With the Special Election results in Alabama pouring in, Sean spends a large portion of today's show trying to better understand the mainstream media's bias and just how obvious their attacks on the Trump Administration have been. Former White House Spokesman Sean Spicer drops by to share his experiences in a candid conversation that touches on his time on the hot seat. The Sean Hannity Show is live weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
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 my pillow so different is my pillow'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, big day in the state of Alabama today.
We'll check in with the pollsters and others and see what's going on on the ground in that state.
According to the Real Clear Politics Average, it's a two-point race.
I have some anecdotal evidence to pass on to you.
It appears that it's probably a very high turnout day altogether.
If I have a guest, I'm not going to sit here and make my prediction or whatever.
It's up to people in the state of Alabama whether they're going to go out and vote or not.
But it seems like there is enthusiasm on both sides at this early part of the day, 2 o'clock Alabama time.
And as we get new information, we'll bring that to you through the course of the program today.
You know, we have more examples of just abusive media bias.
It really should take people's breath away.
But I guess for most people, it just doesn't.
They don't care.
And Jay Seculo, who is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, and I talked to him earlier today.
I said, well, come on the program today.
He'll join us in about an hour.
And, you know, here he is, a guy that deals in truth, et cetera, all the time.
And after all we have told you about ABC and the New York Times and the Washington Post and fake news, CNN, it just, they can't help themselves.
He actually sent me a text message in terms of exactly what it is that he said to NBC at about 5-something this morning.
MSNBC, NBC calling him and asking, hey, Jay, can you send us the quote that you gave to Axios?
What's that Alan, John?
What's the name?
Alan Mike Allen is his name.
Yeah.
No, he's with Axios now, I think.
Anyway, about needing, you know, a special counsel to investigate Mueller.
Jay actually writes, well, it was not about a special counsel investigating Mueller.
It was regarding a special counsel to investigate the conflicts with the DOJ, the FBI, regarding Fusion GPS, and the DOJ official, Bruce Orr, who was demoted while he was in contact with Fusion GPS.
And of course, now we know that his wife worked for Fusion GPS.
I mean, the numbers of conflicts that we're talking about on all of these issues should take your breath away if you believe in equal justice under the law.
Anyway, so this individual from NBC News that is asking him, can you send the statement?
And by the way, the statement had nothing to do with calling for a special counsel, nothing, no mention of Mueller.
As a matter of fact, Jay said, sure, but please understand, he writes this, none of this is aimed at Mueller.
He puts those words in there.
And the Department of Justice, the statement is, and the FBI cannot ignore the multiple problems that have been created by these obvious conflicts of interest.
Yeah, like the wife of the guy that's in the FBI four doors down from, yeah, Bruce Orr, four doors down from Rod Rosenstein that was demoted.
And his wife, he's meeting with Fusion GPS.
Do you see how corrupt this all is?
And his wife works for Fusion GPS.
Then you got Bruce Strzok and his girlfriend both working for Mueller.
That's a separate case.
That's not what Jay was talking about.
And in that case, here you have a guy that's trashing Trump while investigating Trump and praising Hillary, as she was.
And then you find out that that's the same guy that worked with James Comey to create an exoneration before an investigation.
And the same guy that was wording the exoneration before the investigation, taking out the legal terminology, which would have made Hillary Clinton guilty of a crime when they said gross negligence.
That's the legal standard, the legal standard.
And of course, nothing happens in that case.
And we all sit back and it's a year later and we hear Trump-Russia collusion, Trump-Russian collusion.
Well, on the GPS, Hillary bought and paid for Russian propaganda, salacious dossier that was designed to impact the election and you, the American people, with phony Russian information, you would think that ought to be investigated, especially now when the special counsel has gone so afar from what their original mandate was.
Anyway, then Jay Seculo said again, your reporter is saying that I want a special counsel to investigate Mueller.
I told you that was not the case at all.
Will you get him to correct his tweet?
Now, in this case, he's talking about some guy, what's his name?
Ari Melber.
I don't even know who these people are.
I think he's an NBC guy, MSNBC conspiracy TV guy.
Okay.
And then this is what Melbourne writes.
Seculo cites a Fox News report about alleged conflicts on the special counsel team to say DOJ, FBI cannot ignore the multiple problems that have been created by these obvious conflicts of interests.
And then he says revelations require the appointment of a special counsel to investigate.
Just spoke to Jay Seculo, who says this is about an alleged conflict regarding Fusion GPS and Bruce Orr.
It has nothing to do with Bob Mueller or Mueller's team.
He stresses that that was and remains his original point.
Well, the only problem is, is they ran an article that put up there the exact opposite of what Jay said at 5.57 or 5.45 this morning.
And this is the world that we live in.
And this is, you know, there is, there's an alter reality that we all face now.
And it's not rooted in specific truth and the standards.
I mean, you cannot get libel laws do not allow people to sue to get their good name back, no matter what it is people say about public figures.
Oh, how do you possibly prove that there's malice and thought in somebody's heart?
I have an exclusive report today, a letter that is being sent out that this is just breaking here on this program.
that is being sent to Michael Conway, chairman, House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I want to read you how bad it is and has been for anybody involved in these investigations.
And all these people being dragged through for a year, the mud leading to the appointment of the special counsel.
Why the special counsel?
Because, oh, that's right, James Comey purposefully leaked information he had no business leaking through a Columbia professor so that he can get a special counsel appointed.
Who's the special counsel?
His BFF, appointed by Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller.
You know, and then you look at the history of Bruce Strzok and Orr and Mueller and Rosenstein, Peter Strzok, rather, and Bruce Orr and Comey and Mueller and Rosenstein.
It's like these guys have been best chums their entire lives.
And then you look at Mueller's team and Mueller's team of people.
Let's see.
You got big donors to the Democratic Party, to Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, but you don't have donors, any of them, to a Republican candidate.
And then you say, okay, well, let's look at their background.
Well, in the case of Bruce Strzok, Bruce Strzok is involved in everything.
Peter Strzok.
Peter Strzzok's involved in everything.
And Peter Strzok is the one that sits there and interviews not only General Flynn, but then it's Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Uma Abedeen.
He's there for the dossier issue.
He's there for the email issue.
You would think there's nobody else that works at the FBI because they keep appointing the same guy, and he's the guy that has an anti-Trump, pro-Hillary bias.
And then it shows up of all those people that they interview, even though we know Cheryl Mills, we know Uma Abedeen, and we know Hillary Clinton all lied to the FBI.
None of them got what General Flynn got.
This doesn't sound like equal justice under the law.
This doesn't sound like a fair and unbiased investigation.
Anyway, back to this letter by Alan.
I don't, I can't, no, not Mike Allen.
It's an attorney.
Anyway, it's Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney, and they have to send out a letter today.
Why?
Because, you know, after all the hours that all the people and family members and anyone associated with Trump has had to go into these hearings and meetings, you know, every time they're in there, within seconds, everything is leaked to the public.
And that's not supposed to happen either.
And he says, Dear Chairman, on behalf of Donald Trump Jr., I'm writing respectfully to request that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence open a formal inquiry into leaks occurring during and after Donald Trump Jr.'s December 6, 2017 interview, including whether members of staff members of this committee intentionally disseminated inaccurate information to the news media.
Well, that happens every day when it comes to leaks from Congress and so-called private meetings and committee hearings and so on and so forth.
He said on December 6th, Donald Trump Jr. voluntarily appeared before this committee for a non-public, confidential interview as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The interview, which was conducted under oath, specifically requested by this committee, took place over eight hours commencing at approximately 10 a.m., concluding approximately 5:50 p.m.
Mr. Trump Jr. was at all times cooperative, forthcoming, and transparent.
In advance of the interview, Mr. Trump Jr. and his counsel were assured by this committee that in accordance with the rules of procedure, the interview would be kept strictly confidential and not discussed publicly unless and until the full committee voted to release the transcript.
Now, consistent with these assurances, our access to the Capitol was controlled.
The interview was held in a secure area.
Our electronic devices were housed separately until the interview was concluded.
Notwithstanding these precautions, at approximately 1:01 p.m., while the interview was still in progress, members of the committee and/or their staff began selectively leaking information provided during the interview to various press outlets, most notably Fake News CNN.
I edited the fake tweets from CNN reporters at 1:01 p.m., 4:29 p.m., and tweets again and again, and they cite all the different tweets.
After the interview, the public release of confidential non-public information by committee members continued unabated.
For example, the same evening and the following day, several members of the minority, including, you know, Representative Schiff and Speyer and some others, appeared on news to discuss certain details of the interview.
In an attempt to discredit my client, they did not accurately portray the breadth, the scope, the substance of the interview.
And then he files all the different articles.
The release of non-public information was sufficiently brazen that on December 7th, 2017, I received an email from a majority staff member releasing us from our confidentiality obligation since others clearly violated that condition before the interview even concluded.
These people, it's just so, there's such lowlives.
Their word means nothing to these members of Congress.
And upon information and belief, on or before Friday, December 8th, certain members of the committee and their staff began disseminating wildly inaccurate information concerning a September 14th, 2016 email sent to my client from an apparent campaign supporter named Michael Erickson.
That email, with my client and the Trump organization, had voluntarily produced to this committee prior to the interview, purported to provide both a link and decryption key to access certain hacked DNC emails that had been supposedly obtained and released by WikiLeaks, and a copy of the email possessed by the questioner who showed it to Mr. Trump Jr. during the interview.
