Sean reacts to Israel's precision attacks of terrorist cells in Syria after they lost an F-16 when it was shot down. Caroline Glick Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post and author of The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East and Al Perrotta, Managing Editor of The Stream, join Sean to discuss Israel's reaction and next steps for the United States. 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.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
That's not fun.
You know, I tried everything.
I couldn't get a good night's sleep.
And this is neither drug nor alcohol-induced.
That's right.
It is my pillow.
Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first MyPillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to mypillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows.
Now, MyPillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing an interny that's not working for you.
Just go to mypillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Sean.
All right, here we go.
Happy Monday.
Thanks for being with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
A lot coming up today.
We've got the latest on deep state gate and new revelations today, including we have spies looking to pay Russian for Russian peddling of Trump's secrets.
I thought all this was out of bounds, off base, something unethical.
We'll get to that today.
Also, we will dig deep into the media's love affair with these maniacal dictators.
What is it about the left they love totalitarian dictatorships?
What is it?
Why do they think if they just get on their knees and beg pretty, pretty, pretty, please, and bribe murdering thug dictators that things are going to work out so much better?
And their fascination with Kim Jong-un's sister at this Olympics, which I find incredibly dull and boring.
I just do.
I'm proud of that 17-year-old kid.
He was great.
I did watch that.
And I know these people train their whole lives to get there.
They're not the sports that I love.
I do like skiing, though.
Downhill, fast skiing, I think takes a lot of courage and some of these other sports.
But anyway, one scary thing as we begin, something we've been through, you know, you got to think of this through the prism of, okay, what did Madonna say and do about the president who wants to blow up, dreams of blowing up the White House?
And Kathy Griffin with her severed head, but it's all about her and how her career has suffered as a result of it.
Or the Boston professor who wished that, you know, President Trump was dead last week.
You know, I hope they're all proud of themselves.
As we speak, the president's daughter-in-law was rushed to the hospital this morning after a letter containing some white powder arrived at her apartment.
You know, all these people say all these incendiary, outrageous things that if they were ever said during the Obama years, everybody would have rightly called it out.
I don't know anybody, anybody that's been attacked more than this White House, this president, and this family, even attacking the poor 11-year-old kid for crying out loud and attacking the first lady and attacking the first daughter.
I mean, it's just vicious.
I mean, how many people imagine taking a severed head of Barack Obama and here, let me post this.
What the ramifications would have been, or somebody saying, you know, I dream of blowing up the White House.
Now, am I saying that this led to this incident that happened with Donald Trump Jr.'s wife being taken to the hospital because of a letter that arrived containing white powder at her apartment?
No, I'm not.
I'm not blame the people that are responsible for that act.
But the incendiary language that is accepted by the left and the double standard is just so transparent and obvious.
But I always blame the person.
Anyway, I have thoughts and prayers for Vanessa Trump.
That's Donald Jr.'s wife was being examined at New York Presbyterian and Cornell Medical Center as a precaution.
And the letter was sent to their apartment.
And I guess, you know, firefighters, emergency medical services, police were called to the apartment.
When she opened the letter, and she and two other people at the apartment are being decontaminated by firefighters at the scene and then being taken to the hospital as a precaution.
We got to pray it's a precaution.
I mean, the anthrax can be very deadly.
Do you remember Linda when this happened to poor Elise?
Remember my assistant?
Yeah, it was horrible.
Horrible.
I mean, she was literally, we couldn't even talk to her.
Ethan was the intern there at the time.
Yeah, she opens a letter to me, and she was quarantined for, what, like six, seven hours?
Yeah, we were all pretty scared, actually, because she was in there for a really long time.
Yeah, she was scared out of her mind.
And, you know, I mean, it was horrible, actually.
And you know what the net result is?
I don't get any mail anymore.
People think I'm rude.
People think I don't answer my mail.
It's not a matter of that.
I mean, mail gets lost now and tested and this and that.
And you only get a small portion of anything.
Can't even trust direct messages these days.
No, what does that mean?
Is you saying that to me?
No, I said it on air because I'm just saying it's like people just send you things.
There's cyberware.
There's anthrax.
I mean, you can't open anything anymore.
Everybody's always trying to hurt you.
No, it's that too.
And then, of course, what did Twitter say?
Our account was compromised.
Compromised.
Compromised.
What does compromise mean anyway?
Oh, that people broke in and are stealing stuff.
Oh, then I'm not, you know, I don't even use it anymore.
I'm done because it just, what we use Twitter for is very different than what we used to use it for.
And I really shouldn't even disclose it.
I had a lot of fun fighting on Twitter.
I actually occasionally will still go fight on Twitter, but I got to pick my fights.
It becomes a full-time job fighting on Twitter.
The level of hate and vitriol, though, over time, it just gets to you.
There's only so many ways that people can attack you, and you read it, and you read it, and you read it, and you're having fun in the beginning fighting back.
And then it's like, why am I wasting my time doing this?
There's got to be something more important.
There's got to be a beer in my refrigerator somewhere that's more important than this.
But it is so scary, though, when they take it to a new level and they send you white powder.
And, you know, in Vanessa's case, she had those little kids.
And in our case with Elise, I mean, she was, you know, completely quarantined.
It was awful.
It was horrible.
It was absolutely horrible.
And thank God it turned out okay.
And I'm hoping for Vanessa, obviously, as well.
I mean, but until you hear the coast is clear, you don't know.
I don't know what it is this.
Maybe somebody can call in and explain to me why liberals love totalitarian dictatorships because I'm not getting it.
I mean, CNN literally tweeted out an article with the title, Kim Jong-un's sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics.
All she did was show up.
And, you know, they go online and they write this puff piece about the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un's sister, appearing at the Olympics in South Korea.
You know, she's stealing the show.
The article published on Saturday afternoon began with these words about the woman who gave the South Korean president an invite to visit North Korea.
Quote, if diplomatic dance were an event at the Winter Olympics, Kim Jong-un's younger sister would be favored to win the gold with a smile, a handshake, and a warm message in South Korea's presidential guest book.
Kim Jojong has struck a chord with the public just one day into the Olympic Games.
It barely referenced the North Korean regime's murdering ways.
And, you know, I'm like, Why is there this compulsion that they feel like, oh, if we really just show them that we're human, they're going to be human back.
This is the false narrative that Clinton believed with Kim Jong-il, who's Kim Jong-un's father.
And he literally bribed him with energy sources and $3 plus billion dollars of American money in the mindset that, yeah, it's going to happen.
He's going to now, this is a good deal for the American people.
No, it wasn't a good deal.
I'd like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Galushi signed this morning.
This is a good deal for the United States.
North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program.
South Korea and our other allies will be better protected.
The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.
South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing.
And they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.
Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.
Good deal for the American people.
Yeah, that worked out really well because now we have Kim Jong-un's sister, her brother is now firing missiles over Japan and threatening Guam and threatening the United States, the continental United States with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
That's what we got for the money that Clinton tried to bribe the father of Kim Jong-un.
And it's the same thing.
We got news this weekend.
What happened with Iran?
I told you when all that money went to the mullahs in Iran, what did I tell you what happened?
I told you that it would absolutely be used to promote and expand the terror network because they've been fighting proxy wars through Hezbollah and all these other terrorist groups for years.
And now was this got $1.7, what was it, $1.7 billion?
Some insane amount of money or billion dollars was used to support the efforts of Hezbollah.
And why do people believe that if you're just nicer to the people that are burning your flag and chanting death to America and burning the Israeli flag and chanting death to Israel, that if you give them money and you kiss their ass, that somehow they're going to come around and really begin to like us and change their evil ways?
Kim Jong-un is starving his own people.
Kim Jong-un is spending every last dollar he has in the hopes of getting nuclear weapons so that he can hold the world hostage.
At the point this guy has nuclear weapons married with intercontinental ballistic missile technology, the minute that he can reach the continental United States, we don't have any more good options on the table at that point.
At that point, it's either, okay, he puts a missile on the pad, we take it out, or he throws one in the air, we have no idea where it's going, we try to take it out of the air, and God forbid, if it is a nuclear weapon and we don't get it out of the air, how many people can die?
And then if we do that, then he retaliates against South Korea and then Pyongyang, and then he retaliates against Japan, and then he hits Guam, and then he tries to hit the continental United States.
You know, there's a lot of danger here.
And it's not just CNN.
The New York Times tweeting out, without a word, only flashing smiles, Kim Jong-un's sister outflanked Vice President Mike Pence in diplomacy.
It's like a compulsion to literally suck up and bow at the altar.
Now, I'd actually make an argument to you.
