Sean Hannity Show - Fed Surplus - 2.13

Feb. 13, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:33:17

Fed Surplus - 2.13

Sean reacts to the news that the United States has a $49 Billion surplus for the month of January. While there is still projections for deficit spending, this news could be a sign that President Trump's tax cuts are beginning to work as expected. Stay tuned! 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.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
	If you want to be a part of this extravaganza, where is this?
	According to the latest zombie poll, a landslide majority of people on the left now say that they are ashamed of America.
	Wow.
	52% of all voters say they're proud of the United States, while a third say they're ashamed.
	15% are not sure how they feel.
	All right.
	Whopping 55% of liberals say they're ashamed of America.
	Well, just 35% were proud of America.
	Three-quarters of Republicans are proud of the United States.
	Only 16% ashamed, 40% of Democrats.
	I'm sure this is all tied to Donald Trump and hating Trump and Trump obsession, et cetera, et cetera.
	That's what I'm thinking it's all about.
	And I get it.
	I understand it.
	Those people just cannot get over the fact.
	And there are a lot of them, even on the Republican side, they just can't get over the fact that Donald Trump won.
	They can't.
	A lot of news today I want to get into.
	There's some great, great, good columns out there that we're going to be delving into here, not the least of which is, you know, I read this on the air yesterday, and the more I've had time to think about it, the more I realize just how profound this is.
	So you have Senator Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham questioning and sending a list of questions.
	I read them yesterday.
	I won't do it today.
	For the former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding what they are flagging as an unusual email that she sent to herself.
	And it was sent on Trump's inauguration day, just literally minutes before she departed the White House for the last time.
	And we have Grassley's, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.
	They release a statement and the letter they wrote to Rice outlining the concerns of their email, her email as it relates to the senators or the Senate's probe into Russian interference 2016.
	Now, they both say they received the email in question as a result of a request to the National Archives for records of meetings between Obama and then FBI Director James Comey.
	And the email that Rice sent to herself was January 20th, 2017.
	Now, Donald J. Trump was sworn into office just after noon.
	She sent this to herself at 12.15.
	And it seems to document a meeting that she had just attended with then President Obama, FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates two weeks before on January 5th.
	So they're talking about a January 5th meeting.
	And Rice's note reads as follows.
	On January 5th, again, but she's writing it 11, well, no, 15 days later, just as she's leaving the White House for the last time.
	On January 5th, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election, Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with the FBI Director Jim Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in 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.
	And President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities by the book.
	Why would she say that?
	Now, the president stressed that he is 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.
	From a national security perspective, however, Obama said he wants to be sure as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
	Now, a portion of the email remains classified.
	The correspondence continues, reading, the president asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we should share classified information with the incoming team.
	Remember, they made those rules changes just as they were going out the door.
	I wonder if that's impacting this in any way.
	Thought to self, and maybe I'll send myself an email.
	And Grassley and Graham said in their statement that they found it odd that Rice felt it was necessary to send to herself.
	Yeah, it is odd.
	That is the quintessential CYA.
	Such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation with then-President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump-Russia investigation in her final hours as a member of the Obama administration.
	Now, Grassley and Graham suggest that despite Rice's claim that Obama had told Comey to proceed, quote, by the book, a lot of questions now have arisen about the conduct of FBI officials, the DOJ, the State Department in the course of the investigation.
	Why would she feel the need to do this?
	And Grassley and Graham sent Rice a list of questions.
	It's going to be interesting to see where that goes.
	And it's going to be interesting to see if anything else is written about what happened on January 5th.
	This is getting very, this is getting more odd and more strange by the moment.
	I got to tell you.
	Now, we have now, this is another interesting point.
	This is in the political.
	So two weeks before he leaves office, Obama's telling senior members of the administration that he wanted to keep then-President-elect Trump's transition team in the dark about details of the FBI's RussiaGate investigation.
	That kind of contradicts what Rice is writing herself, that he didn't want to get involved in anything involving law enforcement with this.
	Anyway, that would maximize the Bureau's ability to gather evidence that could lead to the prosecution of top Trump aides and even Trump himself.
	You're beginning to think a trap is set here, don't you?
	Anyway, former President Obama suggested in January of 2017 that information related to a federal probe of Russia election interference might have to be withheld from aides to then President-elect Donald Trump, according to an internal White House email released Monday by these two GOP senators.
	And the warning Obama delivered was on January 5th.
	This is the conversation that Rice is now chronicling on the moment before she leaves office.
	She must feel very sensitive about it.
	And the president stressed he's not asking about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.
	From a national security perspective, Obama said he wants to be sure as they engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there's any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
	That's kind of unclear what the officials might have said in response that Grassley Graham are saying here that part of this is classified, but the passage after that states that Obama asked Comey to let him know if anything changes.
	Well, he's not the president.
	Well, why would Comey tell him after he left office?
	Now, in this press release, last week, remember we learned that the FBI lovebirds, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, had prepped then FBI Director Comey on details of their Russia Gate investigation, with Strzok telling Page that the president, quote, wants to know everything we're doing.
	And yesterday we found out that Comey's last briefing with Obama included this notorious Christopher Steele golden showers dossier.
	And that revelation was included by this letter sent by Grassley and Graham to Susan Rice.
	I don't know.
	There's something here that I can't put my hand on yet, put my finger on.
	But I'm looking, it's all happening in a very, very just little bits and pieces.
	Some of you have complained.
	My good friend Michael Myers will write me occasionally.
	When do we get to the end zone?
	When do we find?
	I said, well, you're unpeeling layers of an onion.
	It doesn't happen overnight.
	Now this raises serious questions about what happened at that January 5th meeting and who knew what, when, and where, and what did they know and when did they know it?
