinstate cost sharing for health premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
	We have to deal with disasters.
	We have to fund our defense and our non-defense sides of the government in a reasonable way.
	There's so much to do.
	We're eager to get that done in a bipartisan way.
	Obviously, the president isn't, but hopefully, Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan are.
	They got nothing done.
	But anyway, that was Senator Crybaby, Chucky Schumer, whining and complaining.
	Well, I'm going to meet.
	He's trying to divide the Republican Party.
	I'll meet with the leadership, but I'm not going to meet with the president.
	And he literally just said no to meeting with the president.
	All right, as I told you yesterday, the next three and a half weeks are going to be very, very crucial in terms of whether or not the Republicans are going to have any identity in the Senate and get anything done.
	And on a lot of fronts, there's about eight senators who are going to decide whether this tax reform bill is going to go through, this tax cut bill will go through.
	And joining us now to tell us the state of affairs on Capitol Hill is the Freedom Caucus Chairman, Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm doing well, Sean.
	It's great to be with you.
	I tell you, I must admit, the picture of you on the front of the New York Magazine, how far will Sean Hannity go?
	I mean, listen, it's very becoming of you, my friend.
	You think they could have picked a more realistic picture of me?
	Oh, my gosh, it makes you out to be like a villain off a Batman or something.
	You know, the funny thing is, so you sit there, they take like a thousand pictures, and in the beginning, I was joking.
	I said, here, this is the shot you want.
	And I did it on purpose.
	And they actually chose that shot.
	I mean, because that's how they want to portray conservatives.
	Well, it is exactly how they want to portray conservatives.
	If they realized exactly what was behind the man's face in his brain and how he indeed loves America, perhaps they would have put a different picture.
	But, you know, this is the liberals' view of who you are, Sean, but I can tell you America knows better.
	But it was, I must confess that I was taken back by the picture on the front of the magazine.
	Well, I kind of like Bannon's quote that I am the voice of the deplorables because I'm one of them.
	And look, we've got a lot to get done.
	This, to me, is now the most serious time for the Republican Party.
	Either they're going to have some— Without a doubt.
	Without a doubt.
	And I'm not confident.
	You've got eight Republican senators that are indicating that they could vote against this tax bill.
	And from what I hear is going on, I mean, Ron Johnson is not convinced.
	Corker is not convinced.
	Steve Daines of Montana, John McCain, of course, Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, Susan Collins, Jeff Snowflake of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski.
	You got Senator Moran and Marco Rubio, who said that he's not decided yet.
	Yeah, you've got a lot of people that are up in the air, Sean.
	Listen, failure is not an option.
	You know that.
	Listen, if we can't put this on the president's desk by December 21st and have him sign into law, there is no reason to have a Republican majority.
	The American people know that.
	I mean, if we can't do things differently than the previous administration and actually allow the House and Senate to pass this bill, shame on us.
	I can tell you that I am, but I am optimistic.
	We need to keep the pressure on the Senate.
	I talked to Senator Lankford this morning on the backstop idea.
	I think it's something that has merit.
	If we can do that, maybe we get Flake and Senator Lankford, Senator Corker, some of the more deficit hawks on board.
	But we've got to keep the pressure, and obviously the president has been all hands on deck to try to make sure we get this done as well.
	But I pointed this out last night.
	If you look at, for example, the confirmation process in the Senate, well, they have only confirmed in a year 50% of the appointments that the president has made.
	I know that Mitch McConnell is whining that expectations are too high.
	We know they failed spectacularly on repealing and replacing Obamacare.
	You guys in the House have passed, what, 400 bills and resolutions, and they haven't taken up one of them and gotten it passed.
	And good laws, by the way, Cates Law and Sanctuary Cities.
	You did pass the repeal and replace bill in large part because of your efforts behind the scenes to get that done.
	It passed by one vote, but you got it done.
	And none of this has happened in the Senate.
	And I'm just wondering if these few senators are willing to let the whole Republican Party bear the brunt of political payback at the polls in 2018 if they fail here.
	Well, we will actually receive the blunt in 2018.
	And maybe the Senate won't, but I can tell you the House will.