The fact that Donald Trump is talked about, what does he call Kim Jong-un again?
I love his nickname for Rocketman.
He calls him Rocketman.
And everybody panics.
He's going to start a nuclear war.
Well, Reagan said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
And finally, the wall came down.
And he built up our nation's defense.
Now we're about to build up our nation's defenses again.
And maybe one of the reasons he wants to talk to South Korea is maybe it's as simple as one fundamental thing is that he understands the United States means it.
Washington Post declared that Kim Jong-un's sister is the Ivanka Trump of North Korea.
Is there a tacit admission there that they like Ivanka Trump?
Or is that somehow because I don't think it was meant it was obviously meant in a complimentary way.
ABC News writes, North Korea's 200-plus cheerleaders steal the spotlight at the Olympic Games.
We can see they're paying attention to the sports.
New York Times referred to the North Korean cheerleaders as an army of beauties.
What would happen to a conservative?
What if Donald Trump said that?
Reuters wrote, North Korea has emerged as the early favorite to grab one of the Olympics, Winter Olympics most important medals, the diplomatic gold.
What are they talking about?
He was firing missiles over Japan just a couple of months ago and threatening to hit the U.S. Wow.
So many people are so dumb and naive.
The only thing that dictators seem to understand, the only thing bullies seem to understand, is in the case of a bully, you punch them once really hard and shatter their world in the face, and they'll probably then leave you alone.
And unfortunately, it's not that much different with nations.
They've got to understand that we're bigger, meaner, tougher, and that if they do anything really bad, there's going to be a heavy consequence, a heavy price to pay.
I wish we didn't have evil in the world.
I wish 100 million souls didn't die in the last century alone.
I wish we didn't have to battle fascism, communism, Nazism, and now radical Islam in the form of al-Qaeda or the Islamic State.
I wish everybody was nice and wanted to raise their kids and create a better world, but that's not the world we live in.
That's not reality.
So, Linda, why did NBC force?
Well, you just, you're busy.
Okay, you're running out.
I got it.
All right, 800 9.1 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program?
We do have a clear majority.
I think this is important to note as we get into some of Deep State Gate's new developments today.
The Dow, by the way, in its topsy-turviness is up 543.
Seems to just be vetting out some stability issues and sort of a natural correction.
That's my take on it, but I don't invest a lot in the stock market, and that's up to you if you do.
A new poll on Deep State Gate shows a solid majority of Americans now believe that the Obama administration abused American surveillance laws to spy on President Trump and his campaign.
And it's kind of amazing the number considering how much the media has filtered out the truth to the American people.
Anyway, it's an Investor's Business Daily poll.
55% believe it's likely the Obama administration improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
And 54% want a special counsel to investigate whether the FBI and Department of Justice improperly surveilled the Trump campaign in the 2016 election.
Only 44% said no.
And the partisan breakdown shows 74% of Republicans, 50% of Independents want the special counsel.
In this particular poll, one fairly positive result for the FBI and Department of Justice, only 35% believe these institutions attempted to outright frame President Trump for colluding with the Russians.
And a just-released Rasmussen poll shows a full 50% of Americans believe it's somewhat likely senior law enforcement officials, senior, not rank-and-file, senior, because everybody likes to take it in the media.
See, you're attacking the FBI, the institution of the FBI.
No, I'm not.
By the way, all these people that say that, go look at their track records and jumping the gun on men and women in law enforcement and our military and the FBI.
Just because there are a few bad apples, it's people like me saying that does not poison the whole batch.
Anyway, that 35% believe these institutions attempted to outright frame him.
So we'll get to that.
We have a lot, including a new development that just came out literally as we're on the air here.
I'll read it in the break as it relates to the Grassley-Graham memo.
Apparently, a letter was sent.
I'm going to let me break this down.
I'll get it for you as soon as we come back.
But it has to do with a document that Susan Rice sent in an email.
I'll explain next.
I-25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
This is kind of odd, and it just broke moments ago.
Remember, we had the Nunes House Intel memo that came out, and then we had the Grassley Graham memo come out, and then the Grassley-Graham unredacted memo, not completely unredacted, but they took a lot of the redactions out.
That was in the original memo.
And on Friday, of course, we had the Democrats, they set a trap.
They were hoping that the president would release their memo when they purposely included materials that they knew they shouldn't have included, sources and methods, et cetera.
Now we've got new information today.
Grassley and Graham just released this letter, I assume, to Susan Rice here, and the email sent on Inauguration Day.
And they're asking Rice why Rice felt the need to document to herself an Oval Office meeting where President Obama apparently told Comey and others to, quote, handle things, quote, by the book.
Anyway, Ambassador Rice seems to have used the email to document January 5th, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
In particular, Ambassador Rice wrote, President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of the issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities, quote, by the book.
And the president stressed that he's not asking about, initiating, or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.
He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
Now, Grassley and Graham were both struck by the context and the timing of the email, and they sent a follow-up letter to Ambassador Rice that reads in part: It strikes us odd that among your activities in the final moments in the final days of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump-Russia investigation.
Now, we already know that the president likely, due to presidential daily briefings, the president, I'm sure, knew all of this.
Anyway, so in addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed by the book, substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI as well as the Justice Department and the State Department actually did proceed, quote, by the book.
So it's part of their continued efforts to get some oversight here.
And Grassley and Graham are now asking Rice to answer a set of questions by February 22nd so the committee can further assess the situation.
And they actually break it up in their letter.
And it goes on, it says the Senate Judiciary's constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the FBI and broader Department of Justice.
Part of that duty involves ensuring law enforcement efforts are conducted without political influence.
And accordingly, the committee has been investigating the FBI's relationship with Christopher Steele during the time of his work that was funded by Hillary for America, the Democratic National Committee, the FBI's reliance on his unverified thirdhand allegations in the Bureau's representations to the courts.
This is a great follow-up.
As part of that effort, the committee sent a request to the National Archives for records of meetings between President Obama and then FBI Director Comey regarding the FBI's investigation of allegations of collusion between associates of Mr. Trump and the Russian government.
In response, the committee received classified and unclassified versions of an email that you sent to yourself on January 20th, 2017, President Trump's inauguration day.
And if the time stamp is correct, you sent that email to yourself at 12:15 p.m., presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time.
In this email to yourself, you purport to document a meeting that had taken place more than two weeks before on January 5th, 2017.
On January 5th, following a briefing by the IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election, President Obama had briefed, had a brief follow-up conversation with the FBI Director Comey, Deputy Attorney General Yates, and the Oval Office.
Vice President Biden and I were also present.
That meeting reportedly included a discussion of the Steele dossier and the FBI's investigation of its claims.
You emailed, and that's where, you know, Buy the Book comes in.
The next part of your email remains classified.
After that, you wrote, President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.
Comey said he would.
Then they write to her, strikes us odd that among your final moments, final day at the Obama White House, this is what you're doing.
So then they put forth a series of questions.
Did you send the email attached to this letter to yourself?
Do you have any reason to dispute the time stamp of the email?
They write, when did you first become aware of the FBI's investigation and allegations into collusion between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia?
When did you become aware of any surveillance activities, including FISA applications undertaken by the FBI in conducting that investigation?
At the time you wrote this email to yourself, were you aware of either the October 2016 FISA application for surveillance on Carter Page or the January 2017 renewal?
Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply you should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Trump's meeting with Mr. Comey about the Trump-Russia investigation?
If so, who and why?
Is the account of the January 5th, 2017 memo presented in your email accurate?
Did you omit any other portion of the conversation?
Other than the email, did you document the January 5th, 2017 meeting in any way?
Contemporaneous notes or a formal memo?
To the best of your knowledge, did anyone else at that meeting take notes or otherwise memorialize the meeting?
During the meeting, did Mr. Comey or Ms. Yates mention potential press coverage of the Steele dossier?
If so, what did they say?
During the meeting, did Mr. Comey describe the status of the FBI's relationship with Mr. Steele or the basis for that status?
When and how did you first become aware of allegations made by Christopher Steele?
When and how did you first become aware of the Clinton campaign and the DNC funding Mr. Steele's efforts?
You wrote the president, stressed that he was not asking about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.
Did President Obama ask about, initiate, or instruct anything from any other perspective relating to the FBI's investigation?
Did President Obama have any meetings, other meetings with Comey, Yates, or other government officials about the FBI's investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia?
If so, when did they occur?
Who participated?
What was discussed?
Thank you for your prompt attention.
This is getting pretty interesting.
You know, we've never gone back to, and, you know, like last week, we had a little bit of a diversion as it relates to all this, and it's simple as it relates to Deep Stategate.
