Senator Rand Paul joins Sean to discuss the true power of our intelligence community and just what it means to everyday Americans. Was the President targeted? Certainly, the evidence suggests. Sean digs into greater detail, and they address the FISA program in greater detail. Don't know what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is? You should! 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 Markovich.
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 Dell a 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.
Let not your heart be troubled.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
So like many of you, I have trouble sleeping.
I have insomnia.
No matter what I tried, it wouldn't work until I met Mike Lindell, and I got my very own MyPillow.
It has changed my life.
What makes my pillow so different is my pillows patented adjustable fill.
In other words, you can adjust the patented fill to your exact individual needs so you get the support you need and want to help you get to sleep faster and stay asleep longer.
Just go to MyPillow.com or call 1-800-919-6090.
Remember, use the promo code Hannity.
When you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best offer ever.
Buy one pillow and get another one absolutely free.
And it has a 60-day no questions asked, money back guarantee.
You have nothing to lose.
So it's time for you to start getting the quality of sleep that you've been wanting and we need.
Just go to MyPillow.com or call 800 919-6090.
Promo code Hannity.
Take advantage of Mike's special two for one offer.
MyPillow.com.
Promo code Hannity.
All right, glad you're with us.
All right, the president expected to hold a I guess he's given a speech press conference.
Uh that's always going to be interesting.
I wonder if he'll pick on us fake news CNN.
That's all they care about.
Uh glad you are with us.
Everybody asks me this question.
Hannity, you keep alluding that big stuff is coming.
How soon?
Thank you.
It's coming.
It's massive.
It's huge.
And it's even worse than I thought.
And I can't begin to tell you.
You know, we're on the verge, I believe, of discovering not only this is a prediction.
The Hillary bought and paid for dossier was used.
Uh let's say it played a significant role in the obtaining of the warrants against Trump.
Understand how profound that is.
That Hillary Clinton and the DNC run by Hillary Clinton and the millions of dollars they played paid fusion GPS.
Literally were presented to the FISA court to get surveillance on a candidate and a president elect.
We are going to face a constitutional challenge that is beyond what most people are prepared for right now.
And my sources are telling me it's coming.
Probably we're on the verge next week.
And you're saying, well, Hannah, that's not fair that you're telling us that.
Well, I'm telling you so that you can say, wow, Hannity's ahead of the curve.
He really is the most connected man besides Jamie DuPree in Washington.
Well, I know Jamie Dupree, so that makes me pretty connected.
Um there's just a lot going on.
And all of this is serious, and a lot of it is gonna have to do with the politization of our intelligence, politization of our law enforcement at the highest levels, not rank and file FBI, not rank and file intelligence people.
They're amazing.
They do the hard work every day keeping us safe.
But, you know, abuse, Pfizer courts, warrant obtaining all of that is it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Just the tip of the iceberg.
And it's only going to get bigger.
You know, I noticed that uh Michael Cohn, my buddy, has filed a lawsuit against BuzzFeed and Fusion GPS for defamation over the dossier.
I think as more information becomes available, uh, that lawsuit is going to look more interesting than I think people could ever imagine.
And I think that, you know, as the information slowly drips out, I think that uh we're going to see a lot of corruption at the highest levels in both intelligence and at the highest level of of even law enforcement and the Department of Justice.
And I think a lot of this is going to go right back to Hillary Clinton.
And we're not even, I don't know.
I'm pushing to the side issues like Uranium One.
And I'm pushing to the side the email server scandal.
We now know that Comey and Peter Strzok put the fix in for.
Everything with the Clintons, everything is fixed.
They rig, they fix elections, primaries against Bernie Sanders.
They try and rig general elections against Donald Trump by paying for salacious Russian propaganda.
And more importantly, you know, all of this that we have now been through as a country for over a year seems to be and seems to be evolving into a massive abuse of power in multiple ways.
Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton buys, bought and paid for Russian lies?
And that that not only is it used to hurt a candidate, well, then it's used to influence the American people, and then it's used even to get warrants against individuals that you don't like or agree with.
Now we're criminalizing political differences.
And all the people that knew at the top levels, what did they know and when did they know it?
Let's put it this way.
I'm talking to people that are telling me this this makes Watergate and the break-in at Watergate look like child's play.
By the way, is that a live shot?
All right, the president with he's the prime minister of Norway at joint pressure.
Let's listen in.
The President of the United States is holding a joint news conference.
with the Prime Minister of Norway, and it has begun early.
Let's listen.
Brave treacherous sees in courageous missions of exploration.
Centuries later, during the Second World War, brave Norwegians escaped occupied Norway to fight alongside of Americans and the Allies, including on the beaches of Normandy in 1944.
Our friendship builds on this proud and noble history and is rooted in our commitment to confront the problems of today with that same confidence and that same determination.
And I think it might even be greater determination.
We've just concluded a series of discussions on how we can work together to promote a future of security and world prosperity, and also a great future for our respective countries working together.
The Prime Minister and I are both committed to strengthening the NATO alliance.
Norway has made contributions to the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, where we are doing very well.
It's been turned around, as well as to NATO and NATO's enhanced forward presence in Poland and the Baltic states.
I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Norwegian people for their participation in these efforts.
I encourage Norway to follow through on its commitment to meet the 2 percent of GDP defense spending obligation so that together we can confront the full range of threats facing our nations.
And I believe Norway will get there quite soon.
Norway is also a vital and valued member of the campaign to defeat ISIS because of us.
ISIS has now lost almost 100% of the territory it previously held not so long ago in Iraq and in Syria.
We're grateful for Norway's civilian assistance efforts and generous humanitarian aid to the region.
They've been out there and really doing an incredible job.
I'm also pleased to share that the economic ties between our two countries are robust and growing.
The United States currently has a trade surplus, which is shocking.
We have a surplus.
There aren't too many.
You're going to have to go back and check your people.
But we're getting more and more surpluses all over the world, I will say that.
I told that to the Prime Minister.
But our two countries are robust and growing.
The United States currently has a large contingent of products that we sell and back and forth with Norway.
And one of the big products, of course, is our military equipment.
I want to thank the people of Norway for their commitment to fair and reciprocal trade, a word that you're going to hear more and more coming from this administration, and it should have come from other administrations before me.
Reciprocal trade, which benefits us all.
Free nations are stronger when the trade is fair.
And trade has not been overly fair with the United States, but we've had that great relationship with Norway.
But remember the word reciprocal.
In November, we started delivering the first F-52s and F-35 fighter jets.
We have a total of 52, and they've delivered a number of them already, a little ahead of schedule.
It's a $10 billion order.
Norway also invests about one-third of its sovereign wealth front in American businesses, supporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
They're very big investors in our stock market, and therefore the Prime Minister thanked me very much because their market is, you have done very well with your investments in the United States.
Thank you.
Norway's commitment to mutually beneficial commerce is a model for other nations, and it really is.
It's an amazing country.
I look forward to forging an even stronger economic relationship between the United States and Norway, growing this record of success with even more investment and more jobs and more job creation.
We're also proud of our increasing cooperation on health and health security, and also on biodefense, very important to both countries.
I commend Prime Minister Solberg's efforts to promote vaccine development and disease prevention.
Together, we can save and improve many, many lives.
We're working very hard and in some cases together on cures to many ailments.
Prime Minister Solberg, I want to thank you again for joining us at the White House.
For decades, Norwegians and Americans have stood side by side against common threats to our freedom, our security, and to our values.
Together we have fought against fascism and communism and terrorism, and we face threats always together.
We're partners.
Our partnership has advanced peace, cooperation, and respect for human dignity all around the world.
Today we remain united in our efforts to confront shared challenges, to seize new opportunities, and to build a bright and beautiful future for our countries, our people, our children.
And I think we're doing very well working together, and we have a newfound friendship.
So I want to thank you and God bless you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for your generous welcome.
It's a great honor to be here at the White House.
The relationship between our two countries is strong and it has very deep roots.
There are millions of U.S. citizens who proudly call themselves Norwegian Americans.
And our Norwegian constitution, the second oldest in the world, that is still in force, was inspired by American ideals.
And we have had a long and continuous history of serving shoulder to shoulder on battlefields around the world.
The U.S. remains our most important ally, a major trade partner, and a close friend.
Today we have discussed issues so far of importance for our relationship, how we can keep our countries and citizens safe, how we can grow our economies, how we can further cooperation the cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
And I have assured President Trump that Norway remains an ally and a friend that you can count on in the future.
We are already number two in NATO after the US in terms of defense spending per capita, and we are making significant investments to further strengthen our defense.
And this includes, as the President said, some big buys from American industry.
P8 maritime patrol aircraft from Bowen, 52 F 35 combat aircraft from Lok and Martin, our largest single public investment ever in Norway.
But also we are buying new submarines and investments in intelligence capabilities and army assets, and uh which is important also for our job in the northern part.
The American economy is doing well, and our economic relations are flourishing.
And that's to the benefit of both countries.
