Sean is joined by Senator Rand Paul to discuss just why he may be the least popular person in Washington at this point. The Republican Party, under President Obama, had aligned themselves "in one voice" to demand controlled spending in Washington. "This is a two year deal," reminded Hannity of the recent spending agreement, "What are we going to do, I believe there will be growth, but what are we going to do?" Senator Paul has a plan that could introduce spending caps. Will it work? The Sean Hannity Show is on 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.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, 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 pillow's patented adjustable fill.
In other words, you can adjust the patented fill to your exact individual needs so you get the support you need and want to help you get to sleep faster and stay asleep longer.
Just go to mypillow.com or call 1-800-919-6090.
Remember, use the promo code Hannity.
When you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best offer ever.
Buy one pillow and get another one absolutely free.
MyPillow, made in the USA, 10-year unconditional warranty, and it has a 60-day, no-questions-asked money-back guarantee.
You have nothing to lose.
So it's time for you to start getting the quality of sleep that you've been wanting and we need.
Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
Promo code Hannity.
Take advantage of Mike's special two-for-one offer, mypillow.com.
Promo code Hannity.
All right, happy Friday.
What a two weeks this has been when you really think about it.
You can call it vindication weeks, especially this week.
Write down our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
It's 800-941-Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, a couple of things, items, you know, you think about we got the New Nest memo.
What did we learn in the New Nest memo?
What did we learn in the grassly Graham unredacted memo?
What did we learn now?
The informant for Uranium One has now spoken to three congressional committees.
I said at the beginning of this year to you that this is going to be the year of the boomerang.
We have no evidence yet, ever, that's ever been presented about Trump-Russia collusion.
We still have a special counsel.
What he's doing, God knows what.
He never should have been appointed, which we now know too.
And he should disband.
He should have disbanded a long time ago.
But every single day now, we are getting more information, more details that just prove how right a few of us here in the media have been and how wrong the general Destroy Trump mainstream conspiratorial media in the rest of the country is.
They have been so dead wrong, such phony reporting, such breathless hysteria almost on a daily basis.
And it's all been meaningless, except to distract the country for the better part of a year.
But, you know, look, in spite of that, putting aside, and we'll talk to Ram Paul later about this, this horrific, you know, spending, two-year spending budget deal that they put together.
I mean, Grand Paul's right.
Republicans are in power.
They are not conservative.
If there's a Democrat in power, they sound conservative and they talk about the dangers of deficit spending and big debt.
There's no excuse for it.
I'm not going to offer one.
I'm not a Republican anyway.
But we'll get into it with Rand Paul, who absolutely took it to the Republican Party last night and took them down.
And I thought he did a great job.
We have Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing.
Victoria is the attorney for the informant in the Uranium One case.
Joe DeGenova has been one of the most spot-on critics of this whole special counsel with Robert Mueller and all things that happened with the dossier.
Now that we've, you know, all of this is now beginning to be put together.
And I think information is going to be faster rather than slower in the days and weeks ahead.
As a matter of fact, I know for a fact that is true.
And we'll bring it all to you.
You know, the irony of this is the president did have an amazing first year, and he did have this Russia, Russia, Russia collusion, collusion, collusion nonsense hanging over his head the entire time.
And yet we have 2.5 million new jobs created.
We have 2 million fewer people on food stamps.
We have, you know, okay, we're living through a stock market correction as we speak.
Although stocks are shaking out, I haven't looked at the numbers just a while ago.
I think we were plus after they'd been down all day.
And it's a little bit rocky, but that's all part of the ebb and flow of the stock market.
I've told you always I don't use the stock market as a barometer, but it's not a bad thing, you know, when the stock market increases 8,000, 9,000 points, but no stock market is going to go only in one direction.
There's an ebb and flow.
People take their profits.
I do believe my comments about the need for cheap money to prop up the Obama economy.
I was criticized deeply for it.
It's absolutely true.
I think the days of cheap money are going away.
And by cheap money, I mean artificially low interest rates.
That was all designed to prop up the Obama economy, which was never good.
He never reached 3% GDP growth.
First recovery since the 40s, lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, lowest labor participation rate since the 70s.
And he put 13 million more Americans on food stamps and 8 million more in poverty.
So the Fed was constantly trying to stimulate the economy, keeping interest rates artificially low.
And if I don't give economic advice, but if you want my humble opinion, you might want to consider, if you're thinking about buying a house or refinancing a house, you might want to do it now because probably the trend as the economy gets stronger, probably interest rates are going to go back to what their more natural number would be.
Then you got fears of inflation.
You know, it's cyclical, but it's, you know, there's nothing bad about the stock market, A, going up as high as it did.
And then seeing the adjustments that we have seen shaking out as individuals, as these hedge funds, some take profits, you know, they want to pull it out, but that money will be reinvested.
Also, we have repatriation opportunities that are going to help the economy as well.
There is a political poll, Political Morning Console poll that shows the president's approval rating now making steady progress towards the magic 50% mark.
And on that poll, he is at 45%, higher than any other poll besides Rasmussen, where he's at 49% at this particular point.
And at that point, during the 2014 midterm election, Democrats held a three-point lead in the generic ballot, according to Real Clear Politics.
Nine months later, the GOP picked up nine seats.
On the generic ballot right now, Republicans only trailed by four points.
So you're seeing a sharp rise in approval ratings for both Trump and the GOP Congress.
The president also plans to cancel automatic pay raises for federal workers.
We've gone over and done great comparisons of those in the workforce versus those that work for government and the better deal that government workers get.
And I don't think if you're going to work in the government where there is a certain public service aspect to it, that you should be making more with people that have similar jobs in the private sector.
That's not something I buy.
I want to go over, we have some new developments that I want to share with you.
We learned an awful lot this week.
We learned, especially in the Grassley Graham memo, unredacted.
We got the New Nest memo a week ago, Friday.
Then we got the Grassley Graham memo on Monday, and then we got the unredacted version on Tuesday.
And then it was two days ago that we had the informant for Uranium One go before three congressional committees.
So, yeah, but we've had a lot happen, a lot going on here.
But what we learned as it relates to the particular story about Hillary Clinton, this is what we now know.
And this is just incontrovertible at this point.
Hillary Clinton was protected by certain people in the upper echelon of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and others.
And I went over the laws yesterday and last night on TV.
I won't repeat it again today.
But if you mishandle classified information, like she did, and put her private server in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom closet, if you destroy and delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails, and then you really want to make sure they're gone and you use acid wash or bleach pit, and then you bust up devices with hammers, you do all that.
She was destroying, we now know, classified top-secret special access program information.
Those are all felonies.
It's also when you take that much effort to destroy subpoenaed information, that's called obstruction of justice.
So a month from now, we're going to get an inspector general's report into the handling of this entire investigation.
And we're going to find out whether or not there is any truth in terms of can the government in any way honestly discern when people in the political world do wrong things.
But then we learned from the Strzok and Page memos that, number one, they hated Trump, thought he was loathsome and a horrible human being and didn't want him to be president.
And we've been able to piece together that Comey and Strzok were writing an exoneration before they ever investigated Hillary months before.
And you got to ask yourself a question: well, why would they ever do that?
You know, why would Loretta Lynch lecture James Comey that it's not an investigation but a matter?
And James Comey listened.
And then Loretta Lynch says, okay, I'll just follow whatever the FBI says after she gets caught on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.
And then they have the exoneration letter, you know, changing the legal standard from gross negligence to extreme carelessness and also taking out of it, oh, foreign hostile actors likely got information from this unsecure server of hers.
They remove all that information in the course of the months leading up to even an interview with Hillary and 17 key witnesses and players in this story.
Now, the answer is simple.
They didn't want Hillary Clinton to be indicted.
They did not want her to be charged.
And like she rigged the election with Bernie Sanders, she had people in the upper ranks of the FBI protecting her so she could remain a presidential candidate.
This is now all we know.
And then if that's not bad and bad enough, I guess the Clinton, you know, every election season, Democrats, I tell you, lie about who Republicans are.
And so lying in political campaigns is basically a matter of course.
But then we find out Hillary Clinton, she's paying for.
We now know her campaign is paying for, and the DNC she controls is paying for.
They're funneling money through a law firm to give to Fusion GPS.
And it's only once Hillary starts this dossier beginning.
They hire Christopher Steele.
It wasn't hired for the Washington Beacon, as Democrats claim in their talking points.
So Christopher Steele uses Russian government sources and Russian lies.