And that was all of a sudden, the Uranium One.
Now, about a month ago, we had a guy charged with 11 counts in Uranium One.
And that's when we were able to confirm, yeah, that Uranium won, that Jeff Sessions never recused himself, and that there's an ongoing open investigation now.
We have the Inspector General report, which is expected on the handling of the Clinton email server investigation, which obviously the fix was in.
It was rigged from the beginning.
It's going to be interesting to see and read what the Inspector General has to say.
But there's so many moving parts in all of this, but at the end of the day, what you have here is a lot of people in the upper ranks of the DOJ and the FBI leaving for varying reasons.
Comey, fired.
Rachel Brand just resigned three days ago.
She was third in line at the Justice Department after Sessions and Rosenstein.
Peter Strzzok, demoted.
Lisa Page, reassigned.
Why these two have a job is unbelievable.
Andrew McCabe, fired.
James Baker, retired.
David Loffman, is the Justice Department counterintelligence chief, resigned.
James Rubicki, chief of staff to Comey, reassigned.
Bruce Orr, former U.S. associate AG, demoted.
Sally Yates, fired.
Mary McCord, acting assistant AG, resigned.
Michael Corton, head of public affairs, retired.
Is it they don't want to go through this or clean up this mess, or maybe they feel there's more shoes to drop?
Kind of hard to tell at this particular point.
You know, it's, you know, I looked very closely at Rachel Brand resignation three days ago.
It appears she got a job.
This was at least printed in a couple of places as the chief counsel, I guess, for Walmart's, which I think would probably end up being a really good job.
Others have suggested maybe she wants a judgeship somewhere.
You know, there's a great question in the Hill.
Will FISAGATET, the FISA memo, turn into Watergate?
No, it's bigger than Watergate.
You know, it depends how it all plays out.
I mean, the biggest problem we have, if you look at the Sunday shows, there definitely now is there are attempts to at least begin the conversation, but they're so recent.
Like Major Garrett this weekend was talking to Adam Schiff.
Adam, you know, I don't want to get into all of the back and forth between them, but CNN Jake Tapper had John Podesta on the Steele dossier saying the Hillary camp didn't know Fusion GPS contracted Christopher Steele.
I don't believe that for a minute.
I don't believe anything that comes out of John Fodesta's mouth.
As a matter of fact, I want to know about John Fodesta's financial dealings with foreign countries, kind of like Manafort.
I hope we're going to eventually investigate that and some other things.
But there's so much to this, you know, the idea that this country didn't blink an eye when Donna Brazil says, yeah, the Democratic primary was rigged.
We've now pretty much proven it's there's no answer to it, but we now know that Comey and Strzok were writing the exoneration in early May of Hillary Clinton, and they didn't even bother to interview her or 17 others until early July.
And because the memo was ready, she was interviewed over the 4th of July weekend by Peter Strzok, and they exonerated her on the 5th.
I mean, none of that makes any sense, especially in light of what we're talking about, the Clinton email server investigation.
I've gone through those crimes repeatedly.
You know, it's really simple.
The espionage, gross negligence, and mishandling classified documents.
That's a crime.
Intentionally mishandling the classified documents, which she did.
That was on the secret server in the bathroom closet.
That's a crime.
Knowingly removing classified documents with the intent to retain, that's a crime too.
Then you got theft of government documents, concealing, destroying government documents.
All of that happened.
What do you think Bleach Bit was for?
What do you think the hammer was for?
Obstruction of justice.
Obviously, 33,000 deleted Bleach Bit emails.
That's obstruction of justice.
They were all subpoenaed.
Now, why wasn't that?
Why did James Comey and Peter Strzok and likely Paige and McCabe and others put the fix-in on this thing?
And what was their insurance policy?
And I know some of you want answers to all of these questions today, but you can't get them all in one day.
That's the problem when you have people that are hiding and covering up, and they never thought any of this was going to come out because they thought Hillary was going to win.
And Paige and Strzzok, they even text back and forth about, well, we don't want to piss her off if she's going to be the president.
Well, that's pretty revealing in and of itself, isn't it?
And then it gets worse.
Then you have Hillary now that she's been enabled to continue in the race.
Well, now she gets involved with Fusion GPS, and they hire Christopher Steele.
By the way, it wasn't the Washington Beacons time when they were looking into Trump.
It was when Hillary was paying Fusion GPS.
That's when they hired Christopher Steele.
That's where Christopher Steele is, the Grassley Graham memo, says, paid for Russian government lies, Russian government sources.
That's where all the salacious nonsense come in.
And Fusion GPS, they've said under oath that they've never verified it.
Took them a year to tell us who paid for the thing.
And then they even admit in one testimony before I think the House Intel that they were coordinating with the Clinton campaign, who to leak it to in the press.
And Christopher Steele was already doing that on his own because he didn't want Trump to be president.
And then, of course, it's used as the basis for a Pfizer warrant.
And the only thing we got in terms of the political nature of the document, well, it might have a political taint to it.
It's not a political taint.
It's the opponent it's bought and paid for.
That's a big difference.
It's a huge difference.
All right, 800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Michael Goodwin had a good piece out today.
He said, Hillary Clinton's Rushing Gate frame job was the dirtiest political trick in American history.
Well, the Justice Department's now imploding, as I just told you, about all of this.
And I'm telling you, I think by the end, I think you're going to see people likely going to jail at the end of this.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941, Sean Tolfrey, telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program?
All right, we've got a busy show for the day today.
Greg Jarrett, Monica Crowley, join us at the top of the next hour.
If you haven't been following, there was an F-16 shot down in well, near the border of Syria over the weekend, then an Iranian drone flying over Israel, and the Israelis caught it and fired back on locations within Syria.
We'll get an update with Caroline Glick and Al Perota coming up.
Louis Gomer joins us today.
And also, we'll have the latest now.
Mitch McConnell is saying that the immigration debate is coming next.
And more conservative senators are saying, let's vote on the president's plan straight up or straight down.
I'm not going to hold my breath that Mitch McConnell would ever do anything that gutsy, but we shall see.
Quick break, right back, 800-941, Sean, Tolfrey, telephone number, and your calls coming up today.
There's nothing askew about that warrant that I can see.
And if the Republicans were really concerned about this, because everything that I have seen, the FBI acted completely appropriately.
Now, it's very important to look at what the FBI said about our rebuttal and what they didn't say.
What they've said is that certain information in it is classified.
And of course that's true.
The facts, all of the facts in the FISA application are classified.
But the FBI never said that anything in our rebuttal was inaccurate.
And that's also important because our memo does lay out the accurate facts, which we think the public should see.
Now, we will redact it to make sure that we're very protective of sources and methods, but we think the public should see this because as the chairman has said, this is only the first phase.
All right, there's Adam Schiff over the weekend.
The one thing you've got to note, if you pay attention to some of the weekend programming as we kick off hour two here of the Sean Hannity show, is that, you know, for all of Adam Schiff's desire to be an MSNBC contributor, they now are finally having to answer questions, although albeit biasedly, about the things that we have been highlighting and the things that have gone on that are unethical.
Now, the fact that he thinks that a footnote before a FISA court judge that it may have some, quote, may have some political origins, is somehow capable of replacing a bought and paid for by Hillary campaign and Hillary friends contributing to dossier.
If he thinks that is sufficient to get a FISA warrant against an opposition party in the lead up to an election and a president-elect, then he's going to have to answer that question and so much more.
But if you're paying very, very close attention, there's been a lot going on.
Not only now are people having to answer questions that they never would have otherwise had to answer had we not been beating this drum as hard as we have.
But you can't forget, I was watching Maria Barratiromo this morning.
She compiled her own list of top FBI Justice Department people that are now headed for the exits.
You know, we started with six last week.
Now we're up to 13 officials, senior officials, between James Comey and Rachel Brand, who decided to resign three days ago.
Then we've got Peter Strzok, he's demoted.
Lisa Page is reassigned.
Andrew McCabe is fired.
James Baker retires.
David Loffman, Justice Department counterintelligence chief, he resigned.
Rabicki, FBI Chief of Staff Tacome, he's reassigned.
Preet Brejara, U.S. Attorney, he's fired.
Bruce Orr, he's demoted.
He should be fired.
Sally Yates fired.
Mary McCord, acting assistant AG, resigned.
And Michael Corton is the head of public affairs for the FBI retiring also.
So in any other capacity, that would be viewed as a mass exodus because they know a lot more is coming.
Anyway, here to shed some light on it, Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst Monica Crowley is also with us, senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, former opinion editor for the Washington Times.
Welcome both of you.
Hi, Sean.
