With the tax reform legislation rolling along smoothly, it seems President Trump has turned his focus toward Immigration reform. Sean covers the latest including an unprecedented joint session between the Senate, House and White House that was recorded! Also, if you think the Democrats are hypocritical, listen to what some of them are saying now about Immigration versus just a few years ago. 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 at Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Let not your heart be troubled.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
Let me just say, I think Dick and I agree with what Chuck Grassley just said.
It's hard to believe.
When was the last time that happened, Chad?
We need to take care of these DACA kids, and we all agree on that.
86% of the American public agrees on that.
With all due respect, Bob and Mike and Lindsay, there are some things that you're proposing that are going to be very controversial and will be an impediment to agreement.
But you're going to negotiate those things.
You're going to sit down.
You're going to say, listen, we can't agree here.
We'll give you half of that.
You're going to negotiate those things.
Comprehensive means comprehensive.
we're not talking about that now we're talking about we are talking about comprehensive But if you want to go there, it's okay because you're not that far away.
President, many of the things that are mentioned ought to be a part of the negotiations regarding comprehensive immigration reform.
If you want to take it a step further, you may have to rely on you.
It may complicate it and you may delay DACA somewhat.
I don't want to do that.
You said at the outset we need to phase this.
I think the first phase is with Chuck and Stenny and I have mentioned others as well.
We have a deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging.
We can agree on some very fundamental and important things together on border security, on chain, on the future of diversity visas.
Comprehensive, though, I worked on it for six months with Michael Bennett and a number of Bob Menendez and Schumer and McCain and Jeff Flake.
And it took us six months to put it together.
We don't have six months for the DACA.
We're not talking about comprehensive.
Take a look at our bill in the chat.
Well, you've mentioned a number of factors that are going to be controversial, as Stenny has mentioned.
You're going to negotiate.
I think you're going to negotiate.
And maybe we'll agree and maybe we won't.
I mean, you know, it's possible we're not going to agree with you and it's possible we, but there should be no reason for us not to get this done.
And Chuck, I will say, when this group comes back, hopefully with an agreement, this group and others from the Senate, from the House comes back with an agreement, I'm signing it.
I mean, I will be signing it.
I'm not going to say, oh, gee, I want this or I want that.
I'll be signing it because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that you're going to come out with something really good.
Senator, would you like to say something, Diane?
That was Stenny Hoyer.
This was one of the most fascinating.
Now, don't take me the wrong way here.
There's things said in this meeting that literally are making me angry about what is being presented and what they're talking about here.
But in terms of fascinating transparency of actual meetings of substance, it was pretty historic because we don't usually get to sit in on those meetings.
And I actually made a, as I was watching it today, I said, you know what?
I'm going to run this in full in the next hour, and then we'll be talking about it later in the program.
But it was a discussion about immigration, and it was a discussion about DACA, and it was a discussion about chain migration, and it was a discussion about the border wall.
And actually, I think the person that came out looking the best on the Republican side was the House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, who went on and on about we need security, we need border security, which means it's part of leadership.
It kind of took me a little bit by surprise.
Wasn't expecting that, at least the part that I heard.
I didn't hear all of it, but the part that I was paying attention to because I'm prepping for the show.
But this is my problem with all of this, is that at the end of the day, what bothers me is anytime you make a deal with Democrats, and by the way, the president was talking to Chuck Grassley, not Chuck Schumer.
Schumer wasn't in the room for this particular meeting.
Stanny Hoyer was in there.
I thought also the House Homeland Security Secretary, she was phenomenal today in her comments talking about the need for border security and ending chain migration and all the other safety measures.
But this goes back to a simple argument that I always make, and that is you always get the spending increases of government, and then as part of a, quote, comprehensive deal, you always get the tax cuts promised later down the line.
You never get the tax cuts.
New Congresses never abide by the promises that they make.
Now, we've been promised going back to 2006 that we're going to have border security.
And that doesn't happen time and time again.
So my answer to all of this is if you build the wall expeditiously, fund it fully, get it moving, then you can talk about any other topic you want to talk about.
But I'm not buying that it's going to happen down the road.
And I do believe that the president is committed to building the wall and building border security and stopping chain migration.
And I think he's committed to Kate Steinley's law, which the House had passed, and all of these things that we talk about all of the time.
Now, the president has been reiterating over and over again that we need this border wall, and it's about $18 billion.
And he's requested the full $18 billion, roughly one cent for every 20 spent by the federal government for now.
And that's not a lot of money.
And Dick Durbin, who sat next to the president, was very angry at the president's negotiating style.
It's outrageous the White House would undercut months of bipartisan efforts by, again, trying to put its entire wish list of hardline anti-immigrant bills plus an additional $18 billion in wall funding on the back of these young illegal immigrants.
Well, they're not young anymore.
You know, they're in their 20s.
And, you know, as part of any deal, I got to believe there's going to be some vetting that takes place.
You can't mention vetting because if you mention vetting to anybody, you know, making sure that these people have America's best interest at heart and that future immigration, that we get to pick and choose who gets to come in this country.
And we can choose the best and brightest and greatest that are going to contribute the most to society, which is what most other countries now do.
If you look at Australia and New Zealand, you want to get in.
It's going to cost you a boatload of money investing in some type of economic endeavor that benefits the people of New Zealand and Australia.
They have amazing immigration policies too.
And in Australia, if you're on a boat and you're about to hit shore, they're not even going to let you hit the shore.
They're going to pack you full of food, water, medicine, supplies.
And if you're really sick, they'll take you to a hospital out of the country.
But then you're going back to where you came from.
And I don't think it's mean.
And by the way, that's Mexico's policies if you're coming from Nicaragua or El Salvador or Central America.
You know, the fact that we want to know who's coming into this country does not make us bad people because if we open the doors fully and completely, everybody would want to come in here.
And I don't blame people for wanting to leave, you know, broken down, dilapidated communities and countries where, you know, you have narco-terrorism, you know, leading a particular town and shaking people down for pennies, you know, every single day, poor people.
And you don't think that happens?
That happens in places like El Salvador every day.
So the president, I think, is right in what he's asking for, building the border wall.
He put out a seven-page document, which was delivered to both senators and congressmen from Homeland Security.
This was last Friday, including heightened rules for unaccompanied minors arriving in the country, limits on chain migration, $18 billion for the wall, also increases for enforcement against immigrants who illegally overstay their visas, punishing cities who take on sanctuary city policies to thwart federal enforcement of immigration laws.
All that is is aiding and abetting, frankly, lawbreaking by states and towns and municipalities.
Anyway, and then you got the Democrats saying, well, President Trump has said he may need a good government shutdown to get this wall.
Durbin said, with this demand, he seems to be heading in that direction.
I could care less about a government shutdown.
Shut the government down.
It's not like we're going to save any money because key employees, what they say are essential employees, they still stay in work.
Congress will stay in work.
The military is on standby.
They're working.
You know, the only people, the people that end up being furloughed for whatever period of time, they end up getting back pay every time anyway.
It's not like it's going to impact anybody's life here in America.
I can tell you that for a fact.
It's just a threat that they all use, and they have this unnatural fear of all of this.
You know, what are we going to do about California now that it's a sanctuary state?
You know, what changed here is, you know, the bill in California passed by the state of California.
Now it's law in California as of January 1.
It literally limits the cooperation between California state local officials and federal immigration enforcement.
In other words, the state of California is aiding and abetting in the committing of a crime.
And they're not following, you know, federal law.
Now, I can't imagine that Jerry Brown's going to get arrested or anybody, state or local official is going to get arrested.
But if they're not going to follow laws, then why is it that they get federal money at that particular point?
And I think a showdown needs to happen and happen now.
States can't just pick and choose what laws they're going to follow and which laws they're not going to follow.
It's called the California Values Act, SB Senate Bill 54.
And you can't inquire about an individual's immigration status.
You can't detain someone on a hold request from the federal government.
Somebody, well, we've had instance after instance where people, look at the Kate Steinley case is one of them, where, you know, you have a hold request from the federal government and local authorities don't abide by it and they let somebody off the hook to go free.
Well, we've had instances where people literally have died because of those policies.
You know, unless there's a felony warrant or the person has been convicted of one of the crimes specifically listed in the legislation.
Otherwise, they let them go free.
In California, you can't arrest someone for civil immigration warrants alone.
You know, you can't deputize as immigration agents, meaning people in California can't be deputized.
You can't participate in border patrol activities.
I guess that means if you know a bunch of people walking across the border, you can't arrest them.
And it's like, okay, what do we know about those people?
You know, the 12 trips I made down to the border, I did see gang members.
I found out later that people that were arrested, they happened to be part of a gang.
I've been to the drug warehouses.
I've seen the tunnels and the efforts that go into bringing people, you know, drug trafficking, human trafficking, it's all happening.
In California, you can't participate in a joint task force with the federal government if the purpose is immigration enforcement.