The email clearly shows the date is September 14th.
That's where fake news CNN comes in.
They said it was September 4th that they were getting an early release of WikiLeaks.
Well, that wasn't true either.
I mean, fake news is ABC fake news, New York Times fake news, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, CNN, conspiracy theory TV.
It's all over the place.
It's so inherently dishonest and corrupt.
The whole sewer and swamp is bigger than anybody ever thought.
Anyway, we have that letter exclusively.
Nobody else has it, what we just told you.
All right, only two words you need to remember while making your list and checking it twice this holiday season: Tommy John.
They are the revolutionary men's underwear t-shirt sock brand, and they have redefined comfort for men everywhere, including and especially me.
All Tommy John underwear is crafted from the most comfortable fabric you'll ever use.
It's impossible to be uncomfortable in Tommy John.
Plus, their innovation never takes a day off at Tommy John, even during the holidays.
They're constantly thinking of new ways to give you the best product you've ever tried.
Like their patented undershirts I wear every day.
Well, they stay tucked in and literally pull perspiration right off your body.
And also, Tommy John, their underwear is backed by the best pair you'll ever wear, guarantee, or it's free from TommyJohn.com.
So give the gift of life-changing comfort for the holidays, TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity.
You get 20% off your first order.
That's TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity.
Plus, you get extra savings with exclusive holiday daily deals only at TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity.
All right, we've got a back and forth with New York Senator Gillibrand and on Donald Trump that has been going on today, and it's getting way out of control.
We're also learning that CNN had to be dragged, kicking, and screaming to correct their fake report on Jeff Sessions.
And CNN and the rest of the Democratic media were insisting that hundreds of fake news stories that they reported about President Trump since day one was inaugurated, since he was inaugurated, were honest mistakes.
Hundreds of them, hundreds of examples.
Anyway, when even they're caught red-handed making one of their so-called honest mistakes, you know, literally, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to correct the record.
You know, and they basically always try and characterize this as, well, we're now updating our story to now get it right because we screwed it up the first time.
New York Post points out that on Monday, when CNN walked back this expose on the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that turns out to have exposed nothing except maybe the network's own abusive bias.
The original report in May blared that Sessions hadn't listed those two meetings with Russia's ambassador on his FBI disclosure forms prior to the Senate confirmation hearings.
Well, now CNN finally had to admit that the FBI told Sessions not to list any of his half a dozen meetings with other countries and diplomats as part of his senatorial duties.
Now, what forced CNN to clarify it?
Well, there is something called the Freedom of Information Act, and literally they were able to produce an FBI email from March that proved that Sessions was right the entire time.
So the misleading report in May, which became part of a narrative throughout the entire media that Jeff Sessions lied about Russian context showing up in the Atlantic and ABC News and BuzzFeed and HuffPo and all these others, all confirming Sessions supposed to, you know, was supposedly being dishonest and a lack of candor in his verbal testimony.
So, you know, CNN got the story wrong, but didn't correct the record until a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit backed them into a corner.
How many times can these people be proven wrong in a week?
All right, we got the attorney for the president, Jay Seculo.
He's checking in today.
Also, we'll check in with Sean Spicer on this fake news epidemic we have.
We'll hit the ground in Alabama.
What's going on on the ground there?
We have pollster John Wallows on the ground.
Amy Kramer's on the ground there.
Jonathan Gillum, he wants you to be more aware so you're not a victim of violence.
We'll explain that and more.
What you want, but you can get Sean Hannity online at Hannity.com.
He broke the story along with CNN's Evan Perez Art Manu.
What are you learning?
Well, Wolf, tonight, Justice Department officials are telling CNN that Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for a security clearance.
Now, this new information from the Justice Department is this is the latest example of Sessions not listing contacts he had with Russian officials earlier this year.
Now, earlier this year, he came under withering criticism from Democrats after he was revealed that he did not disclose the same contacts with Russian with the Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Now, Sessions met with Kislyak at least two times last year, including at the Republican National Convention.
And he did not note those interactions on this forum, which actually, Wolf requires him to list, quote, any contact he had with a or his family had with a quote foreign government or its representatives over the past seven years.
Now, Sessions' initial failure to disclose these same meetings led him to actually recuse himself from all matters related to the Russian investigation, though he has said he does not recall discussing campaign matters, Wolf, with meetings with Kislyak.
The newly released document backs the explanation for why Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings with the Russian ambassador on his security clearance forms.
The email shows the FBI told a Sessions aide that Sessions was not required to disclose foreign contacts that happened during the course of his duties as a senator.
The newly released email supports the Justice Department's original explanation given last May when CNN first reported the omission of foreign contacts on Sessions' security clearance form.
This is CNN.
How much more fake news can you have?
24 now till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean.
You know, I just keep bringing up all of these examples, and it really has now become an epidemic.
And the epidemic is you're not hearing the truth on a regular basis.
And there is, you know, look, there's only so many ways, times I can say that journalism in America is dead, but it's dead.
I love the exchange with Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Jim Acosta of CNN.
They are so hostile.
They're not interested in the truth.
They're interested in getting their big moment in the sun.
They're interested in getting their cut that they can run that night on their newscast.
Listen in.
I would just say, Sarah, that journalists make honest mistakes, and that doesn't make them fake news.
But the question that I have — But when journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.
We do.
Sometimes, and a lot of times you don't.
But there's a difference.
There's a very big difference.
I'm sorry.
I'm not finished.
There's a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people.
Something that happens regularly.
can't say I'm not done.
You cannot say that was completely fake Sarah.
You cannot say that it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information that you know to be false or when you're taking information that hasn't been validated, that hasn't been offered any credibility, and that has been continually denied by a number of people, including people with direct knowledge of an instance.
This is something that I'm speaking about the number of reports that have taken place over the last couple of weeks.
I'm simply stating that there should be a certain level of responsibility in that process.
This was not.
Brian, I called on Jim.
This is not the line of questioning that I was going down, but can you cite a specific story that you say is intentionally false, that was intentionally put out there to mislead the American people?
Sure.
The ABC report by Brian Ross, I think that was pretty misleading to the American people.
And I think that it's very telling that that individual had to be suspended because of that reporting.
I think that shows that the network took it seriously and recognized that it was a problem.
I mean, and then the fake news media is so, I mean, they're so upset that Donald Trump called Don Lemon the dumbest man on television.
Don Lemon hosts a cable news show.
Don Lemon is an adult, if he can't handle something as silly as that without being all offended and the network releasing a statement slamming the president who engaged in the very same behavior as bullies who torment children.
I'm like, he's a reporter.
I mean, if I ever took offense on any given day, for any of you that are out on social media, all you got to do is look at my name.
You would think I am Satan Jr. or worse when you read comments about me.
And you know what?
I don't give it a second thought.
You know, Joe Scarborough, oh, it puts us all in jeopardy.
Anybody in the public eye.
Stop.
I can't take it.
I can't take it.
But anybody in the public eye gets death threats.
And I'm not minimizing them.
They're not good.
You have to take them seriously.
I have advised many people over the years how I deal with it when it happens to them for the first time.
It's not fun, but it happens.
And it happens to people on the left and people on the right.
It's happened to me numerous times.
It's probably not the last time.
You know, MSNBC, Donald Trump doesn't like CNN's Don Lemon because he's black.
That's actually what they're saying is on Liberal Joe, their chief White House correspondent, Peter Baker, welcome to the panel discussion with his colleagues in the latest report about President Trump and his news watching habits.
Now, forget the fact that President Trump denied what the New York Times said about his 12-diet cokes and his four to eight hours watching TV.
It's impossible for the president to be spending that much time watching television, but that doesn't stop them from questioning whatever the New York Times puts out there.
But anyway, Heileman tries to, you know, fails to get Baker to pin Trump's dislike on Trump on the president's hatred of African-American people.
This is where the liberal media goes.
It was a pretty despicable moment.
I think a Playboy journalist was demanding to know if Sarah Sanders had ever been assaulted.
I mean, that is outrageous that they're asking her that.
You know, 40 minutes after the New York City terror attack, 40 minutes, CNN was obsessing over Donald Trump's 12-diet Coke habit that he has every day.
Well, I don't know if the president drinks Diet Coke.
And I guess if he has, he probably asks for two Diet Cokes and only offers his guests one Diet Coke.
The New York Times out with a report this weekend.
I mean, this is how silly and superfluous and dumb CNN, Donald Trump setting up bad examples for children, bullying Don Lemon.
I met Don Lemon.
Nice guy, nice enough guy.
He does his own show.
I think he could probably handle, you know, that the president doesn't like his TV show and his liberal views.
You know, CNN has to walk back to Jeff Sessions' Russia bomb show that they've been perpetrated since May.
This stuff never ends.
Just like the Trump-Russia collusion.
And it's also what they don't report that matters.
Yeah, let's play the Playboy journalist.
As a woman standing out there talking to us, I know your job is to relate what the president says.
Have you ever been sexually harassed and do you understand?
And I'm not saying by the president.
I'm saying ever.
And secondly, do you have an empathy for those who come forward?
Because it's very difficult for women to come forward.
Absolutely would say that I have an empathy for any individual who has been sexually harassed.
And that certainly would be the policy of the White House.