As we discussed in our meeting, for a small country like Norway, it's important for our ability to trade and to invest across borders that we have fair trade and that we have multilateral trade systems also.
And we uh think it's important for our future.
Norwegian in investments and Norwegian companies support close to half a million jobs of in the United States, and through our government pension funds, substantial revenues from our oil sectors are being investment invested in US assets.
The US has an impressive business uh community, and I have commended the leading role it is playing also in the transformation to a green economy.
For example, by the fact that uh one of the big areas we are now importing in Norway is electrical cars from Tesla.
And uh Norway is uh combating climate change.
It's an important issue for us, and we are committed to the Paris Agreement, but it leads to businesses and it leads to American businesses also selling costs in Norway.
All right, that's the Prime Minister of Roy uh Norway with a joint pressure with the President.
Now the President is going to take questions and answers.
You won't miss a second of it.
I promise we're gonna have it uh watch it while uh we go to this quick break.
We're gonna play this in total as the uh president is now answering some questions.
Let's go back to the news conference.
We'll take our usual break.
You won't miss a minute of the president having this news conference.
How about Sarah Westwood?
Where is Sarah?
Sarah, thank you.
Washington examiner.
Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
Uh, yesterday in a meeting with lawmakers, you said that you would be open to signing just about any immigration deal that that bicarbisan group of lawmakers sent to you.
Right.
Would you be willing to sign an immigration deal that ultimately does not include funding for the border wall, or would that be a red sign for you?
No.
No.
It's got to include the wall.
We need the wall for security.
We need the wall for safety, we need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in.
Uh I would imagine that the people in the room, both Democrat and Republican, uh, I really believe they're going to come up with a solution to the Dhaka problem which has been going on for a long time, and maybe beyond that immigration as a whole.
But any solution has to include the wall because without the wall, it all doesn't work.
Uh you could look at other instances, look at what happened in Israel.
They put up the wall, they say solved a very major problem.
We need the wall, we have to have the wall for security purposes.
Security is number one.
And uh so the answer is have to have the wall.
Thank you.
And please.
Yes.
Can I can I call on Anlas Magnes from uh the Norwegian Broadcasting?
Mr. President, uh Prime Minister.
Uh recently, an emerging uh American general, Robert Neller told his Marines based in Norway there's a war coming.
A big Uh fight.
Mr. President, how imminent is that big war?
And where will it take place?
Will you say the big war, you're saying what?
Say it?
It was an American general, Robert Neller.
He visited the Norwegian American Marines based in Norway.
And he said if there is a war coming, a big ass fight.
When would that war call?
Well, maybe he knows something that I don't know.
Okay.
I would say this.
I would say this we have a very, very powerful military.
We're getting more powerful by the month, by the day.
We're ordering a lot of the equipment that you're ordering, we're ordering it, but in larger amounts, uh, to put it mildly.
Uh we are building up our military to a point that we've never been before.
Uh we're also uh we were very much uh weakened over the last long period of time.
But well, I will say this.
Uh there is collusion, but it's really with the Democrats and the Russians, far more than it is with the Republicans and the Russians.
So the witch hunt continues.
John, go ahead.
Uh thank you, Mr. President.
I I also have a question for the Prime Minister, but if I could address the President first.
Uh Sarah brought up the Russia investigation.
Um your legal team, sources have told us, believes that in the next few weeks, the special counsel Robert Muller will ask for some sort of an interview with you.
Your legal team believes as part of wrapping up his investigation.
Are you open to meeting with him?
Would you be willing to meet with him without condition, or would you demand that a strict set of parameters be placed around any encounter between you and the special council?
Well, again, John, uh there has been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, or Trump and Russians.
No collusion.
Uh when I watch you interviewing all the people leaving their committees, I mean the Democrats are all running for office and they're trying to say this that, but bottom line, they all say there's no collusion.
And there is no collusion.
And when you talk about interviews, uh Hillary Clinton had an interview where she wasn't sworn in, she wasn't given the oath, they didn't take notes, they didn't record, and it was done on the Fourth of July weekend.
Uh that's perhaps ridiculous, and a lot of people looked upon that as being uh a very serious breach, and it really was.
But again, I'll speak to attorneys.
I can only say this there was absolutely no collusion.
Everybody knows it.
Every committee, I've been in office now for 11 months.
For 11 months, they've had this phony cloud over this administration over our government, and it has hurt our government.
It does hurt our government.
It's a Democrat hoax that was brought up as an excuse for losing an election that frankly the Democrats should have won because they have such a tremendous advantage in the electoral college.
So it was brought up for that reason.
But it has been determined that there is no collusion and by virtually everybody.
So we'll see what happens.
But again, would you would you be open to the we'll see what happens?
I mean, certainly I'll see what happens.
But uh when they have no collusion and nobody's found any collusion at any level, uh, it seems unlikely that you'd even have an interview.
And uh, Madam Prime Minister, uh Norway shares a small but strategic border with Russia.
President Trump's position has been it's better to try to work with Vladimir Putin, if possible, than to work against him.
Where do you uh come down on that idea?
Better to work with Putin than to not work with him.
Well, I think Russia is an important player in the international world, and I don't think you can uh not work with and talk to.
But on the other hand, it's important to say that um we have we have aligned with all the sanctions uh as the European Union has done and and as a member connected both in NATO and and uh and uh interconnected to that, and we have also suffered some uh economic uh um um difficulties in some areas in Norway based on those uh sanctions.
But um on the other hand, we have a very good relationship with Russia over that border area where we do have very much free movement of people, uh special zone of people moving to and fro.
We have uh uh very large cooperation on uh sustainable fisheries in this area.
It's the biggest cod area in the world, but it's sustainable resource, and we do patrol it, we do work together.
So we think it's important to do two things at the same time.
Yes, The international law is firm and clear.
There was a break of that to the annexation of Crimea and the situation in Ukraine, and we still stand by all of our allies with that.
But at the same time, as a neighboring country, we do day-to-day work on things that we have to solve for the people and the economic activity that is in that area, and which is a fragile area for the whole world.
Just to add to the answer, uh, I think it is much better to work with Russia.
Uh it's very much uh better having to do with North Korea, where we currently have a problem that should have never been my problem.
This should have been a problem solved many years ago when it was much less dangerous, but it was given to me along with a big mess of other things.
But I will say this I am for massive oil and gas and everything else and a lot of energy.
Putin can't love that.
I am for the strongest military that the United States ever had.
Putin can't love that.
But Hillary was not for a strong military, and Hillary, my opponent, was for windmills, and she was for other types of energy that don't have the same capacities at this moment, certainly.
So uh I just want to say that it's a lot better to work with other countries.
We're working with China or North Korea, we're working with various other countries, and I think we're doing very well.
We had a great talk, as you know, and as you reported, we had a great talk this morning with President Moon, and I think that uh a lot of good things are happening.
Uh, we're going to see what happens.
But uh working with other countries, whether it's Russia or China or India or any of the countries that uh surround this world and encompass this world, that's a good thing, John.
That's not a bad thing.
That's a very good thing.
Okay.
Okay, go ahead.
Kristina Futin from uh Oftenboston.
Mr. President, uh Prime Minister.
Um Norway strongly supports the the Paris Agreement and have expressed regret that you have decided to leave it.
Um what could persuade you to remain?
And um what kind of common ground did you find in your talks today on this topic?
Well, it wasn't a major topic, I must tell you.
Uh we talked about other things, including mostly trade.
But uh I will say that the Paris Agreement, as drawn and as we signed, was very unfair to the United States.
It put great penalties on us.
It made it very difficult for us to deal in terms of business.
It took away a lot of our asset values.
We are a country rich in gas and coal and oil and lots of other things, and there was a tremendous penalty for using it.
Uh it hurt our businesses.
According to some estimates, we would have had it close businesses in order to qualify by 2025.
Whereas, as an example, China by 2030, they don't kick in until 2030.
Russia, someplace in the mid-1990s, that was their standard, and that was never a good standard because that was a dirty standard for the environment.
Uh it treated the United States very unfairly, and frankly, it's an agreement that I have no problem with, but I had a problem with the agreement that they signed, because as usual, they made a bad deal.
So we could conceivably go back in.
But I say this we are very strong in the environment.
I feel very strongly about the environment.
Our EPA and our EPA commissioners are very, very uh powerful in the sense that they want to have clean water, clean air, but we also want businesses that can compete.
And the Paris Accord really would have taken away our competitive edge.
And we're not going to let that happen.
I'm not going to let it happen.
And if I guess my add that there are business opportunities in this, as uh as we talked about during this uh uh because we have strict regulations on uh to reach our Paris uh targets.
Uh that means that we have uh very strong policies for environmental friendly and climate-friendly technologies, and which was it's a small part of why the Americ uh why the United States now have a surplus in the economy towards Norway.
So to never miss up on a good opportunity with good environmental standards.
One of the great assets of Norway is a thing called water, and they have tremendous hydropower, tremendous.