You know, I'm listening to Schiff, and, you know, the very thing they were trying to claim was in the Nunes memo was not there when we finally got it.
And he's admitting that they have to redact sources and methods himself.
So in the course of that interview, I thought he made himself look pretty stupid.
Well, it struck me that it was a setup.
They knew that their version of the Intel memo was filled with classified information, sources, and methods.
And they knew that if they gave that to the president, he'd have to reject it, send it back, and say, clean it up, so they could then howl that the president is trying to obstruct their version.
It was a setup, and it's pretty obvious, and Schiff is devious enough to do that.
That's my take on it.
It's my take, but in the end, I think the president very cleverly handed off this to national security experts, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and their recommendation was, yeah, that stuff has to come out.
The fact that they said everything is true, okay, yeah, you might say that there was a footnote that said, Monica, that it may have some political origins, but I think when you withhold important information, like it's Hillary Clinton's campaign buying it, it's bought and paid for, and it's not verified, and Hillary's friends apparently also fed some of the information into the dossier, which we learned last week.
That's a big, that's a pretty big omission on their part.
Yeah, and that is pretty meaningful to this FISA court.
I'm hearing that these FISA judges are absolutely furious that they weren't allowed full disclosure, that when the FBI, when the DOJ put this phony dossier together to smear and then derail Donald Trump, that they were not given all of the facts.
I mean, there's a huge difference between one little footnote that says may have political origins and allowing the FISA court full access to the fact that so much of this dossier was provided by anonymous Russian sources, Christopher Steele, closed Clinton associates like Sidney Blumenthal, longtime Clinton hitmen, for goodness sakes.
If they had disclosed that to the court, Sean, we all know that the court would have told them to take a hike.
That's why they didn't disclose it to the court.
And now, of course, it's coming out.
It's all coming out.
And they never expected it because they never expected Donald Trump to win.
Well, I think that's when it comes down to it, and this is maybe Rachel Brand deciding she doesn't want any part of this.
What was your take on her leaving?
Greg Jarrett.
Yeah, you know, I think she wants to be a federal judge.
I talked to a couple of people who know her who had already a couple of years ago left the Department of Justice.
She was mouthing off at a cocktail party.
A reporter found out about it.
She was bemoaning the fact that, you know, if she's involved in any of this, it's going to interfere in her ability to someday be appointed a federal judge.
And so she decided to head for the exits, you know, to distance herself from all of this.
So that's my take on it.
But look, as to your principal question, burying the truth in a footnote.
But there was a big article that she was going to be the general counsel, I think, at Walmart.
I mean, is it a simple case she wanted money or she's being promised later down the road a judgeship?
Well, I think it's both.
I don't think she's being promised a judgeship, but she knew that her judgeship, if it were ever to come about, would be tainted by any association with any of this.
So, you know, the money was good.
Let me get out the door.
Let me regroup and maybe I'll be a federal judge someday.
That's what my sources are saying.
These people who submitted this fake dossier to the court, they're officers of the court.
They have a duty to be forthright with the FISA judges.
And they can't simply bury in a footnote something that basically says, this could be funny because it's politically driven.
Without they have a duty to bring it to the attention of the judge.
Indeed, they have a duty not even to submit it, but they did it anyway, and they concealed it from the judge, and they deceived the court in the process.
And that's a violation of at least two felony statutes.
Yeah, good point.
You know, there's a good column today by Michael Goodwin in the New York Post, and he says Hillary's Russia Gate frame job was the dirtiest political trick in American history.
The difference, I think, is that when we get to the end of it, is that I think Hillary Clinton not only got away with crimes because of collusion and friends within the Department of Justice and the FBI, but Hillary really did try to influence the American people, had no problem paying for unverified Russian lies about Donald Trump.
And then beyond that, I think it even gets worse.
I think then Hillary, of course, uses it, and her campaign knows it's not verified.
They all know this is happening because they all know each other to get a FISA warrant.
Yeah, and it's not just her, Sean.
I've got a column today in The Hill, which Matt Drudge picked up on the Drudge Report as well, and you can check it out there.
I'm writing about how this is so much bigger than even everything that we're talking about, bigger than Hillary, even bigger than Barack Obama.
The idea that any of these people in the Obama DOJ, in the Obama FBI, part of the executive branch that he oversaw, the idea that any of these people were freelancing any of this really strains credulity.
And when we talk about the two surface reasons for why they did what they did, we talk about, okay, safeguarding Hillary Clinton from prosecution and, of course, derailing the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump.
But there's something else.
There's something much bigger going on here.
Barack Obama's presidency was the pinnacle of decades of this progressive movement that sought to, in Obama's words, fundamentally transform the nation.
They were never going to allow all of those gains of the eight years of Obama to be reversed by Donald Trump, no less, who, of course, they hate and wanted to derail for that reason.
But because they need to preserve the big leftist movement that had so many achievements under Barack Obama, that's why they acted this way.
They needed to use all means necessary to protect Hillary, who, of course, was joined at the hip to Donald Trump over Benghazi and the passing of classified information over her unsecured server.
They were both doing that.
They are joined at the hip.
So of course they had to protect her.
And of course they had to try to stop Trump because they are out to preserve something much bigger.
And it's bigger than Obama and it's bigger than Hillary.
But they are all, they have moved illegal mountains in order to preserve that.
That is the bigger goal.
But the only thing that went wrong here in everything you're saying is that they lost the election.
And that's why, and that's where that's sort of like, I mean, you knew Richard Nixon in the final years of his life.
And I don't know what he was telling you privately, but I mean, this makes Watergate and a third-rate burglary and a cover-up, you know, look like kindergarten compared to, you know, this is now a graduate degree and dirty tricks.
Watergate is a walk in the park compared to this.
And in my column in the Hill Today, Sean, I call this the most dangerous scandal in U.S. history.
I thought that the Obama team weaponizing the IRS was the most dangerous, and it was for a while until we got this.
When this administration, the Obama administration, weaponized the two top law enforcement agencies in the country that are supposed to have equal application of the law, justice is blind, weaponizing those agencies to target political opponents using dirty foreign spy and political opposition research to try to get them, to bring him down.
That should strike fear in the heart of every American.
And again, it was done in the service of something bigger, which is to protect and advance that big leftist progressive movement.
As we were going to the break, I was quoting Michael Goodwin's column and Monica, who knew Richard Nixon in the final years of his life, Greg.
This is like a walk in a park, to quote Monica, compared to Watergate.
So legally now, how do you get to the crimes and how's it going to happen?
Because I don't see a whole lot of movement at the Justice Department at all.
Well, I think you're right.
I think that Jeff Sessions is not equipped to handle what needs to be done.
So I think it's important, and I've long argued that a second special counsel needs to investigate the investigators.
Those at the FBI, who seem to have been motivated to clear Hillary Clinton, even though they knew there was powerful evidence she committed crimes, and they did it for political reasons, to influence the election.
And also the Department of Justice that knew a great deal of the motivations behind the dossier were purely political and yet concealed that from the court in their attempts to spy on the Trump campaign.
So I think you need a second special counsel.
If there's any collusion, it was between the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the Russians.
And to suggest there's never been a scintilla of evidence that anything the associates of Donald Trump did during the campaign even approached collusion, which is not even a crime.
You'd have to look at other ancillary crimes, fraud, honest services, election violations.
All of that falls squarely in the lap of Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
Yeah.
And, you know, I'm not the biggest fan of special counsels, Monica, because as we could see, even in the case of Robert Mueller, not only did he put a team together that are abusively biased and one-sided, but then he's picked people that have the worst track records I've ever seen in my life.
And beyond that, then the scope of what the original task is goes way beyond what the mandate was.
You know, now we're looking at, instead of Trump-Russia collusion, oh, you lied to the FBI, but that might eventually get thrown out.
Or, you know, back in 2005, before the election, we want to look at your financial dealings with Ukraine, which has nothing to do with this.
That's exactly right.
I mean, the appointment of a special counsel is always a terrible solution, but in this case, it might be the best and maybe only option here to try to restore some public faith in these institutions, including the DOJ and the FBI.
Remember Ken Starr.
Ken Starr started out investigating the Whitewater scandal, a land deal in Arkansas, and ended up with an intern and a phone carrying a pizza into the Oval Office.
So these things do go tend to go awry.
But I agree with you, and I agree with Greg.
I think in this case, as terrible a solution as special counsel is, it's going to be necessary because the American public has lost confidence in these institutions.
And without confidence in the FBI and the DOJ, we don't have an operating republic.
Sean, we're like on the border of a police state here as it is because we'll no longer roll, but we appreciate both of you.