I'm not here to speak about my personal experience on that front, but I'm here to relay information on behalf of the president, and that's what I'm focused on doing here today.
Now, the media today is fixated that Donald Trump, and I said this was going to happen.
I said, look, up to and including last year, it didn't matter that Bill Clinton was the biggest predator, proven predator against women, and every Democrat for 30 years defended the Clintons, including the allegations.
It took Monica Lewin.
Well, then they found out that what they did to Jennifer Flowers, well, they called her a liar and every other name in the book.
And their hit squad was sent out there to destroy, smear, slander these women, starting with Jennifer Flowers, when she said, I got tapes.
Here are the tapes.
And she gave it to the National Inquirer.
And there was Bill Clinton's voice.
It was unmistakable.
Anyway, on top of that, with Bill Clinton, then you've got all the other things that came up.
And what did we find out?
That a lot of the women were telling the truth.
But then for 30 years, up to and including all through last year, there was no talk about the tactics of the Clintons and their treatment of Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willie and Juanita Bronerick.
But now all of a sudden, because Al Franken had pictures of him groping women, that's evidence.
That's what we call that.
That's called evidence that he actually did it.
And John Conyers was forced to resign.
Now, what did I tell you?
I told you last week, this is all by design, because then they want to turn this into a narrative against Donald Trump and re-litigate the entire election of Donald Trump and every accusation of every woman that they made against Donald Trump.
Now, we spent a lot of time during the campaign when the New York Times came out with a front page, top-fold story about all these women.
We invited the women on.
And many of them, one after another, said, no, the New York Times has it wrong.
And I'm sure that there are, listen, I am hearing rumors.
Let me just give you a preview of coming attractions, all right?
I know for a fact that there are very prominent people that are involved in these sexual harassment cases that we are going to hear are incentivizing people with money to tell their stories.
I know for a fact this is coming out very soon.
This is not speculation on my part.
And apparently the evidence is overwhelming.
And you know what?
With John Conyers, Sean Hannity said, okay, he's denying it, and he deserves the presumption of innocence.
Some people got mad that I didn't politicize it.
I don't agree with John Conyers on anything.
And in the case of Al Franken, at the end of the day, when Leanne Twedon said she forgave him, and I knew about this in 2008, around then, and I saw that picture many, many years ago.
Leanne Twedon asked me not to talk about it.
And guess what I didn't do?
Talk about it.
I kept my word.
I knew it existed.
I never called her.
I never said, Leanne, you got to let this that's too personal.
I didn't feel it was my job to pressure anybody because I don't like the guy's politics.
But I also said about Franken, I said, that's going to be up to the people of Minnesota to decide.
And then more and more and more allegations came out in his case and in Conyers' case.
But I don't know.
I don't know sometimes.
And if somebody says, no, I have had too much experience with initial stories not being true that I leave it an open question until I know more.
And I took the time and, you know, I interviewed the Clinton women and I looked them in the eye and I made a determination after listening to their stories, their corroboration.
I said, wow, this is true for me.
This rings true.
This seems, this person is beyond credible.
And I made a decision.
I don't want to repeat the story, but when I was in Atlanta with Richard Jewell and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, he fits the profile of the lone bomber because he lives with his mother.
And I'm on the air when that story comes out and I'm reading it and I'm like, so what?
He lives with his mother.
That doesn't make him a bomber.
Turned out he was innocent.
And he made a lot of money from media outlets that had gone with the story and falsely accused him.
And I think there's no more prominent case than what we have in the Duke LaCrosse case.
I mean, that was a very prominent case.
Anyway, so the president goes out, lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer, someone who would come to my office begging for campaign contributions not so long ago and would do anything for them.
Well, now that is being written up as some type of sexual harassment as Donald Trump, that he is implying something.
I mean, is he doing?
I don't even want to ask people how they interpret it.
I can tell you how Elizabeth Warren interpreted it.
She tweeted out, you really trying to bully, intimidate, and slut shame at Senator Gillibrand.
What?
How do you get that from the president's tweet?
How do you go from, she asked me for, well, does it mean she'd do anything, meaning she'd take any position you wanted, maybe, on politics, considering this is a political environment?
But everyone's making their own inference into what he meant.
We know what he really meant.
Do you really?
You know, and then she goes, do you know who you're dealing with?
Good luck with that, Elizabeth Warren writes.
All right.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
We have Jay Seculo.
He's fuming mad at the false story written by him when he gave them the exact true story.
He'll join us next.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity shows.
All right, we're loaded up today.
At the top of the next hour, Jay Seculo, he literally sent me the text that he sends NBC News.
He specifically says he wants a special counsel has nothing to do with Robert Mueller, has to do with fusion and GPS and all of these people that have massive conflicts of interest.
Says it again and again.
And it didn't stop NBC News from reporting just the opposite of what they recognized he was saying and promised him they wouldn't say.
We'll get into this fake news epidemic more on Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren and their fight against Donald Trump and their desire to relitigate the entire 2016 election.
Then we have Jonathan Gillum and we'll go to our pollsters down in Alabama.
Coming up, investigating the investigators.
There's a new Axios report this morning.
It's like you can't make this up.
President Trump's lawyer, he wants a special counsel to investigate the special counsel, Robert Mueller.
Welcome back.
I'm Stephanie Ruhl.
Today, President Trump's legal team is rolling out a tough new strategy.
A lawyer for his team, Jay Succolo, confirms to NBC that they want a second independent counsel, this time to investigate the Justice Department.
For more, NBC's Kristen Welker is at the White House.
All right.
What's the rationale here?
Well, Steph, I've been speaking to members of the president's legal team.
Bottom line, they feel there have been conflicts of interest.
I want to be very clear about this, though.
What the president's legal team is calling for is an investigation into the DOJ, the FBI, not the special counsels.
All right, that, of course, is from earlier today.
This goes back where now Jay Seculo, who is the leading director and, of course, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and also a counsel to the president.
I'll let him tell us the whole story himself.
Jay, walk us through exactly what happened and how basically MSNBC purposely took your words out of context.
Well, Sean, here's what happened.
Last night, James Rosen, our friend James Rosen, reported that the Department of Justice lawyer who last week was demoted, Bruce Orr, who was the one that made the off-the-record, so to speak, or behind-the-scenes non-disclosed outreaches to Fusion GPS and to Christopher Steele, that his wife, this is Bruce Orr's wife, who, by the way, he was a high-ranking number four in the Justice Department.
He was an Associate Deputy Attorney General.
His wife was employed by Fusion GPS.
And of course, my concern from the outset has been with that whole Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, fake dossier, was that utilized to get FISA warrants?
And there's indications that a lot of people are talking about.
That's probably what happened.
So that raised a very serious problem in our view.
And we thought, and I thought as the lawyer, that what needs to happen is a special counsel needs to be appointed just to investigate these multiple conflicts of interest as it relates to the Fusion GPS Bruce Orr situation, because this is something where I don't think the Justice Department can investigate themselves.
By the way, I'm not the only one saying this.
Who else is saying this?
Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, and others are saying the same kind of thing.
And here's the problem: the problem is that this was a very clear statement.
I was very specific with the reporters I contacted early this morning.
Axios got the piece right.
They put it out, Mike Allen.
And I get a call from Kristen Walker at NBC.
She wants the statement.
She asked me in a text message if it was, can you please send me the quote you gave to Axios?
And then she said about needing a special counsel to investigate Mueller.
And I responded it was not about the special counsel investigating Mueller.
It was regarding a special counsel to investigate conflicts within DOJ and FBI.
Actually, the words were, none of this is aimed at Mueller.
You actually said that to her.
Yes, and I've said it to you.
I mean, I've been on your broadcast and said that we're not.
And she said, ah, okay, still send me the statement.
I did.
I sent her the statement, and I said again at the end of my message, please understand, none of this is about Bob Mueller or Mueller's investigation.
It's completely independent, and it is.
And Ari Milburgh from MSNBC sent out a tweet.
Normally he gets about 100 retweets.
He got 3,000 or more than that now, saying that I said, are you ready for this?
That a special counsel needs to be appointed to investigate Bob Mueller, which, as you know, because I just read it to you, was the exact opposite of what I actually said.
And Kristen Walker, the lead-in, as you just played it, to Kristen Walker and that entire discussion that took place was they had this breaking news story, which was not ever true.
And she said, you can't make this stuff up.
And then NBC did.
They made it up.
Now, Kristen Walker tried to walk it back, but Ari Milber sure has not.
And I've talked to him a couple of times today.
I'm not talking with him anymore.
That's why I'm talking to you because this shows you what's going on here.
If the narrative doesn't meet what the media wants, they change the story.
If it's Brian Ross saying the president when he was, or then the candidate, Donald Trump, but he happened to be the president-elect.
If it's Donald Trump Jr. received a tip-off from WikiLeaks 10 days before WikiLeaks was public, oh, it was after that WikiLeaks.
But when you say in specific terms over and over again that it's not about Robert Mueller and it's in writing, how did they possibly get away with saying just the opposite of that which you gave them in writing?
Our team just reviewed an MSNBC broadcast that was going on right now where they said, well, Seculo did say that it had nothing to do with Mueller, but in some theory that they have, it could still be involving Mueller because Mueller is technically part of the Department of Justice.
But I specifically said, I sent him to you, Sean, you got him.