In fact, most of your energy or your electricity is produced by hydro.
I wish we would do some of that.
But hydropower is fantastic, and it's a great asset that you have.
Thank you very much.
Great honor.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
The President with the Prime Minister of Norway joint press conference.
A number of topics have been uh hit by the president.
Uh the DACA deal must include the wall, uh, which the president reiterated uh yesterday in uh in a tweet post that exchange that he opened up to the public.
North Korea, we want our military to be prepared when it comes to North Korea, and talked about his relationship with China as a means of dealing with North Korea and building relationships.
He talked about at length how the Russia investigation is a hoax, has been from the very beginning, and uh talked about it being a democratic hoax and eleven months of a phony cloud that has hung above the administration.
There's never been collusion.
He was asked about whether or not he would do an interview at Robert Muller without conditions, talked about him uh Hillary and how she met with the investigators in that particular case, and she wasn't sworn in, nothing was taped, and how, in fact, um, you know, there were no notes even taken in that particular investigation, but we now know that the exoneration had already been written months ago by people like James Comey and Peter Strzok.
We've not heard the last of Peter Struck in a lot of different ways here, but again, he reiterated that there was no collusion at all.
Uh as it relates to uh DACA, it's everything that we've told you about.
Uh, he also talked about the Paris Climate Agreement was bad for America, and how, for example, in the case of Vladimir Putin, he wasn't supporting Hillary because Vladimir Putin doesn't want a strong military with the United States, doesn't want America to move towards energy independence as he has, and his comment about Hillary when she supported windmills, which would not be in competition, obviously with uh Vladimir Putin, and literally energy is the lifeblood of their economy.
That's it.
You get rid of their energy and their control over the spigots going out to Western Europe, it's a big problem financially for the Russians and for others.
Uh so that's the deal on that.
Um, one other thing that the president said yesterday about the border wall, he said it won't cost eighteen billion dollars, and it could be built in a year.
Which, by the way, if we put our our focus and resources on it, why shouldn't it be built fast?
Why can't we get, you know, a hundred thousand people down there building the wall and get it done and get it done expeditiously, and it could be done under budget and ahead of schedule, he said in just one year.
There's no reason you need seven years.
And he said, please don't do that to me.
Well, I think it's in the Republicans' best interest that they actually get hundreds of miles of that wall built as soon as possible.
Although I'm sure that there are plenty of these Republicans, just like they didn't really mean repeal and replace health care in their particular cases.
They didn't mean that they want the border wall either.
It's easy to support these things when you know it's never going to pass under Barack Obama.
There is an MBC news report.
Those of you worried that the president somehow went soft on illegal immigration under the direction of the president and the Homeland Security Department, federal agents busted a major anchor baby operation yesterday in California.
MBC News reporting Southern California apartment complexes that doubled as maternity hotels for women who want made in America babies was raided early Tuesday, capping an unprecedented federal sting operation, according to officials.
Homeland Security agents, they swept into the place called the Carlisle, a luxury property in Irvine, California, which housed pregnant women and new moms who allegedly forked over 40 to 80,000 dollars to give birth to their kids in the United States, according to NBC News.
All told the feds rated 20 locations in Los Angeles, Orange San Bernardino counties, targeting three competing birth tourism schemes, and it was aimed at ringleaders who are pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars tax-free to help some nationals obtain visas and pamper them until they delivered in an American hospital at a discount.
And the organizers who allegedly ran the Carlisle site used a website to drum up their business, touting the benefits of a child with U.S. citizenship.
Thirteen years of free education, low-cost college financial aid, less pollution, and a path for the entire family to emigrate when the child becomes an adult.
Clients were counseled on what lies to tell so they can obtain a tourist visa, how to fly through Hawaii, Vegas, or Korea to avoid suspicion, especially suspicious immigration officers at Los Angeles, LAX, and uh how to disguise their pregnancy in transit according to search warrant affidavits that were unsealed.
Unbelievable.
Women apparently were set up at the Carlisle, charges three thousand dollars a month, two bedroom apartment, has amenities including private balconies, a resort style pool, cabanas, flat screen TVs.
They were funneled to several Orange County hospitals to deliver the babies, but they didn't full pay full price, approximately twenty-five thousand dollars for medical services, according to officials.
Instead of paying that, they got reduced rates for the indigent ranging from nothing to four thousand dollars.
I guess we're all paying us.
That translated into big losses for the hospitals, and more than four hundred babies linked to this one particular scheme were born at just one facility in a two-year period of time.
Can't believe it.
President also earlier on uh Twitter took on Diane Feinstein, saying sneaky Diane Feinstein, who has on numerous occasions stated that collusion between Trump and Russia has not been found, would release testimony in which, in such an undertendered way, she's talking about the fusion GPS guys.
There's a lot to this story that nobody is getting to you.
There's so much more than anybody knows in terms of you know all the topics that they that they were looking at to hurt Donald Trump.
And as I told you, I'm getting a lot of information today that the dossier issue is about to blow wide open, probably as early as next week.
And this connection to obtaining the FISA warrant against candidate and then President-elect Trump.
Senator Brassley has criticized your leaking of the GPS fusion.
Uh transcript.
The one thing I regret is that I didn't have a chance to talk to him before.
And I've looked for him.
I want to apologize for that, and I will apologize for it.
Um we were written to by the lawyers of the company asking that it be released.
And the reason, of course, is because it has been used by rumor and in rando and falsity so much that the time came for people to see exactly what was said.
And I I think in these hearings more should be released than held back.
Because when you hold something back, it gives all of the people that have an axe to grind an opportunity to grind that axe to a fine edge, and they do.
But if the facts are out, then that isn't a problem.
What about GPS's bank record?
I gotta go.
All right, Diane Feinstein, who was leaking the interviews that uh I thought leaking was not allowed.
Well, that's a good precedent because I now know that the House Intelligence Committee and other committees now have gotten a hold of information that they had been requesting for some time from the Department of of Justice, and I'm gonna get to that in a second.
Uh, Senator Grassley said that Feinstein's leak has now impeded the Senate's Russia investigation.
And he goes on to say that uh her doing so, that the leaked transcript of the fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, his summer twenty seventeen testimony could make it harder for the committee to get cust testimony from other witnesses as they continue to do their investigation.
It may make a lot of people a little more reserved about whether or not they want to cooperate, including in regard to Jared Kushner, very high profile person, as an example.
We'll continue to move forward, Grassley said, but these transcripts would have been released eventually anyway.
Obviously, I was a little disappointed because I had an understanding ahead of time that it'd be released when we both agreed to release it.
But anyway, that's not the big story that I'm telling you, is now beginning to unfold, and as it relates to FISA abuse and whether or not the dossier that was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, and some monies from the DNC that Donna Brazil said was controlled by Hillary Clinton that they used to hire this guy Christopher Steele,
if you recall, as questions about whether or not he was paid money by our own government and the FBI in in regards to all Of this.
But anyway, the Department of Justice has now given the House Intelligence Committee FISA applications that they believe were based on the Trump dossier.
Now I'm getting this all from the Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller is reporting that the House Intelligence Committee is now in possession of the FISA applications that were used by the Obama administration to obtain the authority to conduct surveillance on the Trump transition team.
Now remember Sarah Carter, John Solomon broke these, that was one of the first stories we broke last year that there were warrants and a Pfizer warrant against then candidate and then President elect Donald Trump.
And then we were asking the question well, why would anybody, you know, how is it possible that a Pfizer warrant was obtained because you got to go to a FISA court.
Now we're beginning to realize that at least I've had three people confirm for me today.
Three sources, high level sources that in fact the Hillary Clinton dossier did was in fact used, at least one person says that was of significant use to obtain the warrant against Donald Trump and associates.
You understand?
It's all propaganda.
It's all Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies, salacious lies, unproven things.
It played one person said it definitely played a part.
Another said a significant part in terms of getting the FISA warrant.
But it was according to all three sources used to obtain the warrant.
Anyway, the Daily Caller is now saying that the House Intelligence Committee is in possession of the FISA applications that the Obama administration used to get the authority to conduct surveillance on the Trump transition team, which they say was based on the Trump dossier.
Now that's coming from the Daily Caller today, and I made some calls on my own that got confirmation of this.
Now, if you read this report, it means that is confirmation of the most explosive charge in the entire Russia Gate scandal, which is that the FBI used a bogus opposition research document bought and paid for by Hillary's campaign to con a Pfizer court into allowing the Obama administration to surveil the opponent of Hillary Clinton.
And if that's true, that's a big problem for Hillary and former Obama administration officials for the FBI and for the Democratic Party.
Joining us now is Sarah Carter, Fox News contributor, investigative reporter.
I'm doing great, Sean.
It sounds like we have uh a lot of the same uh uh information coming our way because uh we were able to uh verify pretty much exactly the same thing that the dossier was used in part to obtain the FISA warrant to spy on members of uh President Trump's campaign.
All right, let's get into this in some detail.
What are you hearing?
What have you heard?