This is what we learn in the Grassley Graham memo.
It becomes the bulk of a FISA.
It's bad enough.
They want to lie to you and manipulate the American people to get votes and create a false narrative.
They didn't care that any of the allegations in the dossier were false.
As long as it helps her win the election, they would have said and done anything to beat Donald Trump.
But then it gets a step further when the phony dossier bought and paid for by Hillary is then presented by some of the same people that exonerated Hillary from the crime she committed, you know, to a FISA court.
The FISA court is not informed that this was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
So they lie to the court.
They purposely omit important information that they knew from the court.
Then they try to create false corroboration through the Michael Izikov Yahoo news piece, which again, it's the same source, Michael Steele, in both cases.
None of it's verified by anybody, and they still present it to the court.
And at that point, it becomes a FISA warrant because the FISA judge was not fully informed, but the FISA judge was lied to on a spectacular level.
And then the warrant is issued.
Then God knows how much spying in what direction goes on.
And then all of this in the end, you know, then this phony narrative about Trump-Russia collusion and the importance.
We can't have Russia interfering in our election.
Well, these are the people that are paying Russian government sources for negative details on Donald Trump that aren't even true.
And then we find out that 18 months before the Uranium One deal was signed, where a hostile country, Russia, a bad actor, Putin, had created a network within the United States.
And we had an FBI informant within that network who chronicled bribery, extortion, kickbacks, and money laundering.
Then FBI Director Robert Mueller does nothing in the 18 months leading up to the CPIS approval, nine separate departments.
And sure enough, Vladimir Putin gets 20% of our uranium of foundational material for nuclear weapons.
And meanwhile, we don't have enough uranium of our own.
We have to import uranium.
It never made sense, did it?
But now it's all beginning to make sense.
And of course, your news media has been missing in action the whole time.
All right, 800-941-Sean is auto-free telephone number.
We got a lot to get to today.
Ram Paul is going to check in with us.
Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing, Jonathan Gillum, Dan Bongino, all coming up today.
We got an amazing Hannity tonight.
I can't tell you about now.
So like many of you, I have trouble sleeping.
I have insomnia.
No matter what I tried, it wouldn't work until I met Mike Lindell, and I got my very own MyPillow.
It has changed my life.
What makes my pillow so different is my pillow's patented adjustable fill.
In other words, you can adjust the patented fill to your exact individual needs so you get the support you need and want to help you get to sleep faster and stay asleep longer.
Just go to mypillow.com or call 1-800-919-6090.
Remember, use the promo code Hannity.
When you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best offer ever.
Buy one pillow and get another one absolutely free.
MyPillow, made in the USA, 10-year unconditional warranty, and it has a 60-day, no-questions-asked money-back guarantee.
You have nothing to lose.
So it's time for you to start getting the quality of sleep that you've been wanting and we need.
Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
Promo code Hannity.
Take advantage of Mike's special two-for-one offer, mypillow.com.
Promo code Hannity.
All right, so Devin Nunes, continuing along these lines, he's the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is set to investigate a role that is played by Clinton operatives in this illegal Obama surveillance.
If things aren't worse, now we're finding out what the Clinton operatives were feeding information to Christopher Steele.
Sources now in Nunes' memo, the Washington Times reporting, are preparing up to five more memos calling into question the FBI and Department of Justice's handling of the Russian election meddling investigation.
And his first memo, of course, said the FBI Justice Department officials misled the FISA courts, the national secret surveillance powers, while seeking that warrant to monitor the communication of former Trump campaign foreign advisor Carter Page.
Now, the second salvo in all of this are telling the Washington Times we'll rely on an argument that was promoted by the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham in their unredacted memo.
I know this gets hard to follow, but it's why I keep going back and laying the foundation every time.
And that the two senators are saying Clinton family associates were feeding Christopher Steele, the former MI6 spy that was using Russian government sources to create the dossier that nobody verified.
Fusion GPS never verified.
The FBI never verified.
And they said, well, we just went on past work with Christopher Steele as a means of presenting it.
And then they withheld the most important information of all, which Hillary Clinton bought and paid for.
And they created a false illusion before the judge saying, well, look at this memo by Michael Isikov.
Well, Michael Izakov got fed information by Christopher Steele.
So anyway, so when you look at the Grassley-Graham memo, and now Nunes is following up on this, they're now pointing out that Clinton family associates were feeding Steele accusations against the Trump campaign and apparently also verifying parts of the dossier that we knew are false and know are false, like hookers urinating in a bed in a ritz in Moscow.
I honestly, you cannot make this stuff up.
You really can't.
All right, we got a lot coming up today.
Ram Paul, also Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing, Jonathan Gillum, Dan Bongino, straight ahead.
But here's the confusion.
Some at home will say, we just want them to cooperate.
If they would just hold hands and sing kumbaya, everything would be fine.
Well, guess what?
That's what you've got.
You saw both of the leadership of both sides opposing me because they are now clasped hand in hand.
Everybody's getting what they want.
Everybody's getting more spending.
The military, the right's getting more military spending.
The left is getting more welfare spending.
And you're getting stuck with the bill.
Not even technically you.
It's the next generation being stuck with the bill.
Your grandkids are being stuck with the bill.
But mark my words: the stock market is jittery.
The bond market is jittery.
There is an undercurrent of unease amidst this euphoria you've seen in the stock market.
A country cannot go on forever spending money this way.
And what you're seeing is recklessness trying to be passed off as bipartisanship.
So we've gotten together.
They're all holding hands, and there's only one bad guy standing in the way.
One guy's going to keep us here till three in the morning.
Well, you know what?
I think the country's worth a debate till three in the morning, frankly.
I think it is worth a debate on whether or not we should borrow a million dollars a minute.
When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the Conservative Party.
But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party.
You see, opposition seems to bring people together and they know what they're not for, but then they get in power and they decide, hmm, we're just going to spend that money too.
We're going to send that money to our friends this time.
The hypocrisy hangs in the air and chokes anyone with a sense of decency or intellectual honesty.
The right cries out, our military is hollowed out, even though military spending has more than doubled since 2001.
The left is no better.
Democrats don't oppose the military money as long as they can get some for themselves, as long as they can get some for their pet causes.
The dirty little secret is that by and large, both parties don't care about the debt.
The spending bill is 700 pages, and there will be no amendments.
The debate, although it's somewhat inside baseball that we're having here, is over me having a 15-minute debate.
And they say, woe is me.
If you get one, everybody will want an amendment.
Well, guess that?
That would be called debate.
That would be called an open process.
That would be called concern for your country, enough to take a few minutes.
And they're like, but it's Thursday, and we like to be on vacation on Fridays.
And so they clamor, but we've been sitting around all day.
It's not like we've had 100 amendments today.
We're all worn out.
We can't do one more.
We're going to have zero amendments.
Zero goose egg, no amendments.
So it's a binary choice.
They love that word.
It's a binary choice.
Take it or leave it.
You know what?
I'm going to leave it.
I didn't come up here for this.
Amazing words last night by Rand Paul of Kentucky.
You know, the saddest thing is what he said there.
And it's, listen, it's just, we got to find admit truth.
When Republicans are out of power, they sound so conservative.
They're so worried about the debt and the deficit.
And then they get into power, and this bill blows a hole in the deficit a mile wide.
I don't see any excuse for it.
Now, I understand that you need 60 votes.
I understand for whatever reason, Mitch McConnell, it's inexplicable to me, is mysteriously reluctant and resistant at getting rid of this arcane, ridiculous filibuster rule, especially considering how the Democrats weaponize it against Republicans every time.
You know, just they ought to just now go to a simple majority, and then things can actually get done that are better for the country.
And this is where we got into trouble trying to thread the needle with, well, the House bill repealing and replacing Obamacare has to be used through the reconciliation process because reconciliation was the means by which it was passed by Obama, and big legislation was never designed to be done by this.
You know, they're always coming up with like the next trick.
They're always coming up with the next idea.
They're always coming up with the, you know, but at the end of the day, you know, the last president accumulated more debt than every other president combined.
Now, the military, the sequestration did not have a good impact on the military.
And the first job of government is to protect its citizenry.
Now, off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of things that we can do to pare down in terms of military spending.
We are almost, you know, our military presence is almost everywhere around the world.
We have to pull back.
We have to allow countries the right to protect themselves, and they've got to be less dependent on us.
It doesn't take away our role as the leader of the free world and protecting our friends and our allies and standing up against tyranny and injustice when we can.
We can't fight every war at every time.