	And for Mitch McConnell to say the expectations are too high, let me tell you, the expectations in my mind are too low.
	We've got to find a way to make sure that we actually do what we say we're going to do when we're on the campaign trail.
	And that is not only repeal and replace Obamacare, cut taxes for all of your listeners and those who do most of the hiring and the firing across the country, making sure that we actually do a welfare reform bill, cut regulations, and God forbid we actually reduce the size of government alongside of that.
	We've got to make sure that we actually promote the Trump agenda that so many Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, voted for on November 8th.
	You know, if you look at the things, I mean, just by getting rid of burdensome regulation, which the president has been able to do on his own, you know, we've made a lot of progress.
	And, you know what?
	I know there's been a lot of fighting against the president's agenda, and there's a lot of hatred, especially among some senators here.
	But, you know, you had 413 bills and joint resolutions you passed out of the House.
	They haven't taken those up.
	Of the president's 515 nominations, only 249 have yet to be approved in the Senate.
	And in spite of all of that, we've had a pretty big amount of success on the economy as it relates to the president.
	And that means, you know, we've got, for example, he appointed Neil Gorsuch.
	The economy is booming.
	You know, 261,000 jobs created in October alone.
	Unemployment is at a 17-year low.
	Consumer confidence a 17-year high.
	Existing home prices for all housing types up in October, 8.7%.
	The stock market's at an all-time high.
	You have the lowest number of participants in food stamps in seven years.
	I mean, these are all good numbers that all show an economy is just set to roll.
	And I'm just trying to understand what part of this isn't Republican, isn't conservative?
	Well, I mean, all of the economy rolling is conservative, but sadly, the president is outworking the Congress.
	And that's what I'm hearing when I go back home.
	That's what you're hearing from your listeners.
	And truly, the people that are so frustrated, they're saying the president's doing his part.
	Isn't it time that Congress gets involved in it?
	Now, I just left the meeting with a number of leading economists, and they are so optimistic about what you just went over.
	It's just all the indicators are looking extremely good for our economy.
	And if we can get this tax reform package signed into law this year, I think we'll see economic growth that we haven't seen since for the last two decades.
	Here's my one criticism, though.
	In many ways, I think that the Republican Party is so fearful of how the Democrats position them.
	In many ways, I love the corporate tax.
	I love the middle-class tax cut.
	I love repatriation.
	I love the president and Congress moving towards energy independence because that'll create millions of high-paying career jobs.
	But when it comes to the issue of Reagan across the board, supply-side economics, all brackets get greatly reduced, it seems the Republican Party has abandoned that.
	And I think that's a big part of the equation.
	I think you'll get a lot of economic growth out of the corporate tax cut, middle-class tax cuts, repatriation and energy, but you'd get more if you would cut taxes for everybody.
	Well, you're spot on, Sean.
	I can tell you that the president and you and I agree on this.
	In fact, he believes we need to be more aggressive on these individual rates, getting them down, that we've fallen into a narrative that says that we can't give everybody tax cuts because we need to pick the winners and losers.
	And that is a Democrat talking point.
	We need to make sure lower taxes stimulate the economy.
	They always have.
	Just like lower capital gains.
	I was sharing with this economic group.
	Anytime that you lower capital gains, it actually increases the amount of investment and revenue you get.
	It only works 100% of the time.
	So why do we sit here and play around the edges to talk about what we should and shouldn't do with Democratic talking points?
	At least I believe that Republicans need to be bold in this.
	They also need to understand that if there are political consequences for doing the right thing, at least they can go home and rest assured that they've done the right thing for the people that they represent.
	So well said.
	We'll continue.
	Mark Meadows, Congressman, North Carolina.
	He's the chairman of the Freedom Caucus.
	800-941 Sean is our number.
	As we continue, Mark Meadows is with us.
	He is the chairman of the Freedom Caucus.
	Where are we with all these investigations that I know get started and we never get them concluded as it relates to Hillary and her email server, Hillary and the dossier that she paid for with phony Russian propaganda and lies in the lead up to the election?
	Hillary and the Uranium One deal.
	What's going on in Congress, and is there an appetite now amongst the leadership to do the right thing and maintain equal justice under the law?