Well, I'm hearing I'm hearing that the FISA was used, that the dossier was used to gain the FISA, and that's very significant because remember a lot of this, and we know now that this dossier is unsubstantiated, falacious dossier, a lot of it's proven to be false.
So it leads us to the next question.
One of my sources, uh, a very high-level law enforcement official said this is outrageous.
He says it clearly should be thoroughly investigated, and and they were very well familiar with this FISA application process and how this was done.
And it should ask us to question how far has this abuse gone?
Is this a is this a single case?
What happened here?
What are they looking at?
I know as as well as you that I've spoken uh to members and and to others who said that they did have a chance to review all of this documentation at the Department of Justice, that the Department of Justice was forthcoming with the information requested by the House Intelligence Committee.
Uh now they will be waiting on receiving the rest of the text messages.
Remember the 9500 text messages that they still need to see uh between Strzok and uh Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent.
So they're waiting to look at that, and that should be coming in the next uh few days.
But we have to ask ourselves a question if if this is this one case or has this been going on for some time?
And uh didn't have a lot of people.
In other words, is now isn't there a a vote on 702 and the authorization uh coming up tomorrow or the next day?
Yeah, correct.
It is coming up uh tomorrow.
Uh it's the best of my knowledge, and this is this is significant because this is whether or not they're going to reauthorize Section 702, which allows for this surveillance.
And uh one of the things that I'm hearing from the Hill and from members of the uh, you know, varying members of the Hill, and remember the Judiciary Committee is going to be significant in this, is whether or not they want to reauthorize this without having some kind of protocols in place to know that there won't be abuse.
And remember, I've spoken to a number of store sources, uh put a story together earlier this year, who's spying on who, where they talk about, you know, people within the community that are talking about the kind of abuses that have been happening inside with the FBI and with other agencies, um, with the warrantless spying program.
And this is going to be huge.
You see, I think we got to get to about for example, you know, Hillary Clinton, nobody knew who had paid for the dossier for a long time.
And and Clinton's campaign, didn't they deny it and we wouldn't get any information from Fusion GPS who paid them and didn't they pay over twelve million dollars?
That that's correct, and nobody knew anything about it until the Washington Post actually broke the story last October that uh Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, you know, helped fund this research, and they did it through their attorney, Mark Elias, um, who was representing the Clinton campaign, tried to put that kind of wall between them.
And remember they didn't even disclose that, which is something they should have disclosed on their campaign forms.
So it was hidden behind a wall and nobody knew.
I mean, I think it was quite shocking when people realized it was a you know the DNC and the Hillary campaign that was funding the research that now we know led the FBI to gather a warrant to spy on her uh her opponent, then uh candidate Trump.
But did they know the information was false?
Well, in order to obtain a FISA warrant, you have to be able to prove that information is true, that the information that you're seeking from the courts is true.
So now we have to figure out what did they put in those warrants?
What is in those warrants that the uh that the House Intelligence Committee now has access to?
And that's going to be very difficult because those are considered classified.
But remember, they could piggyback this information off of other agencies, foreign agencies.
They could Christopher Steele admitted that he shared the information in the dossier with uh GCHQ in England with their intelligence agencies.
Did somehow we use that to uh to show the FISA courts like, well, ho, hey, look, this foreign agency has the same information, so you know, maybe we could use this as evidence.
You know, there's a lot of questions here that still need to be answered.
We had been told at different points and and it had been reported in different places that there was at least a moment in time where James Comey wanted to pay Christopher Steele money himself for this information.
Do we have any update on that?
We still don't have a answer to that.
We I mean the the reports have varied, whether or not he was paid, how much he was paid, then we hear stories that there was no payment at all.
I can tell you that I will have some updates on whether or not there was a payment uh and more on the FISA warrant in the days to come.
But uh that is very interesting because we've heard two separate things.
One coming out of the FBI uh from anonymous sources that there was no payment made.
So it would be very interesting to find out if there was a payment made to Christopher Steele, because that would that would change everything.
Well, I think that's a b a big game changer.
And and if it's possible that Pfizer courts were and uh that FISA abuse happened in this particular case, you know, does it happen in other cases?
And at what point when we knew that this was bought and paid for by Hillary, did they not go did they go back to the court?
Does that render then whatever findings they might have had if it was obtained under false pretenses?
Does that render any information they got uh unusable to them?
Yeah, those are great questions, and those are questions that have to be dealt with um, I think on a legal basis as far as what's happening here.
And I think this is the reason why oversight's so important, because right now what's going to happen is if they find evidence that there was abuse.
If there was some type of um maliciousness to to obtaining these FISA warrants or some kind of a political leaning to obtaining this, then what they're going to do is that the House Intelligence Committee and others who have who are privy to to these documents are going to have to come up with some kind of report for the American people and some kind of plan so that they can ensure that this doesn't happen again.
Because I could tell you this, it's not something that's common.
You would hope not with you know the field agents in the Bureau, they're very straightforward.
They are very disappointed in what's happened with with the Bureau over the last year, and and many of them have spoken out, both former and current uh agents within the Bureau within the FBI, but they're gonna want to fix this, and they're gonna want to fix this before they reauthorize 702.
I think that's gonna be essential.
Does that put a roadblock in the way of tomorrow's uh reauthorization?
You gotta imagine it might.
Uh all right, take a break, we'll come back.
Sarah Carter, Fox News contributor and investigative reporter.
Uh it appears that that dossier was used in part at least to obtain a warrant to go after President Trump and and associates.
This is uh huge news.
We'll have the latest tonight at nine on Hannity on Fox News.
As we continue, Fox News contributor Sarah Carter and investigative reporter.
All right, so I am told that as it relates to the dossier and as it relates to the fact that it was Clinton bought and paid for and used as a a foundation, at least part of it used for the obtaining of the Pfizer warrant against Trump, and that's all paid for propaganda.
Then I think one has to ask, you know, how far did this go?
Absolutely.
One has to ask how far did it go, who were all the players involved, how were they connected?
And a lot of that's going to be based on uh series of investigations being being conducted by the DOJ, by the inspector general, by the committees on the House side, because a lot of this information, remember Sean, is classified, or they'll have to obtain some of the same methods that they use to obtain struck and Lisa Page's text messages.
They'll have to look at who was talking to who here.
I mean, maybe Strzok and some of the higher level officials that he was dealing with uh during this time because he played a very significant role in the Russia investigation.
So we know that he interviewed Flynn, we know that he is part of the interviews with Hillary Clinton, and looking at that as well.
And now we're going to have to go as far as saying, like, well, who was involved in this dossier?
How did deputy uh director Andrew McCabe?
What was his role?
What was his involvement?
Because he would have been directly involved in this because this is such a high level bit of information.
It would have been so they would have known about the dossier, correct?
They would have known about you know, did they know it was false?
In other words, were there other warrants?
We talked at the time when you first broke the warrants were issued against Trump and Trump Tower, and one was a FISA and one might have been another warrant.
Are there other abuses of of these warrants?
I would assume that there are other abuses of these warrants based on my sourcing and my ability to uh to gather information.
Now, I don't have a direct uh evidence of that right now.
I know that it's a concern, and I know it's something that people are looking into and something that they have to look into.
And remember, going all the way back then w was the warrant used to look at Trump's server, remember that was kept off site from Trump Tower.
What else were they looking at?
What else were they listening to?
How far did this go?
I think that those are gonna be significant questions.
I hear next week is gonna be a huge news week.
Have you heard that?
I heard there's gonna be a huge shakeup next week.
Uh something uh to do with the abuse of the FISA warrants.
And I think that's something that we should all be aware of, be ready for.
Um and it's certainly something that's significant enough to have people very concerned in Washington, D.C. Sarah Carter, thank you.
When we come back, Senator Rand Paul on this and other issues.
All right, 25 toward the top of the hour.
Senator Rand Paul is with us, and you know, he made a decision.
He's gonna filibuster the FISA bill if it remains unchanged.
And I assume you're talking about Section 702, which kind of fits into our news development today, and that is uh I've had multiple sources, so is Sarah Carter that say that uh that the Pfizer warrant that the dossier was used in part to get the FISA warrant to go against President Trump.
That's the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for uh dossier.
Your thoughts.
You know, I think everything that's gone on in the last few weeks with the revelation that three people in the FBI were plotting to try to prevent President Trump from becoming president, that somebody was at the Department of Justice, this Bruce Orr, whose wife worked for the group that was doing opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clintons.
This shows that people in charge of the intelligence apparatus are not without bias.
Madison put it this way he said men are not angels.
That's why we've got the Constitution.
So what happens right now is we don't have enough oversight of our intelligence community.
This Section 702 is for for to spy on foreigners in foreign lands, and I'm for it.
Uh we do have to defend the country and spying on foreigners in foreign lands, they don't get constitutional protections.
The problem is we gather so much information that when you look at the database, millions of Americans get sucked up in this database.
They're called incidental collection, but they're innocent Americans stuck in this database.