	I was watching some of the testimony today by the FBI director and the CIA director and a bunch of others before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	And Christopher Ray is going to testify before them as the growing conflicts between the White House, but they're going into closed session and they kept saying over and over again, that's probably something we'll speak of later.
	We'll probably talk about that later.
	We'll probably talk more later, which is a little bit frustrating if you actually want answers now.
	Byron York is going to join us today, and he points out that sources for Comey's Flynn exoneration were Peter King and Trey Gowdy.
	So we now can corroborate his bombshell report that he'll explain later in the program that the disgraced FBI director James Comey told Congress behind closed doors that he didn't think General Flynn had lied and that others in the FBI didn't think he lied.
	Well, then it raises the question: why would General Flynn ever plead guilty to lying to the FBI, which is a crime?
	I mean, that's the most fascinating thing.
	Why ever would he do that?
	Is this a case where there was a threat of prosecution of his family?
	You know, there had to be a reason if they didn't think that he had lied there.
	So I want to find out what that's all about.
	There's a great piece by Rowan Scarborough today in the Washington Times, and it's the dossier's 10 core collusion accusations remaining unverified 20 months later.
	You know, we forget about, you know, what's in the dossier for crying out loud.
	We just know that it's unverified and salacious and full of lies.
	And he actually took the time to go through all of this.
	And he, you know, when you look at the whole dossier and how that became the predicate for a warrant and the foundation for a warrant, and they didn't tell the FISA court judge that it was bought and paid for by the opposition political campaign.
	They didn't tell the FISA court judge that it was not verified.
	You know, for the ongoing special counsel into the Trump-Russia election coordination, it's helpful to separate what counts because I don't think without any dossier, you ever have a Robert Mueller here.
	But it was funded by Hillary and the DNC, and they sent it through the same law firm.
	And it's bad enough that they were going to use those lies, unverified, salacious lies, in part from the Russian government, according to the Grassley Graham memo that came out last week.
	Anyway, the dossier, I think, takes on even more importance.
	Anyway, so they identified 10 core collusion accusations that the Trump campaign launched an extensive conspiracy with the Kremlin to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
	To date, no public verification.
	That Trump, for decades, a developer of tall buildings, maintained an eight-year relationship of give and take with Russian intelligence.
	To date, no public verification.
	That Trump and senior campaign aides actively supported the Russian hacking of the Democratic Party computers to steal and release stolen emails.
	No public verification.
	That Carter Page and campaign manager Paul Manafort personally conspired. with Moscow to hack the Democratic computers.
	When the hacking began in 2015, neither man was associated with the Trump campaign.
	Both denied the charge.
	Page testified under oath that he had never met or spoken with Manafort.
	So we have no public verification on that dossier part.
	Or that Paige, an Annapolis, grad, energy investor and former resident of Moscow, traveled to that city in early July 2016 to deliver a speech at a university.
	Dossier says he met with two top Kremlin operatives that discussed bribes and working to lift economic sanctions.
	Page testified under oath he'd never met or spoken with either of them.
	And he filed libel suits.
	Anyway, bottom line is there's no verification of any of it.
	But that's what was paid for, and that was what was used as the basis for a FISA warrant.
	I never thought in my lifetime.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, a lot of people are asking.
	All right, let me go.
	This is a great question.
	Arnold in Georgia.
	Arnold, how are you?
	Welcome to the program.
	Glad you called.
	Listen, my theory, well, this is what happened to me.
	The government can keep you going as long as they want to until you're completely broke, whether you're guilty or not.
	And I've been in that position.
	I know you're talking about they have endless streams of money.
	They have an endless supply of money, and they can always postpone your court date.
	Listen, I know people that have been literally sent into bankruptcy because of lawsuits, legal actions against them, whatever.
	I mean, and it does raise actually a fair question.
	Is there a two-tier justice system between those that can afford the expensive lawyers and those that can't?
	Well, there definitely is.
	I had come into bankruptcy thinking, if I'm not guilty, I have nothing to lose and everything will come back.
	But it doesn't work that way.
	Well, I've seen this happen in numerous instances, what you're describing.
	And so in other words, all right, you mean I'll get away with this is it.
	I'll make it go away.
	Yeah, people do that all the time.
	You know, people get sued all the time and they give in to lawsuits that way.
	How much?
	All right, it's 100 grand versus a half a million dollars, you know, 10 years later and all the aggravation that goes with it.
	In my case, it was a case of losing part of my life, you know, being sent away.
	You'll never no matter what.
	So you didn't have the money for attorneys, you know?
	I didn't.
	I had some money for the attorneys, and I got some from my parents also.
	And I was a highly paid, you know, agent for as far as government work, but there's just nothing that you can do about it.
	And it was the same as General Flynn.
	I don't know what the reasons are.
	I'm not sure if I suspect something else is behind the General Flynn thing.
	Well, if they don't, if it's not necessarily General Flynn that they wanted, it could be someone else that, like in my case, they wanted someone else.
	And I wasn't going to say anything about it.
	I mean, even though they weren't guilty either, you don't want to involve them because it's just be going around in circles.
	Yeah.
	Look, assuming you're innocent, I'm sorry you had to deal with all that.
	I don't know what it is, but I will tell you this.
	We've had a year worth of media that's hysterical and unhinged and conspiracy theories one after another and no evidence at all.
	But we have evidence in the issues we've been covering and a lot of it.
	We'll continue on the other side.
	Information download.
	Sean Hannity and the breaking news you might have missed today.
	It's Sean's insider information.
	Hannity is on right now.
	All right, 25 now, till the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	There's a lot of news out there.
	So much like happening all at one time.
	It's pretty amazing.