	Well, I don't know that there's an appetite among the leadership, but there certainly is an appetite with your listeners and with a few members in the House.
	Jim Jordan and I, as you know, really said, we've got to actually look into the details of not only the Uranium One deal, but also the dossier that actually, in my mind, was helped, funded potentially by the FBI itself.
	And so Jim and I and Matt Gates and a few others have actually worked on this over the last four weeks or so.
	And I can tell you more formal investigations are going to happen.
	Jim and I are actually preparing an investigative strategy on who to interview, what documents to get, etc.
	But the more we look into it, Sean, the scarier it is.
	I mean, you have the FBI actually reimbursing Christopher Steele, who was originally hired by the Clinton, Clinton campaign by the DNA.
	By the way, Fusion GPS was hired by a Republican, but Christopher Steele was hired by the Democrats by Hillary's campaign.
	And that's where the phony Russian dossier came in, not when the Republicans used Fusion GPS.
	That's an important distinction.
	And I appreciate you showing the clarification because you're exactly right.
	What happened is, is once Trump got the nomination, the Republican kind of left it by the wayside.
	Fusion GPS then approaches the Clintons.
	And so you've got the DNC, the Clintons, perhaps even the Obama campaign that actually started at this same exact time to give $900,000 to the same law firm that hired this, what I would say is a hit piece on the president.
	And yet, here's the thing that is most troubling to me.
	You've got the FBI actually having a reimburse.
	They tried to pay and then reimbursed this person that was originally hired by a political operative.
	I mean, why would the FBI be involved in that?
	And then you have the infamous tarmac meeting that goes out.
	I think at the end of the day, we will start to see all kinds of connections to the Clinton Foundation, to certainly to a number of people that it is more than an email scandal.
	It really is about influence at the highest levels of really elected officials and those that weren't elected trying to change the outcome of an election.
	So what has been the narrative about going after the president, now we'll actually go home and go after the accuser.
	Well, we have a big report we're going to be breaking tonight on Hannity at 9.
	Congressman, you're the good guys.
	I mean, the only people I really trust in Washington now are the Freedom Caucus members and a couple of others, not many more.
	And without you guys there, there would be zero hope of getting anything that represents our values completed.
	So we always thank you for coming on, sharing your thoughts and helping us and helping move this whole agenda along.
	Without you, we're in trouble.
	So thank you very much.
	Well, it's always a pleasure to be in the fight with you because no one loves his country more than you, and your listeners need to know that.
	So it's great to be in the fight with you, Sean.
	We need to win this fight because a lot of our fellow Americans are suffering needlessly because of bad governance.
	Anyway, Congressman, thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	800-941 Sean.
	We'll continue.
	What's the breaking news?
	I didn't ask for breaking news, Sounder.
	Why are you playing the breaking news, Sounder, Jason?
	You didn't hear?
	What?
	It's big news today.
	Big, big news.
	Oh, here we go.
	I'm just teasing you.
	Just for any of our listeners who are just tuning in who may not have seen the Drudge Report on the College of the Commission.
	I think you've got to go with the poll that we talked about earlier and put it up on Hannity.com.
	Do you think they chose this picture on purpose?
	Of course they did.
	And what is the purpose?
	The purpose is to show conservatives that they look mean and angry.
	Well, I was working on that poll, but now that you said that, that puts a lot of bias.
	You know, I mean, what are people going to say?
	It's like you want them to say.
	It's just look at the picture.
	I'm stating the object.
	All three of them.
	Well, there's three if you get on the inside, but the cover of the New York Times magazine.
	What does this mean?
	How far will Sean Hannity go?
	What is that supposed to mean?
	Well, I mean, I personally think it's a double entendre.
	Of course it is.
	How far will he go over the air?
	Well, there's that.
	There's how far will he go?
	And then there's how far will he go?
	Oh, like how far will he go?
	How far will he go?
	And his success will run to the top.
	And then there's, how far will he go?
	Because I'm an angry liberal.
	Could you imagine when this actually, you know, most people get their news online now?
	Very true.
	Okay, so, but the newspaper, the Sunday New York Times, is going to show up on people's doorsteps.