Well, the military is in need of constant upgrading, especially as you see in a mini-arms race beginning with the Iranians seeking nuclear weapons and now this lunatic in North Korea, you know, threatening to hit the continental United States.
We need defensive weapons, we need offensive weapons.
The world's a very dangerous place.
Then you've got radical Islamic terror.
But to get a deal where, okay, finally, to get the right number for the military, the 80 billion this year, the 85 billion next year, which I do think is necessary, you know, then you've got to spend another $300 billion.
And then you blow, you know, all budget caps, all the sequestration out of the water.
And meanwhile, that money is going to your grandkids, and your children are going to have to spend their entire lives paying this back.
Now, we're definitely going to see more revenues to the federal government.
I think the energy independence part of the equation of the president's tax plan alone is going to create a financial boom for D.C.
And I think getting people off of food stamps and back in the labor force and high-paying career jobs and energy and lowering the corporate tax cut is going to incentivize the building of factories and manufacturing centers, all things we need.
They're forgotten men and women of this country.
I certainly think the middle-class tax cuts were necessary.
People have been overburdened by government, over-taxed by government, you know, for years.
They haven't gotten any relief.
Crumbs, as $1,000 crumbs, as Nancy Pelosi calls them.
But all this other spending, when do we cut?
I've always been an advocate of the penny plan.
Eliminate baseline budgeting and except in an area like defense, you cut one penny out of every dollar government spends every year for six years and you balance your budget.
This budget is not going to balance.
But when Obama's president, they sounded a lot more hawkish on reducing the debt and reducing the deficits.
Anyway, 800-941 Sean is on number.
All right, so I told you, Devin Nunes, also, this is a big step here.
He is now demanding that the FISA court turn over transcripts from hearings that were held to evaluate the FBI and Justice Department's application for the surveillance warrant.
If my memory serves me right, I do believe in the grassly Graham memo that they actually got a hold of the FISA warrant applications.
I wonder at what point we're going to be able to see how deceptive the people wanting this warrant on an opposition party candidate were if the bulk of the argument or the bulk of the evidence they used before the FISA judge was actually the Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier.
Something also overlooked, for the second time now in two days, a senior FBI official with connections to the Clinton email and Russia gate probes have announced their resignation.
Yesterday, the Justice Department counterintelligence chief David Loffman announced his departure.
And in addition to working on the investigation into Clinton's handling of classified information, he also worked on the Russia Gay probe.
Fox News is reporting today that Michael Corton, the longtime head of public affairs at the FBI, confidant of former Director James Comey, he's now announced his retirement.
And since 2009, he served as the Assistant Director for Public Affairs, which is a very influential job, which controlled all media access.
He also served under former Director Robert Mueller, who's now leading the special counsel.
But anyway, the FBI confirmed to Fox News that, in fact, he's retiring.
Well, that brings the number of FBI Justice Department officials who've either been fired, resigned, demoted, or dismissed after being involved in the Hillary email Russia Gate investigations now to eight.
You got McCabe, let's see, you got Bruce Orr demoted.
Why he still has a job, I don't know.
Peter Strzok, why he has a job, I don't know.
Lisa Page, I have no idea.
Chief of staff, Rabicki, and the general counsel, Baker.
Again, you notice there's no rank-and-file people here because rank-and-file FBI guys should be proud of the work they do protecting us every day and getting involved in counterintelligence work that they do and digging deep into radical Islamic groups that want to bring harm to our country.
They're not the problem.
This was an upper echelon, deep state problem.
The people that actually had the power, and every FBI guy I know is embarrassed by this, but it's not their fault.
They didn't do anything wrong.
Matter of fact, we owe them a debt of gratitude.
Just like rank-and-file intelligence, thank God we have these powerful tools of intelligence.
Just don't turn them on American citizens based on a political candidate's phony paid-for Russian lies.
That's when the problem kicks in.
We also have last May, I want to get into this, and we have Joe DeGenov.
I'll ask him about this.
The FISA court rebuked the Obama administration for their widespread illegal surveillance and serious abuse of the Constitution.
Now, given what we've since learned, where's the special counsel?
In the week since the New Ness, it's been a week since the New Ness House Intel memo was released, followed by the Grassley Graham unredacted released memo and the criminal referral on Christopher Steele.
Democrats and the fake news, you know, basically their water carriers keep insisting the Obama administration, they did nothing to abuse America's surveillance laws.
And they say all the proper procedures were followed.
And they say nobody's rights were violated.
And anybody who was spied on, they deserved to be spied on.
Well, apparently, everybody's forgotten that only nine months ago, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court emphatically blasted the Obama administration for breaking not only America's surveillance laws, but blatantly violating the Constitution and covering it up for years.
Now, remember what I've been saying?
This is only the tip of the spear, the tip of the iceberg here.
Now, I forgot all about this story until somebody reminded me of it.
Sarah Carter, John Solomon, they broke it in May of last year, 2017.
And Andy McCarthy over at National Review, he also covered this bombshell.
And everybody else, except for my show on Fox News, ignored it.
Going to Andy McCarthy's piece, during the Obama years, the National Security Agency intentionally and routinely intercepted, reviewed communications of American citizens in violation of the Constitution and of court-ordered guidelines implemented pursuant to federal law.
The unlawful surveillance appears to have been a massive abuse of the government's foreign intelligence collection authority carried out for the purpose of monitoring communications of Americans in the United States.
Remember, I told you this is far more widespread.
Then it goes on: while aware that it was going on for an extensive period of time, the administration failed to disclose its unlawful surveillance of Americans until October 2016, when the administration was winding down and the NSA needed to meet a court deadline in order to renew various surveillance authorities under the FISA Act.
The administration stonewalling, the Obama administration stonewalling, about the scope of the violation induced an exasperated foreign intelligence surveillance court to accuse the NSA of quote an institutional lack of candor.
It's a nice way of saying lying.
In connection with what the court described as a quote, very serious, very serious Fourth Amendment issue.
Sound familiar?
We've been telling you.
The unlawful surveillance was first expressed by Solomon and Sarah Carter, who have also gotten access to internal and classified reports.
And according to these reports by Carter and Solomon, the illegal surveillance may involve more than 5% of NSA searches of databases derived from what they call upstream collection of internet communications.
Of special concern to the FISA court was the use of identifiers of American citizens as selection terms for database searches.
Remember, I was telling you about the use of these warrants and spying on American citizens and surveillance, and then the lack of minimization when they find out it's an innocent American on the line, and then unmasking Samantha Powers, unmasked 300 people.
Well, why would a U.N. ambassador ever have to do that?
That was in a year's period.
Yeah, apparently it was more widespread.
I'm going to have a big report on this tonight on Hannity.
Joe DeGenova will touch on it next, too.
Amazing developments.
It's like every hour of every day.
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece out today: how the House and Senate investigators are now focusing on this guy, Cody Shearer, and both Republicans in the House committee and the Senate committee.
And this is Hillary Clinton's top dirty trickster, and what role he played in generating the most salacious allegations in Steele's anti-Trump dossier, and how many people may have bought this nonsense.
Anyway, Shearer's notes were passed indirectly to Steele, and multiple people familiar with the matter said that who gave them to federal law enforcement.
The information was passed from Mr. Sheare through Sidney Blumenthal, Sid Vicious, a close associate of the Clintons, and another official who worked at the State Department.
See how corrupt this all is?
We'll break it down.
Joe DeGenova and Victoria Tunsing are next.
No one will read the bill.
No one knows what's in it.
And there is no reform in the bill.
That I can say with absolute certitude.
No one will read it.
No reform.
Nothing gets better.
The debt will grow.
How come you were against President Obama's deficits?
And then how come you're for Republican deficits?
Isn't that the very definition of intellectual dishonesty?
If you were against President Obama's deficits and now you're for the Republican deficits, isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?
Right, that was Senator Rand Paul on the Senate floor yesterday, apparently annoying a lot of his fellow senators, but standing up for the right thing.
Upon which, too, I guess Pet Midler is hoping that some lunatic comes back into his house and starts beating on him again, which is a separate question.
Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky joins us now, hour two, Sean Hannity show.
How are you?
Hey, Sean, pretty good.
Yeah, I think I might be one of the least popular people on Capitol Hill right now.
Senator, there's nothing you said there that's not true.
I do believe we need the $80 billion in more defense spending.
I really do.
I think we've allowed our military to deteriorate to a certain extent.
I think we are far too extended around the world.
That needs to end.
We can't be the world's policemen.