	You know, as I read the news every day, I'm wondering, at what point is this all like information overload for people and that it gets to be too much and people can't understand that there's different things going on.
	For example, you've got a bombshell email here with Susan Rice suggesting Comey may have misled Congress about meetings with Obama and Russian hacking.
	That's to add to every other detail that we've given you.
	Then you got Comey, the FBI agents didn't think Flynn lied.
	Then we start asking, well, why did Flynn agree to a plea deal that said that he lied to the FBI?
	Then we're not even talking about, I think, the main crux of that, which is, all right, he was supposedly talking to his soon-to-be counterpart because he was going to be the NSA director.
	And that would be a normal process for any incoming person in that position.
	And then, of course, the intelligence community, they did nothing wrong by picking up Russia is a hostile state against the United States, so they picked up the phone call.
	But then the normal practices of minimization of an American that they weren't practiced in that particular case.
	They didn't minimize, they didn't, then they unmasked Michael Flynn, and then they leaked raw intelligence.
	Then they had a full transcript of everything that was said, and they go in and they interview him.
	Well, that's like a perjury trap with illegally obtained information.
	And then I don't know why Michael Flynn, General Flynn, went along with that.
	And I suspect they said, well, we'll probably go after you and your family and your businesses for the last 20 years and either take this deal, it's the best deal you're going to get or forget it.
	And that happens too.
	Susan Rice memo implicating Obama, he said to do it by the book.
	That is the strangest email.
	Note to self, we did nothing wrong.
	Note to self, we are following by the book.
	That's pretty odd.
	It's one of the more bizarre things I've actually ever heard.
	Now we have Joe DeGenova out there.
	He's talking about the FISA memo.
	He said, we're going to see the Democratic memo.
	It's going to be heavily edited by the FBI and the Department of Justice and the CIA.
	And he said the most important part of the story is that Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray wrote a letter to the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that they could not agree to the publication of the ship memo because it contained national security and law enforcement concerns.
	Now, if you listen to the media, they're telling you, oh, no, President Trump is the one that said no to this.
	No, it actually wasn't President Trump.
	It was the FBI and the Department of Justice saying no to releasing the memo.
	And the most important part of that letter is when it says law enforcement concerns.
	Well, that means that there's a criminal investigation underway and release of some information in the memo by Schiff, you know, in some capacity would impact some investigation.
	I wonder who they're investigating.
	The answer is pretty clear because they're investigating the people at the FBI and the DOJ who provided false information to the FISA court over a number of years here.
	Four separate times.
	Every 90 days, you've got to redo this warrant.
	Four separate times.
	We got a story out today.
	BuzzFeed, if you remember, has apparently working with others.
	Remember, they released the dossier contents.
	Great piece, as I mentioned in the last half hour by Rowan Scarborough.
	None of it verified.
	Zip, none of it.
	But apparently, there's been six months of secret mission to corroborate various claims in the Trump-Russia dossier that was assembled by Christopher Steele.
	So that's going to be interesting to watch others now try and corroborate.
	I think they're still looking for videos of hookers in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, urinating on a bed.
	Cody Shearer, there's a report on Breitbart today, is scouring Europe for the fabled Trump peepee tape.
	I didn't make that up.
	It says Cody Shearer, shadowy, former tabloid journalist, long been closely associated with various Clinton scandals, traveling across Europe for more than six months in an effort to secure purported evidence of compromising material possessed by the Russians related to President Donald Trump.
	I guess the next thing we're going to have is photoshopped pictures of Donald Trump.
	Ah, see, there it is.
	It's kind of like the tax returns.
	We found them.
	Anyway, so apparently they're still looking for them.
	And then, of course, we have the issue of Sid Blumenthal.
	What was his role in all of this?
	You know, now that we have one admission that a Clinton associate, Jonathan Wiener, is an op-ed that he published last week in the Washington Post.
	Top State Department official served under former President Obama administration, publicly confirming he passed on information from Clinton operatives to the British spy Christopher Steele.
	That was put in the dossier that got the FISA warrant.
	Anyway, he's a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement.
	He wrote that he had a friendly relationship with Steele.
	And then he goes on to say that, you know, Steele's dossier had all this information and so many sensational claims.
	But anyway, more importantly, Fox News reports that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and the DNC retained Fusion GPS through that D.C. law firm's Perkins Cooeys, I think is what it is called.
	They paid this law firm upwards of maybe $12 million.
	It's unclear exactly how much money went to the dossier.
	And anyway, Weiner writes in this op-ed in the post that he served in the State Department in the 90s before leaving for private practice.
	He met Steele.
	They became friends in 2009.
	And in 2013, when Weiner returned to the State Department, he wrote that he began passing on more than 100 of Steele's reports or passing them on with Russian experts at the State Department over a two-year span.
	Pretty interesting.
	And then he also said he met with Steele in the summer of 2016 to review the information contained in the Trump dossier so he could alert the State Department.
	And then he prepared a two-page summary after reviewing the dossier.
	And then he shared it with Victoria Newland, who's a State Department diplomat.
	And she directed him to share it with then Secretary of State John Kerry.
	And it gets more disturbing because around the same time, Weiner said he connected with his old friend Sidney Vicious Blumenthal, who's a longtime Clinton operative.
	And he wrote that he and Blumenthal discussed Steele's report, and the Clinton operative gave him notes from a journalist he didn't know.
	And Weiner was referring to Cody Shearer, the longtime Clinton ally who was never a journalist, but rather someone deeply connected to doing Clinton's dirty work behind the scenes.
	Weekly Standard described him as one of Hillary Clinton's sketchiest supporters.
	That was in the Conservative Tribune.
	Anyway, Shearer's second dossier contained many of the exact same claims as Steele's dossier.