Fusion GPF, Bruce Orr, his wife working for Fusion GPS, by the way, an expert supposedly in Russia, as all this is going on.
And that's what you can't make up, that that's happening inside the Department of Justice.
So that's how we approached it.
But the fact that NBC, and Sean, I gave them the courtesy of talking to Ari and telling him he needs to send out a correction, pull that tweet down.
He sends out my full statement, not really a correction, just kind of the full statement without a context to it, and leaves up the other tweet.
Why?
Because that one's getting retweeted.
So this is why I believe that we've got to call it exactly as you've been doing so effectively every single day and call out the media when they're doing this because this is what they're in the business of doing.
See, but I think with libel laws the way they are and how difficult it is if you're a public figure to sue when things are purposely said about you that are full of lies, I mean, now you've got to get into this whole area of, well, was there an absence of malice?
And malice of forethought, right?
I mean, and I think.
You don't win those.
Well, the standard is so high, even though you said one, two, three times in this text exchange on the issue to the, I guess, producer, then they go out and say something just the opposite.
So here's what happened.
The reporter, I mean, I want to say this.
Kristen Walker apologized, but the problem is she said she sent out a memo, and in it she said, I made it very clear that she said three times that this was not involving the special counsel Bob Muller.
But this guy wrote with this piece and left with it.
I'm going to have, you know, as we're on the air, I check to see if they've added any corrections.
As of now, they haven't.
And the fact is, Sean, you're right.
You're not going to get them on the libel laws because forget that.
So here's what you get them on.
The truth.
And the truth hurts when the media is getting clobbered because they want to change the entire discussion right now.
But it's almost now every day, almost every story.
And bias is, you know, you can get to bias a couple of different ways.
You can get to bias, all right, what Brian Ross did, what CNN did.
Those are overt examples.
But then it's also the stories that they choose not to cover.
The fact that the fix was in with James Comey and this kid Bruce Strzok, and Bruce Strzzok is involved in every aspect of this.
And you're talking about Bruce Orr in the DOJ, and he's four doors down from Rosenstein, and Bruce Orr meeting with Fusion GPS during the time and his wife working for them.
How many conflicts of interest can you possibly have in one investigation?
Well, and then add to it that it may well be, I mean, we don't know this, but it may well be that the basis upon which Pfizer warrants were issued was this Christopher Steele Fusion GPS piece, which brings it up to a whole nother level.
Well, I mean, but the whole point, if this was Trump-Russia collusion, and I won't drag you into the other legal aspects of this because with Paul Manafort and with General Flynn, there was nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion.
But when you look at it now that we know, in spite of a year's worth of denials, that in fact it was Hillary's campaign and Hillary running the DNC, according to Donna Brazil, and it was their money bought and paid for Russian propaganda to influence an election full of salacious lies,
and you have high-ranking members in the Department of Justice not only working for them, but their spouses are employed by them, and they're meeting with this particular group, and it could have been used as the predicate for the Pfizer warrant.
I mean, to me, those are the stories the media won't talk about ever.
That to me is talking about.
No, of course.
So here's what they wanted to talk about.
They wanted to talk about something that did not exist.
We have not said a special counsel needs to investigate the special counsel.
So what do they do?
They turn it into that.
Then they issue their quasi-apologies, knowing that that's not going to get picked up.
And that is the basis upon which we have, that's the deck we've been dealt.
So you know what we do?
Fortunately, you're on the air every day.
Fortunately, we can reach a lot of people just by doing this right now and set the record straight.
But I'll tell you something, Sean.
This shows you the media bias at a level we have, I'll tell you something.
I've never seen anything like it.
Last week, let's think about last week, Tuesday, Deutsche Bank.
False story.
Even the newspaper that reported it said they never said that the president or his family was the subject to a subpoena from the special counsel.
False story.
Then two days later, CNN, breaking news, they're gloating.
An email from WikiLeaks to Donald Trump Jr. dated, they said, September 4th, 2016, before it was released to the public by WikiLeaks, except for one problem.
The email was not dated September 4th, and they had three different people review it, approve it, and no consequence to the reporter on that one.
But there are never any questions.
You know, I do think, too, and this is a broader discussion, perhaps for another day, but I do think libel laws do need to be shifted and changed.
You know, look at Great Britain.
They have loser pay laws in terms of tort reform.
I don't even think that's a bad idea.
But if they were held accountable, if the standard wasn't so high that basically anybody that's a public figure, you can say anything about, and if you want to sue, you can't win.
I mean, you're a lawyer.
How many times have you gotten pulled?
I mean, look, if you're representing a public figure, the answer is you don't win.
You don't bring the case because you don't win.
It's so rare that there's a win.
The knowledge of falsity has to be laid at their feet, although this would be pretty darn close.
The problem is, what's the damage here?
And you know what the damage is?
It's they create a false narrative, which gins up their base.
But the fact of the matter is the American people, I think, are seeing through this.
And they're not only weary of it, they realize what's going on here.
And I talked about this on our broadcast.
Here's the truth.
The truth is, I sent you the text exchange with the reporter, Sean, because, and again, I'm not blaming her.
I think this guy went off, but I don't know what's internally going on at NBC.
But the fact was, at multiple occasions, I say what this is not, and that's what they lead with as what it was.
And by the way, they posted that as a newspiece on NBCNews.com and MSNBC's website as well.
It was up for two hours before they took it down.
Then you have another problem, and that is once a piece goes up over there, like in the case of this recent issue with Don Jr., then every other media source begins to just echo what they said, not even doing any investigative reporting by themselves, and they just cite the other source.
So NBC will quote ABC, which will quote CBS, which will quote the New York Times, which will quote the Washington Post, and it goes viral.
And by the time you ever try to get it untangled, it's too late.
The story went out, and the retraction is buried.
Like if it's a story in the New York Times that's retracted and corrected, that's on page A99, where nobody's going to see it.
In Little Font, you can't read.
But, I mean, with that Deutsche Bank nonsense last week, you're 100% correct.
Here's what happened.
You had major news outlets reporting what this paper said in Germany, and the paper in Germany never said it the way they reported it.
So when I would ask the reporters about sourcing, they say, oh, we've got really great sources.
We really check this out.
And then, of course, Business Insider pulls it back.
Wall Street Journal.
They all did their quasi-retractions.
But you know what their retractions are, like you said, page 8C in 2-inch in 0.2 font.
But the point is, we've got to continue just to push back hard, and we're doing it, and I'm going to continue to do it.
This one, I deal with a lot of these, Sean.
This one really bothered me because I dealt with this at 5.47 this morning.
You have to deal with the special counsel's office in your role as counsel to the president.
Is this something you would call and directly maybe even send them the text exchange and say, this is the truth?
We will not need to do that.
It's not going to be necessary, but I will tell you this.
Again, it was unnecessary.
We're creative.
Well, what about all the leaks?
I know of somebody in this whole Trump-Russia collusion nonsense that was literally in a hearing one minute after the hearing ends.
Stuff that is supposed to be kept confidential was leaked immediately to the liberal press, immediately, within seconds.
Sean, I have left the Oval Office, and there are leaks within minutes after you leave.
I mean, it's incredible.
It's not as bad as it was, but it's amazing.
I mean, this was back in the summer.
You don't see that as much now.
But the fact is, whether it's a leak, whether it's an intentional misrepresentation, they don't feel like they have any price to pay.
Now, a couple of these network personalities lost their jobs.
I'm not advocating people getting fired.
I'm not in that business.
I'm in the business of get the record.
If I give you a statement, put the statement out there in the context it was given when it was crystal clear what that context was.
You know, they didn't do it.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back.
More with Jay Seculo, chief counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, counsel to the president, as we continue on the Sean Hannity show.
As we continue with Jay Seculo, counsel to the president and the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
This has now gone on for seven months just with the special counsel.
The discussion has gone on and the issue has gone on for over a year now.
There's still no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
I would argue there is evidence.
Hillary Clinton bought and paid for lies from Russia to influence the campaign.
Then, of course, the fix was in with Comey and Peter Strzok.
And then we have the Uranium One deal, which we've never gotten to the bottom of.
And, you know, all these same names keep popping up in terms of Rosenstein and Comey and Mueller and everybody else that seems to be involved.
They all seem to be good buddies in all of this.
And, you know, if you have biased people that are pro-Hillary, anti-Trump, and they're texting back and forth, and then you have questionable people that are appointed by Mueller, which I have been bringing out.
I'm not trying to drag you into this.
I'm just trying to understand at what point the other side gets investigated.
But what I can make a strong, powerful argument in literally minutes that laws were broken repeatedly.
Well, let me give you the position to be very clear.
And that position is we have been participating and cooperating with the special counsel.
And we've been very transparent.
And we think that is the right strategy.
I am very encouraged.
And I believe we are going to have a successful conclusion to this situation.
Having said that, you take, I'm not going to comment on what's going on in Bob Mueller's office and what issues they've had.
That's been discussed.
That's not my job.
My job is to work in representing the president's interest as the White House counsel represents the White House interests and the official office of the president in that regard.
So we have our different functions.
My job is to bring this to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible, and I'm still convinced and committed that we're going to get that done.
All right, Jay Seculo, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and counsel to the president.
Jay, thanks so much for being with us.
We appreciate it.
Eyes of the nation, and for that matter, the world are watching Alabama voters as they cast ballots in this election.