They haven't committed a crime, they didn't talk to a terrorist.
They just somehow tangentially are in this database.
And you should not be able to search Americans' data without a warrant.
And so we're asking that they simply get a warrant and that this data that's been collected with a less than constitutional standard not be used in domestic uh prosecutions.
How deep do you think this runs?
It concerns me that we've and it it is amazing to me that we've discovered these people at the FBI, this guy and his mistress who were plotting with somebody named Andy, which most people assume was the second in command to the FBI, were plotting to make sure that Donald Trump did not become president.
But if he did, they were talking about an insurance policy, whatever that means, to keep him from being president.
Isn't the insurance policy likely this phony Trump Russia collusion story that has never been proven?
It could be.
And see, this stuff is very, very scary.
So we have this dossier that is made by a British spy, but it's paid for by the Clintons and the DNC.
At the same time, this guy is also being paid by the FBI.
This British spy was paid by the FBI.
Do we know that for a fact?
Was it the $50,000 figure we heard?
What I have heard is that he was paid by the FBI, but some say it was a reimbursement for expenses to come here.
But the thing is, at the same time— Who authorized that payment?
Was it McCabe?
We don't know.
I don't know who did that.
But see, the weird thing is is the same time he's being paid by the FBI, he's being paid by this Oppo research group, the Democrats paid to disseminate this information to the media at the same time the FBI's paying him.
Yeah, well, I mean it it it now gets a little too here's here's my point.
We now know that a a president, well, an opposition party candidate and a president elect was spied upon.
And we know that one of the reasons, and I've confirmed this with three people, that and and the Daily Caller has a piece out on this today, and Sarah Carter confirmed it as well, and that is that the dossier was used in part to get the Pfizer warrant.
Yeah, and if it was, now we have something that was paid for by Clinton.
Basically, Oppo research is the kind of crap that campaigns do all the time, but is not facts that any kind of law enforcement would use.
It's the crazy accusations that people come up with when you hire a private investigator to spy on your opponent.
But this one was developed uh by foreign spies, and who knows where the information came from.
And apparently the information in the dossier is indirectly corrected.
The British spy was paying somebody who was paying somebody to get him information.
And so it's crazy if this was then used to spy on a presidential candidate.
And the president made a good point today when he was asked about this.
He said, Well, look, when Hillary Clinton came in to be interviewed, it wasn't under oath, and uh they ended up letting her off scot-free.
And now people are clamoring to have the president under oath.
I think it's crazy that he would ever even consider talking to these people.
But the thing is, is my point is there's an intersection with policy here.
We need more oversight of the intelligence community because there are people of bias that are the deep state that are there all the time.
They never go away from administration to administration, but if they're so biased that they would plot against Donald Trump, something's got to happen.
We need more public oversight of intelligence.
What do you think we're gonna learn when we get to the bottom of all of this in terms of Pfizer abuses, warrant abuses, you know, prop paid for propaganda by opposition candidates now being used.
Um and I'm I'm just trying to understand Peter Strcken.
And what do you think about even Robert Mueller, Robert Mueller?
You know, look at the team that he appointed and how left-wing political uh uh they are and how they're agenda driven and Andrew Weissman's record and everything in between here, or the fact that Comey and Strzok were writing an exoneration before an investigation or the Iranian one deal.
This we have given such extraordinary power to the intelligence community.
They can listen to every phone call in Italy for an entire month.
Every phone call, think about that.
Every phone call coming in or out of Italy can re be recorded and was recorded for a month.
And so anybody they talk to in America was recorded.
And so all of this stuff is such enormous power, we have to have more oversight.
We cannot say, oh, we're just gonna suspect that these people are going to be unbiased.
You know, most people that work for the FBI are good people.
I know most I know local FBI agents, they're good law enforcement people.
But if it it are people at the very top echelon who have let politics and political bias get the better of them, so we have to have more daylight.
We have to have more oversight of these people because we found out they're human, but we found out they're very, very biased against our president.
Well, we know that there's a lot of that.
How much of that is going on inside the Senate when doors close among Republicans and when you have Senate conference?
The problem is is that we've got four or five Republicans, including myself, who want more oversight of the intelligence community, but the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate uh don't want any oversight.
In fact, therefore a permanent reauthorization of this program with no new reforms.
And that's that's scary.
We actually have more allies on that cross the aisle on this, and so we have sort of a bipartisan alliance that are civil libertarians that say, you know what, this is such an enormous power, we need more oversight.
Um but I'm hoping as people see how this president was targeted that a few more Republicans will wake up and say, you know what, we want to continue the program.
We want to go after foreigners who are tr threatening to attack us, but we do need to be careful not to catch up innocent Americans in this program.
Do you think a lot of innocent Americans are being surveilled illegally and their Fourth Amendment constitutional rights being shredded?
Yes, millions of Americans.
What happens is they're they're soaked up incidentally.
So like General Flynn, you know, to him it's not an incident.
It was the ruining of his career.
But he was picked up incidentally when they're spying on somebody else.
They're spying on the Russian ambassador, and they incidentally picked up Flynn.
But then they illegally unmasked him, probably a Trump political appointee, illegally unmasked him, sent it around to dozens and dozens of people who then illegally send it to the media, and now his conviction will be uh lying to investigators based on an illegal search and listening to his conversation.
But do we really want our government to listen to every phone call we make and everything we say on the on the phone, and then we're going to be challenged to everything we've ever said in a private phone call?
I mean, I think what you're saying is is unbelievably uh uh truthful and amazing, to be honest.
Let me ask you about uh the president, his comments, DACA and everything in between.
You know, I thought the uh the discussion was good.
I know some people are giving him a hard time, but I thought it was good because it showed uh uh his mastery of dealing with both Republicans and Democrats and his ability to control a conversation and hear both sides on it.
And he basically told people when they objected, you guys are gonna have to work it out.
This is something you have to work out.
The Democrats have really, really wanted DACA.
If they do, they're gonna have to compromise.
And frankly, when the Democrats say, oh, it's Republicans' fault.
No, the reason nothing has ever improved on come on border security or on immigration reform is because Democrats want everything and they're unwilling to give anything.
There's no compromise on the Democrat side.
Now they really want DACA.
If they want DACA, they're gonna have to get rid of chain migration, they're gonna have to get rid of the diversity lottery, and they're gonna have to allow the problem.
Is that a good deal?
It depends on what the what the devil the devil's in the details, and so it depends on what actually comes forward.
The problem in the past with any immigration reform, and this includes even a hero of all of ours, Reagan from 86, was we they always promise border security to come at a later date.
If the border security comes at a later date, it's a bad deal.
So there has to be a guarantee that the border security is coming.
I think Trump has the wherewithal to make that guarantee stick, but that's that's where the devil's in the details.
But I do think there is a compromise that can be had on DACA, and I will support a compromise.
What I have suggested is no new immigration.
How about we build the wall first and then we talk about other things?
Well, I'm I'm not completely opposed to that either.
But what I would what I've said is we admit about a million people every year.
So what I would do is if you want to admit the DACA children, subtract them from the totals, don't add them to the totals.
So instead of adding new immigration, you say we're going to internally immigrate these DACA kids, but they're going to count against the total, so we're not expanding immigration.
We're simply including them in the people that we normally admit each year.
All right.
Thanks so much for being with us.
Uh and what's your relationship like with the president, by the way?
You guys get along well, I hear.
You know, very good.
I think uh I've opposed him on times, I've supported him on times, and I think he knows that I'm an honest broker, that I'll give him an honest answer.
I'll stand up to him when I think we have a disagreement.
But by and large, I've been uh and have said this, he has exceeded my expectations.
Supreme Court regulations, taxes.
I think his first year in office is probably uh more conservative than Ronald Reagan's first year in office.
I mean that.
Yeah, all right.
Rand Paul, Senator Paul, thank you for being with us.
Appreciate it.
Always love having you on the show.
Uh 800-941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
Let's say hi to Tom in Cape Coral, Florida.
Tom, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Thanks, Mr. Hannity.
I have a quick question about Diane Feinstein.
If this was under a closed session, this testimony and this transcript is from a closed session.
Isn't her leaking of this kind of a violation of some law or her oath as you know a member of our government?
I mean, this is closed session for a reason, right?
Well, you would think so.
Now I understand that there's a lot of materials that have made their way into different varying committees and uh information that I know would break through a lot of the things that we've been talking about, especially what were we just talking about with FISA and the dossier and uranium one and Hillary Clinton's emails and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and uh if we can release uh these you know, this exchange unilaterally like Diane Feinstein did, I say everybody should release.
I I agree, then why are we having closed sessions?
Uh that's a good point.
What's the point of it?
You know, if they're gonna only make only going to release selectively that which they think benefits them, then I think release everything.
That the one refreshing thing about yesterday and the president letting the cameras, you know, listen in, so to speak, in this conversation about immigration, is you know, it gave us an opportunity to go behind closed doors and see what goes on there.
And uh I think it keeps them more honest.