We have to make certain strategic positions, but the amount of money and the amount of debt we're accumulating was something I was whining and complaining about under the Obama years, and we're not stopping it.
Well, you know, I take it very personally because, you know, I ran for office.
You remember when I ran?
I came on your program on television and on the radio in 2009, 2010, and we were alarmed at annual deficits approaching and exceeding a trillion dollars under President Obama.
And we were unified.
There was this voice.
The whole Tea Party movement arose because we were so concerned with so much debt being accumulated and all of this spending.
And we rose in one voice.
You remember the rallies, over 100,000 people in the mall in Washington, D.C. saying we can't spend money we don't have.
And so now for Republicans to have the same thing, to have deficits that will exceed a trillion dollars in one year, it just can't be.
People are going to wonder who we are as a party or as conservatives if we complained about President Obama and then we do the same thing.
Well, what are we going to do now?
Because this is now it.
This is the bill.
This has been passed.
This is a two-year deal.
And while I believe we're going to see significant economic growth, and I believe that growth will generate a lot of revenues, in Reagan's years, we doubled the revenues to the government.
We've seen record revenues.
But, you know, the problem in Reagan's years is for every new dollar they brought in, Congress spends $1.32.
You can't balance a budget that way.
Well, and that's exactly what's going to happen now.
Any growth in revenue from growth in the economy is going to be fitted away in new spending.
But the interesting thing is, though, they've raised the spending caps for two years.
You realize this is only a month-long bill.
We're going to be back having the same fight in a month, but they probably won't touch the caps in a month, but they'll have to revote on spending in a month.
So my plan is to bring up the amendment again to try to have fiscal restraint by having spending caps and to try to reinstitute them.
But in all likelihood, I'll lose because we don't have enough votes.
And so the only thing people can do, and I know a lot of your listeners are frustrated, is there will be Republican primaries.
Look at the candidates long and hard and try to vote for the ones who are unafraid to stand on their own two feet, unafraid to say enough's enough.
We're not going to add more debt, and unafraid to vote against spending.
And really, it does take some courage because there's a certain amount of groupthink that goes on and a certain amount of coercive pressure, a certain amount of, you know, you have to be one of the club and you'll be expelled if you don't toe the line.
And you need candidates that will stand out and be brave.
And you can tell that somewhat by the way.
There's very few of you.
I mean, remember in 2013, you actually went down to offer him support.
Ted Cruz was saying we can end Obamacare.
We have the authority to defund it.
And they were never serious about it.
We learned in 2017, you have seven colleagues that voted for your bill, which was to just repeal it as straight repeal of Obamacare.
2017, when it would have worked and it would have mattered, seven of them changed their mind magically, which tells me they were never serious about that vote in the first place.
It was a show vote.
Yeah, and the way I look at it is this, is that so many of these people are just weak need, and they have insufficient confidence in capitalism and freedom.
We need to apply those same principles to health care that we apply to every other facet of our economy.
We don't have price controls anywhere else in the economy.
We don't have the government fixing the prices.
We allow prices to go up and down.
We let people save.
There are all kinds of ways we could fix.
And one of the things I'm going to do this spring is the Republican leadership has said they're not going to introduce a budget.
I'm going to introduce my own budget, and my budget will be a freeze in spending.
And what we'll also introduce is budget reconciliation instructions to expand HSAs.
I want to expand HSAs significantly, so it would be a significant tax cut because you get to deduct that what you put in your HSA, your health savings account.
And then I'm going to let people take their HSA, and I'm going to let them use it for diet plans, exercise plans, vitamins, for a variety of things.
So we're going to let you put more money in your HSA and let you use it for more things.
But the only way we can get that done is to be able to convince Republicans to vote for a budget and vote for budget reconciliation instructions that I'll introduce.
But because it's a privileged resolution, I may well be able to get a vote on this coming up in April.
Let me ask you about the FISA extension, too.
Interesting how that passes before we get the Newness memo from the House Intel Committee.
And I thought it was even more explosive in the Grassley Graham unredacted memo, which I've been spending a lot of time on.
And we've learned an awful lot of things here.
We know the bulk of the FISA warrant against an opposition candidate, in this case, the Trump campaign, and then an incoming president, came from Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for phony, salacious Russian government in part, but Russian dossier, she bought and paid for this thing.
And not only was it designed to lie to him, manipulate the American people with those lies before an election, but then it became the basis for a FISA warrant.
And it became the bulk of the evidence.
And it was also renewed three separate times with it again being the bulk of evidence.
Now, I know you care about our Constitution, Senator Paul.
I care about our Constitution.
You're very well versed in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
You know, this was the concern of many of us when we were debating the FISA law when it first came up.
I think what's become very apparent and sort of is incontrovertible is that we had biased people and do have biased people in the FBI who hated the president, hated the candidate, Donald Trump.
And we're actually plotting and discussing trying to prevent him becoming president at work, on their work phones, in meetings at work.
You've got Strzzok, you've got his mistress page, but also going to McCabe's office and really discussing how they can prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
So we know that there was bias.
And when we know this can happen, it basically says what James Madison told us from the very beginning, that men are not angels.
And because men are not angels, they need rules and they need restrictions on their behavior and their power.
And one of the checks and balances was basically that anyone who had the power to search a home would have to first ask a judge for a warrant.
And this check and balance has worked and served us well for 200 years.
But I think the example of having so many biased people up there that are trying to bring the president down is evidence of why we need a warrant requirement.
These people should not be allowed to search the database.
And this is what I asked the FBI director last week.
I said, can Strzok and can Lisa Page and Bruce Orr, can they still search this database?
Could they type in Americans who gave money to Donald Trump and look them up for their pleasure and try to bring them down for phony, trumped up tax charges?
Can they look at this database and try to develop cases against Trump supporters without a warrant?
If they don't have a warrant, they could be sitting in their office as we speak doing this.
And so this is why I requested in the legislation that we put forward was that there be a requirement that you get a judge's warrant.
I've talked to the president about this.
I think he's sympathetic to it.
And I think that we can still revisit it.
We lost the vote the last time, but it was on a bigger bill.
My hope is that we revisit this, and we just specifically ask one thing, that anytime an FBI agent or anybody from the Department of Justice wants to type in an American's name, they have to ask a judge first.
Well, I think that, but what happens when we know now that when this was presented to the judge for the FISA warrant in this case, we know that they knew that it was Hillary Clinton bought and paid for, DNC bought and paid for, and all they did was add a footnote saying it might have a political taint to it, and that was it.
They purposely withheld that from the FISA judge.
Andrew McCabe even acknowledged and admitted without the phony dossier and the Russian dossier, there is no warrant.
So at some point, if you lie to a FISA judge this way to spy on an American citizen, right?
Even if you have a cursory understanding of the law and watch legal shows on TV, you realize that when the prosecutor doesn't tell the defense attorney about evidence, they call it exculpatory evidence, evidence that might prove or bring doubt to the case, a lot of times the judge will throw out all charges because they said you didn't play the game of justice fair.
The game of justice is that you have to reveal your evidence.
The prosecutor has to reveal that to the defense attorney so the defense attorney can prepare a defense.
So in this case, there's no defense attorney.
There's only the prosecutor.
But if the prosecutor is dishonest or deceitful and doesn't tell the judge that this came from the Hillary Clinton campaign, I think it taints the whole investigation.
And really, I hope Mueller is looking at this, and I hope Mueller is saying to himself, I can't believe they started this with a Hillary Clinton Oppo hit piece on Trump.
Well, I want to pick up right there.
We've got to take a quick break, though, if you don't mind.
Senator Ram Paula's with us.
And I want to ask you about that.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, a lot more news we're getting to in the course of the program.
Victoria Tunsing represents the informant in the Uranium One case.
Also, Joe DeGenova has been very critical of what has happened with this FISA warrant, the dishonesty before the court, and so much more.
All right, as we continue, Senator Rampaula, Kentucky, single-handedly drove the United States Senate nuts last night, but for all the right reasons, standing up for fiscal responsibility and other issues.
We're talking about the FISA warrant, bought and paid for, Hillary Clinton warrant, basically.
You mentioned Robert Mueller as we were going to the break.
If you don't have this phony dossier becoming the bulk of evidence, information presented to a FISA judge, but not the FISA judge not knowing it's from Hillary Clinton, not knowing how political it is.
And then all of this mess involving Robert Mueller occurs in this last year.
There's been no evidence to this point of Trump-Russia collusion.
How does this continue?