The two major candidates have already cast their ballots right now.
Perhaps the most dramatic photo op of the day is Roy Moore arriving at his polling site on horseback.
This is Moore's Election Day tradition.
Doug Jones, of course, arriving by more conventional, or should I say modern means.
All right, of course, everybody is paying very, very close attention to all that is going on in Alabama 24 now till the top of the hour.
Amy Kramer is on the ground in Alabama.
She is the co-founder of Women Vote Trump, and pollster John Wall is with us.
He is the chief political officer for WTNS Consulting and has been doing a lot of polling down there from the primary forward.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Good to have you both here.
John Wall, what's going to happen tonight?
What does the polling show you?
Well, you know, we've got a lot of numbers, and I want to start out with, I don't know if you know this or not, but you are a folk hero here in Athens, Alabama.
I didn't believe, I don't believe that, but I did live in.
You know where it is.
Dan Wachtell Ford still there?
It is.
Okay, I live right behind there in the Tanglewood apartments if they're still there.
They are still there.
That's where I used to live, yeah.
Well, thank you so much.
But yeah, I loved my time at Alabama.
The people are wonderful and Limestone County.
But you've been polling.
You polled in the primary and you're polling here, right?
That is correct.
I've actually been tracking this race since somewhere around July.
So I've kind of been keeping a pulse through the primary, through the runoff, and now the general.
Now, I originally supported Mo Brooks, and he didn't do as well as I thought he'd do.
Why was that?
Did you know that was coming in?
I did.
My tracks never showed Congressman Brooks quite as high as other people did.
And the main reason for that, if you look at his name ID statewide, he's very well known in the 5th District, very well loved.
That's my area, a good friend of mine.
But when you look at the rest of the state, he really struggled for name ID.
And so when the Senate Leadership Fund came in with negative ads, it hurt him much worse than it did, say, for Judge Moore, who's more well-known statewide and had credibility, where Mo Brooks was kind of lacking that statewide.
So the negatives really, really hurt Mo Brooks' bottom line.
Now, when it was a runoff between Luther Strange and Roy Moore, you got, I think, within 0.6% of the vote, right?
That is correct.
0.6 of a percent, which should be impossible in a special election.
So let's not try to say I'm going to do that again tonight.
Okay, so where do you have this race now?
And I know you've been polling, and where are you?
If you look nationally, real clear politics average, it's like Moore by like two points, a little over two points.
So where do you have the race now?
And you know, I think we're quite a bit higher than that.
We've seen several polls that I questioned the ratio of Democrat to Republican votes using in their poll.
My latest tracking from last night, and this is kind of the final benchmark, has the race at about a 7.7 lead with Doug Jones at 41% and Judge Moore at 48.7%.
Okay, so, I mean, that's a pretty big margin.
I mean, the Fox poll had Doug Jones winning by 10.
That seemed like an outlier to me.
And by the way, it's not connected to anything I do at Fox, so I'm just being honest.
It didn't seem in sync with the other polls.
You know, I'm glad to hear you weren't connected with that because when I dug down and looked into the methodology used and kind of their crosstabs, what I noticed instantly was they had Alabama, they had the respondent to the poll when asked about their party affiliation were 44% Republican to 42% Democrat.
Well, you know, having lived here, there's no way Alabama is a 44-42 split, Republican versus Democrat.
So that's where the error came in.
Correct.
I'm hearing high turnout from sources at the Secretary of State's office.
Are you hearing the same thing, or do you have anecdotal evidence that that's happening?
I am very much hearing the same thing.
My brother is a party, Livestone County party chairman here.
He's hearing that from all his guys on the ground.
I'm hearing that from Jefferson County, from Madison County.
We are definitely looking at high turnout.
I would not be surprised to see 35, even 40% turnout.
That for an off-election like this would be a massive number.
Amy Kramer, let's go to you.
How long have you been on the ground, and what are you hearing?
What are you seeing?
And does John's poll number seem accurate to you?
That seems that would be a huge win for Roy Moore, who statewide traditionally runs pretty close races.
Yeah, Sean, I mean, I've been on the ground this time several days.
We've been in and out of the state, but hearing those poll numbers, it's definitely music to my ears.
I think that I would not be surprised for a very high turnout because the people here are very passionate about President Trump and the America First Agenda.
And while all the national media is focused on, you know, all these different allegations and this and that and the other, the people here are going to be voting on the issues that matter to them.
And what matters is securing our borders and the economy and the next Supreme Court justice.
And so when they go to the polls, that's what they're going to be voting on.
And I think that we will have a high turnout.
And I do think that he will win tomorrow or today.
Geez, all the days are running together.
What is the fallout and the thinking among people in Alabama based on the 40-year-old charges and how this has been vetted and the people that have made the charges?
You know, actually, when I actually put down, I said, all right, you're saying that this one woman claimed that he didn't know this woman.
And then there was a yearbook supposedly with Roy Moore's signature on it.
I thought from that point on, it was going to be forensics that would decide the veracity of what Roy Moore was saying.
And it was stunning to me that they didn't have a forensic test.
And then we found out that certain portions, this particular woman, admitted that she had written herself, and it wasn't Roy Moore.
Right.
And what infuriates people here about that is that they report on all the allegations, all the allegations, but then when it comes out that she had written in the yearbook herself and whatnot, none of that's reported.
But the bigger picture at 30,000 feet, I think, for the people of Alabama is that this is Republican leadership, McConnell and company, trying to put their hand on the scale here and trying to pick the next senator after all the money that was spent here.
And now, if Roy Moore is elected, and I believe he will be, the threats of he will be expelled from the United States Senate, that he will enter the Senate under an immediate investigation by the Ethics Committee, that infuriates people because if we have come to a point where the people can elect a representative and send them to Washington and then a body can come in and overrule what the people have decided, that is very dangerous.
And so it's yet to be determined what's going to happen with that.
But that is definitely on the mind of people here.
And their message pretty much is stay out of our election, stay out of our states, and let us do what we need to do.
And you get back to work because we all know that they haven't accomplished the work that they were hired to do this year.
You know, I thought I did, John, the right thing when I said, hold on a second here.
We've got a contradiction.
And the contradiction was one woman claims that you wrote this in a yearbook.
He claimed that he didn't know her.
And so I said, I think the people of Alabama have a right to know an answer to that in that particular case.
Anyway, so Roy Moore wrote a public letter to me.
Now, I thought from that moment forward, and I put a handwriting expert on this radio show, a 42-year professional, who said with 100% certainty that if he had writings of Roy Moore at the time and could compare it to the yearbook, he would be able to ascertain 100% if Roy Moore had signed that yearbook.
The other thing he'd be able to check is whether the ink was old or if the ink was new.
And that never happened.
Did people get suspicious that that never happened?
Because that was a shock to me.
Well, you know, I think it absolutely played a part.
Down here on the ground, and what I've seen in the polling over the last 10 to 14 days is the numbers have changed.
And, you know, part of that is Trump's involvement in his going endorsement.
He obviously wants Roy Moore in the Senate.
But absolutely, I mean, allegations have been developing holes.
There's obviously the question of the yearbook.
I mean, that is the only piece of evidence, you know, of physical evidence we have.
And it's being very closely guarded.
And now there's admissions that the story has changed with it.
And I think that has been a massive issue and a massive change shift in people's public opinion down here in Alabama.
Yeah, I mean, that's.
And can I say, Sean, too, and I don't know if John will agree with me on this, but believe it or not, anytime Gloria Allred is involved, it raises red flags for everybody.
I mean, I hear that more and more every single day on the ground here.
Are there people on the other side energized by this?
They are.
And that is one thing I wanted to clear up from what I said earlier.
You know, general population, I do believe my point is accurate and dead on, in fact.
I think we're looking at 7.7 lead.
However, looking at a track record over the last few months and the 2017 special elections and the Virginia elections as well, Democrat candidates have been overpointed by an average of about 4% to 6%.
What do you expect?
I mean, you know, for example, demographically, when you break down the state, what percentage of Republicans versus Democrats would an honest poll, you know, include in that poll?
In Alabama, you're looking for a 60-40 split.
That's close to Trump versus Clinton in 2016.
That's a pretty good number that I look for.
I've conducted over 200 polls over the last year and a half in Alabama.
And I mean, that's a consistent number.
If you're pulling a broad list, broad universe, looking for honest answers, that's what you're coming up with.
You're coming up with a 40-60 split.
Well, I think it's going to be very interesting.
Are you looking at different corridors of the state?
Where would it be more Democratic?
Would that be Montgomery?
Yes.
Okay, so basically, Doug Jones does have a path to victory.
I want to say that now.
It's not out of the question at this point because what he's looking for is he's looking for high turnout amongst minorities and metro areas.
So, you know, you're actually, you're looking at Jefferson County and Birmingham.
You're looking at Montgomery County, Montgomery City.
You're looking at Mobile, down in Mobile County, Madison, and the Huntsville area.
Those are all going to be key areas.
If there's high turnout in those areas and in minority areas, that is Doug Jones' only hope.
But it has to be coupled with low turnout in rural conservative areas of the state.
So that is really, at this point, that's the only pathway to victory I see for Doug Jones is for high metro and minority turnout and low rural county turnout.
Anecdotally, as we talk about it at this point in the afternoon, what are we seeing in those areas versus some of the more rural areas?