And I think all these closed door hearings and you know backdoor legislation and all the deals, it's sort of like, you know, I guess if we saw how the sausage was made, we'd never eat the sausage.
But um it would certainly awaken people to what really goes on in government.
I think that would be a good thing.
Uh Reed is in Salem, Oregon, next on the Sean Hannity show.
What's up, Reed?
How are you?
Good.
How are you?
I'm good, sir.
Hey, I wanted to get your take on given all we know about the Russia investigation now and the involvement of Hillary, Comey, Obama, all of them.
How important was it for them to get Sessons to recuse himself from this investigation to keep them out of it so that it could stay in his hands or Rosenstein?
And and the bigger question Who told those senators in those confirmation hearings that it was important to push that issue?
I don't know the answer.
I will say this.
I think that none of this exists if Senator Sessions never accused himself.
You know, I think it it honestly that's my take.
All right, I appreciate you being with us.
800 941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
You know, I told you I thought something was going on with uh Julian Assange.
There's one report out, and I haven't confirmed it yet.
We're looking into it now, but just to put in the back of your head that he might have been granted an Equatorian ID, that would be required for passports and for citizenship.
So we're gonna watch that case because there just seems to be movement on that account.
Anyway, eight hundred nine four one Shauna's a toll-free uh telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
We got a lot of other news that we are getting into today.
James O'Keefe has a new video out.
We'll show it on TV tonight, but literally undercover talking to people at Twitter.
And if you're worried about your private security, and if you're worried about privacy, and you're worried about whether or not Twitter has been politicized, uh, you're gonna want to hear what we're gonna play next.
That's actually pretty frightening and pretty scary.
And if you think that maybe they have a political bias over a Twitter, I think after seeing this, it'll confirm every single thing that you believe.
It's pretty amazing, you know, because I've had so many friends on on Twitter and social media tell me that there is a political agenda, the people that are running these things, and uh this all corroborates you know the types of things that people have been telling me for a long period of time.
Alright, so we'll get to James O'Keefe next.
Uh also Dr. Kelly Ward will join us, and we'll get to your phone calls 800941 Sean as we continue our final hour free for all, all the other news of the day, and James O'Keefe.
That's next.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity show.
So you're not a Trump lover?
No.
Um, so why can't you at Twitter just push everything he has to say off to the side where nobody sees us and put him put all of his tweets like this one that just that he just tweeted about um the size of his button?
The size of his buttons, like we're gonna go into nuclear warfare because of him.
Like, what are you doing at your job to kind of quiet him or to to downplay some of the things that he comes up with because honestly, he's gonna get us into so much trouble.
Yep.
So funny you mention that.
Uh it was not my decision.
Uh the decision though was uh most of the stuff he tweets is completely newsworthy.
Okay.
And so because it's newsworthy, even though he's making a complete ass out of himself in the country, um, we have to let those tweets up and let him do it.
Essentially, he has a cut lunch uh to do whatever he wants.
Okay.
Um the other thing too is that we're more than helping, we're more than happy to help uh the Department of Justice in their little investigation.
Okay.
How basically give him every single tweet that he's posted.
Okay.
Even the ones he's deleted.
Okay.
Any direct messages, any mentions.
Oh, yeah.
So it's I'm glad that you're doing that.
Like something.
Yeah, something needs to be done.
Yeah.
Well, you should you should you should look at junior and senior senior and see what what's in there.
You know what I mean?
Have you seen it?
There's a there's a reason why we have subpoena process for that reason.
Wow.
But yeah, we can absolutely look at every single message, every single tweet, whatever you want into, but profile pictures, you have to put up a profile pictures that you thought you're gonna do.
Um you working with DOJ currently on that?
I I can't comment.
If I knew I wouldn't comment.
So what we can do on our side is actually very terrifying.
That could be terrifying.
We have full access for every single person.
Every single direct message deleted direct messages deleted tweets.
I can tell you exactly who logged in from where the user using a password, when they change the password.
Why do you keep it?
Because I don't get that.
I'm not in that in the fields.
I don't get why you why you keep it, like who cares?
If we ever get scheme it.
Um also helps us to take pattern of history.
It's it's kinda it's very very dangerous.
Um I think it comes with the territory.
So you're hoping that this year goes by fast because he's in office.
You're not a you're not a Trump lover.
Are you?
No.
On one hand, yes, he's dangerous.
I don't like him, and he's a terrible human being, and I want to get rid of him.
In fact, we had uh internal reviews about that in basic.
I wasn't the only one that basically said that if we let this maniac someone let this maniac continue, I'm gonna have a hard time finding another job.
Yeah.
Yeah, because uh, you know, I don't like being part of the the machine that is contributing to the American downfall.
We're more than happy to help uh the Department of Justice in their little investigation.
All right, that of course the latest from Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, who joins us now, he's the founder of Project Veritas with some breaking news, and their latest video exposes what we have all long suspected, and that is that social media platforms are misusing their access, their control over your personal information.
And today James O'Keefe is revealing in this video, put it up on Hannity.com, it's on Project Veritas's video site, of course, uh, revealing that Twitter employs a network engineer who admits to hacking President Trump's account and bragging about his ability to read all of his direct messages and revive deleted tweets and secure passwords and uh upsetting uh as all of this gets, it gets worse.
Then you have Twitter employees admitting to giving this private information to the Department of Justice and looking at Julian Assange's account among other things.
Anyway, talk about privacy being dead, it's dead.
James O'Keefe, Project Veritas, how are you?
Hey, Sean, thanks for having me on, and and this is the first in a series of videos undercover, inside Twitter, confirming suspicions.
We always thought they were sharing our private direct messages with government or with people or selling it.
We always thought they were shadow banning people from timelines.
Well, Project Veritas has launched a very ambitious undercover investigation exposing it, and thanks for playing all that sound.
We uh we have there is some breaking news.
Twitter did issue a statement.
Well, I've got that statement in front of me and they responded to it.
And um what they're saying is uh in this particular case, the individual depicted in the video was speaking in a personal capacity and does not represent or speak for Twitter.
Twitter only responds to valid legal requests and does not share any user information uh with law enforcement without such a request.
Right.
So they're kind of throwing him under the bus there, and they're saying that he was speaking out as a personal capacity.
But Sean, if anyone at at Twitter would know this guy is not a low-level IT guy, he's a senior network security engineer.
And after talking to people who know this business, uh he is the person at Twitter that would know that they can do this.
They're willing to do it, they're able to do it, they may be doing it.
And he says it's quote, creepy, very big big brotherish.
He calls himself the bouncer of the network.
He's talking about uh how they are taking Trump down, that Trump's taking the country down and they have to take him down.
So it's it's very interesting to see how he how he articulates his philosophy towards Trump and what they're willing to do.
By the way, the the employee himself, guy named Clay Haynes is the senior network engineer, actually tweeted this morning that quote, this is no fun.
Yeah, he wrote this well, he wrote, Well, this is no fun.
Right.
So I'm sure it's not.
So Twitter is Twitter thinks he's an isolated incident, Sean, but you know my MO.
You know, in fact, we we you've seen some of the tape that's gonna come out.
We we have so many of their people on tape, and we put them in a box where they say, Oh, this is just a rogue employee saying this, and then we release more.
So Twitter's gonna have to face the the the brass uh the facts here over the next few days.
Can you get into how many installments we have on this?
There's a there's a few.
There there's there's there's there's there's more than three.
And uh and and uh while this one focuses on them cooperating with the Justice Department, which by the way, Tim Cook at Apple fought subpoenas, locking into people's phones when it came to terrorists.
So I I think that their leadership, I think the CEO needs to respond to their attitude about even complying with subpoenas.
It's news that there's a subpoena against Twitter, uh, for Trump's private direct messages.
The next video, Sean, will will likely focus on this whole concept of shadow banning.
That's muting someone from the timeline.
So that we're explain what that means, because a lot of people don't know what that means.
Well, I'm gonna get into it t probably tomorrow, but it means that they can they can t you can tweet something out and you think that your tweets are going to all of your followers, but your followers don't see what you write on their timeline.
It's the Twitter is the town square, and because they can screw with these algorithms and adjust things, they can actually censor you without you even knowing it.
And that's what these videos are going to show.
And we've always suspected it.
Now we're gonna prove it with their words, not mine.
All right, so this is an amazing thing.
Tell walk us through the entire operation that you had here, um, because it was pretty sophisticated, or I don't know if you want to go into all the details, but you manage to actually get Twitter people to come to you.
Well, Sean, you know, we i i i i i it's hard for me to get into the specific aliases, but I will say, Sean, that I take a lot of heat at Project Veritas, and you know that we did when we went after CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post for the aliases that we use.
We use a variety of aliases to get people to open up to us.
And we never break the law and we never try to lie to the American people.
We never deceive publicly.
But we use we go undercover.
We pose as something that we're not.
I know that a lot of people were attacking you when the uh Washington when I guess somebody figured out it was you, and I'm like, all right, good for them.