	So it wasn't a surprise.
	So they're basically, it's all coming from the same sources.
	Some of this information was funneled to Steele by Clinton operatives.
	He just throws it in there.
	What does he care if he verifies it or not?
	He's getting paid a lot of money.
	But what we're seeing, as Monica Crowley wrote yesterday in the Hill, is a federal abuse on Obama's watch.
	And I think when we get to the bottom of it, it is unprecedented and then add Susan Rice and that component to it in this bizarre email to self: we're great.
	We're doing it by the book, self.
	Just unbelievable.
	Tell you the biggest outrage of the week, though, all these media outlets that literally are trying to romanticize North Korea.
	Wouldn't that get to bother you at some point?
	I don't know what it is about the left and how they just think that if we're just nicer to them, they're going to be nicer to us.
	I've never understood that.
	So you have the opening ceremony in South Korea on Friday night.
	The media echo chamber goes into full gear, heaping praise on Kim Jong-un's sister.
	Athletes from the North and South Korea marching on the same team, waving reunification flags.
	More history, just a few seats away.
	Kim Jong-un's sister, right there, behind the vice president.
	She's on hand for the Olympics as well.
	In a historic moment, South Korean President Moon Jae-in shook the hand of Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
	The sister of Kim Jong-un shook hands warmly with the South Korean president in the VIP box at the Olympic opening ceremonies.
	But North Korea is stealing much of the limelight.
	Kim Jong-un's sister landed at Incheon Airport earlier today.
	Three days of the world's media running after the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
	And still, we know very little about the woman who has stolen the headlines at the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics.
	How about we know this, you know, to the Ivanka Trump of North Korea, as they were describing her, and all these other accolades thrown her way.
	I'm stunned by what happened.
	CNN was the worst of all of them.
	Kim Jong-un's sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics.
	She didn't say anything.
	New York Times even acknowledged that without a word, only flashing smiles, Kim Jong-un's sister outflanked Vice President Mike Pence in diplomacy.
	The Ivanka Trump, the Washington Post says, of North Korea.
	And it goes on from there.
	Did anyone in the media point out that she's the minister of propaganda of one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern history?
	I guess they have to know it.
	I assume they know something about what's going on over there because it's not that hard to find out if you do a little research.
	Then they go after the vice president because he didn't shake her hand.
	Okay.
	The woman they're applauding is the official director of propaganda.
	This is a government that has murdered around 400,000 political prisoners in what many have called concentration camps that have been in existence since 1982.
	Between 80 and 120,000 people are still imprisoned in those camps.
	That includes men, women, and children.
	2014 U.N. report, over 200,000 people from around the world, they've just simply disappeared in North Korea.
	But she has a nice smile.
	And don't forget that three Americans are currently being held hostage in the rogue state.
	We forget that part.
	Or that Kim Jong-un and his regime are also responsible for the recent death of American Otto Warnbier.
	He was imprisoned.
	He was sentenced to hard labor.
	Why?
	For allegedly stealing a poster.
	And on top of that, if you look at North Korea while they're firing their missiles over Japan and threatening the continental United States and Guam, well, they're currently starving the people.
	Roughly 30% of the population is starving in that state.
	All while the little despot, Kim Jong-un, lives a life of luxury and his sister enjoys a prime seat at the opening games of this year's Winter Olympics.
	Anyway, in the mainstream media praising them, it's pretty disgraceful.
	And this is where I get into this whole issue about I don't understand the mindset of the left in this country.
	I don't understand anybody that could actually make an argument that it was a good idea to give this guy's father $3 billion in energy, and we just got to promise that he's never going to build nuclear weapons.
	We'll verify all of this, but the verification never happens.
	And here we are years later, and he's got nukes.
	Now he's building intercontinental ballistic missiles.
	And now he's talking about taking out American cities.
	And then he's firing and test-firing missiles over Japan and near Guam.
	And then, but everybody wants to suck up to his sister.
	And then $1.7 billion in cash by Obama to Iran.
	The same mullahs who have been chanting death to America, burning American and Israeli flags, and death to Israel.
	It's unbelievable.
	You know, if you're finding out who would ever think it's a good idea, well, if we give you $1.7 billion, you've got to promise us that you're not going to build nuclear weapons.
	We can't tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
	But there's a mindset that thinks that I assume they think that that's going to work.
	Naively believe so.
	I assume that Neville Chamberlain believed that he really had peace in his time.
	Through the prism of history, it looked pretty stupid.
	But I guess at the time he thought that, yeah, I really have negotiated a peace for our people.
	It didn't work out that way.
	I did not like the new Churchill movie, by the way, for a lot of reasons.
	I did watch it.
	And I've read a lot about Winston Churchill.
	I love him as a historical figure.
	Biggest problem is they want to portray him in the worst possible light.
	All right, Jay Sekulo at the top of the hour.
	We'll get the latest with him.
	Also, we'll be checking in with Byron York.
	You know, even Trump hater Peter Strzok didn't think that General Flynn lied.
	Unbelievable.
	If anybody's out there can't see through the media obsession with some issues, I mean, just watch some of your local cable shows.
	It is so bad out there in terms of what they don't report, what they should report, what they stay away from reporting, how wrong they report, and how conspiratorial they are, and what an extension they are of all things liberal.
	You just can see it like it's, I don't know, plain as the nose on your face.
	It's so obvious.
	All right, got to take a break.
	We'll check in with Jay Seculo.
	Later on, we will have much more on the news of the day, and we'll get a lot of your calls in.
	800-941-Sean, a toll-free telephone number.
	About an hour before the president-elect was sworn in as president, Susan Rice, the outgoing national security advisor, sends an email to herself documenting President Obama's concern and guidance regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the Steele dossier, according to Graham and Grassley, and information with the Trump's incoming team from a meeting that took place on January 5th, 2017.