You know, and the hard part about anything with that is you get it.
You know, you talk to somebody in a rural county, you say, hey, you know, how's it going?
What does it look like in their end?
They're like, oh, turnout's high.
But how high is high?
You know, that's all subject to opinion.
You know, they may be thinking 25% is high in a rural area, where in Jefferson County, we may be looking at 35%.
So there's really no good way to measure that until the results are coming in.
I know.
All right.
So what parts of the state, Amy, have you been traveling to, and specifically, and when you look at, say, more Democratic strongholds versus Republican strongholds, who has more enthusiasm?
Well, I mean, I've been down in the southern part of the state, Mobile, Montgomery, and then up in Birmingham.
But I mean, I am mostly around conservatives, so I do see the enthusiasm there.
But I also think you have a lot of people.
It's going to be like 2016, where a lot of people voted for Trump, but they didn't put signs in their yard.
They didn't talk about it.
They just went into the polls and voted.
I think that you're going to have a lot of that.
All right.
Thank you both for being with us.
We appreciate it.
We'll be watching closely tonight.
Probably the call will come during my hour tonight on Hannity 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
We'll have all our reporters on the ground standing by and analysis of what happened and why it happened.
And as we continue, we'll get to our busy phones here.
Bill is in Paradise, Naples, Florida.
Bill, you're on the Sean Hannity Show.
What's going on?
Thanks for taking my call, Sean.
75 on Sonny in Naples today.
Yeah, rub it in.
See if I care.
I may be down there soon to see you and spend time with you.
What's going on?
Very good.
Sean, I think it would be extremely arrogant if Roy Moore is elected today and the United States Senate or anyone else tries to reverse the will of the people of Alabama.
And I think the Republican Party needs to get out in front of this argument right away.
The key difference between Roy Moore and Donald Trump, for that matter, and Al Franken and John Conyers is that if Mr. Moore is elected today, it will be with a fully informed electorate.
They know all the allegations that have been made against him, and they will either decide that they don't care or other things are more important to them than these allegations.
And by the way, I guarantee you, if somebody made a decision, you know, that they thought that there's so much at stake in this arena, in this arena, I guarantee you that the media, as they often and always do, they will look at anybody that is not in New York, New Jersey, that doesn't share their political ideology and view.
It's going to be, oh, look at these red staters, you know, those irredeemable, deplorables that cling to their God, their guns, their Bibles, their religion.
And you watch how arrogant the media will be towards the people of Alabama.
And I, look, I lived in Alabama.
I know the people in Alabama.
And they are, you know, God-faith, family, country.
And they will be mocked.
They will be attacked.
They will be ridiculed.
By the way, as often, many people in the South are unfairly attacked.
And there could be a whole variety of reasons that people do what it is they do.
But you watch.
Mark my word.
If Roy Moore wins, you watch the attacks against Alabama.
They will go through the roof.
Same thing when President Trump was elected.
But here's the difference, Sean: Al Franken and John Conyers have never faced an electorate that was fully informed about allegations against them.
Those have only come up after their election.
So in effect, they were elected under false pretenses.
And I would invite Al Franken to resign from the Senate, not in some weeks from now, but perhaps tomorrow, and go back to Minnesota and stand for election again and let the people of Minnesota decide, just like people of Alabama are deciding about Roy Moore.
They can send him back, and then guess what?
Welcome back, Al.
If they send him back with full knowledge of the allegations, so be it.
And you know what?
There will be other elections.
I personally wanted Mo Brooks to win that primary, and he didn't win that primary.
Anyway, I appreciate it.
800-941 Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Our news roundup and information overload hour at the top of the hour.
And then we've got Jonathan Gillum stepping in and much, much more.
The preliminary information from police sources, and I emphasize your world, my former world, preliminary, subject to change.
It is a man in his middle 20s, probably, possibly from Bangladesh, been in the country about seven years, who supposedly was setting the device off in the name of ISIS.
So definitely a terrorist attack, definitely intended as to whether the device malfunctioned or didn't function correctly.
That will have to be determined.
As of the moment, he is apparently the only injured person in terms of the event, possibly others from the noise of the explosion, maybe ear issues.
Please have him in custody, talking with him.
Again, this information is all preliminary.
There will be a significant investigation of the area in question, as you might imagine, that launch quad, et cetera.
There will be delays down at the Port Authority throughout most of the day while they conduct that investigation.
It was in a passageway between the subway system and the Port Authority between 7th and 8th Avenue.
Any evidence that there's an uptick and attempts are clear evidence that we had the bombing the night after I left my term as commissioner, Jimmy O'Neill's first night in office.
We had just several weeks ago the attack along the Hudson, the bikeway.
And then we have had this one.
That's three attacks, definite terrorist attacks.
The pace is quickening, as we have been indicating that it would.
That New York continues to remain the focus of interest because of what is happening right now, the intense publicity that anything that happens in New York brings about.
And so this is something that we can anticipate.
These attacks are going to increase.
Now, their preliminary effects.
So just it just happened a couple hours ago.
So you have to understand these are preliminary facts.
At approximately 720 and a below ground walkway, which connects the IND line at 4-2 and 8th Avenue with the IRT line at 4-2 and 7, the next shuttle at Times Square and the 1-2 and 3 train.
Police were called to a reported explosion.
Responding units found an injured 27-year-old male.
We've identified him as IKED Ulah.
AKAYED U-L-L-A-H.
He had burns and wounds to his body.
Preliminary investigation at the scene indicates this male was wearing an improvised, low-tech explosive device attached to his body.
He intentionally detonated that device.
Looks like there were three other people in the immediate area also sustained minor injuries, but Dan Nigero is going to talk about that.
The subject was placed in custody and transported to Bellevue Hospital.
Immediate police response to the scene included members of the Transit Bureau, Emergency Service Division, Bomb Squad, counterterrorism, MTA police, state troopers, and the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force.
In addition, the NYPD Strategic Response Group and Critical Response Command were assigned to other key transportation hubs and other locations throughout the city as a precautionary measure.
This incident was captured on Transit System Video.
A further review and interview of witnesses is underway.
A thorough background investigation into IKAD Ulah is being conducted by the Joint Terrorist Task Force.
We are asking anyone who may have any information about this individual or incident to call the terror hotline.
And that's 888NYC SAFE.
Let's be clear, as New Yorkers, our lives revolve around the subways.
When we hear of an attack on the subway, it's incredibly unsettling.
And let's be also clear: this was an attempted terrorist attack.
All right, those are the sounds from yesterday and the latest terror attack.
Here you have in New York City, and this guy's strapping a bomb on himself.
This could have been far worse during morning chaotic traffic in New York in the subway station by Times Square.
And, you know, no more perfect time to bring on our good friend, Jonathan Gillam.
He has a brand new book out.
It's out today.
It's called Sheep No More.
I was honored to write the forward for this book.
Then you have wonderful people, my buddy Marcus Luttrell and some other wonderful people.
Dave Webb was one of them.
Then you've got a lot of military people, Rick Unger, all of our friends literally reading this book and loving it, The Art of Awareness and Attack Survival.
It happens to be something that Jonathan and I discuss privately a lot because of my love of martial arts and self-defense.
And the attitude is we can't be sheep anymore.
I mean, this is like a terror attack a week.
This is, you know, and it's happening not just here, but all over the world.
And I don't think most people are prepared to deal with any situation.
And that's what I've learned in the five-plus years now that I've been doing martial arts.
You know, basically awareness and attack survival.
Look at what you've exactly.
Look at what you've discussed over the past month alone, Sean.
You've talked about sexual predators.
You've talked about terrorist attacks.
You've talked about people at the top of the FBI and our government that are criminals, basically.
What this book does, and I know that's a huge stretch of different types of criminality, but the reality is all attackers build target packages on what they want to attack.
They find a target.
They look for their vulnerabilities.
They look for the critical times, critical areas for those times.
They look for the best avenue of approach, and then they exploit those things and they create a target package.
We can be doing the same thing, Sean.
Have, if you look at your life, when you get up in the mornings, when you commute to work, when you're here at the studio, you go to Fox, you commute home, you have about five to ten different sectors in your life, and you literally, and each one of those sectors have between five and seven types of attacks that could happen to you.
Once you discover those and you look at it from the attacker's point of view, there's no surprise anymore.
You're going to know who, why, where, when, and how they could attack you, and then you either avoid it or you mitigate the circumstances.
And it doesn't matter if it's a Harvey Weinstein or if it's an ISIS guy trying to blow up Times Square.
Once you realize who they are and where they're coming from, you can mitigate those things.
I agree.
You know, one of the things that has been really amazing is the military and many observers, as soon as Donald Trump changed the rules of engagement and allowed the military to do their job and we're not guiding wars through Washington.
You know, we have been able to deeply degrade ISIS at a level that even military guys on the ground said that they were shocked about.
All right, let me play.
A lot of this was also connected to chain migration.
And this gets to the issue of vetting refugees and building the wall.
Let me play what the president said about ending chain migration.
Before we begin, I want to address the terrorist attack that took place yesterday in New York City and to praise the first responders, local police and federal law enforcement for their quick action.
They did an incredible job.
There have now been two terrorist attacks in New York City in recent weeks carried out by foreign nationals here on green cards.
The first attacker came through the Visa lottery and the second through chain migration.
We're going to end both of them.
The lottery system and chain migration.