	With that beautiful picture.
	And they're going to look at that picture, which, by the way, I mean, in one sense, you got to say it's out of the ordinary because everybody else gets flattering pictures.
	Well, not really everybody, but they often use that black and white, you know, so you see every flaw in your face.
	But it's got like my hands.
	They look like monster hands.
	And so we did this shoot for a 30-minute shoot.
	And the photographer was, you know, world-renowned, apparently.
	And he did the cover of Serena Williams when she was on the cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine.
	And it was a beautiful shot.
	She looked amazing.
	You could actually see this expression being like, you're John McEnroe.
	You know, you're hitting from the back of the court.
	It's 30 years.
	No, no, no, no.
	Let me tell you what happened.
	It's simple what happened.
	And this is not my first rodeo.
	I'm going to explain this tonight on TV, too.
	Not your first tennis match either.
	It's not my first tennis match or rodeo.
	But when I worked at the Huntsville radio station in 1990, the Huntsville Times comes in, and they're doing a full-page profile on me that was on the front cover of the living section of the Huntsville Times.
	And I let the guy take pictures for the whole three hours I was on the air.
	I'm sorry.
	What?
	Yeah, I was, listen.
	You were a different person, clearly.
	All right, 30 years ago.
	You got to cut me some slack.
	27 years ago.
	So I let the guy take pictures, and I'm thinking, all right, I'm sure he's going to pick a good one.
	And it's basically the worst picture, my hands out wide, my mouth wide open, like look like I'm screaming like a lunatic.
	That's your pterodactyl.
	So after that day, I would just say to photographers, you got five minutes.
	Here's the shot you want go.
	And I would just pose that way.
	And I said that and did that, not thinking that they were going to run it.
	And there you go.
	You can see the love the New York Times magazine photo editors have for Sean Hannity.
	Blind trust.
	I don't, none of this bothers me.
	You know, a lot of my friends are like, oh, man, are you okay today?
	Are you okay?
	Keith writes me, wow, I have nothing to say.
	You're having a bad.
	I'm like, I'm not having a pet.
	Austin Goolsby was thrilled.
	What did he say?
	He was a fantastic guy.
	I bet he did.
	Did he actually read it or did he just look at the pictures?
	I think he was looking at the pictures, but I'm sure he'll read it later.
	Listen, I am glad I don't have a lot of pictures of when I was a baby.
	Very few, as a matter of fact.
	I mean, my sister had to dig that one up.
	And I actually ended up tweeting it out.
	Did you like my baby picture of me on the high chair?
	What do you mean?
	Oh.
	It's a baby in a high chair.
	That's what you're supposed to say.
	I'm surprised they had color photos back then in that day.
	All right, are you done?
	Seriously, Jason, you're starting in?
	All right, 800-941, Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	Missy is in West Virginia.
	What's up, Missy?
	How are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hi, how are you?
	I'm good.
	What's happening?
	I just saw the article on the Drudge Report.
	You look like a rabid dog.
	I'm kind of scared now.
	Oh, my gosh.
	That's so funny.
	I do, right?
	I do look like one.
	I was called to talk about the truth, well, the lack thereof in the media.
	Yes.
	I watched the press release that Sarah did yesterday, and they asked all their typical questions.
	Why did you replace Mulvaney?
	Well, because they thought he was better suited for the position.
	Well, so they didn't like so-and-so?
	No, they thought he was better suited for the position.
	You ask a question, they tell you the truth.
	You don't believe it.
	You report what you want to report.
	We tell you the truth.
	You don't believe it.
	You spin it.
	That's true.
	Listen.
	Let me tell you something.
	They want to put the truth out there.
	They want to put out there what is going to get clicks, what is going to get people stirred up, because if people aren't stirred up, there's no news.
	Listen, I don't, I absolutely believe.
	I mean, this is supposed to be the New York Times, though.
	You know, the great, fair, and balanced, objective, discerning real news organization.
	And I have absolutely zeroed doubt why they put that photo on the cover, for example.
	It's because they want people to click on it.
	You know, what's that lunatic really like?
	That's their clickbait, as they call it.
	And this happens with everything.