You can't notify the federal government of someone's release or transfer to federal custody at all unless there's a federal warrant of the person has been convicted of one of the crimes listed in the bill.
You know, with no exceptions, agencies are barred for asking about their status, detaining on a hold request, participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants, placing officers under supervision of federal immigration agencies, deputizing them, using ICE agents as interpreters for law enforcement, or participating in border patrol.
Now, the only provisions that they allow is providing information regarding an inmate's release date from county jail unless information is available to the public and the person has been convicted of certain crimes or transferring someone to ICE.
You can't do that either.
It's unbelievable.
And I'm just trying to understand it all.
What's the point here?
800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program here.
Anyway, it's the, you know, and I'll play when we get back.
Or we just played for you.
The Democrats have all played it later at the bottom of the arrow.
All these Democrats, they all supported building a border wall under Barack Obama not that long ago.
It takes your breath away, the level of hypocrisy.
If Trump supports it, bad.
Obama supports it, good.
Talk about politicizing something.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show, you know, with all the coverage of the Michael Wolf book, you know what hasn't been covered?
I mean, I think it's now in its decline phase very quickly is how many people have disputed what is in this book?
And it's like, and even Michael Wolf admitting himself, oh, if it's, what was the words that he used?
It was actually miraculous.
You know, he won, well, one, he predicted it was the end of the Trump president.
If it rings true, then it is true.
That was his latest comment.
You have tapes.
Are you going to release the tapes?
No, I'm going to do, you know, I have what every journalist, I work like every journalist.
I have tapes, I have notes.
People are questioning it.
Why not produce the evidence?
Because that's not what I'm not, I'm not in your business.
My evidence is the book.
Read the book.
If it makes sense to you, if it strikes the, if it rings true, it is true.
If it rings true, it is true.
And I'll just, I'll use my case in point and just say this.
Now, I was on a plane with Michael going down to Roger Elza's funeral.
He writes about it in a book.
And then he brings up other issues involving me.
He knows how to get in contact with me.
And he says, somebody said this about you, and it's just not true.
Now, just because it rings true doesn't make it true.
All he had to do was pick up the phone and say, Sean, by the way, I want to ask you, so-and-so said such-and-such.
What is your response?
And I would have given him the truth.
But it's not just me.
You know, Mark Berman disputes that he was even at the fourth season.
He's the national reporter for the Washington Post.
I saw Maggie Haberman not too happy with the way she was presented in the book.
Stephen Miller disputes claims in the book.
Sarah Sanders disputes claims in the book.
The president obviously disputes claims in the book.
Gary Cohn disputes, even wrote an email that's in the book.
I disputed, you know, certain points of the book.
Mike Pompeo disputed claims in the book.
McConnell's aide disputed claims in the book.
Tom Barack disputed that he called Trump stupid.
Anna Wintor of all Wintor.
You know, every once in a while, if I go to the U.S. Open, she's always sitting there with her glasses on in the dark.
It's pretty hilarious.
And the glasses cover her whole face.
Pretty funny.
Once I said hello to her, ugh, ugh, mere mortals.
Ugh.
And it must be, well, whatever.
Anyway, Tony Blair disputes numerous accounts in the book.
Melania Trump, Laura Ingram, and the list goes on.
And then there's certain things in the book that are provably false.
You know, if he's claiming in the book, well, Trump didn't even know who John Boehner was, and you go back and look at Trump's Twitter and there are at least five separate references to John Boehner and he played golf with John Boehner, loser that he is, then I guess there's not a problem.
By the way, Boehner's full of crap, too.
He lied about me.
What is wrong with these people?
Well, Fox is going to be all over this immigrant.
Yeah, I'm going to be over.
I want the border built, the border wall built, like everybody else.
And I don't want to hear a lot of talk about it.
All right, quick break right back.
Your call is 800-941-Sean.
People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.
The president's decision to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless.
When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.
Hundreds, hundreds of thousands of families will be ripped apart.
If you don't think it's illegal, you're not going to say it.
I think it is illegal and wrong.
Tens of thousands of American businesses will lose hardworking employees.
And the argument there, Mr. President, is Americans don't want to do the work.
We just can't find American workers to do the work.
Mr. President, that is a crock in many instances.
It's just not true.
In my view, Trump's decision to end the DACA program for some 800,000 young people is the cruelest and most ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country.
I cannot think of one single act which is uglier and more cruel.
We've got to do several things, and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.
People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.
Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx.
You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.
You know, it is not a problem that the people who are coming into the country are solely responsible for.
They wouldn't be coming if we didn't put them to work.
My proposal will keep families together and it will include a path to citizenship.
The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.
If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole, it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and puts strains on an already overburdened safety net.
Immigrants aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up.
There are those in the immigrants' rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws.
But I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.
It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.
And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.
These are students, they're teachers, they're doctors, they're lawyers.
They're Americans in every way, but on paper.
Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.
Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship.
All right, 23 till the top of the hour, what you hear there is every single second that they just change their minds.
I'm like, what's wrong with them?
It's like, you know, we'll have this position today.
We'll have this.
But you know what?
That is the typical politician putting their finger in the air and saying, which way is the wind blowing today?
And that's going to be my position on this.
And now the Democrats that are speaking out so loudly against building the wall and the president is holding up DACA to build the wall.
We're going to play this.
I mean, it was a fascinating exchange.
One other observation, and you'll hear this in the next hour, as they sat there for 45 straight minutes talking, and it was a real discussion.
It wasn't your typical Washington speak discussion, and they knew the cameras were rolling.
The fact that they let the cameras continue to roll is a good thing.
And by the way, Donald Trump didn't look crazy.
He didn't sound crazy.
He didn't sound like he's unhinged.
He didn't sound impatient.
There was no angst or anger on either side.
So Stenny Hoyer got a little heated.
But short of that, I mean, you know, this entire narrative got blown out of the water right there and then that we've been hearing of the 25th Amendment.
You know, this Alan Dershowitz said on the TV show last night, that is not what the 25th Amendment was designed for.
It's designed if a president is incapacitated, if a president has a stroke, if a president's going under the knife and can't be, and is not going to be available to make decisions.
And the power temporarily would then move to the vice president.
That's the only clarification that that was ever all about.
But it doesn't matter in the minds of people on the left.
So now for 45 minutes, all these Democrats that are constantly attacking the president, well, there they were, you know, sitting there having a discussion with him.
The answer is simple, by the way, and the answer is secure the border first.
The only thing the 25th Amendment did was take away the ambiguous wording of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution.
It didn't expressly state whether the vice president becomes the president or acting president if a president dies or resigns or is removed from office or otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency.
Clearly, the president was in command, as he always is.
Just who he is that they don't like, and that's their problem.
But what you just heard there, Democrats now pretending that the president's intention to build a border wall is absolutely around the bend bonkers and racist to boot.
Well, I guess they were all racist and beyond the bend themselves for years because you'd hardly know it because the same Democrats supported building the border wall as part of the proposed immigration deal under Obama.
That was five years ago.
The entire Senate Democratic caucus voted to build hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
That was 2013.
The Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act called for the deployment of an additional 700 miles of fencing and technology along the Mexico border, the same area that the Trump border wall would cover.
And the plan devoted $40 billion over a decade to border enforcement measures that would double the number of border agents.
On the other side, the bill made a host of visa reforms and offered a path to legal status for some illegal immigrants.
So, you know, they're the ones that have changed their minds on all of this.
And all President Trump did say today during the meeting, you know, after initially seeming open, if you hear this in the beginning, he said, whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down.
When he's answering Diane Feinstein, Trump clarified his position, telling the meeting you need the wall.
But I say you need the wall first because you're never going to get the wall built if you acquiesce in any way to what the Democrats want first.
When reporters asked Trump later in the meeting if he would agree to a DACA deal without the wall, the president said you need the wall.
And he stuck up for that position.
Now, some of you are going to be angry that he's doing anything with DACA.
And I fully, completely understand it.
But I'm going to tell you what the absolute truth on that is, is just like healthcare, when push came to shove, we learned 100 Republican congressmen had no intention ever of repealing and replacing Obamacare.
None.
And then we had senators that voted in 2015 for just a clean repeal of Obamacare.
And seven of them, when they could have actually gotten it done in 2017, they absolutely didn't do it.
They had no intention of ever doing it.
Well, I can tell you there are too many Republicans that want the DACA fix.
And that's just the reality.
So you can say, well, the president's changing his position.
I don't think he's changing it at all.
I think the president actually wants the wall built.
And he wants it built and is going to make it a part of the deal and get the thing built.
The other impressive person in that meeting, I felt, was the new Department of Homeland Security Secretary.
She was amazing in this meeting.
And she was standing up for the president's principles there.
But you need the wall.
I say you need the wall first.
I need security first before you do anything.
But this flipping and flopping is unbelievable.
So we're going to run this meeting in the next hour.