	Now, the January 5th date's interesting because the very next day, and James Comey was there, the very next day, James Comey meets with the president-elect and talks about the steel dossier, among other things.
	And the day before Susan Rice writes the email is the renewal date for the FISA warrant against Carter Page.
	Here's the problem: the problem is nobody knows what this was.
	I mean, at the end of the day, the only person that knows what she was doing on this is Susan Rice.
	So, she's going to have to give an account for that.
	But, folks, I mean, look at the facts.
	You always tell law students, get familiar with the facts, understand the timelines.
	And there are multiple intersectioning timelines on this inter where they come into an intersection, whether it's the FISA warrant, whether it is the interview, whether it's this meeting, whether it's then the meeting with the president-elect and James Comey, whether it's the change of the executive order and how they distribute intelligence information.
	I want to get all this would be a fascinating study in, say, November through February of 2016, 2017.
	What took place?
	I want to know what happened.
	I want to know what happened.
	Hour two, Sean Hannity show, 800-941.
	Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	That was Jay Seculo.
	Why don't you explain this in more detail, exactly what you're saying?
	So, Sean, here's the thing I think that's important for people to understand.
	So, this meeting takes place on January 5th, right?
	So, they already had the first series of FISA warrants.
	Understand, though, that two of the five signatures on those FISA warrant applications are at this meeting.
	So, that includes, of course, it includes James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
	So, they have this meeting on January 5th to brief the president on the Russian investigation.
	And Susan Wright in this email that she does two and a half weeks after that event says the president wanted to make sure the law was being filed, but also was concerned about what we should or should not share with the incoming administration.
	But remember this: on January 5th, they have this meeting with President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Vice President Biden, and Susan Rice.
	The very next day, James Comey flies up to New York, meets with Donald Trump, the president-elect, and reviews with him intelligence matters and briefs him on the steele dossier.
	So, what Grassley and Graham have asked for, which makes sense here, is why in the world would you literally, as the new president is being sworn in and the inaugural festivities are well underway, parade's done.
	You're getting ready for the swearing in.
	Why in the world would you do this memo in the last moment of the last day as your last act?
	And there's only one reason.
	You're covering for something that either somebody was at the meeting they were concerned would leak, I don't know, James Comey's leaked, or somebody saw them at this meeting, or they were trying to cover their tracks.
	We don't know.
	I don't know.
	But it's just if you look at the way the facts lay out, including the fact that this memo comes the day after the FISA warrant was renewed by the FISA court.
	So, this just raises a whole-I mean, I think what Grassley and Graham have said is right.
	It's odd, and pretty much, yeah, you know, like odd and unusual is the words they use.
	To me, it's just a CYA.
	It's a CYA, but it makes absolutely no sense.
	Is she doing this at the behest of Obama?
	Does this now bring Obama into it?
	In other words, what did he know about the FISA?
	What did he know about all of this with the dossier, et cetera?
	Well, look, what she says in the email.
	Now, part of it's redacted, of course, so we don't know all of it, but it says President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities, quote, by the book.
	The president stressed that he's not asking about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective, reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
	And then the president said that he wants to be sure that as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
	In other words, are we not going to tell the incoming administration information we have about Russia?
	That's what he's saying there.
	I mean, that's what she's saying that the president of the United States then, President Obama, said.
	That tells you a whole host story.
	This is the incoming president of the United States.
	And we're going to withhold information from him.
	Yep, he's the president-elect.
	Where do you think?
	How do we get to the bottom of what it actually means?
	I mean, does this now open up an area of investigation into other emails that were sent back and forth, text messages?
	Do we now have to wait another year to get information from Susan Rice and others that might have been involved?
	And did Comey lie when Comey said that he'd only met with the president on X occasions, not mentioning this one?
	I don't know what Comey did or did not do.
	This is what I do know: that Congress has asked Susan Rice a series of questions that they want an answer to.
	I think the date is February 22nd.
	They want a response in writing to these series of questions because, as Grassley and Graham said, this is unusual, to say the least, odd.
	And we do know, and again, I think it's worth stressing, Sean, two of the five participants were people that signed off on the FISA warrants, which isn't unusual in and of itself considering that they were the FBI director and then the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
	But there they were.
	And they're in the Oval Office for this meeting.
	And why is it that Susan Rice waited over two weeks to put this in writing to memorialize this?
	So you're right.
	It is, it is a sense it's to cover their tracks.
	I don't know exactly what the tracks they're trying to cover are.
	And I think that's where Congress, through its oversight, needs to move and move swiftly.
	And it looks like they are.
	I want to talk a little bit about the two memos that came out: the Nunes memo, then the Grassley Graham memo, and the Grassley Graham memo that was the unredacted version, which I think was very, very revealing.
	Because at the end of the day, I won't bore the audience with giving the full history here, but James Comey and Peter Strzok writing the exoneration of Hillary on the email server scandal months before they interview her and 17 other key people.
	That to me is pretty unbelievable.
	I've never heard of an investigation working that way.
	This is after, of course, she pretty much stole or the primary against Bernie was rigged.
	All right.
	So she's funneling money through her campaign through a law firm as the DNC that Donna Brazil says she was controlling the money of, meaning Hillary, through the same law firm.
	They pay for a Russian dossier full of salacious information.
	And we're even told in the Grassley Graham memo that it's Russian government information.
	But put that aside.
	All right, so it's bad enough she's going to pay for information.
	Nobody verified it.
	Fusion GPS didn't verify it.
	The Clinton campaign didn't verify it.
	Nobody apparently verified it.
	But then it gets worse.