	Don't you agree?
	I mean, media, journalism's dead in America, dead and buried.
	Doesn't exist.
	They're not reporting.
	Excuse me.
	They're not recording the news.
	They're not looking for the truth.
	They don't want the truth out.
	They want the agenda to continue.
	Trump, on a daily basis, does nothing but fuel their fire.
	All they do is inability to tell the truth.
	What are they going to be outraged about?
	I mean, look at what we had to play for poor Mike Huckabee, what the media says about his daughter.
	She makes a pecan pie, is a pecan pie, and she gets questioned over, you didn't make that, you tweeted out a fake, and she ends up, she did make the pie.
	I mean, it's not that hard to make a pie for crying out loud.
	All you got to do is, you know, Google directions, pecan chocolate pie, and it's right there.
	And you have to be an idiot if you can't follow the directions.
	It's not hard to make a pecan pie.
	Now, whether it's a great one is a different story.
	Anyway, thank you, Missy.
	We appreciate it.
	Back to our busy telephones here.
	Let's say hi to Donna in Staten Island.
	Donna, longtime friend of the program.
	What's up, Donna?
	How are you?
	Glad you called.
	I'm good, John.
	How are you?
	I'm good.
	What's happening?
	Nice picture of you in the Times, huh?
	Oh, yeah.
	That's the finest picture I've ever seen of me.
	The last time I saw a picture that scary was when I decided to cut my own bangs the day before high school yearbook photos.
	You know, I just.
	I love you anyway.
	Listen, who cares?
	Does it really impact my life that they put the worst picture imaginable up?
	I mean, I honestly, it doesn't phase me even the slightest bit.
	And other people around me are upset about it, and I'm not.
	Listen, we all know how handsome you really are anyway, so it's irrelevant what they think.
	Wait a minute.
	Can we make a promo out of that?
	We know how.
	I'm going to have to get your eyes checked.
	I'll say it again for you.
	We all know how handsome you are.
	Thank you, Donna.
	And it's irrelevant, but seriously, I just wanted to break your chops about that.
	My high school yearbook picture is still pretty hideous, so don't worry about it.
	You know, there was a quote in the article that actually said, you want to make Hannity mad, show him pictures of when he first went on Fox News.
	He hates it, and that's so true.
	I absolutely hate it.
	But, Donna, we love you.
	I want to see the picture of you when you got your bangs cut.
	Send them in.
	Maybe we'll take the worst picture contest and give out a character.
	Give out another Keurig coffee machine.
	We can do that.
	All right, Donna.
	God bless you.
	Appreciate it.
	Let's go to Paul is also in Queens, New York, the all-new AM710WOR, The Talk of New York.
	How are you?
	Hi, Sean.
	It's a great honor to speak to you.
	I think you're a great journalist.
	And if it weren't for you and WOR and Fox News, there'd be no honest news available to anybody.
	You're very kind.
	We're trying every day.
	I can promise you that.
	We're working hard.
	No, no, I think you're a great American resource.
	I agree with you on most things.
	And I'm a lifetime Republican.
	Of course, I agree with President Trump on most things.
	But one area where I disagree is the new tax bill.
	I'm an upper middle class individual.
	I pay about 47% of my total income in state, local, and federal taxes under this new bill with state and local taxes going out, with the absence of deductions.
	I'm going to pay in the high 50s.
	And it's just going to cut into my support for the Republican Party.
	I devote a lot of my time and money to the Republican Party, and I'm just kind of disgusted as a paper.
	As a New Yorker in my particular tax, you're in the worst.
	Because you're getting hit with a 40% federal income tax, 39%.
	They may drop it to 35, but it doesn't matter because now the state taxes you pay and the local taxes you pay are no longer deductible.
	So you're going to, quote, have a lower rate, but pay a lot more.
	Now, there's two arguments here.
	Now, Paul, we live in a communist dictatorship here in New York.
	And I'm kidding, but you know what I'm saying.
	We live in a far-left-wing state, a deeply blue state.
	And our friends and neighbors in New York, they vote for higher taxes.
	They have no problem paying all of this money in taxes, those that pay.
	And they keep voting for this again and again.