Now, one other thing we've got to follow, and that's John Solomon and Sarah Carter breaking more news.
By the way, Kristen Nielsen is the Homeland Security Secretary now and took over for General Kelly.
But anyway, they broke an article last night about FBI agents and their text messages and how congressional probe into these new leaks.
You know, there were 9,500 of these emails between Peter Strzok.
Peter Strzok is the guy that interviewed Michael Flynn.
He was at the heart of the email server investigation.
Peter Strzok is the one that wrote the exoneration with Jim Comey before the investigation.
He was there to interview Hillary Clinton.
He's in the middle of everything.
And now we got more of these emails, and it's now leading the Republican House and Senate committees investigating whether leaders of the Russian counterintelligence investigation had contacts with the news media that resulted in them leaking to the news media.
Now, this is all prompted in part by messages between Strzok and his, I guess, girlfriend or mistress, Lisa Page, whatever you want to call it.
Anyway, so there's part of these new exchanges.
And in a series of texts that were released just before Election Day 2016, they knew in advance about a Wall Street Journal article.
Article is out, but hidden behind a paywall so you can't read it.
Lisa Page texted Strzok, Wall Street Journal, boy, that was fast.
Article is out.
Boy, that was fast.
That sounds like they knew the article was coming.
That means they leaked for the article.
Anyway, there were a whole bunch of these text messages, and then they tried to cover it up.
Well, I can act like I got it on Google Alert.
They're saying this way people won't suspect us.
Anyway, Strzok played a key role in the early Russia election meddling probe, and he was the one that constructed the exoneration of Hillary before the investigation.
Lisa Page was serving as the lawyer that advised the FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.
That's problematic.
Now, they want to know about these media contacts, and they want to be able to prove these media contacts.
But anyway, there's now 27 specific leak investigations going on.
One of them needs to be about General Flynn because we know that he was surveilled and unmasked, and then raw intelligence was leaked against him.
And on top of that, we've got FBI contacts with the media.
You know, I think at all ends of this, it just reeks of them trying to control the narrative in this country, especially as it relates to their narrative to hurt the president.
Remember, Strzok and Page hate Donald Trump.
And that raises questions why he's up to his eyeballs in the exoneration of Hillary and going after Donald Trump on everything possible.
Anyway, there's more information about the case.
Remember, there was a former FBI director, James Comey, who was on his watch that the Russia case began.
And he had previously testified he didn't authorize or engage in leaking, but then he leaked as soon as he got out of office.
And this whole thing goes on.
Andrew Weissman, apparently, we're now learning, too, that he had contact with the media.
We're going to learn more about that in coming days.
And in a deal with the FBI director Christopher Wray and the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, this is why he was in Paul Ryan's office begging last week not to have to go through all of this stuff.
Justice officials have promised to provide the intelligence committee information about Weissman's contacts.
That's the guy that literally put tens of thousands of Anderson accounting employees out of work, had a 9-0 Supreme Court decision against him, overthrown in his obstruction case there.
And then the Enron case put four Merrill executives in jail for a year, and that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
Anyway, one string of messages five days before the election day, November 3rd, 2016, Page wrote Strzok that the counterintelligence agent, anyway, to the Washington Post about a timeline of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and Paige mentions a conversation that she had just had with the FBI chief of staff and openly expressed concern that the information about Hillary's timeline, the FBI timeline, was too specific for comfort.
Of course, she wants to protect Hillary.
That was the whole reason they exonerated Hillary without investigating Hillary.
A few days earlier, Strzzok had texted Page about another new article suggesting it was anti-FBI.
And then Page texted that she'd seen the article.
Makes me feel way less bad about throwing him under the bus to the forthcoming CF article.
CF, I'm assuming, is Clinton Foundation article.
What article did that turn out to be?
We need to find out.
And then we have other exchanges, you know, like congressional investigators want to now question struck about what he meant by saying, you know, a tiny bit from us.
Well, what does that mean about an article having a tiny bit from them, meaning struck and page?
And the worst part of this whole thing is that that struck and page were tracking down information, including the address, the spouse, the spouse's job, other employees, their kids, their parents' names and homes.
Why are FBI agents looking at a New York Times reporter's family?
I think we may have his address too.
Their address is too.
What are they planning on intimidating this poor idiot?
They call him a schlub.
Then they go on to say about Trump, the new Trump Hotel in D.C., oh, there's one place I'd never want to stay in.
I hope it fails horribly.
And then if that doesn't prove that they're so anti-Trump, then they attack the New York Post.
Then they attack Chris Wallace, my colleague at Fox.
And then they attack viciously my former colleague, Megan Kelly.
Pretty amazing.
Now, Sarah Carter is going to weigh in on this at the top of the five o'clock hour.
Well, she'll join us.
When we come back, we're going to play what was going on in this, well, I guess, extemporaneous meeting that was picked up by cameras on immigration.
It's pretty fascinating.
All right, so this impromptu, although I don't know if it was so impromptu.
Anyway, the president invited over Democratic and Republican leaders to talk about immigration.
We're going to play it in full.
And you got to listen to the president's comments.
There's a moment there you're thinking, oh, no, he's losing it.
And then he did recover.
And there's going to be things you don't like.
We'll discuss that and Sarah Carter coming up straight ahead.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
A fascinating meeting took place with the president, Democrats, senators, congressmen, all on immigration.
This was a phenomenal exchange, and I think you're going to enjoy it.
From my perspective, the answer is secure the border first.
Listen in.
I am very much reliant on the people in this room.
I know most of the people on both sides.
I have a lot of respect for the people on both sides.
And what I approve is going to be very much reliant on what the people in this room come to me with.
I have great confidence in the people.
If they come to me with things that I'm not in love with, I'm going to do it because I respect them.
Mr. President, if you're all right.
But let's wait about that for the press today.
Yeah, it's phase two.
I think comprehensive will be phase two.
I think I really agree with Dick.
I think we get the one thing done and then we go into comprehensive the following day.
Mr. President.
I think it'll happen.
March 5th, 1,000 a day will lose DACA protection.
900 of them are members of the U.S. military.
20,000 of them are school teachers.
In my state of Illinois and city of Chicago, there are 25 of them in medical school who can't apply for a residency if they lose their DACA status.
So lives are hanging in the balance of our getting the job done.
We've got the time to do it.
In a matter of days, literally of days, we can come together and reach an agreement.
And when that happens, I think good things will happen in other places.
And we'll see some progress here in Washington.
I agree with that, Dick.
I very much agree with that.
Tom, would you like to say something, Tom Cott?
Thank you for inviting us all here, and I'm glad to be here with Democrats and with House members as well.
I think on this issue, there's a lack of trust, and it has been for many years.
A lack of trust between Republicans and Democrats, a lack of trust among Republicans, most fundamentally, a lack of trust between the American people and our elected leaders not delivering a solution for many, many years about some of these problems.
And I hope that this meeting can be the beginning of building trust between our parties, between chambers, because I know for a fact all the Republicans around the table are committed to finding a solution, and I believe all the Democrats are as well.
I think this is a good first step in building the trust we need for a good bill, Mr. President, that will achieve the objectives that you stated: providing legal protection for the DACA population while also securing our border and ending chain migration at the diversity lottery.
Thank you for the invitation.
Mr. President, thank you very much for having us down here.
I agree with Tom Cotton that the American public are very frustrated with us.
One of the reasons they're frustrated with us is because we continue to couple things on which we have large agreement with things on which we do not agree.
This is a perfect example of that.
86% of the American people in the most recent poll are for ensuring, as you have said, not providing for DACA-protected kids to go to a place that they don't know they didn't grow up in and it's not their home.
They're Americans.
They don't have a piece of paper that says they're Americans, but they're Americans.
And it seems to me, Mr. President, if we're going to move ahead in a constructive way, that we take that on which we agree, pass it.
The American public will be pleased with all of us if we do that.
Just as in September, you recall, we did the extension of a CR.
No drama.
We were all for it.
You, the four leaders, met, we came to an agreement, and we passed that CR.
In my view, we can pass the protection in the what I understand your position is, procedurally it was not done correctly.
You then, as Dick has said, challenged us, pass it correctly.
If it's put on the floor, Mr. President, I believe it will have the overwhelming majority in both the House and Senator Graham thinks it will have a substantial majority in the United States Senate as well.
That, I think, is the first step, Tom, to creating some degree of confidence.
Democrats are for security at the borders.
I want to state that emphatically.
There is not a Democrat that is not for having secure borders.
There are obviously differences, however, Mr. President, on how you affect that.
You just indicated that yourself.
And you indicated this would be a first step, and then we continue to talk, as we're talking today, about how we best secure the border.
There are differences of opinion within your party and within our party.
So I would urge that we move forward on protecting the DACA-protected individuals, young people, young adults, as you pointed out in one of your statements, who are productive parts of our community.
That we protect them and get that done.