	Then the Grassley Graham memo goes on to say that the bulk of evidence presented to acquire or the FISA warrant against Carter Page was the dossier.
	Nobody had verified the dossier.
	Then we find out the unverified dossier.
	By the way, even James Comey said to Donald Trump, this is in October, they're issuing the warrant, but he said in January it was still unverified and salacious.
	And salacious, right.
	Right.
	So that's three months earlier now.
	He's apparently part of a group presenting it to a FISA court to get a warrant.
	And the only thing we get is a footnote that says maybe political in nature when everybody knew Clinton bought and paid for it.
	Yeah, well, I thought what Michael Lisigoff said was also interesting, that they based his statement, the press account was also in the application, evidently.
	And he said, well, I just based that off the Steele dossier.
	So it was evidence verifying its own evidence.
	I mean, it was the same, they were using the same information to verify the same information.
	So it was circular in nature.
	I mean, I think if I was the FISA judge, I wouldn't be too happy about any of this.
	And when you look at what has taken place here, I think that, and I think this is where the questions lie, is I don't think there's any question that absent the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant even sought.
	I mean, that's according to on the Nunez memo, that's according to what is going to be, was in the transcripts from the testimony from Ron Rosenstein.
	Now, here's what's interesting: you have the Adam Schiff memo, the Democratic response memo, which has gone back to the Senate House Democrats to work with the FBI to get it redacted the way it so it won't give up sources and methods.
	And Schiff was very quick to say they'll do that.
	I think they were trying to kind of one step away or two step out two-step the president.
	I think he outstepped them by just sending it back.
	They were hoping he would send it back, either not send it back or send it back redacted.
	And I think what they did instead, which I think was the smarter and more appropriate process, is here it is back to you.
	You get this cleared with the FBI and work it out.
	And you saw a very mild Adam Schiff in response to that.
	A very mild Adam Schiff in response to that.
	But look, I don't think there's going to be anything.
	I mean, I haven't seen it, so I don't know.
	But I will tell you this.
	I am working right now on putting together a complete timeline of everything, Sean, that took place.
	And it's not over that long of a period of time.
	It's probably going to be four months.
	And I think when you see it in a timeline, it's going to be breathtaking.
	Explain the timeline.
	Explain the timeline.
	Our audience is following this closely.
	Yeah.
	So you've got in the summer of 2016, we know they're attempting to get FISA warrants, and they're not successful, right?
	I mean, they make at least two attempts.
	They don't get FISA warrants.
	And that's very rarely where they don't get them, but they didn't get them here.
	They come back in with the dossier.
	They get the FISA warrant on the dossier.
	Then they have the interviews.
	You had the interviews with General Flynn, with the FBI.
	That's all taking place in this period of time.
	Now we have the meeting, right?
	They have a meeting on January 5th that we now know about with two of the five signatures on the FISA warrant.
	They're briefing the President of the United States, President Obama.
	The next day, what happens?
	The president-elect gets briefed by, in this particular case, James Comey, the FBI director, and the dossier is brought up, and he said it's unverified and salacious, and you're not under investigation.
	Then the FBI comes back in and interviews General Flynn again.
	And there's evidence now that the FBI did not think he was not telling the truth.
	They just think he was confused.
	That's according to James Comey's own testimony.
	So this is all happening within months.
	I mean, you got all of this happening a month.
	Then don't forget the executive order that was changed the year before, right at the end of the term.
	So you've got all of these end-of-the-term stuff happening, and there's really no great explanation for any of it.
	Then how do we get to the point where a special counsel is appointed in this whole thing?
	And where are we in that whole mess?
	Well, there's a, you know, here's how it works.
	So the Attorney General is supposed to make an evaluation of whether this investigation can be done internally or needs a special counsel.
	I said when you add, now, if you want to continue the timeline out, during that same summer of 2016, you also had the Fusion GPS matter with the Steele dossier.
	You had the number four at the Justice Department, Bruce Orr's wife, working for Fusion GPS, assigned specifically to the Russian dossier to work with Steele.
	He's meeting with them, by the way.
	Orr is meeting with Steele.
	Steele becomes the basis of the, his dossier becomes the basis of the warrant.
	Then he leaks it to the press.
	The FBI says they pull back their formal relationship with him, although Bruce Orr is still meeting and talking with him.
	Whose wife is working for Fusion GPS?
	So this is a shell game they played here.
	They just kind of moving the, it's almost like, remember the game, Whack, you hit them all.
	Yeah, you hit one and then up pops another?
	This is what it is.
	You kind of hit one here, and boom, another one comes up.
	So I think what you have to do, what I'm going to do, is put together a full timeline on this to get an understanding.
	All right, so you've got to make this timeline out.
	I wouldn't mind putting it on TV, number one.
	Number two, I think it is an important timeline.
	But number three, how dangerous is it?
	You know, two things have happened here.
	We've spent over a year with no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
	And every media outlet breathlessly, hysterically reporting this again and again and again and again, okay?
	Then we've got instances where Hillary did pay for Russian lies about an opposition candidate.
	And then it gets worse because that was used as the bulk of information to acquire a FISA warrant against an opposition party candidate, against one of his members.
	And then that was used to also spy on an incoming administration.
	Now, to me, when you put all this together and then you add in there the, you know, strzok and page texts and the fact that Andrew McCabe is involved and then the exoneration before investigation, it seems like everything was fixed just for this.
	How do you ever straighten out that if we have elections in this country where bought and paid for Russian lies don't raise enough eyebrows for people, we're in trouble.
	Well, look, I mean, you hit the kind of the nail on the head there.
	And the fact of the matter is nobody knows, none of us know the full nature and scope of what's going on here.