How do they keep this charade going on?
And when does it have to come to an end?
And how could it end?
Well, here's the interesting thing.
If you don't have Hillary Clinton's paid-for dossier, you don't ever get a FISA warrant.
And really, you never end up getting a special prosecutor and Robert Mueller at all.
Robert Mueller would not be doing this at all had there not been an original dossier that they lied to the court about or withheld information to the court about.
So none of this would have occurred without the initial deceit of sort of Clinton Apparatchnicks in the FBI actually presenting something and not telling the entire truth about it.
So yeah, I think the whole thing is tainted from top to bottom.
How does it end?
I don't know how the president could possibly take questions from an investigation so tainted.
The only people that I know of so far who actually paid the Russians any money were Hillary Clinton, who paid a British spy to give Russians money to try to get dirt on Trump.
And so, you know, I think the thing is, is if there was any semblance of fairness, Mueller should now be turning his attention to Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton's collusion with the Russians.
And if they're not going to do that, really the whole thing's just a witch hunt to go after Trump and politically motivated and ought to justify.
Are you convinced that that's what it is, knowing what we know now?
Because obviously, to me, it is.
It's always been.
I've always thought the whole thing was sour grapes.
It was the Clinton people and Obama.
They said, you know, at the very end, we're going to get Trump one another.
We're going to spread all this gossipy, salacious stuff that we paid for from the Russians.
We're going to spread it throughout the intelligence committee and make sure that we try to take him down.
And so that's what this has been about.
They thought they deserved to win.
They thought that, you know, it was sort of an office they had inherited.
And they thought, you know, for sure she was going to be president.
And then when she wasn't, they decided to try to bring him down another way.
But the bottom line is, Mueller has to make a decision when he's done.
And there's got to be a decision made where he's going to make a sitting president testify.
And I just don't think it's a good idea to have or to force the president to go in and ask questions about his business dealings 25 years ago.
For him to talk to them, I think it would have to be very limited, questions in writing.
And it would have to be about.
I don't think any good lawyer would ever let that happen.
It would go to the Supreme Court beforehand, especially in light of the circumstances in which this came into being.
No way.
All right, Senator Paul, good job last night.
I wish you were more successful.
And you're right.
Republicans, they're really conservative when Democrats are in power.
But boy, that conservatism vanishes right after, doesn't it?
It's not over till it's over.
This is a rallying call for conservatives.
The conservatives are not dead.
There is still a movement in Washington.
Mike Lee was a big help on this.
And Mike Lee and I are working very hard to try to say, you know what, we can't just keep spending money we don't have.
There still is a conservative movement.
And so we want people to continue to rally to the cause and not give up.
All right.
Thank you so much, Senator Rampaul of Texas.
When we come back, we'll check in with Victoria Tunsing.
She is the lawyer for the informant, six years looking into Vladimir Putin's network to get a foothold in the uranium market, Uranium One scandal.
And he testified before three committees this week while we've been following all this other news.
We'll get to that.
Also, her partner, husband, Joe DeGenova, as we continue on the Sean Hannity show.
Straight ahead.
This Uranium One story has been debunked countless times by members of the press, by independent experts.
It is nothing but a false charge that the Trump administration is trying to drum up in order to avoid attention being directed at them.
This is such an abuse of power, and it goes right at the rule of law.
Kind of ironic, And abuse of power.
Anyway, glad you're with us.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, 24 now till the top of the hour.
Well, we do know certain things about Uranium-1 now because we had an FBI informant there the whole time.
As Vladimir Putin, the bad actor he is, Russia, the hostile regime they are, had his operatives in America, and our informant was talking about and witnessing, and he detailed every single aspect of it because he was there six years, 30-year veteran in intelligence matters, FBI CIA being undercover, et cetera,
that he saw bribery and extortion and kickbacks and money laundering as these operatives of Putin were trying desperately to get a foothold into the uranium market in the United States of America.
And in spite of all of this evidence, almost about 18 months prior to the CFIAS board signing off on the Uranium One deal, we don't have enough uranium as a country, but we're going to hand off 20% of America's uranium rights to a foreign hostile actor.
It never made sense.
Anyway, he did the informant testify before three committees.
Victoria Tuncig was in the room, the attorney for this informant.
She joins us along with Joe DeGenova.
Also, they're married.
They represent DeGenova and Tuncig.
And they're both here to talk about this, and of course, all of the differing memos and the FISA issue.
Victoria, you were in the room.
I don't know how much you can tell us about what went on in there.
Is there anything that I'm saying is wrong?
Hey, Sean, for weeks you've been saying, what's he going to say?
What's he going to say?
And I, you know, can't do it.
I can't tell you.
And then when I did your TV show Wednesday night, I was ready.
I had a whole list, and I got like two seconds.
Okay, I apologize.
We went long in the previous segment.
It was totally my fault, but now you have a lot of time.
So what did he say?
I know that.
Well, you know, just for an overview, basically what happened was the Russians used all kinds of money in various ways to pay off the Clintons.
And then Hillary Clinton was supposed to make sure that the CFIS approval of uranium-1 went through.
And she was supposed to, she keeps saying, well, you know, other people had to vote for it.
Yes, but only one vote could veto it.
And Hillary Clinton was saying to the Russians, I won't veto it.
You take care of me.
And one of the things they did was to give Bill Clinton $500,000 for a 45-minute speech in Russia just four months before the approval went through.
And that was paid for by Russian capitalists who were touting, guess what stock?
Guess what stock?
Uranium 1.
Yeah.
Well, what about all the other people associated with this deal in Canada?
Didn't they similarly donate huge dollars to the Clinton Foundation?
They did.
After they made their bucks, after the deal went through, the Clinton Foundation got about $145 million from them, according to Peter Schweitzer in the book Clinton Cash.
What was the reaction of these three congressional committees to this testimony?
Well, the Democrats or the Republicans?
Both.
Both.
I think they have to come away and say that he was a credible person.
They asked questions for over four hours, and we were there.
Everybody was allowed to ask questions.
You do it 30 minutes at a time for each side.
And until people were through.
And at the end, they said no more questions.
The Democrats were trying to find any vulnerabilities, and the Republicans were trying to shore up what kind of information he had that showed that the Clintons were involved.
Just to get factual information on the table, he had literally, he was able to get within the Putin network that he had set up in America to get a foothold in the uranium industry in America.
So he was our spy on the ground, in other words.
He absolutely was.
And he was talking to the big-time Russians that were coming in here that were working with Rossetham, which is the company that Russia.
Nuclear agency, right.
Right.
And so, you know, big muckety mucks were talking to him because he was the American on the ground.
And he was told, let's talk about this APCO thing and the $3 million.
Sergey Pogotrodnik, I'm not really good at foreign names.
My husband is so much better, told my client, Mr. Campbell, that the Russians were going to pay APCO, a lobbying group that's Democratic full of former Clintonistas.
They were going to pay them $3 million, and they were going to do some work, but also they were to do free in-kind work for the Clinton Foundation.
There's so many ways to give benefits, you know, in this town.
But when you look at all the people involved, it never made sense, Joe DeGenova, on any level, if we don't have enough uranium to be allowing any foreign entity, especially a hostile entity or Vladimir Putin, a hostile actor, access to uranium, a foundational material for nuclear weapons.
And then you see the money rolling around in each direction.
And then we realize that we knew all about their activities and especially committing crimes on American soil and then an attempt to get a foothold into the uranium market.
And our FBI, you know, the director at the time was Robert Mueller.
What is his explanation?
I'd love to know as to why he didn't act to prevent CPIS from granting this deal permission to go through.
Well, I think one of the things that has to be looked into by Congress if they do a formal investigation of uranium-1 or if a special counsel looks at it is to find out precisely what Robert Mueller was told and knew and what he did with that information.
There's no doubt that that information should have been reported to Cepheus, and we now know that it was not.
No information concerning Russian corruption in the international uranium industry and the U.S. uranium industry.
None of that information was reported to CFIAS.
And when you think about it, this was a simple deal to get through because once you knew, if you were a Russian, once you knew that the Obama administration was corrupt and that you could pay off a Clinton family member and get something done by the Secretary of State, or more importantly, not done.
Remember, there were nine members of CFIAS, and it only took a veto from one member to prevent the sale of uranium-1.
And Hillary Clinton did the most important thing she could have done.
She did nothing.
She did not veto the sale.
She sits there and says, well, there were all these other people and they all approved it.
She could have prevented it with her veto.