Great column today.
And I think we'll see you both on Hannity tonight.
When we come back, very few people seem to know about Israel's pushback against drones in its airspace by Iran and its attack on Syrian forces that have been going after them and Hezbollah and $1.7 billion.
Remember the money that Obama gave the Iranians?
Yeah, that's going to terror groups, and we now have the money trail to prove it.
We'll get to all that in your calls, 800-941-Sean, as we continue on this busy news Monday.
A lot of spending and declarations that means the death now, or is the House Freedom Caucus is toast?
Well, I think we've had a number of articles written about our demise for many, many years, and yet we're still here fighting on behalf of the millions of Americans who feel like Washington, D.C. has forgotten them.
But I can tell you, the real problem with this particular one is that our leadership caved.
The swamp won, and the American taxpayer lost.
And there's no other way to.
The Republican leadership.
Without a doubt.
I mean, without a doubt, our original play was to make sure that we funded the military.
We kept other spending flat.
That's what we passed.
And yet, what we got put on the House floor just a few hours later was this unbelievable budget deal that spent American taxpayer dollars.
All right.
That was Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan on the morning shows yesterday speaking about the deficit, the debt that's going to be added.
This is on top of, we expect some point this week, a $1.5 trillion.
I guess this is going to be a public-private partnership to rebuild America's infrastructure.
Joining us now is Freedom Caucus member Louis Gomert, who's been similarly critical of this deal because of the amount of debt and the deficit.
You know, there's a great line.
I forget who used it.
Maybe it was Jordan O'Meadows.
And they said, you know, no, it was actually Rand Paul.
He said, when Democrats are in power, you know, the Republican Party is really conservative.
When they get in power, they're not conservative.
I guess it's just the right language they used at the time.
Well, it is a problem.
It's a real problem.
And, of course, I think we're better off than we were with our prior speaker, but we're certainly better off than Nancy Pelosi with the gavel.
We just, the country, I don't think would survive that.
But we have got to do what we promised.
That's what it comes down to.
And we knew that the Democrats back were to the wall.
They had found out that shutting down the government most recently, they did get blamed because they were to blame.
And so that meant that we had a chance to finally get spending under control because the Democrats in the Senate were a little gun shy, even though they don't like to use guns.
They're gun shy.
And so this seemed like a real opportunity to force a conservative bill from the House through the Senate.
And, you know, one of our members said, you look at how much, how many hundreds of billions of dollars the Senate increased our bill we sent down to them, which would have funded the military for two years and then dealt with spending for the rest of the year.
But if you look at how many hundreds of billions they added, and you divide that by 10, that's how much it took to buy the 10 votes to get to 60 for cloture.
If Mitch McConnell had said what some of us have been encouraging, look, we're going to pass this with majority.
That's what the Constitution requires.
Yes, we in the Senate had our own little rule that we created.
They require 60, though the Constitution only requires, you know, one more than half.
But for spending purposes, we'll follow the Reed rule and we'll confirm judges with 51 votes.
And also spending bills will do that.
At least do that on spending bills, and we would have saved hundreds of billions of dollars.
But when you have to go by senators, Democratic senators, to pass a bill on spending, then yes, we are going to see spending go through the roof.
The only reasonable and right thing to do is to pass it with a majority vote like the Constitution requires, and we could have saved the country and our grandchildren an awful lot of money that they will try to pay back someday.
Let me ask you about this New York Times story that after months of secret negotiation, some shadowy Russian was able to bilk American spies out of 100 grand promising to deliver stolen national security cyber weapons in a deal that this Russian is insisting would also have included compromising material on President Trump.
And the cash is delivered in a suitcase in a Berlin hotel room in September and intended as the first installment of a million-dollar payout to American officials.
What do you make of that?
Is that just the type of world that we need to have that we're not supposed to know about?
Why would they care about Trump's secrets, though?
We don't need that kind of world.
And of course, you recall that Don Jr. was urged to meet with a Russian, and it turns out that Loretta Lynch had to give her special personal okay to let her in the country since her visa wasn't good so she could meet with Don Trump.
And I still believe we're going to find out that they used the fact that he met with her, a questionable Russian.
He didn't know how questionable until he met with her and found out what was going on.
Wasn't it a little odd, though?
That there was a meeting both before and after with this woman and the meeting with Don Jr. with Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS saying that they'd never verified what was in Steele's dossier.
They also admitted under oath that they were coordinating with the Clinton campaign as to leaking this information to the press?
It stinks to high heaven.
But where I was going was the intelligence committee grilled Don Jr. for hours and hours.
And I'm not hearing that kind of desire to question Mark Warner and others that have reached out on information.
They were trying to get about Trump.
If we're going to be fair, then those same people that are part of our shadowy government, they need to come in and answer questions for hours and hours and hours like Don Jr.
And so does Mark Warner.
You know, those things need to happen if we're going to be fair, but it looks like we're not in as fair a world as we might should be.
You know, I'm watching all this unfold here, and I just never thought, Louis, and we've been friends for a lot of years, that I guess it's bad enough that somebody rigs a primary and nobody seems to care about it.
I guess I'm the only one that cares about poor Bernie Sanders getting ripped off in his race, but that for any other candidate besides Hillary, I think would be a big deal.
But then you have high-ranking people, not the rank-and-file.
We love the rank and file in the FBI and the intelligence community that do their jobs for us.
And they put a lot of effort and risked their lives at times for us.
But when you have the fix-in with Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andy McCabe, and James Comey, and we know there were crimes committed.
We know that this enabled her to go forward in the campaign.
And then we know that they're literally, we have Clinton supporters feeding Christopher Steele, all of this phony information about Donald Trump, but then it's used for the basis of a Pfizer warrant.
But when presented to the FISA court, apparently the only indication they give that it's political in nature is that, oh, it may have political origins when they knew darn well it was paid for by Hillary and paid for by the DNC.
When you start piecing all this together as it's starting to come out, and thank you very much for your persistence.
It really is perhaps the biggest threat to our republic that we've had.
When the government was able to weaponize that much of the government, when a president's administration was able to weaponize this much of the federal government, that is when you are really close to losing the Republic.
And Newt has pointed out on your show a number of times that if Hillary had been elected, we would never have known how compromised our government was, how close we were to being third world dictatorship, where the government uses or whether a president uses the government to defeat anybody that might ever try to challenge him.
It's what goes on in Russia.
It's what Chavez did in Venezuela.
Well, what do you think should happen?
I mean, I'm waiting.
Everybody that I interview pretty much says we should have a special counsel.
We don't have a second special counsel to investigate the investigators.
So I guess my question to you is: what is the answer?
Well, we've got to have a special counsel.
And I think I've mentioned to you privately, I'd asked President Trump back in June.
I said, you know, you could appoint a special counsel yourself.
Looking back, June may have been too soon because people weren't enough of us that believed we needed a second counsel back then.
But now it is so clear we absolutely have to have one because the FBI can't investigate themselves and the DOJ can't investigate themselves adequately.
This is going to completely shake the career folks anywhere near the top of the FBI and the DOJ.
And that's going to take a special counsel and it's going to take something, somebody, I think, from outside the beltway.
But you look at Mueller, a special counsel is going to have to investigate Mueller.
You've been on the trail of this uranium-one sale since first even the least bit started coming out.
You were on top of it.
And Mueller and Well, what's his name?
Comey, you're probably talking about James Comey, right?
Well, no, but.
Well, hang in there, Louie.
We've got to take a break anyway, and we'll give you time to regroup.
We'll come back.
Louie Gomert's with us, 800-941, Sean.
And as we continue, Louis Gomer, congressman from the great state of Texas, is with us, member of the Freedom Caucus.
We were talking about the deep state and talking about you believe we need a special counsel.
And, you know, look at all the people that we've had leave already or retire already or be demoted already.
I mean, you got Comey, you got Rachel Brand this weekend.
I don't know if there's any, I didn't see any problems with her, though.
But Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, demoted, reassigned.
McCabe is fired.
Baker's retired.
David Laufman resigned.
Rabiki reassigned.
Bruce Orr demoted.
Sally Yates fired.
And it goes on from there.
I mean, it seems like a lot of bleeding, but only at the top where it should be.
I can't help but think that when we get to the bottom of it, we're going to find that some of those people that are leaving now probably consulted with Mueller about who he should put on his task force.
You know, they probably talked about Strzok.
I doubt that Mueller would have put him on unless he had talked to other people at the DOJ and the FBI.
So some of those people that he probably consulted with, they're realizing, uh-oh, when they start getting down to it and they find out I was helping Mueller or helping Rosenstein or on the original Russian investigation where we know Mueller was the FBI director.