And then, because I think everybody around the table, as you pointed out, is for security.
And then the issue is going to be how do we best affect that border security.
So I would urge us to move, as Senator Durbin has urged us to move, on the DACA students.
As a matter of fact, the Speaker, I think today, but maybe yesterday, said we need to solve the DACA issue, and we need to solve it in a way that is permanent, not temporary.
And I agree with him on that issue.
And interestingly, when you say that, President Obama, when he signed the executive order, actually said he doesn't have the right to do this.
And so you do have to go through Congress, and you do have to make it permanent.
Whether he does, whether he doesn't, let's assume he doesn't.
He said it, and that was a temporary stopgap.
I don't think we want that.
I think we want to have a permanent solution to this.
And I think everybody in this room feels that way very strongly.
What happened, Mr. President, I think, is that the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill, as you know.
We did not consider it in the House, so we didn't reach those issues.
Very frankly, on border security, Mr. McCall, the chairman of the committee, reported out a unanimous security solution, which we then included in the bill that we filed on comprehensive immigration reform.
So I think we can reach agreement.
Well, I also think that after we do DACA, and I really believe we should be able to be successful, I really think we should look in terms of your permanent solution and to the whole situation with immigration.
I think a lot of people in this room would agree to that also, but we'll do it in steps.
And most people agree with that.
I think Dick, we'll do it in steps.
Even you say, let's do this, and then we go phase two.
Kevin, what would you like to say?
Well, first, I want to thank you for bringing everybody together.
You got the Senate, you got the House, you got both parties.
And I like the exchange of ideas.
I think everybody has a point here.
The one thing I don't want to have happen here is what I saw in the past.
There were former bills that were passed on border security years ago that never got finished.
There are immigration bills passed that we're right back at the table with the same problem.
Let's make a commitment to each one, and most importantly, to the American people, that when we get done and come to an agreement, that we're not back at this problem three, four years from now.
That's why, yes, we've got to do DACA, and I agree with you 100%.
But if we do not do something with the security, if we do not do something with the chain migration, we are fooling each other that we solved a problem.
You know how difficult this issue is.
So let's collectively, we're here at the table together.
I'll be the first one to tell you we're all going to have to give a little, and I'll be the first one willing to.
But let's solve the problem, but let's not tell the American public at the end that it's solved when it's not.
Well, I think a good starting point would be Bob Goodlatt, who has done a bill, and I understand you're ready to submit it, and you're going to take that, and you'll submit, and they'll negotiate in Congress and the House, and then it goes to the Senate, and they'll negotiate, both Republican and Democrat, but it could be a good way of starting.
Now, if anyone has an idea different from that, but I think starting in the House, starting in the House might be good.
You're ready?
I think you're ready to go.
We are.
I would like to add the words merit into any bill that's submitted because I think we should have merit-based immigration like they have in Canada, like they have in Australia.
So we have people coming in that have a great track record as opposed to what we're doing now, to be honest with you.
But I think merit-based should be absolutely added to any bill, even if it has to do with DACA, that would be added to the things I said.
I think it would be popular.
I think I can tell you the American public very much wants that.
It's going to address DACA in a permanent way, not a temporary short-term thing.
We're going to address the border enforcement and security and the wall.
We're going to address Mr. McCall's bill.
We're going to address interior enforcement, but not everything that the administration had on its list.
We're going to address chain migration.
We're going to end the visa lottery program.
We're going to address sanctuary cities and Cape Law.
We think it is a good bill that will both address the two things our speaker told us right after you made your decision, which is we have to address the problem we have with the DACA kids being in limbo, as Dick Durbin described it.
And I agree with that.
But we also have to make sure this does not happen again.
And Dick, you're and the Democrats are going to have a lot of things that they're not going to agree.
You're going to talk to us about it.
I just felt that this is something that was long overdue.
You'd have a meeting and you'd say this is what we want.
We'd have a meeting.
And this has been going on for years.
And I just, you know, at a certain point, maybe I'll just lock the doors and I won't let anybody out until they come and agree.
Michael, do you have something to say about the bill?
Yeah, I've been in Congress for seven terms.
I've been trying to get this border secure for seven terms in Congress.
I think this is a bipartisan issue.
I think DACA is a bipartisan issue.
We have an opportunity, I think, before us to get this done for the American people.
When it comes to chain migration and the lottery system, we saw two recent terror attacks in New York that were the result of this, I think, failed immigration policy.
We'd like to see that fixed for the American people, along with, as Bob talked about the sanctuary cities.
Now, you and I have talked about this extensively.
So we think our bill, our House bill, will be a good starting ground for this negotiation.
And I too want to commend you for bringing everybody together.
I think what we don't want to see happen is for these conditions for DACA to occur again.
We want to get security done so we don't have to deal with this problem five more years down the road.
So thank you, sir.
There are so many points of agreement, and a lot of it's common sense, and I really think we're going to come out very well.
David Perdue, do you have something to say?
Well, yeah, my observation is that three times in the last 11 years, well-intentioned people, some of whom are in this room, attempted to do what we're starting to try to do today, and we failed.
And I think the difference is there, Mission Creek ended up in an effort that became too comprehensive.
And so today, my encouragement for all of us is to do what Dick has been trying to do and talks about repeatedly, and that is to limit the scope of this.
And I like the idea that both sides have pressure to solve the DACA issue.
But I think the bigger issue here is not just the DACA issue, but what can we do to start the path to the steps that solve this immigration problem for several reasons?
There are social issues, there are political issues, there are economic issues about our workforce that have to be addressed.
But limiting this to the legal immigration side when combining the balance between various solutions on DACA, DREAMERS, if it gets in the conversation, as well as border security and chain migration, I think therein lies the balance of a good deal that can be done.
And I agree with Dick.
I don't think it's going to take long to get it done if we just locked ourselves in a room and made it happen.
Mr. President, I just have one comment.
Senator Durbin mentioned that lives are hanging in the balance.
As we come up on the January 19th deadline, the lives that are hanging in the balance are those of our military that are needing the equipment and the funding and everything they need in order to keep us safe.
And we should not be playing politics on this issue to stop our military from getting the funding that they need.
I think we have the right people in the room to solve this issue.
The deadline is March 5th.
Let's roll up our sleeves and work together on this.
But those who need us right now before the January 19th deadline is our military.
And let's not play politics with that.
Let's give them what they need to keep us safe.
Okay, good.
I think a lot of people would agree with that.
All right, we're going to go right back to this happening just before we came on the air today.
I want you to hear this.
On the other side of it, we also have some analysis and Sarah Carter, and we'll get your calls in.
800-941-Sean is our number.
We pick up this unprecedented meeting with the president and Democratic leaders that was all on camera and obviously about immigration.
There are no Democrats that don't want to make sure that the military is funded properly.
And over the last four years, we had an agreement between Mr. Ryan and Senator Murray, Speaker Ryan, that we would, we understand that our military is critically important, but we also understand that our domestic issues, whether it's education, whether it's health care, whether it's the environment, whether it's transportation and infrastructure, they're important as well.
And both the defense and non-defense sides of the budget are hurt when you have a CR because they cannot plan and they cannot let contracts if they don't have any money to do so.
So that, very frankly, I think Ms. McSally is correct.
But what we ought to have done over the last six months, particularly when we did the September, and we gave 90 days, is to reach some agreement on what the caps are going to be.
The Murray-Ryan agreements were a parody.
We believe that's very important.
So we can get to where we should get and want to get there.
But we ought to have an agreement based upon what the last two years are.
But Stenny, we do have to take politics out of the military.
We need that military.
All the other things we talk about, we're not going to be here if we don't have the right military.
And we need our military, and we need it stronger than ever before, and we're ready to do it.
But we have to take politics out of the military.
Yes, John?
Mr. President, I too want to thank you for getting us together.
You made the point last week when Republicans were meeting with you that why are we continuing to have these meetings just among ourselves when what we need to do to get to a solution is to meet as we are today, as you insisted, on a bipartisan basis.
But part of my job is to count votes in the Senate.
And as you know, you hosted the leadership at Camp David this weekend.
I believe both the Speaker and Majority Leader McConnell made crystal clear that they would not proceed with a bill on the floor of the Senate or the House unless it had your support, unless you would sign it.
So that's, I think, the picture that we need to be looking through, the lens we need to be looking through is not only what can we agree to among ourselves on a bipartisan basis, but what will you sign into law?
Because we all want to get to a solution here, and we realize the clock is ticking.
But I think that, for me, frames the issue about as well as I can.
Thank you.
Very well said.
All right, we're going to take a break here.
We'll have more of this unbelievable exchange.
Wow, I thought Donald Trump was crazy and demented.
No, he's actually extraordinarily bright and smart, and it came through loud and clear.
We pick up this unprecedented meeting with the president and Democratic leaders that was all on camera and obviously about immigration.
This is a point where Stenny Hoyer and the president had, well, more than a little disagreement.