She didn't do it.
Her husband got to pay for a speech, and $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from Russian interested parties.
I would like to know if there's any correspondence between these nine departments about this deal.
Senator Grossley, Chairman Gross, I should say, has asked for that, and I have just wrote myself a note to check with him to see if he got anything back.
I want to make a clarification about Hillary Clinton quoting Trey Gowdy.
Yeah, he says there's not enough evidence for special counsel, but he says the U.S. Attorney's Offices or the Justice Department can carry out the investigation.
She didn't quote the second part.
And indeed, Sean, it has been reported that in Little Rock, Arkansas, they are investigating the Clinton Council.
Well, he was talking just so we can keep our audience straight in that particular case about the Clinton email server investigation.
Let me dovetail into that because I know both of you have had some hard-hitting comments about it all.
And, you know, it's amazing how the media has missed the biggest story of their careers.
But we do know that Hillary got a pass by Peter Strzok and by James Comey.
I've never heard of exoneration letters being drafted months before you interview 17, 18 principals in an investigation.
But that happened in this case.
Peter Strzok, who hates Trump and loves Hillary and wanted Hillary to win, he was the one that interviewed Hillary.
Then the exoneration comes from James Comey.
We know what happened with Comey and Lynch.
And so they actually allowed her to stay in the race by covering for her.
That's after she pretty much rigged the Democratic primary.
And then we get into this whole issue of the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian, Russian government dossier and how that becomes the bulk of information according to the Grassley Graham memo of a FISA warrant against an opposition party candidate in an election year, Joe DeGenova.
To me, it's the biggest scandal in history, and I think the evidence is all there.
I don't even think there's any ambiguity anymore.
Well, what's fascinating about this is that this evidence, the most important piece of evidence of all, has been present on the record since April 26, 2017.
And that's when Rosemary Collier, the chief judge of the FISA court, issued a ruling, a 99-page ruling, which has subsequently been declassified, in which she said that the FBI and the Department of Justice engaged in systematic and continuous lack of candor, read lying, to the court in filings over a number of years.
In addition, she says that the NSA, along with the FBI, gave illegal access to identifying information and intercepts, electronic intercepts of Americans to contractors who were working for the FBI.
This is the single worst scandal involving law enforcement in American history.
And for the New York Times and the Washington Post to poo-poo this and saying everybody's overreacting and those of us who are concerned are conspiratorialists is ludicrous.
Let me just tell you something.
When the Inspector General of the Department of Justice issues his report, these newspapers, although they're incapable of being embarrassed, they're going to have to rethink their positions because the conduct of the FBI and the DOJ lawyers will be shown to have been not only unethical and political, but illegal and criminal.
Victoria, what is the best course of action in both cases, and how do we finally get this to the tipping point where the media now has to do its job?
Well, the Justice Department should be doing its job either by pursuing this investigation.
And as I said, it has been reported that they're investigating the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock.
And it has been reported that my client has been interviewed by them.
So the Justice Department can do its job, but it may become so pervasive and so many upper people in at least the former Justice Department involved who are still there, unfortunately, that it should go to a special counsel.
I, for the life of me, don't know why Bruce Orr is still at the.
I don't know why.
How does Bruce Orr, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok still have jobs?
That's mind-numbing.
Joe, look, you've been around Washington many, many years.
You've seen many, many scandals.
Is that the best way to handle it, a special counsel?
As much as I hate to say it, I think the answer at this point is yes.
I would have thought years ago that the Justice Department could handle this.
But we've seen so many bad things about career people at the Justice Department that I'm just not sure.
And I don't have a lot of confidence in Rod Rosenstein that he's even going to do anything.
I mean, this is just the way they have publicly dealt with this, which has been a rope-a-dope defensive posture to protect the Department and the FBI, doesn't make any sense when you weren't there when all this went down.
Why had they gone to such lengths to protect all of these people, both political and career people?
The public explanations that have been given by both Ray and Rosenstein are simply ridiculous.
They don't match the type of deal.
Yeah, but you know the answer.
Rod Rosenstein went into, you know, after they waited a year for subpoenaed documents by the House Intel Committee, at the last minute, Rosenstein went into Ryan's office begging the Speaker not to allow these documents to go out.
Now that they're out, we know why he didn't want them out.
Well, did you see any sources or methods in them?
And why?
No, only in the Democratic 10-page response.
And do you hear any protests?
No, none.
None.
It's actually quite disturbing that the department has acted the way it has.
When that letter was sent, when Lenunis sent his letter and memo over and the assistant attorney general for legislation called that act reckless, I was appalled by that type of language coming from a Trump official in the Justice Department to a chairman of a House committee.
Moreover, when the Democrats sent over their letter and memorandum, not a peep from that same Assistant Attorney General.
Not a peep.
I got it, Roll, guys.
Great work by both of you.
We'll continue to unpeel the layers of this onion.
This has been a breakthrough week for both big issues here as we continue to follow these stories, these scandals day by day.
And hopefully we'll get to the truth at some point.
All right, Joe DeGenova, Victoria Tunsing, have a good weekend.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
All right, news roundup information overload hour.
As we go through the week's news, let's start with the absolute apoplectic media meltdown over the idea that Donald Trump wanted to have a military parade.
Now, keep in mind, we honor actors and actresses and musicians.
And, you know, they're always having these self-congratulatory pat themselves on the back.
Aren't they holier than now?
Award ceremonies.
So the president said, well, let's honor the military, without which we wouldn't have the freedom to pursue anything else in this country.
Anyway, here, listen to your left-wing media.
That's right.
Trump wants a military parade.
So you're just going full dictator now.
Just wasn't enough.
I guess he wants his toy soldiers to march in front of him in line in lockstep.
Talking about the cost of this parade and where there would be tanks, right?
And would there be nuclear weapons like some countries?
I mean, would it simply be whatever President Trump wants it to be?
Some said it would put us in the same category as folks like Russia, North Korean leaders, where they love a military parade.
The idea that we have to look like Red Square is just absurd.
Maybe the answer, Joe, is to just get Donald Trump a military uniform with epaulettes on the shoulders and give him some salad dressing to put on the left lapel and let him march around and pretend to be General Patton.
We don't have these sort of Kremlin-style military parades in Washington.
It's all about Donald Trump's insecurity.
It's about his desire to show that he has a bigger missile than Kim Jong-un.
We're getting more North Korean every day in this country.
I mean, you know, yesterday the president says people who don't cheer are un-American and treasonous.
And today we're going to start having big parades with tanks and missiles.
And, you know, people have to decide whether they want to have that kind of country.
I mean, we have a country where we celebrate our troops, as Barbara said, when they come home from battle in lower Manhattan and we throw ticker tape.
But the idea in peacetime, simply to have tanks roll through the streets of Washington, that's to use a phrase that the president likes to use.
In my experience, that's un-American.
And one of the reasons we don't tend to have those military parades in America is just a sense that being the power that we are, we don't need to show off our military might like countries like North Korea or Russia might need to.
Unusual marching orders from President Trump to the Pentagon.
He wants a massive parade to highlight the country's military strength.
The idea not sitting well with some Democrats.
I was stunned by it, to be quite honest.
I mean, we have a Napoleon in the making here.
For the most part, U.S. presidents have avoided displays of military power that are often associated with the former Soviet Union's Red Square celebrations.
Pretty unbelievable to me.
Oh, sorry, we can't.
We can spend plenty of time asking people, what are you wearing at the Golden Globes?
What will you be wearing at the MTV Movie Awards?
What are you wearing?
What is the dress?
What is the gown?
What jewelry have you borrowed from who?
Blah, blah.
Oh, what is that tux from?
Is it a designer tux?
It's nauseating watching all these shows.
Anyway, here in our news Roundup Information Overload, Jonathan Gillum, author of the newly released book Sheep No More, Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent, NYPD, and a contributing editor at Conservative Review.
Dan, I look at all this and I'm thinking, okay, we have award ceremonies for everybody except the people without which we wouldn't be able to have award ceremonies.
So let's have a parade.
Yeah, I mean, yeah, the left loves gatherings as long as you're wearing a hat that mimics female genitalia.
And if you're screaming at a rally, pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon, or what do we want dead cops?
Hey, you're golden.
The left will celebrate those kind of rallies.
But God forbid you have some kind of a rally or a parade that actually celebrates our military.
But Sean, this is the beauty of what Trump does, right?
He puts out a position about this military parade.
Whether he's serious about it or not, I don't know.
I couldn't tell you.