We know Rosenstein was if Rosenstein is involved in signing off on at least the renewal of the FISA application.
That never yeah, but then how does he get to then appoint Mueller?
I just don't.
Well, the way that happened is people didn't realize how involved he was in this background.
But you look at Rosenstein, my word, he should never have appointed somebody.
It involved a Russian investigation because that's what he and Mueller were both involved in before.
If he had done his job, he would never have appointed Mueller.
He would have said, I can't appoint anybody because it involves Russia and I was involved in the Russian investigation.
But what really frustrates me, Sean, as a former judge, former Chief Justice, if somebody came before my court and misrepresented things, they were going to jail for contempt of court even before they got around to a perjury trial.
If somebody commits a fraud upon the court in the judge's presence, then you don't even need another hearing to find him in contempt.
You can just go to it.
And I found that once you put one lawyer in jail, that others realize this judge is really serious about being honest with him and doing what is right in the court.
And I am so frustrated that we have this FISA system that I become more and more concerned about, so much so I couldn't vote for renewing the 702 process until we get more reforms.
But nobody, for all the misrepresentations before the FISA court, these are federal district and appellate judges that have been nominated and confirmed.
And not one of them has had enough pride in the truth to call lawyers before them and say, you lied about this.
You didn't tell me about that.
You misrepresented this in my court.
And you're going to jail for contempt of court for 180 days for doing that.
And he's a policy about perjury and those kind of things.
We're going to stay on it, that I can promise you.
All right, Louis Gomert.
Thanks so much for being with us, 800-941-Sean.
Toll-free telephone number.
There was a takedown of a F-16 shot down in Syria, an Israeli plane over the weekend, and Israel responded with fierce force.
We'll get to that.
We'll get to your calls also coming up next hour.
800-941 Sean, we got an amazing Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern.
We hope you'll set you a DVR for the Fox News channel.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
News Roundup and Information Overload Hour.
Glad you are with us.
We'll get to your calls by the bottom of this half hour.
800-941-Shawn is a tofree telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
I mean, it's so sad.
It was so transparent.
It was so obvious.
You know, we've been talking a little bit earlier in the program today about, you know, how you have a group of media people falling in love with, you know, North Korea's, you know, Kim Jong-un, the brutal murdering dictator's sister at the Olympics.
And I'm watching this fawning.
I mean, CNN literally, you know, throws out the most glowing piece about Kim Jong-un's sister at the Olympics.
Well, I think back and I've looked at how America has responded.
If you're a liberal and you suck up to murdering dictators, you're viewed as a hero.
I have no idea.
If you're somebody like Donald Trump and you take a tough stand against terrorism, against dictatorships, against murdering thugs, somehow you're about to start a nuclear war.
And so Donald Trump, unlike some of his predecessors, has taken a stand of we're going to be strong and no, we're not going to bribe murdering dictators, so they won't do what we say anyway.
And that was the whole case of what happened in North Korea.
That's what happened with Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton is providing fuel and $3 billion worth of all sorts of things.
And he goes before the world.
I'm just telling this, a good deal for the American people.
He's not going to get nuclear weapons.
All right, now he's got nuclear weapons.
Now, at the time when Obama was funneling these billions of dollars and cargo plane loads of cash and other currencies over to Iran, well, I was telling everybody that would listen right here on this program that it's a ransom payment to the number one state sponsor of terror, and it's only going to aid and abet their ability to foment more terror.
And we're now ending up funding it to the tune of, yeah, it's a lot of that money apparently has made their way to Hezbollah.
Anyway, as Israel now had to deal with Iranian drones in their airspace this weekend, and they dealt with it swiftly and executed perfectly as usual.
They had an F-16 shot out of the air, and Israel just doesn't sit back passively and take these terrorist attacks, and they went on the offensive.
And of course, the world wants to condemn Israel for protecting their sovereignty.
Anyway, let's take a trip down memory lane, warning how bad this deal would be, this Obama-Iranian deal.
How about before we sit down at the table, they've got to do a certain number of things and show that they've changed their behavior.
Number one, they have to recognize Israel's right to exist and denounce any comments by any Iranian leader to wipe them off the map.
Secondly, you've got to stop burning American and Israeli flags and chanting death to America.
Number three, you've got to stop being the number one state sponsor of terror.
And that means, you know, funding terrorists against the Saudis in Yemen and funding terrorists like Hezbollah and other groups against the Israelis.
How about those are preconditions before any discussions?
That sounds reasonable.
This deal is basically giving the radical mullahs all the money that they need, hundreds of billions of dollars, so they can continue to expand their worldwide terrorism campaign.
It's not only going to be in the region, it'll be well beyond the region.
That means potentially in the United States.
And it's really sad, and I frankly don't understand the mindset of a president that would ever do this.
You know, you go back.
What were they saying four days ago this weekend?
There was a rally.
The supreme leader was there this weekend, and a mob burning the American flag, the Israeli flag, chanting death to America, death to Israel.
Four days ago, the Supreme Leader, you know, talking about in the middle of these negotiations, the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.
They are the number one state sponsor of terror.
They fund groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and all these other terrorist groups.
They provide them the weaponry.
They killed American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They're responsible for the death of many, many Americans.
They are holding Americans in their prisons even now as we speak.
Why wasn't that part of the deal?
You know, three days ago, the Supreme Leader said the United States embodies global arrogance, and the battle against it will continue unabated, even if the nuclear agreement is concluded.
So we made a deal with a country that says their war with us is going to continue regardless of this deal.
You know, it's the head of Hezbollah said about this: a rich and strong Iran will be able to stand by its allies and friends in the region more than at any other point in the past.
In other words, they'll continue to sponsor terrorism and fight proxy wars and build up their financial war chest, et cetera, et cetera.
All right, joining us now to discuss this and so much more.
Caroline Glick is the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post and author of The Israeli Solution, a one-state plan for peace in the Middle East.
Al Peroda is the managing editor of The Stream, an outspoken, spoken supporter of Israel.
Well, you don't have to be a genius, Caroline, to figure out that radical mullahs in Iran that are chanting death to Israel, death to America, fighting proxy wars, burning American flags and burning Israeli flags, that if you give them money and you say, pretty, pretty, please, you know, be nice now, that they're not going to listen.
And all you're doing is fomenting and now funding their ability to commit more terror.
So this is not a surprise to me.
No, it's not a surprise, but it is very disturbing because the things that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and really Israelis from across the political spectrum were standing on every soapbox and yelling the entire time that the Obama administration was advancing its nuclear negotiations and concluding the nuclear deal was that this was going to empower Iran and it was going to destabilize the region and it was going to.
make it easier for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and to become a regional hegemon.
And, you know, the Obama administration was castigating all of its opponents and Israel as warmongers.
Americans who opposed his nuclear deal were referred to as warmongers.
And some of the basis language was really implying that Jewish Americans who opposed the deal were disloyal to the United States and working in the service of a foreign power.
And this is an incredible libel against Jewish Americans.
But beyond that, it's incredibly dangerous for the United States because Iran is burning American flags as well as Israeli flags.
And Iran views the United States as its primary enemy in the world.
For them, you know, Israel is a proxy of the United States.
And that's one of the reasons they hate Israel, aside from rank anti-Semitism.
And so the idea that, oh, there's really no inherent problem with the Iranian regime, which is toxically anti-American and hates the United States and seeks its destruction, and that it's really just a problem with Israel is dangerous for the United States.
But there's something worse and more silly.
There's something absurd about the whole premise.
Bill Clinton, in his case with North Korea, Barack Obama in his case with Iran, thinking, oh, we can just kiss their ass and we can buy peace.
You can't buy peace, Al, with people, as Caroline is pointing out here, you can't buy peace with people that hate you, that foment terror against you, that are vowing to destroy you every day.
No, you can't do it.
I mean, it's a bit like giving a drunk $100 bill bill and not expecting them to spend it on booze.
I mean, that's where the absurdity comes in, is believing that they could bring Iran into the family of nations.
I mean, it's like having Chuck Charles Manson into the family.
What was the thinking even to begin with behind the strategic desire that they had to get that deal at any cost?
And the costs were incredibly high.
And I believe this weekend, we saw some of the after effects, after costs, because Hezbollah's in a stronger position in Syria.
Iran is building weapons factories in Syria, according to the New York Times from last year.
And I guess we found some of Obama's construction jobs, you know, we saw a pretty strong response, Caroline Glick, this weekend, and a stern threat to Iran over the weekend, and warning the mullahs in Tehran that Jerusalem is prepared to inflict heavy blows on their republic should they continue to operate in Syria after the shooting down of this F-16.