You know, one of the reasons I'm here, Chuck, so importantly is exactly that.
I mean, normally you wouldn't have a president coming to this meeting.
Normally, frankly, you'd have Democrats, Republicans, and maybe nothing would get done.
You know, our system lends itself to not getting things done.
And I hear so much about earmarks, the old earmark system, how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks.
But of course, they had other problems with earmarks.
But maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks.
Because this system, and I'm there with you, because this system really lends itself to not getting along.
It lends itself to hostility and anger, and they hate the Republicans, and they hate the Democrats.
And, you know, in the old days of earmarks, you can say what you want about certain presidents and others where they all talk about they went out to dinner at night and they all got along and they passed bills.
That was an earmark system.
And maybe we should think about it and we have to put better controls because it got a little bit out of hand.
But maybe that brings people together.
Because our system right now, the way it's set up, will never bring people together.
Now, I think we're going to get this done, DACA.
I think we're going to get, I hope we're going to get infrastructure done in the same way.
But I think you should look at a form of earmarks.
I see Lindsay nodding very happily, yes.
But a lot of the pros are saying that if you want to get along and if you want to get this country really rolling again, you have to look at a different form because this is obviously out of control.
The levels of hatred.
And I'm not talking about Trump.
I'm talking you go back throughout the eight years of Obama and you go before that.
The animosity and the hatred between Republicans and Democrats.
I mean, I remember when I used to go out in Washington and I see Democrats having dinner with Republicans and they were best friends and everybody got along.
You don't see that too much anymore.
I had no due respect.
You really don't see that.
When was the last time you took a Republican out there?
Why don't you guys go out and have dinner tonight?
But you don't see it.
So maybe, and very importantly, totally different from this meeting, because we're going to get DACA done.
I hope we're going to get DACA done and we're going to all try very hard.
But maybe you should start bringing back a concept of earmarks.
It's going to bring you together.
You're going to do it honestly.
You're going to get rid of the problems that the other system had, and it did have some problems.
But one thing it did is it brought everyone together.
And this country has to be brought together.
We can usually get bipartisan agreement when the other guy buys.
I think it's a very important thing because our system is designed right now that everybody should hate each other.
And we can't have that.
You know, we have a great country.
We have a country that's doing very well in many respects.
We're just hitting a new high on the stock market again.
And that means jobs.
I look at the stocks.
I don't look at the stocks.
I look at the jobs.
I look at the 401ks.
I look at what's happening where police come up to me and they say, thank you.
You're making me look like a financial genius.
Literally, meaning about them.
And their wives never thought that was possible, right?
You know, the country is doing well in so many ways, but there's such divisiveness, such division doing this for 10 years.
I don't think I've seen a better chance to get it done than I do right now.
Because of you.
John's right.
I'm not going to support a bill if you don't support it.
I've had my head beat out a bunch.
I'm still standing.
I'm Lindsey Gramnisti, Lindsey Gomez.
You name every name you want to give to me.
It's been assigned to me.
And I'm still standing.
The people of South Carolina want a result.
How could I get elected?
I've been for a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people because I have no animosity toward them.
I don't want crooks.
I don't want bad ombres.
I want to get a merit-based immigration system to make sure we can succeed in the 21st century.
I'm willing to be more than fair to the 11 million.
I just don't want to do this every 20 years.
Now, we made a decision, Mr. President, not to do it comprehensively.
I think that's a smart decision, but a hard decision.
We've passed three comprehensive bills out of the Senate with over 65 votes.
They go to the House and die, and I'm not being disparaging to my House colleagues.
This is tough politics if you're a Republican House member turning on the radio.
To my Democratic friends, thanks for coming.
The resist movement hates this guy.
They don't want him to be successful at all.
You turn on Fox News, and I can hear the drumbeat coming.
Right-wing radio and TV talk show hosts are going to beat the crap out of us because it's going to be amnesty all over again.
I don't know if the Republican and Democratic Party can define love, but I think what we can do is do what the American people want us to do.
62% of the Trump voters support a pathway to citizenship for the DACA kids if you have strong borders.
You have created an opportunity here, Mr. President, and you need to close the deal.
Thank you, Linda.
It's very interesting because I do have people that are, let's just use a very common term, very far right and very far left.
They're very unhappy about what we're doing, but I really don't believe they have to be because I really think this sells itself.
And you know, when you talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which is where I would like to get to eventually, if we do the right bill here, we are not very far away.
You know, we've done most of it.
You want to know the truth, Dick.
If we do this properly, DACA, you're not so far away from comprehensive immigration reform.
And if you want to take it that further step, I'll take the heat.
I don't care.
I don't care.
I'll take all the heat you want to give me.
And I'll take the heat off both the Democrats and the Republicans.
My whole life has been heat.
I like heat in a certain way, but I will.
I mean, you are somewhat more traditional politicians than me.
Two and a half years ago, I was never thinking in terms of politics.
Now I'm a politician.
You people have been doing it, many of you all your lives.
I'll take all the heat you want, but you are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform.
And if you wanted to go that final step, I think you should do it.
And if you want to study earmarks to bring us all together so we all get together and do something, I think you should study it.
Chuck, did you have something to say?
I'd like to talk about the reality of the whole situation and take off from what Cornyn and Graham have said of the necessity of you working with us, and you're doing that by having this meeting and other meetings as well.
But we've always talked in the United States Senate about the necessity of getting 60 votes, and that's pretty darn tough.
But if we would write a bill that you don't like and you veto it, we're talking about a 67-vote threshold, two-thirds in the United States Senate.
So that's the reality of negotiating in good faith and getting something you can sign.
The second reality is the March 5th date that's coming up, because if we don't do some good faith negotiation and make progress and get a bill on the floor of the United States Senate, our leader is going to have to bring up either the House bill or the bill that some of us has introduced in the United States Senate, and we're going to have a vote on it.
And those people that don't want to vote to legalize DACA kids are going to have to explain why they haven't wanted to protect the vulnerable people that we're all here talking about.
We're talking about everything except doing something for the DACA kids.
You know, I would vote for a path to citizenship, which isn't very easy for me, but I would do it just as an effort.
But there's certain things that we've got to guarantee that we're going to do.
But that's going to be brought up.
I really believe that will be brought up as part of what we're talking about at some point.
It's an incentive for people to do a good job.
If you want to know the truth, that whole path is an incentive for people.
And they're not all kids.
I mean, you know, you used to talk about kids.
They're not really kids.
You have them 39, 40 years old in some cases.
But it would be an incentive for people to work hard and do a good job.
So, you know, that could very well be brought up today.
Well, legalizing people here that didn't break the law because their parents, who broke the law, brought them here.
And we ought to be talking about what we can do for the people that had no fault of their own and get the job done and not worry about a lot of other things that we're involved in.
And that means that we've got to make sure that we tell the American people when we're taking this step that we're doing something that all the people agree to, you know.
Mr. President, let me just say, I think Dick and I agree with what Chuck Grassley just said.
It's hard to believe.
When was the last time that happened, Chuck?
We need to take care of these DACA kids.
And we all agree on that.
86% of the American public agrees on that.
With all due respect, Bob and Mike and Lindsey, there are some things that you're proposing that are going to be very controversial and will be an impediment to agreement.
But you're going to negotiate those things.
You're going to sit down.
You're going to say, listen, we can't agree here.
We'll give you half of that.
You're going to negotiate those things.
Comprehensive means comprehensive.
No, we're not talking about comprehensive.
Now we're talking about competition.
No, we are talking about comprehensive.
But if you want to go there, it's okay because you're not that far away.
President, many of the things that are mentioned ought to be a part of the negotiations regarding comprehensive immigration reform.
If you want to take it the step further, you may, I'm going to have to rely on you.
I think we should complicate it, and you may delay DACA somewhat.
I don't want to do that.
You said at the outset we need to phase this.
I think the first phase is with Chuck and Stenny and I have mentioned others as well.
We have a deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging.
We can agree on some very fundamental and important things together on border security, on chain, on future of diversity visas.
Comprehensive, though, I worked on it for six months with Michael Bennett and a number of Bombenendez and Schumer and McCain and Jeff Flake.
And it took us six months to put it together.
We don't have six months for the DACA.
We're not talking about comprehension yet.
Take a look at our bill at the moment.
Well, you mentioned a number of factors that are going to be controversial, as Stenny has mentioned, that you're going to negotiate.
I think you're going to negotiate it.
And maybe we'll agree and maybe we won't.
I mean, you know, it's possible we're not going to agree with you and it's possible we're, but there should be no reason for us not to get this done.
And Chuck, I will say, when this group comes back, hopefully with an agreement, this group and others from the Senate, from the House comes back with an agreement, I'm signing it.
I mean, I will be signing it.
I'm not going to say, oh, gee, I want this or I want that.
I'll be signing it because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that you're going to come out with something really good.