But the beauty of it is he forces the left to show their butts.
They show their butts by doing what?
Immediately coming out on TV, we don't want a military parade.
Let's pass a bill banning military parades.
It's the genius of Trump.
He baits them every time.
And like suckers, they always fall into traps.
But at the end of the day, he's picking fights that, you know what?
Why don't we honor the military?
Why don't we have a parade?
Jonathan, you know how Democrats could be total hypocrites?
And I know some aren't thrilled with the idea of a military parade for whatever reason, but okay.
Rich Lowry gave us a brief history of military parades that Democrats absolutely loved, including one for the inauguration of their most beloved president, which actually featured nuclear missiles being rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue.
And that was during World War II and FDR was president and there were big parades in New York City.
State-of-the-art self-propelled howitzers drove by the New York City Public Library and no one was getting the vapors and fainting.
And they broke out four nuclear missiles for JFK's inauguration with an impressive battery of tanks and armored vehicles and self-propelled howitzers.
So this is not the first time.
Dwight Eisenhower, same thing.
They actually showcased an 85-ton atomic cannon and a Redstone ballistic missile.
Even though Eisenhower was a Republican, the Democrats applauded that.
So this is not the first time that this has happened.
No, and you got guys like Chuck Schumer, you know, saying what he does every time and then going anything opposite of Trump.
He's, you know, that's what he's going to say.
But yet, you know, I think it was like eight years ago, ten years ago, he was advocating for a ticker tape parade down the Wall Street Canyon down there in New York City.
I mean, look, Sean, here's the deal.
Do I think a parade for the military is needed or something that I would want if I was in the military?
No, I don't, but I know the president's heart is in the right place when he does these things.
And that's what's interesting is that I can give you, you know, five good reasons why I don't think that we should have a parade.
I mean, I could say five good reasons why we should, but I think I could give you good reasons why you shouldn't because I've been in the military, as Dan could, as anybody who's been in the military could give you reasons for it or against it.
But when we hear the president's reason why he wants it, it's a just reason.
It's because he cares about the military.
It's not because he's a dictator.
But when we look at why the Democrats don't want it, it's just simply because Trump wants it.
That's the only reason why they don't want it.
Yeah, but you know, I think that's obviously very true.
You got the Alliance of Women Film Journalists EDA Awards.
You got the American Film Institute Awards.
You got the Dorian Awards.
You got the Razzies.
You got the National Society of Film Critics Awards.
The National Board of Review Awards.
The AVN Awards.
The Critics' Choice Awards.
The Daytime Emmys, the Director's Guild Awards, Independent Spirit Awards, Producers Guild Awards, the SAG Screen Actors Guild Awards, the Emmys, the Golden Globes, the Oscars, the Tony's, the Writers Guild Awards, and then the ACM Awards, the American Music Awards, the Billboard Latin Music Awards, the Billboard Music Awards, the CMA Awards, the Latin Grammys, MTV Video Music Awards, the Grammys.
I mean, and I can go on and on here.
And this is, you know, we've done it historically.
And I don't think that we give the military that gives us the right to do everything we do every day.
And the fact that people go ballistic over it is just, and where is our level of importance?
I'm sorry if I'm, I know that people in Hollywood get paid more, Dan, but not necessarily deserve more.
And we put such a high price on popularity, but we forget basic simple freedoms and how they're obtained.
There's a big price.
No, and I'm glad you just laid that out with that long laundry list of self-congratulatory events they have to pat themselves on the back.
It just goes to show you, right?
So I've been following this on Twitter all day, Sean.
And this is the heroism and the humbleness of our military.
A lot of the military guys I know on Twitter are saying, hey, listen, I deeply appreciate the fact that Trump wants to do this, but, you know, it's not my kind of thing.
We don't really need it.
We don't do it to be, you know, to be celebrated.
And I totally understand that.
I think Trump's heart is absolutely in the right place.
But look at the difference between Hollywood.
You just laid out that laundry list of goofy award shows that nobody cares about except these Hollywood Truman show jokers that are living in this fictitious world.
All they do is love to pat themselves on the back.
No, and they just let them.
Oh, and it's, oh, I want to thank my mother.
I want to thank my father.
I want to thank, and by the way, Donald Trump sucks.
Donald Trump sucks.
And then that's the whole thing.
That's basically Harvey Weinstein and Roman Glansky.
And I want to take one.
How many times were they sacked these sick people?
All right, let me go to the other big story of the week here.
We have, obviously, you know, the Nunes memo, which came out last Friday, a week ago, and then the Grassley memo comes out Monday.
Then we get the unredacted Grassley memo.
We've learned an awful lot, not the least of which is the bulk of the FISA warrant came from the bought and paid for Hillary Clinton Russian propaganda dossier, and they totally misled the FISA court in this to spy on an opposition party candidate in an election year and then an incoming president.
I think with all of these revelations and the fact Uranium One story has moved this week with the informant who was there the entire time and knew everything that Vladimir Putin and his thugs were trying to do in the country to get a foothold in the uranium industry.
It was a massive breaking news week, Jonathan Gillum.
You know, Sean, when I look at all these different memos that are coming out now about this one particular report that was written about what was going on, here's one thing that I want you and the American people, again, I know Dan and I, we come from the same type of background.
We see this.
John, this is the president's big shot right here.
He has the opportunity now because there is enough evidence to show that what has come out in the Nunes memo that is going to be fought against in a Democratic memo.
It's the same tactics by the same level of people that has been used in the IRS when they lost their emails, when Lois Lerner and all them were going after conservatives.
It's the same tactics used by Hillary Clinton and her State Department when they had their emails in their, you know, the server in their bathroom and they destroyed emails.
They lost emails.
They destroyed equipment.
It's the same thing that was in the DOD and the State Department, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the DOJ, when they leaked names and unmasked names and had this dossier go through.
Sean, the president has enough evidence now to take a step back and get a special, if you want to get a special prosecutor, but I think he needs to put together a team of investigators.
It's not his call, though.
That's the point.
But I agree.
No, but he is.
But what makes this so bad is that they are, you have one candidate buying and paying for Russian and Russian government lies.
And that one candidate then, the deep state is allowing it to create an environment where they're not going to tell the FISA judge the truth where this originates from to get a warrant, a FISA warrant, of all things, to spy on an opposition party candidate.
All right, stay there.
We'll take a quick break.
More of our news roundup, information overload.
Jonathan Gillum, Dan Bongino, also be getting your calls in and much more coming up in the course of the program today.
This week has flown by.
All right, as we continue, news roundup information overload.
Dan Bongino, Jonathan Gillum are with us.
I think the other big story of the week is the fact that the Uranium One, this informant, Dan Bongino, a guy that was within Putin's network, that's upfront and personal, he saw Putin's operatives literally involved in bribing, extortion, bracketeering, money laundering, kickbacks.
And he was telling all of this about 18 months before the Uranium One deal ever went through.
How is it possible then FBI Director Mueller or somebody didn't step up and stop Putin from getting 20% of our uranium when we don't have enough uranium?
Yeah, not only that, Sean, they put a gag order after the case was pled out to a relatively minor charge.
The entire Uranium One debacle in the racketeering case.
You know what's really disturbing about this, Sean, is the Clintons they always seem to have some way to enact deniability here.
And what Hillary's saying now is wrong.
What she's saying is, well, I was only one of a few members who okayed this Uranium One deal.
What she conveniently leaves out, your audience needs to focus on like a laser, is forget the approval of the Uranium One deal for a moment.
Her husband traveled overseas to Kazakhstan with an executive from a company that benefited strongly financially from the sale of Kazakhstan's uranium and then turned around and made millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation while he was being paid handsome speaking fees by some of the same people who would also benefit from the sale of the nuclear fuel.
Everyone that benefited, you find a financial connection to the Clinton Foundation.
I don't know if, Jonathan, if that's not a quid pro quo, I don't know what is.
No, and this is just exactly more of what we're talking about with all this other stuff.
This is just more evidence for the American people to realize a couple things.
One, that these people at the top of government, the political appointees and those people that have literally not worked their way to the top, but climbed their way by checking boxes to get to the top, how they all work together and how they do nefarious and illegal things and get away with it.
You're never going to hear the truth completely from the Democrats or the Republicans.
This right here, what we see in the evidence, is any investigation will tell you.
The evidence doesn't lie.
And the evidence is telling us over and over again that these people are using their positions to further their ideology and their own personal gain.
Yeah, I couldn't agree with both of you more.