Now, they've already hit Iranian targets inside of Syria.
And I got to believe that this is probably the beginning of something perhaps a little bit bigger because I don't think Israel has much of a choice if they're going to start shooting their planes out of the air.
Well, you're absolutely right.
Israel doesn't have a choice.
And, you know, really, I mean, I wrote this article in Breitbart over the weekend where I was explaining that really Syria has become this battlefield that you're going to see a lot of violence from, just as we have for the past seven years in the civil war in Syria.
Syria has really become a proven ground for regional struggles that are led by Iraq, I mean, Iran, and that they're trying to undermine every moderate country and destroy Israel.
But it's also Russia there that's trying to assert its hegemony in the Middle East and to diminish American power and ability to project its power and secure its interests in the Middle East.
So you're going to see a lot of violence.
And when Israel, two things about what happened on Saturday.
One is that Israel really took the opportunity of the founding of the F-16, which will happen when you're in such an anti-aircraft missile-rich environment.
Eventually, you're going to lose a plane.
But Israel took advantage of that loss in order to wipe out half of the anti-aircraft batteries in Syria.
And so that, according to reports, and, you know, so that shows that Israel is saying, okay, you hit us, we're going to hit you twice, and we're going to hit you 10 times harder.
And that's what Prime Minister Netanyahu said.
And you have to do that if you're going to keep going in this incredibly dangerous, unstable environment.
Isn't one of the problems that they have here, Al, is that at the end of the day, the Israelis can take them out, but they have all this pressure, you know, from outside of Israel telling them not to do it.
I mean, just look at the reaction to President Trump recognizing Jerusalem now as the capital, which they should have done.
But I think more importantly, it's what is the United States going to do?
Look at the involvement of Russia in all of this, you know, creating a scenario where the dictator Assad could probably continue in power.
Not something we want to see happen.
Yeah, we've got ourselves a very complex situation over there with what we do and the pressure that Israel is under not to do what it can do.
Can it eliminate all the defenses really quick?
Yeah.
But then you have the international community coming down on it so hard, that makes it a little harder.
But these two forces, the Iran and Israel, are getting, it's going closer and closer.
And at some point, without some divine intervention or some smart moves and some pressure put in on Russia to help keep those two apart and us doing what we can do to put pressure on Iran all these different directions, and there's going to be a conflict.
This is just like a little skirmish because even though they knocked out half the defenses, in terms of propaganda, this was huge.
There are people dancing in the streets in Damascus that they knocked down a plane for the first time in 35 years.
And Hezbollah, oh, this is a new strategic, you know, a new strategic stage.
And they're excited about this.
The fact that the defenses got blown up, hey, to be able to do it.
I got to take a break.
Stay right there.
Al Perota is with us, managing editor of the stream.
Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, author of The Israeli Solution, 800-941.
Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
We'll get to your calls, final half hour of the program today.
And as we continue, Sean Hannity show.
We'll get to your calls at the bottom of the half hour, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
As we continue, Caroline Glick is the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post and author of The Israeli Solution and Middle East expert.
Al Perota is with us, managing editor of the stream.
Caroline, where are we with the investigations going into the prime minister in Israel?
I know there's been a lot of people trying to attack him.
He's now the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history.
But I think at this moment where he was the only one with moral clarity on the world stage, I think he has the best partnership he's ever had with President Trump.
Look, I mean, you know, I've written about it in the past.
I wrote it about it on Friday in the Jerusalem Post.
You know, we have a situation in Israel that is devastatingly similar to the situation with the Russia probe in the United States, where you have these sort of strange investigations of the prime minister that have been dragging on and on and on and on and on.
And so the main allegation against him is that he took too many cigars and bottles of pink champagne from his old friend.
And excuse me.
And then he helped his friend to secure a visa for the United States.
And this isn't just any friend.
This is Arno Milchin, one of the top producers in Hollywood, who for some bizarre reason was having a hard time renewing his visa after living in the United States for decades.
He's one of the top products.
So you're talking about a guy that may have given bottles of water and pink champagne.
Why do I doubt Bibi Netanyahu, who drinks pink champagne?
That's for his wife.
Bibi Netanyahu apparently received cigars.
And so nobody can understand why this is a major criminal probe because the notion that you can call helping somebody get a visa a quid pro quo for getting some cardinal cigars is just bizarre.
And it's absurd.
Dragging Israel into this period of extraordinary political instability in the police, which is also a police investigative unit, is leaking like a thief.
Sounds exactly like what's going on here.
They're taking place.
Exactly.
So it's very distracting for most Israelis to be watching this because we feel like there's an attempt here to overthrow a government by unelected bureaucrats and this case and the police.
And it's actually quite frightening because at least in the United States, the Congress has oversight power by the Constitution over the executive.
So if you have brave lawmakers in the House and the Senate like you're having right now, people like Devin Nunes, then you're able to exert oversight over the executive branch.
But in Israel, because we don't have a constitution like that anymore parliamentary system to connect it, our parliament doesn't have that kind of oversight power.
So you basically have these bureaucracies that are unfettered in their excesses.
I got to leave it there, but we appreciate both of you being with us.
Caroline, thank you.
Al, thank you.
800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
We'll come back.
We'll get to your calls on this Monday on this busy breaking news Monday on the Sean Hannity Show.
Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
We have a lot of news we'll be covering.
We'll give you more on that straight ahead.
John Wood's sister, the first member of the regime to come into the South since the war.
And the United States is essentially saying to its allies, no, no, no, no, no.
It's been such a stark contrast to watch.
North Korea is using the public attention and the public spotlight of these games to promote some sense of normalcy, where you have the sister attending the opening ceremony.
We've seen the images of the North Korean cheerleaders cheering on their athletes.
And the vice president has been very stark and very firm over the last several days, saying, look, this is complete propaganda.
And you see he has sent that message pretty much in every action that he did over the last several days.
In Asia, you had him inviting Fred Warnbier, the father of Otto Warnbier, to sit with him in the opening ceremonies.
He's meeting with North Korean defectors.
When he was in Japan, he touted the aggressive sanctions against North Korea.
So there was a very clear message that he was sending at a time when you see North Korea trying to kind of drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States, especially in these Olympic Games.
And the vice president kept trying to make the point that there is no space between the United States and South Korea, but is there not?
Wasn't that quite evident to us that there is at least toned space?
Well, I mean, the South Korean president wanted Vice President Pence to shake the hand of Kim Jong-un's sister, and he very pointedly did not do that.
The South Koreans thought that that would be an important symbol of the United States' willingness to sort of potentially take a path that does not involve a military option but instead involves negotiation and talking to each other.
But President Trump was very adamant, and the vice president certainly got the message that that was not going to happen and they did not want to hand the North Koreans what would have been a PR coup at this kind of sensitive time in the conflict.
VP Mike Pence was in the stands at the Olympics where he seemed to be making a silent protest by remaining seated when North and South Korean athletes entered the stadium under the Korean unification flag.
Now, was this the place to make that statement?
Or did he just forget to get up?
My thought was that Mike Pence said that it was inappropriate to make political statements at sporting events.
Wasn't he that guy who walked out of the football game because people were kneeling and that's in his country in their own country is what he would say to that.
But he's representing the United States of America, isn't it?
And we have to be respectful because, you know, what we do know about politicians is they end up sitting with people that you and I say, well, why are they sitting with them?
You know, so if you're in Korea, you need to stand up.
You need to stand up and show respect.
You should have given had enough respect to say, you know what, maybe they are doing a good thing for themselves and maybe we can sit down with them at some point.
But you can't have it both ways.
He decided to do his peaceful protest.
It's very interesting that he didn't take a knee because you wouldn't have known if he was paying homage because taking a knee is not disrespectful.
You know, because you can take a knee to propose to somebody, take a knee to pray to somebody.
So I think him not taking a knee.
Can we just end this?
Because it's very hard to hear opinions that are that seemingly off base.
Anyway, glad you're with us.
24 till the top of the hour.
We're going to get into our calls here this final half hour.
You know, CNN's Kim Jong-un's sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics.
The New York Times without a word, only flashing smiles.
Kim Jong-un's sister outflanked Vice President Mike Pence in diplomacy.
The Washington Post declared Kim Jong-un's sister, the Ivanka Trump of North Korea.
And the New York Times referred to the North Korean cheerleaders as an army of beauties.
Wouldn't that be viewed as sexist, Linda, in this day and age?
There's nothing sexist.
We're all one.
Everything is equal.
Everything is fine.
There's nothing to see here.