All right, we'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We have Sarah Carter at the top of the hour.
Your call is coming up and so much more right here on the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, this is the last segment, this unprecedented meeting that was caught on, well, I guess it was designed to be on cameras, the Senate and House leadership debating immigration with the President, all for all eyes to see.
We'll have more coverage on this tonight on Hannity and Sarah Carter at the top of the hour.
Straight ahead.
I think we have a great group of people to sit down and get this done.
I'd love not to build the wall, but you need the wall.
And I will tell you this, the ICE officers and the Border Patrol agents, I had them just recently up.
They say, if you don't have the wall, you know, in certain areas, obviously, that aren't protected by nature.
If you don't have the wall, you cannot have security.
Just can't have it.
It doesn't work.
And part of the problem we have is walls and fences that we currently have are in very bad shape.
They're broken.
We have to get them done.
They say, if you don't have the wall, you know, in certain areas, obviously, that aren't protected by nature.
If you don't have the wall, you cannot have security.
Just can't have it.
It doesn't work.
And part of the problem we have is walls and fences that we currently have are in very bad shape.
They're broken.
We have to get them fixed or rebuilt.
But, you know, you speak to the agents, and I spoke to all of them.
I spoke, I lived with them.
They endorsed me for president, which they've never done before, the Border Patrol agents and ICE.
They both endorsed Trump.
And they never did that before.
And I have a great relationship with them.
They say, sir, without the wall, security doesn't work.
We're all wasting time.
Now, that doesn't mean 2,000 miles of wall, because you just don't need that because of nature, because of mountains and rivers and lots of other things.
But we need a certain portion of that border to have the wall.
If we don't have it, you can never have security.
You can never stop that portion of drugs that comes through that area.
Yes, it comes through planes and lots of other ways and ships.
But a lot of it comes through the southern border.
You can never fix the situation without additional wall.
And we have to fix existing wall that we already have.
So you would not support what Senator Feinstein asked you, which would be a clean DACA bill that doesn't...
No, I think a clean DACA bill to me is a DACA bill where we take care of the 800,000 people.
They're actually not necessarily young people.
Everyone talks about young.
You know, they could be 40 years old, 41 years old, but they're also 16 years old.
But I think, to me, a clean bill is a bill of DACA.
We take care of them, and we also take care of security.
That's very important.
And I think the Democrats want security, too.
I mean, we started off with Stenny saying, we want security also.
Everybody wants security.
And then we can go to comprehensive later on, and maybe that is a longer subject and a bigger subject.
And I think we can get that done too.
But we'll get it done at a later date.
Yes, ma'am.
Go ahead.
Mr. President, I'm Senator Hirota from Hawaii.
That's the only immigrant serving in the United States Senate right now.
I would like nothing better than for us to get to comprehensive immigration reform.
But what I'm hearing around the table right now is a commitment to resolving the DACA situation because there is a sense of urgency.
Now, you have put it out there that you want $18 billion for a wall or else there will be no DACA.
Is that still your position?
Yeah, I can build it for less, by the way.
But you want?
I must tell you, I'm looking at these prices.
Somebody said $42 billion.
This is like the aircraft carrier.
It started off at a billion and a half and it's now at $18 billion.
No, we can do it for less.
We can do a great job.
We can do a great wall, but you need the wall.
And I'm now getting involved.
I like to build under budget, okay?
I like to go under budget ahead of schedule.
There's no reason for seven years.
Also, I heard the other day, please don't do that to me.
Seven years to build the wall.
We can build the wall in one year.
Yes, sir, we do.
And we can build it for much less money than what they're talking about.
And any excess funds, and we'll have a lot of, whether it's a Walman rink or whether it's any, I built under budget, and I built ahead of schedule.
There is no reason to ever mention seven years again, please.
I heard that.
I said, I wanted to come out with a major news conference, Tom, yesterday.
No, they can go up quickly.
It can go up effectively.
And we can fix a lot of the areas right now that are really satisfactory if we renovate those walls of those things.
Thank you, Tom.
Mueller immediately concluded that Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation, and he was removed from the team the same day.
Did Mr. Mueller take appropriate action in this case?
Yes, he did.
Thank you.
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you said that you would only fire Special Counsel Mueller for good cause and that you had not seen any yet.
Several months have passed since then.
Have you seen good cause to fire special counsel Mueller?
No.
Thank you.
If you were ordered today to fire Mr. Mueller, what would you do?
I've explained previously, I would follow the regulation.
If there were good cause, I would act.
If there were no good cause, I would not.
And you've seen no good cause so far.
Correct.
And the special counsel has hired at least eight attorneys who have direct connections to both the to either the Obama or Clinton campaigns.
Don't you think that creates an appearance of impropriety?
And I'm not saying whether you think they can do their jobs.
Don't you think it creates an appearance of impropriety?
I suppose the time of the gentleman has expired.
The witness is permitted to answer the question.
I do not believe, I'm not aware of any impropriety.
We do have regulations.
The special counsel is subject to all the department's rules and subject to oversight by the department, including the inspector general.
I'm not aware of any violation of those rules by the special counsel employees.
So you don't think it creates the appearance of impropriety?
Well, appearance is to some extent in the eye of the beholder.
We apply the department's rules and regulations in making determinations, and we do have career ethics advisors who provide us counsel about that.
All right, news roundup information overload hour 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we'll get to your calls in a minute.
Rob Rosenstein, no good cause to fire Mueller.
And just there's no appearance of impropriety.
I don't believe a word of this, especially in light of the new developments that I was telling you about last night and news broken by both Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News analyst, and also by John Solomon.
And it just gets into more of the details about how absolutely corrupt the whole thing has been from the get-go.
We now have, there's 9,500 Peter Strzok, members of Peter Strzzok, and his, well, I guess his mistress, the lawyer for the FBI, Lisa Page.
Peter Strzok was involved in every single solitary aspect involving every case.
He interviewed General Flynn.
He was there rewriting the exoneration before the investigation with Jim Comey.
He was the one that interviewed Hillary Clinton.
But he had already written the exoneration with, of course, James Comey.
So what was the point at that point?
Anyway, now these new emails, there's back and forth between Peter Strzok and his mistress, Lisa Page.
Well, the article's out, they talk about it, and it's hidden behind a paywall, so you can't read it.
Page texted Strzok.
Wall Street Journal, boy, that was fast.
Well, you know, if it's articles out, well, that means they knew the article was coming.
That means they leaked the article.
Well, what exactly did they leak?
And is what they did legal in a lot of ways.
And it goes, well, I can act like I do.
I have to tell everybody, and I can act like I do every other article that hits Google News Alerts.
Seriously, when they hear about the article, they're worried about, oh, they don't want their fingerprints on this.
Remember, Page served as the lawyer advising the FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe.
And then as you go on to read about a lot more of this, again, there's 9,500 texts.
We've only got a few hundred of these.
Now we find out that, you know, the leaks in February, the intercept of General Flynn, et cetera, FBI contacts with the media, well, a lot of this could be improper.
And it's certainly designed to influence the public perception about what is going on here.
Why did they leak on Flynn?
Wasn't that information, you know, raw intelligence?
And isn't that a violation of law?
You know, don't these leaks create a false narrative?
You know, there's so much to all of this, and not the least of which is you've got Andrew Weissman.
We're going to find out more about him in the coming days and so much more that Sarah Carter has been able to find.
How are you?
I'm doing great, Sean.
Thank you.
I think I was struck mostly by listening to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein saying, you know, he didn't find any issuance of impropriety, you know, when it comes to more so than Moeller.
I understand that there's some legal ramifications there that he has, he wants to follow the law to the T and those regulations to a T.
But when it comes to impropriety, I certainly think that the evidence is overwhelming.
Yeah, I think, well, let's go through what appears to be these FBI agents and their text messages.
Now we have congressional probes that are going to begin into this about the possible news leaks.
Well, we know Comey leaked.
We know Strzok was involved in the exoneration before investigation of Hillary.
We know he was up to his eyeballs.
He was there at the interview of Michael Flynn, General Flynn.
And of course, Flynn now has pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
When I look at these things, I'm reading these things and I'm thinking, it sounds like they leaked an awful lot.
I mean, it appears so.
I mean, and this is the reason why, you know, Trey Gowdy and others, Nunez as well, want to look into this.
The House Intelligence Committee, I mean, from the very beginning, I think their pervy as far as investigations was going to include an investigation into leaking.
I think this just adds more fuel to the fire where they're looking at this and saying, okay, wait a minute.
We now have to have answers from Peter Strzok.
We need answers from Lisa Page.
We need to find out what they were talking about here when they were talking about the Wall Street Journal, when they were talking about the Washington Post and these stories, and whether or not they gave information without any authorization to these news agencies.
And that's going to be a really important part of all of this.
Also, when you think about Michael Flynn, and I think a lot of people don't realize this, it's not just about leaking information that maybe is related to a case or something related to that they wanted out from the FBI.