	I mean, there are individuals that, and they may, by the way, some of these government officials may not know the ins and outs of everything that's involved here.
	But I think what has to happen now is you look at this and try to piece together what is taking place, what is transpiring, you ask yourself, what was the initial impetus, the cause for all of this, and then how did it play out over time?
	You know, we're leaving out the leaking by James Comey of the conversation he had with the president of the United States.
	That's why I'm saying all of this has to now be, I'm going to be meeting about this as soon as we're done, laid out in a comprehensive timeline.
	I mean, just a comprehensive timeline to get a real understanding of exactly what was at play during these critical periods.
	None of us know for sure.
	We have hunches, ideas, but none of us know for sure.
	And look, the fact is we may never know, but it's got enough concern that you got Senator Grassley and Senator Graham, neither one of which are conspiratorial, that are concerned about this.
	Well, I think the fact that these committees now are releasing this information, do we know for sure sources and methods were in the Democratic memo that the FBI sent back?
	It had to be, right?
	Yeah, that's the assumption that there was concern over sources and methods, and that's the basis upon which the White House counsel in reviewing the documents would that be one reason to send it back?
	I haven't seen it, so I don't know, but that's, you know, I'm hearing the same things you're hearing, and that was a concern.
	And Adam Schipp did not seem to deny that when asked on, I think it was ABC This Week or one of the programs, maybe it's Face the Nation.
	He said, no, we'll work with them to get it resolved.
	So he did not push back on that all.
	In fact, you don't hear much about that right now at all.
	I think they realize they've got to do it.
	All right, Jay Secular, we appreciate your time.
	As always, 800-941 Sean, toll free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Also coming up, Byron York, he had a great piece about how James Comey told Congress FBI agents didn't think Michael Flynn lied.
	Well, then why would he ever admit to that?
	Why did we get to that point?
	David Brody has written a book about the faith of Donald Trump.
	We'll hit that today.
	We have a great Hannity tonight at 9 on the Fox News channel.
	We'll continue.
	Let's hit our busy phones here.
	800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	All right, Jennifer's in Louisiana.
	Jennifer, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	What's going on?
	Hey, Sean.
	First, I wanted to tell you thank you for all you do for Truth and for my president.
	Thank you.
	It's our president.
	Yes.
	It's not just yours, you know.
	I know, I know.
	My question is: what can we do collectively as a people to get these people like Orr, Strzok, Paige, off our dime, out of my government?
	I can't believe they're still there.
	I mean, knowing what we know now, they should all have been fired.
	Now, there's a beginning of a purging going on between people being fired, resigning, moved, and demoted.
	And I think it's only the beginning of those things.
	I think there's going to be a lot more of that.
	Right.
	They got to go.
	They got to go.
	Absolutely.
	Offensive that they're on my dime.
	Offensive that I pay these people's salaries.
	Yeah, the fact is that if they have, if you work for the FBI, you're supposed to be about the law, about equal application under the law.
	You know, they're even talking about not only an insurance policy, they're talking about, oh, we don't want to piss off Hillary.
	God forbid she wins.
	I mean, it's just bizarre.
	All right, thank you.
	It should scare you.
	It should.
	And I don't see a lot of civil libertarians out there and liberals out there saying this is not what we want in this country.
	We don't want Russian propaganda bought and paid for, used to get Pfizer warrants.
	By the way, we're not going to tell the judge any of the pertinent information about the lack of veracity in this document nor who paid for this document.
	Back to our phones.
	Thanks, Jennifer.
	Appreciate it.
	John in Massachusetts.
	John, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Sean, how are you?
	So glad to talk to you.
	Longtime listener of both of your shows.
	Yes, sir.
	What's going on?
	I've got a question for you.
	In your opinion, in light of all this new information that's come out over the past few weeks and months, how do you see this Mueller investigation ending or do you?
	It's got to end at some point.
	You know, one of the problems with special counsels is what we call investigative creep.
	You know, look at the case, Patrick Fitzgerald going after, you know, in the Valerie Plain case, he knew on day one who had leaked the information, and it was Richard Armitage.
	Now, he should have just shut down and said, okay, I figured out who the leaker was, and it was Richard Armitage.
	And then they break it all the way down into, you know, putting Scooter Libby, the squeeze on him, day in and day out.
	Give us information about the vice president, Cheney, at the time, and you'll go free, and then we'll go after Dick Cheney.
	I mean, it's an enormous amount of power.
	It's politicizing political or criminalizing political differences, and they seem to have an ending, you know, ability to move into areas that they never were designed to go into.
	And that's the danger of special counsels.
	And with that said, I think we need one to investigate the investigators into this particular case.
	I do believe laws were broken.
	I do believe that crimes were committed here.
	And I think those people involved in them, you know, should pay the price.
	Do you believe Jeff Sessions is doing his diligence?
	You know, it's hard to.
	Look, I don't think he should have ever recused himself, number one.
	And I think none of this happens had Jeff Sessions not recused himself.
	That's number one.
	Number two, he moves too slowly and it seems to be lacking urgency.
	I know he's moved into the Uranium One issue and into some other issues, but I got to tell you, you know, I don't see enough happening.
	And if I was him, I would appoint the special counsel now to investigate the investigators.
	It also takes him out of it.
	And I think there's probably, you know, it sounds like I'm contradicting myself.
	I don't want more special counsels, but things are so bad here.
	I don't think there's any other way to get to the truth on this.
	It's going to be very interesting when we get the Inspector General's report in just a couple of weeks.
	That's going to, I think, open up a lot of people's eyes.
	But I don't think it's ending soon, but I think it's ending.
	Remember, we heard it might end by Thanksgiving, by Christmas, by the new year, by the end of February.
	Maybe they're wrapping it up.