So what?
That doesn't that doesn't negate all the times that you've gotten incredible exposes on uh a corrupt on corrupt institutions.
I mean, that doesn't take away the other good work you've done.
Uh but yeah, some people might be they're so afraid of you.
I mean that that to me is a good thing, it means you've been effective.
Yes, i we're getting flack.
I mean, we we get v vociferously attacked, but we we use a variety of aliases we pose as terrorists, drug dealers, pimps, hookers, child abusers, uh uh ra rape victims.
Uh in this case, we posed as uh a headhunter and we did other aliases.
We can't get into the alias, but we entice them into a meeting, they want to meet with us, they want to spill the beans about their trade secrets, about uh about the things that they're doing that are wrong, and then we we secretly record the interaction in public places where there's no expectation of privacy.
This operation took us about a year.
Um this is the first video, as you know, Sean.
There's a there's always more videos, and I think this is gonna change the way people see the world.
When they see and hear in this video that they're that they're looking at your direct messages, and there's more on this.
They're sh they're sharing your direct messages, they're looking at them, and the things that these people say about what they do with your inform your private, like text, DMs or text messages on Twitter, it it is going to outrage people.
Heads are gonna roll.
There's gonna they're probably gonna be congressional hearings after this whole thing's done.
And this is just part one.
This is just part one.
Many of my friends on Twitter, and I have the let not your heart be troubled Twitter Army Brigade.
They actually helped me get started some years ago.
I think we're up to what 3.2 or 4 million followers, which we're very happy about, and we get out a lot of information to people that way.
It's at Sean Hannity if you want to go there.
And uh one of the things I do, I just have my whole staff has access to my account at any time.
And uh but one of the things that that we do is people reach out to me and they're telling me that they're banned from Twitter.
Uh have you ever heard of this new Twitter-like um site?
What is it, gab or Gab.
Andrew Andrew Torba is the CEO of Gab.
He's a friend of mine, and a lot of people are driven traffic to his site because of this.
Yeah, because Twitter in particular now is has come under fire for banning people, banning their opinions.
And I know people like to go out and periscope and they take, you know, they do live videos and all of this stuff and and live Facebook uh, et cetera.
And I think it's a great opportunity for people to be citizen journalists like kind of what like you're doing.
You know, what you're describing here, what your business is no different than what Mike Wallace used to do.
And other people at 60 minutes for years, except they would they you always put out the entire tape, correct?
I I usually do.
I put more than the networks do, and and Sean, I've I've sometimes released hours of tape.
Sometimes I have to protect sources.
But Mike Wallace, up to Sinclair used to do this.
There were undercover reporters in the 1960s and 70s who actually went undercover into into media organizations.
But the media can't abide me.
They can't they can't uh uh acknowledge there's anything wrong with them.
So they have to reject the techniques.
But the techniques have been used for a hundred years, and in this case, Sean, Twitter is I think it I don't know if the government should get involved, but unless the CEO Jack Dorsey makes sort of these algorithms public and their HR policies, the government will probably have to get involved because the stuff that is coming is is so bad.
When I when I tell you what's coming, what they do with your private photographs and things that you send your wife, and I'm not making this no, don't it's not my words, this is their words.
It is going to shock the conscience of the users on this platform, and the free market is gonna create a lot of people.
So there's no privacy on Twitter is what you've discovered here.
And that there's political than that.
There's political worse than that.
Censorship and beyond that.
It's beyond no way that's one thing.
All of that, all there would be an expectation of privacy on Twitter, especially in your uh private account.
So if they're doing these things, it sounds to me like they've opened themselves up for lawsuits a thousand different ways.
Yeah, people are gonna get sued, people are gonna lose their jobs when this whole uh thing is said and done.
Um I I we're gonna the next video is gonna be out tomorrow morning.
But um, Sean, this this is gonna be a catalyst, I think, for a change.
And I've already I've already heard from James Damore, who sued Google.
Him and I have him and I have talked a little bit about what's happening.
By the way, I noticed that Charles Johnson and some other people have been suing uh Twitter of late.
He got banned, I guess, in twenty fifteen.
Yes, Charles sued Twitter on Monday.
Uh uh I I think maybe Twitter, James Demore.
Yeah, so there are a lot of people now suing Twitter, and based on this information, you might have made them a lot of money.
They mentioned these some of these people in the videos that are coming out.
I gotta take a quick break.
We'll come back more with James O'Keefe, uh, Project Veritas, and what are people gonna do about the loss of privacy and more of what's coming later this week in his investigation straight ahead.
All right, as we continue with James O'Keefe Project Veritas and his deep dive into Twitter and social media.
I would never ever, you know, if I worked at such a place ever think it's within my rights to violate people's privacy.
I don't understand the why people feel that they can do that.
Sean, you have fifteen, twenty million, twenty-five million listeners, uh however many it is.
I want your listeners to tweet at Jack, J A C K, at Jack, with the video, this video, and ask them, Jack, what are you gonna do about this?
You be opening people's private DMs, the president's private DMs, and and and willing to give them to the Justice Department.
What are you gonna do about tweet at this company, put pressure on them, empower people to make change.
It's the only way we're gonna change the system.
Because all of your users and all of my s supporters use Facebook and Twitter to get the information out, and if they're censoring that and they're manipulating that, we need to know.
I think that's a good idea because uh, you know, and you're and I recommend people ask politely at Jack, you know, what are you gonna do about this video?
James O'Keefe, we'll have you back tomorrow with the latest installment.
It's gonna be very big.
It'll hit tomorrow morning and we'll have it exclusively here.
We're gonna show you this video on Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Chain migration has taken a very big hit in the last year with what's happening.
I mean, you're looking at these killers, whether you like or not.
We're looking at these killers, and then you see 18 people came in, 22 people came in, 30 people came in with this one person that just killed a lot of people.
I really don't believe there are a lot of Democrats that are gonna be supporting chain migration anymore.
I just want to try to make sure we're all linking.
The the reason that border security is so important to have as part of this discussion is that it doesn't solve the problem if we can apprehend people, but we can't remove them.
So we need the wall system, which is some physical infrastructure as the the president described, personnel and technology, but we have to close those illegal legal loopholes because the effect of that is this incredible pull up from Central America that just continues to exacerbate the problems.
So border security has to be part of this, or we will be here again in three, four or five years.
And then the president reaffirmed numerous times yesterday as it relates to any of the negotiations that there's going to be a wall, or there's not gonna be any consideration for DACA or anything else.
Dr. Kelly Ward is with us, U.S. Senate candidate out of uh Arizona has plenty to say about this, and she's running to take over for uh you know, Jeff Flake seat, Snowflake seat.
Uh how are you, Dr. Ward?
Happy New Year.
Hey, Sean, happy new year.
And and President Trump is exactly right.
We must build the wall.
Wall, not DACA.
That's what we should be concentrating on because we've been victims.
We, I say, conservatives, Republicans have been victims of this bait and switch that the liberal left and the GOP establishment has pulled on us again and again and again, and we're not going to stand for it this time.
We're going to get the wall first and foremost.
Then we're going to talk about the other issues.
All right.
The problem is I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
But just like with the health care bill, what do we find?
A hundred House Republicans never had any intention of repealing and replacing the way we imagined it.
And then s seven senators that voted for complete repeal in 2015 when it wasn't going to happen in Obama's president.
They reversed their position.
They never had no intention of really repealing it.
So I think there's a lot of Republicans that want DACA and are insisting on DACA both publicly and privately.
Oh, there certainly are.
I am sick and tired, and I'm sure you are of the campaign conservatives.
And we've got some big pretenders here in our state of Arizona.
You know, Jeff Flake and John McCain, pretenders in chief.
Now we've got somebody over on the House side that wants to sneak into my race, and she is a pretender as well.
She's uh she's been very disappointing on the border on she's for DACA, she's for amnesty.
I just heard her on the news last night talking about how we just don't need a wall.
Well, the wall isn't about keeping people uh as being the only way to keep people from coming into our country.
The wall is a symbol of a right and wrong way to come here, first and foremost, but it also slows down the progress of those things that are illegally coming across the border, whether it's people or guns or drugs, uh human trafficking, those things will be slowed down so that our excellent border patrol is able to get there and do the job that we want them to do, which is apprehend and send.
Apprehend and send, send them back.
Don't allow them to come into our country and enjoy all the benefits of this great United States.
Listen, I agree wholeheartedly.
You know, it's uh I keep saying the same thing.
You always get the amnesty, the consideration, you never get the wall built.
I mean, we're supposed this goes back to two thousand and six.
This goes back to, you know, twenty thirteen.
All the Democrats supporting, you know, building a wall, they've now all reversed their position.
Now we now here we are again.
All Democrats seemingly want is the the next consideration, DACA passed without any real guarantee that the wall's gonna get built.
So how do we fix that and make that happen?