This information that was leaked on Michael Flynn was considered highly classified information.
I mean, that information, just accessing it and sharing it with somebody else, is a crime, and it's a felony.
And so that really was a big, big part of what they're looking at right here.
And I know that the IG is also looking at that, the Inspector General.
Yeah, well, when are we getting that Inspector General's report?
Look at another instance here when they're talking specifically about tipping people off here.
I mean, I'm really stunned at what I'm reading in all of this and suggesting that the whole thing is just a tiny bit from us.
That means they were leaking.
What does that mean if they're leaking?
And what did they leak?
And what does that mean in terms of the law?
Well, it's certainly going to mean that they are going to be questioned.
I know talking to sources today, talking to sources today that people within the FBI over the past months have been questioned about leaks coming out of the FBI.
So one thing we know for sure, there is a suspicion that a number of the leaks that went to the media came from the Bureau, possibly from higher-level officials at the Bureau.
There have been a number of people within the Bureau that have already been polygraphed and questioned about leaks.
And remember, there's 27 leaks right now being investigated by the Department of Justice.
That is triple the amount of the last three years.
That is a lot of leaks.
And there are a lot of people that are really concerned about what's going to come out because they are going to be caught red-handed.
We also know that there was instances where they were looking into general counsel James Baker, and he's no longer in that position at the FBI.
What was his involvement?
Was there leaking?
What was he leaking?
If he was at all.
So they're going to be looking at a lot of high-level players here, including Andrew McCabe.
Now, if you look at Peter Strzzok, Sean, Peter Strzok not only interviewed Flynn, he was very involved in Hillary Clinton and with her interviews and with the whole case.
So they're going to want to take a look at that.
What I'd like to know is why the House committees that are investigating this haven't interviewed the other FBI agents who were with Peter Strzok on that interview with Flynn.
Why haven't they interviewed or?
That's such a big point.
That's a massive point you're making.
It is a huge point because then they're going to get to the truth, right?
We know Peter Strzzok's already been discredited.
So talk to the other person that was in that interview.
What were they thinking?
What did they assess from that interview with Michael Flynn that day?
Talk to the other people that we've already discredited Strzok.
Then there's only another person left.
Well, it's that too.
And remember, they took the email server investigation away from the field offices and put it in a special category that nobody else gets in the meantime.
And then the exoneration and even taking out the language of gross negligence and taking out language that foreign entities and foreign intelligence services had gotten a hold of this information.
What do you make of Lisa Page offering the legal advice specifically in the case of not Andrew Weissman?
What's his name?
McCabe, Andrew McCabe.
Well, it's because she was working for Andrew McCabe.
Right.
She was giving him the legal advice and her role is giving him the legal advice.
She was just under him.
And this is interesting news, and this will be something new that I'm going to throw out there that I haven't written about yet.
But allegedly, according to some of the sources I spoke with earlier today, and I was stunned when I heard this, Andrew McCabe was actually talking to people, colleagues, recently saying that he's been approached by the DNC to possibly run for office in Virginia.
So after he's done.
So I tell you this, allegedly, I've heard it from very credible sources, but we still have to follow through and ask those questions.
But if that's the case, what is the level of feeling there that they assume that none of this is going to come out, that the investigation is just going to disappear?
So there's a certain sense of, as one source put it, narcissism involved here where they feel that they are untouchable.
And so I think that the investigation by the Inspector General is going to be extremely important.
I think that that is going to reveal pretty much the answers that we need as far as what the leaks, where the leaks have been coming from, how they've evolved.
Now, I don't know if they're going to have the answer to the Flynn leak, but it would be very interesting to see if they do.
I've got to ask you about the research into this New York Times reporter and also what might be coming out about Andrew Weissman and potential media contacts he's had.
All right, as we continue with Investigative Reporter Fox News contributor Sarah Carter is with us.
I want to get to the part about this poor New York Times guy and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussing at length about how they're looking into his background and tracking down his work phone and taking shots at my colleague Chris Wallace taking shots at my former colleague Megan Kelly.
You know, really personal, horrible attacks against both of them.
But the more important part is why are they looking up family names and members of reporters?
Well, in an apparent attempt to track him down, it appears.
And not only were they trying to track him down or maybe speak to him, and it would be interesting to see how they respond to that, but they're also making fun of him at the same time.
So it appears that both of them have a habit of really putting people down.
I don't think Chris Wallace and Megan Kelly and Matt Apuzo and the rest of them are the only ones.
I mean, if you go through the text messages that were released, it appears that both Paige and Strzzok had a habit of just badmouthing people in their text messages to each other.
I've never seen anything quite like that.
It just seemed like everybody they talked about, they were definitely throwing shots at.
So it's interesting because if you think about the FBI and you think like she's tracking them down, and in one point in the text messages, he warns Paige, you know, don't use your office phone because you could be tagged lately.
And she's like, oops, I already did that.
So it didn't seem like they were as concerned.
And remember this, Sean, go back to what was happening during that time.
Even at that point in time and before the election, they all believed, they all believed that Hillary Clinton would win.
And even afterwards, when we see those text messages, the insurance policy and that needs to be answered, with McCabe's and apparently Andy's insurance policy, and we believe that's Andrew McCabe.
When you look at all of this, it felt that they had a mission, that they believed they were on a mission, and they even stated, you know, to save the Republic from Trump.
So when we go back to Rod Rosenstein's statement that there was no impropriety here, I find that just incredible and hard to believe when you realize that Peter Strzok was central to the investigations.
Let me ask you about Andrew Weissman.
And apparently he had contact with the news media last April.
Now, he's the guy that was appointed.
He was a Justice Department financial fraud prosecutor that lost to the Supreme Court 9-0.
Tens of thousands of people lost their job at Anderson Accounting.
And four Merrill executives went to jail in the Enron case for a year.
And then that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
And, you know, why, another Democrat, why did Mueller appoint him is beyond any understanding I have with his conflicts and his failed record.
But more importantly, did he talk to the media?
It appears that he did.
And the Justice Department is right now researching records that are related to those details.
Some April 2017 meeting that apparently the attorney Andrew Andrew Weissman had with a specific news organization.
I believe I know what that news organization is.
I'm just trying to verify it.
And they were discussing some particular issue.
Now, if Andrew Weissman aided that news organization in verifying something that was not meant to be public, he could be in really big trouble.
And I know this because I've talked to people about this that are in the know.
So far, he is still on the special counsel.
He has not been removed.
So the investigation is still ongoing.
But as soon as they find something, or if they do find something, they will remove him from the special counsel.
And that's what I've been told.
All right, Sarah Carter, we'll see you on Hannity tonight with the very latest on all of this.
Thank you for being with us.
By the way, Steve Bannon now is out at Breitbart.
That has been breaking.
We'll have the very latest on all of that.
Also, we'll get your calls in at the bottom of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we got an incredible Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
We'll tell you about that and your call straight ahead.
All right, so we do have some breaking news.
Glad you're with us.
25 now till the top of the hour.
Steve Bannon now has stepped down from Breitbart News Network, where he served as the executive chairman since 2012.
And Bannon said, I'm proud of what Breitbart and its team has accomplished in so short a period of time in building out a world-class news platform.
Look, obviously, this is connected to everything that came out in Michael Wolf's book.
He waited a number of days to clarify as related to Donald Trump Jr., and he used the word traitorous and money laundering.
And now this has all come back to bite him.
I assume probably Roy Moore's issue comes into play, at least with some there.
But we'll get the inside story.
And we'll have more on that tonight on Hannity, 9 Eastern.
I want to start here and play the immigration flip-flop.
You're going to hear from Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama.
And it's amazing.
It just proves how everything is about the political climate in terms of positions they take.
People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.
The president's decision to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless.
When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.
Hundreds, hundreds of thousands of families will be ripped apart.
If you don't think it's illegal, you're not going to say it.
I think it is illegal and wrong.
Tens of thousands of American businesses will lose hardworking employees.
And the argument there, Mr. President, is Americans don't want to do the work.
We just can't find American workers to do the work.
Mr. President, that is a crock in many instances.
It's just not true.
In my view, Trump's decision to end the DACA program for some 800,000 young people is the cruelest and most ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country.
I cannot think of one single act which is uglier and more cruel.
We've got to do several things, and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.
People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.
Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx.
You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.
You know, itty, this is not a problem that the people who are coming into the country are solely responsible for.
They wouldn't be coming if we didn't put them to work.
My proposal will keep families together and it will include a path to citizenship.
The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.
If this huge influx of mostly low-skilled workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole, it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and puts strains on an already overburdened safety net.
Immigrants aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up.
There are those in the immigrants' rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are illegally with legal status or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws.
But I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.
It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.
And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.
These are students, they're teachers, they're doctors, they're lawyers.
They're Americans in every way, but on paper.
Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.
Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship.