All right.
It's been a busy week.
We really appreciate your time.
You guys have been doing amazing work.
Jonathan Gillen, we appreciate it.
Congrats on the success of the book, Dan Bongino.
Same thing.
When we come back, we have wide open telephones.
We'll get to your calls, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
We'll take a break.
We'll come back.
Hannity 9 Eastern tonight, where we have new and breaking news on all of these issues that the media is ignoring.
News you won't get anywhere else.
It's sad, but it's true.
You would think the media would wake up to the biggest story in their lifetime, but I guess we'll have to drag them kicking and screaming to understanding some truth in their life.
We'll continue.
Let me go to Hillary Clinton, which is giving a speech or something, and she's talking about fighting for women.
Now, she makes this big deal on her Facebook page about how, well, in 2008, I had a sexual harasser.
I didn't fire him.
And here's why I didn't fire him.
But I do stand up.
I'm a champion for women's rights, which we've always pointed out is not true.
As, you know, Paula Jones exhibit A, Jennifer Flowers Exhibit B, Juanita Broderick Exhibit C, and there are other exhibits.
And then the money she takes from countries, millions for the Clinton Foundation that abuse women.
Anyway, here's Hillary.
She starts talking about how she'll fight for women, and then one of those coughing fit things begins.
From Hollywood to politics to factory floors, everywhere, women are telling the truth about their lives.
And let's make sure the world is never the same.
You know, we have to be brave.
We have to be brave enough to engage with people who disagree with us, brave enough to question and examine our own beliefs.
Brave enough to acknowledge that even those of us who have spent much of our life thinking about and fighting about gender issues, who even have first-hand experiences of navigating male-dominated industries, may not always get it right.
I pledge to continue to speak out.
I pledge to never give up.
I will do everything I can to gain my voice, number one, To advance the rights and opportunities of women in the midst of this snowstorm, stay on the front lines of democracy.
Wow.
Now, if it was during the campaign and I had the unmitigated audacity to play that because it happens so often, what are you doing?
Are you implying she's sick?
All right, 800-941, Sean Tolfree, telephone number.
All right, let's get to your calls.
You've been very patient this week.
As we say hi, we'll start with Tucson, Arizona.
Keith next, Sean Hannity Show.
Happy Friday, sir.
How are you?
Hey, Sean, we love you out here in Tucson.
What's going on, sir?
How are you?
Hey, do you ever feel like you're wasting your breath because none of these higher-up people, Clinton and all them, they're never going to see a day in jail?
Absolutely not.
We have uncovered in the last year more corruption than I ever thought or ever wanted to see in America.
We now have gotten to the precipice.
I mean, you just think of the last two weeks of news.
What have we gotten?
We've gotten the Nunes memo that showed so much about what actually went on in terms of the dossier, who's responsible.
It's Hillary bought and paid for.
It became the bulk of information presented to the FISA court.
The FISA court was lied to and manipulated in numerous ways.
I've been telling you for a year that there was an informant that had infiltrated Putin's network in America on the Uranium One deal.
He wanted a foothold in the uranium market.
That now has turned out to be true, as I've been telling you.
And that same informant now has testified before three congressional committees.
We now have the call for a special counsel about the manipulation or attempted manipulation of an election and how we got to that point.
Those people that are corrupt are being named.
Robert Mueller's corrupt band of Mary Obama and Clinton and DNC donors and their corrupt records of withholding exculpatory evidence and how they've been overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0, how they've been overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Their tactics have been brought into question and light, and how wrong the media has been on Trump-Russia collusion.
No, we've gotten to a lot of truth, Keith.
I'm proud of the work and the reporting we've done, but it's only the beginning in many ways.
I've been telling you it's the tip of the spear, the tip of the iceberg.
And I think truth is important.
And while the media has slept, they've missed the biggest story in their career, and they've lied to the American people on a daily, nightly basis.
So the answer is: you know, I'm not, I don't know what the outcome is going to be.
I suspect we're going to see another special counsel appointed, if not two of them.
And I suspect that we'll learn in pretty short order, meaning in the next couple of months, that Donald Trump's going to get exonerated from Trump-Russia collusion.
So I don't regret a minute of the great reporting that all the people we put on the air for you to hear every day have been right and so many others have been wrong.
Appreciate the call, though, as we say hi to Stephanie is in PA.
Stephanie, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Thanks, Sean.
I love your show.
I am a crummy deplorable irredeemable who is an oxymoron.
I'm a teacher who's conservative, but I received from the tax cut an increase in pay of $206 a month.
That's huge for my husband and I.
I teach.
He's a contractor.
We're the crummy deplorable.
Let me tell you what $206 a month means because I remember having no money in the bank, living paycheck to paycheck.
It was a long period of my life.
It wasn't short.
Let's say you want to get a small new car.
That probably, you could probably get a lease for about that much a month on a new car.
You know, I mean, that's how profound it could be in terms of somebody's life.
Or maybe it's just that you go out, you take the 200 bucks, and maybe you go out to a local Italian place three times a month, and you guys can have a nice dinner together.
We never get to do that.
Now we can do the, that's me in my freezer.
That's extra snacks for my kids to put in their lunch bag.
Exactly.
This is important stuff to us.
It's a new water pump we need in our basement.
I mean, it means so much to me.
I loved the moment he took, Pennsylvania took him over the top, and I don't regret one inch of voting for this man.
I can't believe there are people.
I will say this.
No one wants to hear my life story anymore because I've repeated it too much.
But those years in the restaurant business and in the construction business defined me.
And in so many ways, I'm that person.
And in so many ways, I saw this election as being about me a few years earlier and the beginnings of my adult life.
And it wasn't until my late 20s I ever got into radio.
And I know what it's like to be a forgotten man and woman.
And I know what an extra $1,000 means to somebody.
You know, $200 a month, you know, times $12,000, now that's $2,400 extra in your pocket every year.
That's a lot of money.
That's a lot.
That's serious money that you can do some great things for your kids with or whatever you want to use it on.
That's great.
And, you know, we are overtaxed.
They do overspend.
They do over-regulate.
And it's about time we think it's supposed to be we, the people.
And we get, you know, crushed left and right by local government, state government, the federal government.
It never ends.
So it's not crumbs to people that do all the hard work every day that make this country great.
And I'm glad you shared your story.
I really am.
Wendy is in Illinois.
Wendy, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hey, Sean.
I was trying to get on a couple days ago, and it's so much better that I'm on now because all this Uranium One stuff has come up.
And Mueller, was he not to be investigating that?
So here's what I think he's doing.
I think he's in there with all those Clinton lawyers covering his tracks, calling up Silicon Valley and say, getting this stuff off the clouds.
Because you know, every time you create a document or send an email, it goes to a cloud, and then it goes to somebody else's email, and that goes to a cloud.
So they're down there.
I bet you if the FBI were serious and they went in there and confiscated everything, they would find one phone call after another to all the CEOs of Silicon Valley and IBM and Amazon and everything else you can think of.
Get it off, get it off, get it off.
I could tell you this.
I am certain that they monitor this radio show and watch the television show, and they have to be apoplectic because I don't think they expected this much investigative scrutiny in their lives.
And I think it has, if you look at, you know, Robert, how does Robert Mueller explain Siffius' approval of Uranium One when he's the FBI director and he knew 18 months in advance that Vladimir Putin had a team on the ground in America to get a foothold in our uranium industry and that we had a spy in there the whole time.
How does he explain that?
How does he explain his existence after now knowing the bulk of information to acquire a FISA warrant against Donald Trump came from Hillary Clinton buying and paying for Russian government lies, not only to manipulate the election, but then it becomes the basis for a spy warrant.
It takes away any justification for his position at all.
And if the media was not so abusively biased and in collusion with the Democratic Party and willing accomplices of, he would know his days are up.
And I think they should come to an end immediately.
Anyway, thank you so much for the call.
I wish I had more time.
All right, Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern, we're breaking this story wide open about a FISA court rebuking the Obama administration for, quote, widespread illegal surveillance and a serious abuse of the Constitution.
We continued tonight.
Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Sebastian Gorka tonight, Herman Cain, Peter Schweitzer, now that the informant in the Uranium One case has now spoken to three congressional committees.
He'll join us.
He was way ahead of that story.
And Sean Spicer and Joe Concha on your corrupt media.
We got a big show tonight.
Set your DVR 9 Eastern.
Thanks for being with us.
See you then.
And we will be back here on Monday.
Have a great weekend.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