Well, I mean, I think we all as conservatives and as uh as Americans need to take a hard line on this with everyone from the president on down, that it has to be a discussion about funding the wall and building the wall before any consideration of any type of permanent solution for the DACA population.
Uh President Trump has to honor his prom promises that he made to the angel families and to the victims of illegal alien crime.
He promised them again and again, he promised us again and again no amnesty.
And to have this conversation is the wrong conversation for us at as as the United States.
We should be talking about border security first and foremost, as as national security, and once that's accomplished, then we can open the dialogue on these other issues that are secondary to border security.
Now, do you think there's enough Republicans at this point that are gonna support that, or is it gonna be something done simultaneously and then we have to worry that it gets built?
You know, I worry about those squishy Republicans in the middle, and when I look at who was at the table um, you know, yesterday, which I do think that was a move a political genius move by President Trump televising that meeting.
But when I look at the Republicans that were around that table, there certainly weren't enough border security hawks sitting at the table.
There were way too many amnesty people, especially from the state of Arizona, Jeff Flake and Martha McSally, uh to name the the the biggest.
Okay, so now you're running in this primary.
How many people?
I guess Joe Arpaillo now has gotten in against Joe.
What is Joe?
He's like eighty-five years old.
What is he doing?
He is, you know, Joe's a patriot.
He's been a leader on illegal immigration, stopped stopping illegal immigration here in Arizona.
I welcome him to the race, but I can tell you we've built such a strong campaign.
We have a broad base of support across the entire state of Arizona as well as the country, because we're not focused on just that single issue of immigration.
We're focused On on immigration, but on repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes and reducing spending and reducing the debt and building up our military and making sure the VA is built back up to what it should be.
We're focused on America first trade policies.
And those things um, you know, ha are what have allowed us to have such a successful campaign that drove Jeff Flake uh out of the race, you know, into into retirement.
So we feel great about our position in in this race and getting to Washington to do the job that Americans want done.
Um how do you get along with Flake and uh Senator McCain and as I understand Senator McCain's been struggling lately?
We even though he says people like me should go straight straight to hell.
I mean I I wish him all the best, and he's been a patriot.
Um what's the latest with his health and what's your relationship like with Flake?
You know, I I mean I wish him all all the best as well.
I I pray for him and his family every single day because um he's facing some very, very tough challenges.
Uh I mean I have to say that my relationship with Senator Flake and Senator McCain is not um is not on the highest order because I was the one who was willing to challenge them when they weren't performing up to the standards that conservatives and Republicans and independents and even Democrats were expecting from the United States Senate.
They were campaign conservatives, and then they went to Washington and helped the Democrats accomplish their progressive agenda under Barack Obama.
Both of them criticized Obama again and I mean criticized Trump again and again and again, but never once did I hear either of them really criticize any of the unconstitutional things that President Barack Obama was doing.
You know, that's such a good way of put it.
There, they're campaign conservatives.
There's a lot of those people out there.
Uh Arizona's become uh a bit of a tough state to win.
And uh is is defining it as purple, is that accurate to you?
Well, I certainly hope not.
We've got way too many splotches of blue, that's for sure.
If you look at the presidential map in 2016, there were a lot of blue spots in Arizona that didn't exist before.
And Donald Trump had a lot of uh, you know, a lot and he he won here by four points, but there it would have been better had he had two senators who were actually supporting him rather than two never Trump senators working against him in the state.
Uh down in in Martha McSally's district, she allowed Hillary Clinton to win that district by five points.
And so um there's uh uh you know a lot of change going on, and if we don't put forth great policy on the Republican side that's good for everyone, and that's what Republicans do, but we don't sell it very well.
We have great policy that will grow our economy, that will put more money back into the pockets of American citizens across the economic spectrum, and um we allow people to have liberty and freedom.
And so we need to be able to to change our messaging so that it appeals to millennials, that it appeals to independence, appeal to those Democrats who have been let down again and again and again by the left, and maintain our conservative base, and we do that by good you know, per proposing good policy.
I've got a great history of proposing good policy in the Arizona State Senate, and I want to take that skill to Washington, D.C. It sounds like you you have great passion to get to D.C. Uh what policies do you maybe find yourself in disagreement with, if any of the president, or do you find that you know you and him think alike?
I mean, I think we think alike on a lot of things because you know Donald Trump is now part of this movement that's known as the America First Movement.
But remember, you know, you were there.
This movement started years ago, 2009, 2010, especially, in response to Barack Obama's um uh goal of fundamentally transforming this nation into something that we wouldn't recognize.
And so we've always been on the ball about border security and stopping illegal immigration and shrinking the size of government, lowering taxes, get ri getting rid of regulations that are unnecessary and uh constrain American citizens and American businesses and make them make it difficult for us to compete globally.
Um those things are uh that are things that have been around for a very long time.
I'm glad that President Trump took up the mantle and is leading this movement, and I look forward to working with him in Washington DC to make sure that we actually accomplish it.
All right, Kelly Ward, Dr. Ward, we uh we appreciate you being with us and we wish you a lot of luck in the primary.
We are big supporters of Dr. Ward, and I know a lot of people in uh Arizona, if you want to have a strong conservative uh elected from your state that's gonna fight for your the agenda that you wanted fought for well Dr. Ward is the person and uh eight hundred nine four one Sean is our toll-free telephone number you want to be a part of the program.
Uh let me in the meantime get back to our phones.
We say hi to Angie in Alabama.
Angie, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hey Sean, I'm a millennial and a huge fan of listening to you every day.
Yeah, what's going on?
Um well with the meeting that Trump exposed yesterday having it open to the public I was wondering in your opinion if you think that this is now gonna force the media because it was a direct contradiction of the dialogue they've been trying to push about him and if you now think this is going to force the media to return to ethical journalism as opposed to falsehoods and rumors.
Listen I I can tell you right now that the the media and their narratives look at yesterday for example it was fairly unprecedented.
I can't think of a time where an entire meeting where the public was invited behind closed doors and for an hour they're sitting there and having an honest debate about a substantive issue.
I know that people disagree with me on it that's neither here nor there and the president was in command in control.
He was principled he had the temperament the demeanor and and frankly you watch the guy leading he was in control of that meeting the whole time.
You know and then 24, 48 hours earlier some of the people at the table are saying he's demented he has no wrenty fifth amendment.
Look it's all a game to the people on the left they never talk about solutions.
They never talk about problems the American people have they never talk about how wrong they have been in the policies they have supported and it's all about hating the president and it's all about a political calculation at all times.
And they I I actually think the more the president opens doors like that and lets us in and we see the process I think it's the better it's gonna be and it's going to hold them to a higher level of accountability because we'll know exactly who's saying what when and where I'd love to see those meetings in the public more often.
Problem is a lot of what they do in Washington is all done behind closed doors, smoke filled rooms and they'll say okay we'll make it appear like we're doing this but we're really gonna do that.
I can't tell you how many budgets over the years that they tell you this is what's in the budget and then it turns out none of it's in the budget.
Or there's things in the budget they'll never tell you about it's just so corrupt.
Anyway appreciate it Angie thank you.
800 nine four one Sean is a number we'll stay in Arizona Melissa's next hi Melissa how are you?
Hey, Sean.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you.
Yeah.
I am scared.
I am very nervous now.
I feel that President Trump is lurching and lurching more to the left with this so-called DACA dreamers.
To me, they're not dreamers.
They're illegals.
And the reason why I'm against all of this is because my grandfather came here legally.
legally.
He was not on any government assistance.
they had to assimilate into society learn English my grandfather the school he used to clean bathrooms he became a sister and principal of that school.
Wow what a great story yes it takes away from the hard work that my grandfather and so many others come here that come here legally I'm they I am sorry I know it sounds heartless of me but they're illegals they do commit crimes um fraud they have fake social some people do you're absolutely right some people absolutely do.
Yeah, so I'm nervous about President Trump lurching to the left.
Yeah, all right.
He will lose me and he will lose a lot of his support here in Arizona if he does.
I think you're right.
And I think if they have 200 or 300 miles of the wall built with the new monies that they have, I think between that, continuing to fix health care, the economy roaring along, and keeping the country safe, standing up to Iran and North Korea and, preventing any type of major you know the decline and defeat of ISIS it's all going to help.
But they got to keep their promises and and I've been pushing and urging them all to do it.
The areas they are doing it is they got the economic plan passed.
They got judges in massive amounts passed.
Those are two promises.
All right that's gonna wrap things up for today we're loaded up tonight on Hannity the dossier was used in part to achieve and get the FISA warrant.
I doubt anybody else in the media will tell you but we've been a way ahead of the curve and are usually ahead of the curve.
I got Sarah Carter's gonna weigh in, John Solomon's weighing in, we got some other breaking news.
The latest on the immigration battle we'll have tonight, and all the news and information that you will not ever get from the mainstream destroy Trump media.
All right, so we'll see you tonight at nine.
Set you DVR.
Back here tomorrow.
As always, thank you for being with us.
Have a great night.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
And I'm Carol Markovich.
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 a 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.