We're going to end them fast.
Congress must get involved immediately and they are involved immediately.
And I can tell you we have tremendous support.
They will be ended.
This is the simple common sense that needs to be applied to every person in this country in terms of if they want to survive, which is, I'll get into that in a second, that you talk a lot about in the book.
Sure.
Listen, it doesn't matter if it's chain migration, if it's the way the State Department sets up vetting overseas, or the way that our military is now allowed to fight.
What happens, or look at Stop and Frisk and the surveillance of the mosques that were stopped here.
When we have bad policy that's set up strictly because of politics, either eliminating something or creating a void, where that void is at is where bad people exist, and that's how nefarious people operate.
They look for those voids.
The fact that the president identified chain migration, he's identified the borders in this country.
He's identified so many different vulnerabilities and also the rules of engagement.
He's identified those vulnerabilities, those voids where these bad people operate, and he's eliminating those shows you that he is understanding and his awareness is heightened and he understands where these types of political mistakes have been made made so he can fix these things and close the gap on these bad people.
You know, you have to look at this on the micro level and on a macro level.
We as a country, we've got to fight radical Islamists.
We've got to fight mullahs in Iran.
We've got to fight evil wherever it exists.
But, you know, you start out by actually defining key terms, predator and prey.
And one of the things that drew me to you as a friend was when I do self-defense, which is Krav Maga, Kempo, Jiu-Jitsu, boxing, blade and firearm training, that also includes defensive blade and firearm training.
If you have a gun pointed at your hand, what you do, if you have a gun at your back, if you have a gun at your chest, if somebody pulls out a blade, which can be more deadly than a firearm in some instances, if somebody's trained in the use of that blade, you're telling people that they have got to understand what this is about for them and what they need to know and how they're going to deal with evil if it confronts them in life.
Exactly.
Sean, if you go look at the animals on the plains of Africa, you have the lions, which are the predators, and you have, like, let's say the gazelle who are a prey.
But the gazelles don't show up at the water hole completely clueless, looking at a cell phone with no idea where the bad guy's going to come from.
They actually know exactly how the bad guy works, but they have to put themselves in that environment to get water.
So they know how to act, not just react.
They know where the bad guy is going to come from, and that's why they're constantly looking, observing.
And then if something happens, they react with action, right?
So action beats reaction.
I know you hear that all the time.
That is where people need to get in their mind.
The average person walking through the streets of New York City, they've got their headphones on or in their ears or they're text walking or they're talking on the phone.
They have zero situational awareness.
And I've talked about this a hundred times when I think really if we look at the shooting, the mass shooting in Vegas, as soon as it happened, what did people do?
They assumed that it was fireworks instead of assuming it was an attack.
And then, and this is no, I'm not hitting on anybody for this because this is where we have to get away from this mindset.
But the promoters, the sound people, the lighting people, what'd they do?
They sat there and tried to figure it out and they turned the lights on and everybody laid down.
They pretty much just presented a huge target.
No different than if you go in a range and you have a static target.
Now you can see everybody.
So if they had understood the reality that we're in, maybe you wouldn't have as many drinks when you go there.
But if you hear some popping over, instead of saying that's probably fireworks, you say, I think that's gunshots.
Let's keep the lights off and already have a plan.
Not make it up there.
Have a plan.
That's where you sit in restaurants, for example.
You know, I mean, there are certain little things that you can do to increase your safety odds that if something happens or even a movie theater for crying out loud.
Every place, I can guarantee you, the majority of places you go take when the Ariana Grande concert was blown up, right?
Had you done any, these parents had done any type of online surveillance of that area, they would have known that is the drop-off and pickup area.
They should have told their kids, wait 10, 15 minutes, be the last ones out of the stadium.
We'll get you down the road here.
Don't come out this area.
That's a critical area and that's a critical time.
Fortunately, they don't think like that and those kids and those adults are dead now.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back more with Jonathan Gillum and his brand new book, Sheep No More.
Jonathan Gillum continues with us, his brand new book out today, Sheep No More.
You can get it on Hannity.com.
You know, I don't think people are fully aware of the dangers that police, law enforcement have to deal with every day.
And maybe they shouldn't have to be aware of it.
But I do think that there's the thing that bothers me, and this is for a lot of my friends, I ask them all the time, what are you going to do?
What happens if?
And I run through scenarios with them.
And I'd say the vast majority have no clue what they're going to do if something happens.
And that what-if game that you talk about in the forward and we talk about in the book, that what-if game is really, that's what we're doing here.
It's one of the most important things that you can do.
You can start teaching kids this at nine years old.
You can teach old people this.
The reality is like truckers, a lot of truckers listening to this radio show.
They park their trucks in places where they wouldn't normally park their truck.
They should be able, before they park there, she should get on Google Earth, do a map study of where they're at.
I would call the local precinct and say, I'm parked here.
They may not want to hear it, but now you've identified who you are and that you're here.
These are things that you have to think of before you get there by playing the what-if game.
All right, let's talk about the rest of the book here.
As you put it all together, you talk about escaping, evading, fighting fear, the defender, building an attacker's target package.
The reality is, we're all sitting ducks in some ways.
Right.
You know, these women that were going up to Harvey Weinstein's hotel room, they could have pre-thought that out.
It was no surprise he was going to try to pull that on people.
Why not bring somebody with you?
Why not bring another person with you, a guy with you, your manager?
You see, these are things that you can do to mitigate these circumstances.
If you're in, if I was a female working for NBC and I knew Matt Lauer was a predator, I would have made sure before I went into that room that I had somebody with me or I had somebody calling me within three or four minutes to tell, you know, just so I could say, oh, I got a meeting.
I got to go.
There's ways that you can think like this predator and then actually mitigate the circumstances.
We have to get to a point.
And the other thing you just said there is instead of saying, if you get yourself into something like happened in Times Square, it's not run, hide, or fight.
It's escape, evade, or fight.
Escape means that you're doing your best to get out of there, but using cover and concealment.
Evade means you may hide, but you're going to continue to move.
This is a self-defense book and something you're going to learn about how to keep yourself and your family safe and learn a lot about how dangerous this world can be.
It's called Sheep No More.
Jonathan Gillum will put it on our website, Hannity.com, The Art of Awareness and Attack Survival.
800-941 Sean is our number.
Good congratulations on the book.
We really love it.
And we're glad it finally came out.
Sean Spicer at the bottom of this half hour as we continue.
Joining us now is, he's the man.
He's the former press secretary.
White House Press Secretary.
Sean Spicer is with us.
How are you, sir?
I'm great, Sean.
How are you?
Thanks for having me.
You watch every day.
They're like having a retract a story a day now.
I mean, you had this big fiasco over at CNN on Friday, and earlier in the week they had the big fiasco at MSNBC.
Now we've got a big fiasco with NBC and MSNBC that they're falsely reporting what Jay Seculo said.
And he's pretty darn mad about it, and I don't blame him.
I've been misquoted too.
I hate being misquoted, but it happens with regularity.
Well, and again, I think the thing that I always found was my issue is that what they do is they'll twist whatever you say to fit the narrative that they want, but they hold themselves to an entirely different standard.
So when you go to them and say, hey, the way this story comes across, they'll say, well, that's not what I meant, or that's only, you know, not all readers.
It's always one excuse or another.
When they do screw up, they call it an update.
They never admit they were wrong.
Or it's always, you know, publish first, tweet first, use their anonymous sources first, and then figure out how to cover up when they get caught for a bad story.
And that's what I think the unfortunate part is.
What I have found the most recent things is if you notice, when the president calls these guys out for these false stories that you keep talking about, what's their answer?
It's not to talk about the fact that the story itself was false.
It's to now turn it back on the president and say, president attacks the reporter.
No, the reporter actually wrote a false story.
The president has a right.
The same First Amendment gives us a free press.
Also gives every American the right to express themselves.
I think the press largely views the First Amendment as a one-way street that they can say whatever they want and no one can challenge them.
And I think the president has finally started to call them out like they've never been done before.
What did you find these people like behind the scenes?
Did you ever, I assume probably daily, you were confronting them on the stories and what you had said versus what they report.
What was it like behind the scenes?
Well, in some cases, they would, you know, they would, they would say, well, that's not what I intended.
It's all like I said, there's always a cop-out.
My editor wanted to make this more, really wanted to hype this up.
I needed to do it in this way.
I'm sorry it came out this way.
Or, you know, we had to get on air real quick.
For the most part, well, you know, in a lot of cases, I would say that there was always an excuse.
One of the other big challenges, we always felt like we were fighting anonymous sources.
And, you know, there's no way to confront when you went to the reporter and said, you know, these facts don't add up.
That scenario didn't occur.
It was, well, we've got five unnamed anonymous sources that say it happened.
And you would say, well, there were only three people in the room.
How could that be true?
And well, people familiar with the situation.
So I think there is a desperation to try to figure out how to tell sensational scenarios, stories.
And a lot of times, it's interesting now being on the other side of this where I get calls from reporters that say, hey, we're looking for a source that will say the following happens.
And I'm like, I don't know that that's supposed to be how it works.
You're not supposed to look for this, you know, for the outcome.
Well, let me play for you this exchange with Jim Acosta, who's just overtly biased over at Fake News CNN, and this exchange that he had with Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Play this.
I would just say, Sarah, that journalists make honest mistakes, and that doesn't make them fake news.