You know, did everybody, am I the only one that's thinking, okay, your brother just was flying missiles over our ally Japan and threatening Guam and threatening instability in the entire region and the world threatening to bomb the continental United States with a nuclear weapon.
Ethan and I were just talking about it, and maybe it's an insult to them.
Like, why are they comparing her to Ivanka Trump?
Maybe they're saying that she's like Ivanka Trump because they hate her and they bash her all the time.
I don't think that's what the news media meant.
And then they would have to admit that they liked Ivanka.
They're just saying that she's a—listen, they're sucking up.
You could just tell.
They love this.
All right, let me get to some busy phones here.
A lot of you have been very patient today.
Thank you as we say hi to Mary Beth is in Arkansas.
Mary Beth, hi, how are you?
Happy Monday.
Glad you're with us.
Thanks for taking my call.
Hey, I am so sick of this crap.
My husband has been begging me to sit down and watch Olympic flip him.
And I sat down with him last night and saw our vice president sitting right next to that idiot's sister.
And I thought, where is our Secret Service?
Why is he sitting there like that?
That is ridiculous.
He is our vice president.
Why is he even sitting close to her?
Listen, I don't care where the vice president sits.
Listen, they just, it's so, I think that everybody wants to believe on the left that, and this is bizarre to me, everybody on the left wants to believe if you just be a little nicer to the thug, the murderer, the dictator, the person that abuses his entire country, then maybe they'll like us more.
That's what it is.
As people, we could be nice to it, huh?
Well, listen, I just don't believe in sucking up to the world's dictators that threaten to destroy us.
And that's North Korea, and that's Iran today.
I think our vice president was being very respectful for sitting there with her.
Yeah, well, I don't.
I think the media.
Listen, I think the vice president's there to honor our athletes.
I've tried this weekend to get into the Olympics a little.
I was really proud of that 17-year-old kid that I don't know how, I don't know how they do that snowboarding, twisting and turning and flipping and flopping and don't break their neck.
I'm just thankful to God my kids don't do that because I'd lose my mind.
But they're so good at it.
It's really talent on display.
It's an artistry and sport that I've never seen before.
And I was happy for that 17-year-old kid who won.
But beyond that, I just, I can't get into the, I played hockey.
I mean, maybe I'll watch hockey when it comes on.
That's usually towards the end.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean.
Sandy is in California.
Hey, Sandy, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
Saturday, the New York Times released a story that our intelligence agencies actually paid Russians to get cyber tools back and for dirt on President Trump.
They paid $100,000 to these guys for a down payment for a $1 million payment and then discovered that they had been fooled by the Russians, kind of like the comedians did to Schiff.
And to me, it's just further evidence that President Trump was targeted by these different organizations like the NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, you know, belonging to Trump.
They weaponized their intelligence.
And to me, it's just, you know, Trump has been vindicated.
The Nunes memo revealing to me that McCabe admitted that without that dossier paid by Clinton and the DNC, they would have never got that FISA warrant.
And I just think the whole thing should stop.
And I'm surprised that so-called intelligence people are fooled by these Russians.
And it looks to me more like if they interfered, they interfered because our intelligence agencies were so biased against Trump that they were willing to pay for foolish stuff, stuff that didn't even exist.
Yeah.
Look, it's really sad to me that, you know, we have wasted a whole year being lied to.
You've watched an effort by high-ranking people, justice and the FBI and others, literally doing all they can to preserve Hillary in a presidential election race, literally save her from being indicted, putting the fix in and rigging it, and then it gets worse than that.
Then they take Russian lies and then they take lies from Clinton cronies and then they put it in a dossier.
And then the dossier is used to get a FISA warrant to spy on an opposition campaign in an election year and then spy on an incoming president and then create a phony narrative because they lose that it's all about Russia.
If you want to talk about Russian interference in the election, let's start with the phony Russian dossier Hillary paid for, full of Russian government lies that she paid for.
Then we can look at the Uranium One deal that she signed off on and benefited financially, personally of.
I mean, everybody in the media is so sanctimonious and phony.
I mean, the fact that they're barely on the surface touching it, but they're resisting having to touch it as much as they possibly can because basically all they are is an extension of all things liberal.
And if you ever doubted it, now you know.
Anyway, good call.
We appreciate it.
Back to our phones.
Pam is in Hampton, Virginia.
Hey, Pam, how are you?
Glad you called.
Thanks.
What's going on?
I just wanted to go back to that dossier.
We are, as most of the American public, we are tired of hearing about it.
And every time the Democrats try to go back to it, it proves something more on them.
And they don't realize how foolish they are really truly beginning to look to everyone.
They'll say, what about this?
What about this?
And that fails.
Then they go back to the dossier.
Well, what about the Russian dossier?
And then they'll run to something else.
What about this?
What about this?
And that fails.
And they go back to the dossier.
And the more they go back to it, the more it proves how, A, foolish they are.
And B, that they have nothing on Trump and they need to forget it.
Just drop it.
We're done.
The American public is done with it.
You know, the problem is, is if we, let's say we allow everything that I've discussed to go by and just say, oh, for the sake of the country, just put it aside.
Rigging primaries, rigging, we don't have equal justice under the law, rigging investigations, calling them matters, you know, exonerations before investigations, allowing, you know, a FISA court to be manipulated at the level they were manipulated for political reasons.
And that's all designed to influence a presidential election and may very well have.
It's a little scary.
It's disgusting and scary.
Yeah, you're right.
Michelle is in Lafayette, Colorado, next Sean Hannity Show.
How are you?
Hi, Sean.
How are you?
I'm good.
What's happening?
I was, well, I made every attempt to watch MSNBC and CNN this week just to get their side of things.
And I thought I was watching a special on ADD when I was watching Chris Matthews, but then I realized it was actually a news show.
And then I realized I might be in the Twilight Zone because there's no mention that the DOJ or any of the Democrats didn't want the Republican memo released or their Democrat memo released.
But Trump's, you know, protecting us, protecting our country, making sure it's secure to release the Democrat memo, and it's treason, you know?
Well, look, I mean, the Democratic, I want to see the Democrats' memo.
I even wanted to see the unredacted.
The only problem is you can't reveal sources and methods.
So what they did, they thought they were being really clever and cute.
And so they send things over to the White House that they know that the president can't sign off on.
President says, okay, nice try, nice trick.
Let's hand it to the FBI and they'll decide if it can go through, which I think he also did with the Republican memo as well.
Look, these are troubling times.
I mean, the fact that people are so arrogant, they think they know better who should get arrested.
They think they know better that they're not going to apply the law equally.
They think they know better who should be the president of the United States.
You know, the amount of corruption here and abuse of power is worse than anything I've ever seen in my life.
And the mainstream media, well, they're their willing accomplices the entire way.
They just, they dove right in headfirst to help and assist any way possible here.
Jose is in Miami, W-I-O-D.
What's up, Jose?
Hello, Sean.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thinking out loud here, when is Jeff Sessions going to do something or anything as far as appointing a special counsel to investigate everything that you've been talking about?
I don't know.
I frankly don't understand it.
I know that I have been assured by my sources within the Justice Department and elsewhere that there are ongoing investigations.
For example, Uranium One, we know there's an investigation into that.
A few weeks back, there was even an indictment in that case.
So that's moving forward.
And we know last week that the informant spoke before three congressional committees.
So that's moving forward.
As it relates to investigating the investigators, I don't know what it's going to take.
But to me and to many others, it should have a special counsel.
Oh, I agree.
But why isn't that not getting more traction in the mainstream media?
I mean, forget, they have no pretense of objectivity anymore.
They just are not covering the facts as they develop.
It's very frustrating.
Well, it is frustrating.
I mean, you know, you've got to understand here, there is, you know, when you especially compare and contrast all that's been done against Donald Trump and against the Republican Party and all the corruption, all the abuse of power combined.
And then this would be a slam dunk for a special counsel probably in just six months.
And I think they could get to the bottom of it.
Now, I'm hoping we get a whiff of some truth through the Inspector General Horowitz's report on the Clinton email server investigation.
And if it comes in the way it should, knowing the facts as I know them, it will literally take the media's breath away and will be proven right again.
And I'm hoping that happens.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right.
Big investigation, Deep State Gate and the Deep State paying for dirt on Trump.
Even the New York Times is reporting on this.
And the Democrats setting this fake memo trap.
We'll have the latest on that.
Also, we'll have the latest on how the media is just obsessed with Kim Jong-un's sister.
What did they forget?
All those rockets over Japan?
The latest on Obama-era surveillance abuses.
And tonight we'll have much more.
Nine Eastern, Hannity, set you DBR news you won't get elsewhere on the Fox News channel.