	And when we get that state and local federal income tax break, well, the people that are benefiting, that aren't benefiting from it are people that vote in politicians that don't have state income taxes.
	And in many ways, you can argue that the rest of the country is subsidizing in terms of federal income tax those states that are deeply blue that allow that tax people to death.
	We get a tax deduction for that.
	Well, the people in Texas don't get that tax deduction, and the people in Florida don't get that tax deduction, and the people in other low-tax states don't get that deduction.
	And so, in other words, we're getting a benefit that they don't get, and it's not their fault that we keep electing stupid people that take so much of our money.
	Does that make sense?
	Can I say I hate to disagree with you because I love you so much, but New York proportionately and states like New York pay a much bigger percentage of our taxes back to the federal government.
	And people in the higher tax brackets pay a significantly higher proportion of federal taxes.
	So to take loyal Republicans in that tax bracket, such as myself, and I'm assuming yourself and others like us, and penalize us, I think is really unfair.
	And it wasn't thought out properly.
	And I just wish that leadership.
	But what do you do?
	Let's say you lived in Texas and I lived in Texas.
	And New York, New Jersey, and Illinois and California continue to get the deduction of their state and local income taxes.
	And they get to continue to do that.
	Well, in that sense, those people are getting a break, and it ends up being a subsidies from the states that are diligent in electing politicians that don't do this to their states.
	In other words, they're suffering a financial penalty because they're much wiser with their money.
	I can see their side of the argument is powerfully strong.
	But what's going to happen is Congressman Issa and Congressman King and some of the great Republican congressmen in New York and Connecticut.
	And admittedly, they're a minority, but they're enough in California, New York, Connecticut.
	They're going to suffer at the polls for this particular tax act.
	And it could actually mean a difference in a majority in the Congress.
	Well, I don't, maybe.
	I mean, but ISA's not voting for it.
	Peter King's not voting for it because he rightly is looking out for his own constituency.
	I have no problem with their votes on this at all.
	And I understand completely.
	But I will say this.
	The better answer would be for blue states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California to vote for politicians that don't reach so deep into their pocket that they don't care.
	They are spending too much money.
	How does Florida live without a state income tax?
	How does Texas do it?
	Well, New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois ought to be learning from those states because you got a better quality of life in both Texas and Florida, just using those two states as an example.
	And they don't need that 13.5% that we're giving them or the 10% in New York that we're giving them.
	And we've just been taxed to oblivion.
	Look, I've always said if you take away, if everybody actually got their real paycheck every week, and I mean this, everyone gets their real paycheck.
	And then you have to write a check to the state of New York and the federal government and FICA and your local New York City government.
	There would be a tax revolution tomorrow, but people say, you know, they're so used to the government taking their chunk before they ever see their check that they have no idea what they're paying.
	Oh, I'm getting a refund on my taxes of $1,000.
	Meanwhile, you paid $50 in taxes.
	It's ridiculous.
	The answer, the real problem is Albany in your case, in my case.
	The real problem is Sacramento out in California.
	The real problem in New Jersey is Trenton.
	Sean, I see your point, and I like you so much that I'm going to cease and desist.
	I'll let you have the last word on that.
	All right, my friend.
	Well, listen, I appreciate you.
	I don't want you to pay more in taxes.
	You know why?
	You deserve your hard-earned money.
	You're paying enough.
	You really do.
	And it's, and yeah, it is fundamentally, it sucks that Republicans, you know, don't want to drop the top marginal rates.
	That's why I'm saying in Washington, too, they need to do what Reagan did an across-the-board tax cut.
	He went from 70 to 28% for the top marginal rates.
	That's missing in this bill.
	We'll continue.
	All right.
	New breaking investigative report.
	John Solomon, Sarah Carter, exclusively on Hannity tonight.
	Kellyanne Conway, Dr. Gorka, and Leslie Marshall.
	That's 9 Eastern.
	Great show tonight.
	Hope you'll make it.
	And we'll have the very latest out of Washington and the push these three and a half weeks to actually do something in the U.S. Senate.
	Have a great night.
	See you back here tomorrow.
	See you tonight at 9.
	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.

▲