When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.
Sometimes, and a lot of times you don't.
But there's a difference, there's a very big, I'm sorry.
I'm not finished.
There's a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people.
Something that happens regularly.
can't say I'm not done.
You cannot say that it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information that you know to be false or when you're taking information that hasn't been validated.
that hasn't been offered any credibility and that has been continually denied by a number of people, including people with direct knowledge of an instance.
This is something that I'm speaking about the number of reports that have taken place over the last couple of weeks.
I'm simply stating that there should be a certain level of responsibility in that process.
Brian, I called on Jim.
This is not the line of questioning that I was going down, but can you cite a specific story that you say is intentionally false, that was intentionally put out there to mislead the American people?
Sure.
The ABC report by Brian Ross, I think that was pretty misleading to the American people.
And I think that it's very telling that that individual had to be suspended because of that reporting.
I think that shows that the network took it seriously and recognized that it was a problem.
Is there any part of you that misses that, number one and number two?
I mean, they're so hostile.
What's your reaction to that?
They're also just, I think, to be honest, they're also rude.
Because again, if you want to let someone answer the question, then you let them talk.
And that clearly wasn't the ⁇ they didn't want to have a conversation with Sarah or get an answer.
They wanted to create a moment.
And that's what you see more and more.
Yeah, listen, I just think it's brutal.
What was the hardest part of all of this for you?
Because, you know, I mean, you're getting lampooned by Saturday Night Live.
They're kicking the crap out of you.
Did you take any of that personally?
I mean, it was funny when you went on the show.
I thought that was really smart of you to do.
But it does become, I think if you become, you know, if you're put in that position, I think it's probably tough for somebody.
Yeah, I mean, yeah, it's not it's you know, admittedly, it's not, it's not, it doesn't make you feel great, you know, having that kind of stuff happen.
I think it's also deeply personal for, you know, close family and friends that, you know, are trying to are weathering it and trying to be supportive.
So it comes with the job, but I think the level of intensity and scrutiny, I've never seen it like that before.
And I think we've lost a huge degree of civility.
And if you look at just how they treat Sarah and the exchange that you just played, you know, that's what I think is unbelievable, is that the degree to which this is not, it is, the entire point of a briefing is for them to be able to ask questions about policies and actions that are going on in the White House and get answers.
And it's now become a show.
They want to antagonize.
They want to make themselves get clips and clicks on things that they can play.
And the goal is not to get information or further stories.
And that's the sad part about where things have gone is that it is not reporting anymore.
It is trying to create these moments.
And it's unfortunate for, I think, not just journalism and the media at large, but I think for democracy.
So we had this incident Friday with fake news CNN, and they are breathlessly going wall to wall on the story that claimed that Don Jr. received an email on September the 4th, 2016 that gave him special access to a WikiLeaks dump that was coming but hadn't come yet.
Well, it turned out that it was September 14th and it was already public information.
And you saw the way it's a smoking gun, and it's not any different, by the way, than what happened in the case of Brian Ross.
Same thing.
Yeah, but in the case of Brian Ross, and this can happen, you know, it didn't happen necessarily the same way with the CNN one.
But in the case of Brian Ross, it moved markets.
People lost money because they thought that certain actions took place.
And at the end of the day, when ABC News went to correct the story, they said, we've updated the story.
That's a cop-out.
And I think the problem is that in all of these, the default is that if it's a negative story about the president, then let's just get it up and we'll deal with the consequences later.
And so, you know, as you've pointed out in the past, that CNN story got picked up by other outlets.
They all started going with it, assuming it was fact.
And it wasn't until much later in the day, very later in the day, when they said, you know, actually, we forgot that there was a one before that four, so that makes it the 14th.
And now that changes everything that we actually reported.
And the speculation that occurred by a lot of the pundits on MSNBC itself talking about the criminal implications was unbelievable.
These people, the second a story is printed, the folks, a lot of these reporters treat it as gospel truth and start reporting as if they all report each other.
They don't even do their own reporting.
I mean, minutes after CNN broke the story, then there was MSNBC repeating CNN's story.
They didn't do their own reporting on it.
Do you think that these networks now, I watch occasionally, and I really can't tolerate much of it, but I'll turn on CNN or MSNBC and I'm like, wow, it's like an altered universe.
They're not living in reality.
I mean, you know, the fact that nobody really, except for me and a couple of others, are vetting the investigators and the conflicts of interest, which are massive, and the corruption of those people that Mueller put on his team.
To me, between that and Comey giving Hillary a pass and exonerating her before he does the investigation, the same with Uranium One, all of these issues, to me, indicate corruption at a high level, but very few of these reporters will ever touch it.
They're just obsessed with Trump, Trump, Trump.
Well, that's absolutely right.
I mean, and again, because I think the default is we're going to go after this.
We're going to report this all about against Trump.
They don't care about these other stories.
It's not a true bipartisan look at what's happening or a pursuit of the news.
It's truly a pursuit of taking down Trump and Republicans and conservative values.
So that's what's troubling to me.
I've been dealing with for decades, but I think that the intensity that they have now gone after this president has taken it to way new heights.
What did you think of the president?
He got into this row with Kirsten Gillibrand when he sent out a tweet calling her a lightweight and a flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to his office begging for campaign contributions not so long ago would do anything for him, he says, and is now literally fighting against Trump, very disloyal and Bill and Crooked Hillary, I guess was what he was saying there.
I didn't get the rest of that tweet.
But then, anyway, Kirsten Gillibrand goes out there and basically claims this is sexual harassment of women.
Elizabeth Warren talks about this being bullying, intimidating, and slut-shaming.
I'm like, what is she talking about?
Yeah, I think some of that was a little confusing.
But I believe, I can't say I know entirely what the president, but I think part of this is that he has constantly felt under attack.
And a lot of these folks who, when he was a donor, had no problem coming to him and asking him for his support and his financial contributions.
And now that he's a Republican, we're going to go out and attack him.
And I think, you know, look, I think for a guy like Trump who's been very supportive of folks and causes for a long time, you constantly are feeling under attack by people who had claimed to be your friend when they needed something from you.
And then the second that it's politically advantageous, dump you over the side.
Are you worried about Mueller's investigation and the team that he has assembled?
Well, at the end of the day, I don't know what they're going to ultimately do or what they have, but everything that I saw, no, leads me to believe that you can't, that there was, you know, as the president has said before, there was no collusion.
So from a worried standpoint, no.
But I think the question is, you know, if you go looking for things, you know, you can start to find out.
Does it worry that they have gone so afar from their original mandate, which was to look in the Trump-Russia collusion and look at the charges against Manafort.
It has nothing to do with it.
It's the same with General Flynn.
That's right.
And again, I don't know.
I think part of this is we're not, until we get to the end of this story, we don't, you know, it's tough to judge, but I do know the president's been crystal clear that there was no collusion.
He did nothing wrong.
And therefore, as long as they stick to the mandate, I think we're fine.
I think, obviously, the point that you're raising is clearly of concern that if they start going off on these wild fishing expeditions that don't have anything, that aren't tangential to Russian collusion.
But I also think that the president has made it clear that we should look into a lot more.
There is a lot of collusion with respect to Hillary, some of the stuff that was happening in her campaign and with Podesta and with Bill Clinton and the speeches and the money.
So if they want to look into it, let's look into all of it.
And I know Lindsey Graham has brought that up as well, but it's a very one-sided look at this.
If we want to talk about it, then let's talk about all of it.
What about the dossier in that particular point?
Don't you think that now that we know that Hillary bought and paid for that, isn't that paying for Russian propaganda lies to influence an election?
Well, yeah, of course.
I mean, remember, as soon as we found out the Hillary Clinton connection to this, it was almost like everyone stopped talking about it because it was all the dossier, the dossier, dossier.
And then as soon as we actually found out the connection that existed between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the dossier, and there were serious questions that got brought up, who paid for it?
Who knew about it?
Were there actually any Russians that were involved in the payment of this, which is what someone had, There was a huge concern for that prior when it was just thought that it was about Trump.
Now that the Hillary questions came in, everyone said, okay, let's forget about the dossier now.
And I think, again, this gets back to this whole idea.
As soon as Hillary, some concern comes up about Hillary Clinton or the left, we immediately go, let's move on to the next story because we no longer need to look into the dossier anymore.
Let's move on.
And I think this is troubling about how this whole thing is being looked at.
Let's look at all of it if we're truly concerned about it and investigate those things, which I think to your point have there are serious questions that need to get answered about uranium.
I bet this, you don't miss this one bit, do you?
Not.
Look, I wouldn't like being in the mix, but I'm glad to have served, and I'm, and I think Sarah's doing a fantastic job, and I enjoy being a viewer now.
I'm sure you do.
All right.
Thanks so much, Sean Spice.
You're going to be writing a book, by the way, on the first six months of the Trump administration and the campaign trail coming out in June of 2018.
We look forward to it.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for tonight.
All right, a lot happening.
Obviously, we're watching the election results in that Senate race in Alabama.
We'll have full, complete coverage of that.
Jay Seculo talks about his latest example of media bias against him, which is so flagrant.
Joe Concha weighs in.
Sebastian Gorka, Larry Elder, Doug Schoen, Tammy Bruce, and much more.
That's all coming up nine Eastern tonight on the Fox News.
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.