Ah, how political expediency always kicks in.
Now, we'll have a lot more on this.
We played in the last hour, this long exchange, and oh, we all agree on DACA.
Yeah, I don't agree on DACA.
I agree on building the wall, building the wall, building the wall, building the wall, building the wall, building it first.
That's what we need to do, because you always get the consideration, the amnesty.
You never get the wall.
You never get the security.
You never get the end-of-chain migration.
You always get, you know, I mean, I just, it's frustrating.
You always get the spending increase.
And then, oh, in future years, out years, we'll get the tax cut.
I don't know.
You never get the tax cut.
You know, this time it was different.
So I think there's a way to do this and do this right.
But anyway, the one thing that was interesting is the exchange, just from the standpoint, these are all the people that say he's crazy.
Well, he seemed pretty smart, sober, engaged, listening, measured, all the things that everybody in the media says they want him to be.
And you're never going to get any credit for that for this president.
All right, let's get to our busy telephones here as we say hi to Patty is in Las Vegas.
K-Dawn Radio, what's up, Patty?
How are you?
Glad you called.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year.
Hope you had a great holiday.
I did.
Thank you.
I liked it.
I think it's good.
It's good to have time with family and then reboot the new year.
Totally agree.
Go ahead.
I'm a little frustrated.
So in watching this whole meeting, the thing that struck me was Trump was actually treating it like it's the business that it is.
We have business in this country as far as immigration that needs to be handled, and the priority should be the wall.
DACA, for any representative to say, well, we just need to talk about DACA and we'll work with you on the wall later.
Yeah, because you've been the party of working with us.
You've been the party of resist.
You have no interest in working anything.
You want what you want when you want it, and then you're going to resist anything that we want as conservatives and Republicans that are brought to the table.
Yeah, I think you're right in a whole variety of ways.
So I'm going to tell you where this capitulation on DACA is.
I think the president is committed to everything that he ran on, and he wants the wall built and built finally.
I actually have confidence this time it's going to happen.
And he's asking for $18 billion to build the 700 miles of wall.
And sadly, it's not our first rodeo, and the Democrats want their amnesty in whatever form they can get it.
But here's the truth.
It's a simple truth that Republicans that say they want border security want DACA as bad as the Democrats.
The establishment wants DACA.
I want security first.
And because I don't trust them, I'll never trust them.
Anyway, appreciate you being with us.
Let's say hi.
Next to Buddy is in Sun City in Florida.
What's up, Buddy?
How are you?
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you, Sean.
I've been looking at the last couple of days.
You're the hardworking guy in America.
I'm the luckiest guy.
Well, it's amazing how much you do.
But look, I wanted to get you some information.
I was trying to get it to you last week when it happened.
But I was stationed in during Vietnam.
I was stationed.
I went in 67, got out in 71, and I was stationed in Kempo Air Base in South Korea for about 12 months on the last tour before I came home.
But anyway, I learned a lot about Korean culture, Asian culture, and I got to know a lot of the special forces there, the Korean special forces, their Marines, great guys, tough fighters.
But anyway, remember when Nixon went to China in the mid-70s and was sitting in the People's Hall and with the big desk and everybody was ogling how wonderful it was.
And on the wall, you saw a Chinese flag and you saw an American flag.
Well, the Chinese flag was twice as big as the American flag.
And in Asia, that is a direct insult.
That means my enemy is meeting me at my choice of places, and he has agreed to fly a smaller flag.
And that means he is acquiescing to me.
He is nothing compared to me.
And I can tell him what to do.
And I'm basically the boss.
And they're just a bunch of weasels come here to meet us and kiss our feet.
Well, look, when Trump tweeted that tweet last week, I like to fell off the couch laughing, and I'm still laughing because all the brilliant people in Washington and all the brilliant people in the news media, they have no idea that when this little weasel says, I have a nuclear button on my desk, and then Trump used Asian culture, and nobody picked up on that, to tweet back that not only do I have a button on my desk,
but my button is far bigger and far more powerful, and my button works.
That was a direct insult using Asian culture.
Let me tell you something.
Unless the president was willing to fly a C-130 or numerous C-130 cargo planes with billions of dollars to bow and kiss the ring and kiss the backside of a murdering dictator, nothing that he ever says or does is ever going to be loved by the media.
It's just a fact.
And you're exactly right.
Bullies need to be confronted.
You know, they acted the same way when Ronald Reagan said, well, palming begins in five minutes.
Or, Mr. Garbachov, tear down this wall.
Or whatever.
You know, and then they don't look at history.
It was a good deal for the American people and prevents them from getting nuclear weapons.
No, bribery of dictators fails.
Obama's deal with the Iranians is going to be an utter disgrace.
Haven't heard a lot about the student protesters lately, by the way.
I don't know why the media is not covering it all.
It seems like they don't want freedom, liberty, democracy to take hold there.
Anyway, thank you for your service to your country.
Thank you for calling in.
Thanks for checking in.
Will is in Chicago next on the Sean Hannity show.
The answer.
What's up, Will?
How are you?
Glad you called.
Thanks, Sean.
Happy New Year to you.
Happy New Year, sir.
You know, listen, Sean, I just have a couple of thoughts, and you tell me what you think.
Regarding this whole wolf book, you know, the number one question I've been hearing on talk radio and even on Fox News, some of your colleagues, is that why was this guy allowed in the White House?
Now, one thing we've heard about President Trump repeatedly is the fake news media.
And what does he mean by that?
He means that, you know, the vast majority of the media cannot be trusted.
And I think that's very true.
So my question is, why let this guy in there?
I mean, Sean, I'm going to say this.
I voted for the president and I support him.
But there's a problem with President Trump wanting, and I think it's not just him.
I think it's politicians alike.
They want to be liked.
But I got news for you.
They'll never like you.
This news media will never like you.
Never.
They only liked Bannon for five seconds when he was trashing the president's son and others.
And now they're back to hating him because he stuck up for Donald Trump Jr.
Absolutely.
And you know, Sean, the other thing is, is by the way, I don't suffer from that syndrome.
I actually thrive on the fact that they hate my guts.
I like that part.
I don't care if they like me or not.
I don't have that switch in my head that needs to be liked by leftists.
I know you don't, and that's what sets you apart.
But you know, Sean, the president does have a little bit of an ego problem.
But what he needs to realize, I have three things that I, if the president wants to listen to me, a cop, what do I know?
But you know something?
I would say three things to him in 2018.
Get behind the desk in the Oval Office and speak directly to the people.
Don't tweet as much and have at least three people that you can rely on.
Yeah, he's not going to do that.
Listen, listen, it's all good advice.
I'm telling you, he's not going to listen.
Oh, I know.
But, Sean, answer this one question, though, Sean.
You know, they know very well that outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and the dinosaur media, they're never going to cover him fairly.
So my question is, don't give him an interview.
I didn't think, I thought Steve, look, I like Steve Miller a lot.
He's a really smart, smart guy, and he's added so much to both the campaign and the White House.
And he does his work quietly.
He's not looking for, you know, a lot of credit.
And he's serving the country and the president at the same time.
But I didn't think he was smart to go on with fake news tamper.
I just didn't think it was a smart move.
And, you know, I mean, look at Tapper.
I mean, he's so hyper-politicized that it's just, it's like, number one, there's no audience.
And number two, what's the point?
It's so predictable everything that's going to happen.
Anyway, well, the one thing I'll add this to what you're saying here: the president did dispute that he gave access to Michael Wolf.
Mark Berman of National Reporter for the Washington Post disputed the account in the book.
Steve Miller disputed the account in the book.
Sarah Sanders disputed the accounts in the book.
Trump disputed the accounts in the book.
Gary Cohn disputes that he wrote an email.
I disputed things that were said about me in the book, a number of things.
Mike Pompeo disputed it.
McConnell's aide disputed it.
Tom Barack of Fortune, or he told Fortune that he disputes what went on.
Even Anna Wintour disputed it.
Tony Blair disputed aspects of the book, many aspects.
Melania Trump disputed aspects of the book.
I mean, you know, and we can prove that there's factual errors in the book galore, like not knowing who John Boehner is.
Well, he played golf with John Boehner and he tweeted about John Boehner.
So I think that answers that.
All right, we got an incredible Hannity, the immigration battle, the DACA debate, Trump the Negotiator.
An amazing display today.
We're going to play a lot of that.
We'll also show you the democratic hypocrisy on the issue.
Also, we have Fusion GPS, this guy, Glenn Simpson.
His testimony has been released.
What does it mean?
We'll have the latest on Solomon and Sarah Carter tonight.
Also, Greg Jarrett is back tonight.
And we have some new predictions of the media and their new low.
Lara Trump will check in with us tonight.
Larry Elder and Austin Goolsby.
And of course, the Hannity hotline and our video of the day, 9 Eastern on Hannity.
We'll see you then back here tomorrow.
Thanks for being with us.
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.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