	You know, the big fight now, I guess, is over, you know, whether or not Mueller gets to question Donald Trump.
	And I would say the answer should be an emphatic absolute no.
	I don't think you should have that.
	Henry is in Oklahoma next.
	Henry, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called, and welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Well, hello, Mr. Hannity.
	I just wanted to say thank you for pointing me in the right direction with Enjoy.
	I've been using Enjoy for about 15 years.
	You made the Enjoy Switch.
	I did.
	You know, it's amazing how many people are telling me.
	And if you go to njoy.com slash Hannity, you can do it.
	Look, a lot of people, whether you smoke cigarettes, cigars, whatever you happen to do, people just like to do that.
	And to do it in a way, A, you don't smell, B, they have a team of people to help you, if you're a smoker, to quit smoking.
	And in my personal opinion, I think it's better than what other people have been using in the past.
	And for people that do smoke, I recommend, my personal suggestion is, and you can check with your own doctor and your own self, but I think it's a far better product for you.
	Well, I truly enjoy it.
	No pun intended.
	I truly enjoy it.
	Yes, I got it.
	Yeah, enjoy the switch.
	That's true.
	All right, my friend.
	I just wanted to say thank you and let your other listeners know.
	You know, I've smoked for 40 plus years, and I just put them down almost immediately.
	Look, I saw the impact it had on my parents.
	I wish this product or a product like it existed at the time.
	I really do.
	Let's go to Cannon, Kentucky.
	Ken, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hi, Sean.
	First of all, I'd just like to say from our area of the Cincinnati area, we have a saying for you that you are a great American.
	Well, that means you're listening to my buddy Sean Hannity.
	It's Bill Cunningham.
	You're a great American.
	I want a full report.
	Donald J. Trump is now saving the country.
	And why these liberals want to get him out of office, I don't know.
	Pretty good, right?
	You are correct.
	What I want to say, though, as a retired law enforcement officer, and I proffered many affidavits for search warrants, to see this happening through the Pfizer Corps like it is, when you proffer or construct or you're any part of anything that would offer a fake dossier to the Pfizer court and commit a fraud upon that court, you lose what I call credibility.
	If we were to ever do that, we would go from a police uniform to a different kind of uniform.
	And it wouldn't be a police uniform.
	It would be a prison uniform.
	And that's why I find it hard to believe that these people are still in existence with the FBI and the DOJ like they are.
	I find it hard to believe.
	Well, listen, I find it hard to believe, and it's really sad that this type of thing could happen.
	You know, our founders and framers, they often talk about the size, the scope, the influence of government in this capacity, is that the power would corrupt them.
	And when you have a group of people at the very top that seemingly feel they know what's best, and they're not going to apply the law equally to Hillary, they're going to give her a pass, and they're going to put the fix in.
	And then they're going to go to a FISA court after they've been denied at least once, maybe two times, and try and get a warrant so they can get a sneak peek into what's going on in an opposition party's campaign.
	That's problematic.
	And to use the other candidates' information, not tell the court about it, not verify the salacious information in it, that's bad enough, and do it all because they want to impact an election.
	That's what this comes down to.
	That's why this is so big.
	Watergate, yeah, that was about impacting an election by stealing your opponent's research.
	Okay, a third-rate burglary and then covering it up.
	This is far more sophisticated, far more dangerous, because you're using the powerful tools of intelligence, the powerful tools within the FBI and the DOJ as the mechanism to pull this off.
	One final comment here, Sean, is what I find hard to believe, even beyond that.
	Every night I watch you on television and I see all the events that have taken place through the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
	And I mean, anybody can look up the definition online or wherever Webster's dictionary of organized crime.
	If that isn't organized crime, I've never seen organized crime.
	And to think that the mafia was the largest organization in this country that represented organized crime, well, that would be like child's play compared to the DNC and all the weaponizing they've done within the agencies of our federal government.
	It is a scary thought.
	It's very scary.
	A lot of going on here that's very scary.
	I appreciate the call.
	Thanks so much for being with us.
	All right, let's go to Lady Sim in Calabasas, California.
	How are you?
	Wonderful.
	Hello, my hero, Sean.
	What's going on?
	How are you?
	What an honor for me to speak with you.
	I'm from South Korea, immigrant South Korean.
	And my very own eye, what's going on, the propaganda against South and the America, this evil regime, and using this Olympic to propaganda, massive propaganda.
	Whole thing is a massive propaganda.
	Let me tell you something, Sean.
	I'm listening.
	Go ahead.
	I want to thank to American finest armed forces sacrificed for keeping freedom, my motherland, South Korea, for seven decades.
	You stand by to us.
	We appreciate so much.
	We South Koreans appreciate so much.
	We will never forget you.
	Not only that, Mr. President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, stood up for this evil dictator monster in North Korean Kim Jong-un and free regimes.
	And I am so glad you are elected as our president.
	Thank you so much.
	You guys are doing commending jobs and saving our USA and South Korea and freedom-loving world countries all over the world.
	Thank you so much.
	All right.
	Well, that's very nice of you.
	Listen, we all are blessed by America.
	And I've always said that if America doesn't stand for liberty and freedom and human rights, then who's going to?
	You know, there's a lot of criticisms of this country, but I can't think of a world without the United States and the moral compass we have.
	And that is the country that has accumulated all this power and sacrificed so much of it for others.
	And no country has accumulated that power and abused it less and used it for as much good as we have.
	And that is the American legacy and dream.
	No, we're not perfect.
	I'll be the first to say, no, we're not a perfect country.
	But we have been a country that has used it for good.
	Unfortunately, now we have some cleaning up inside to do first.
	Mr. A, are you aware of a gentleman by the name of Oleg Darapaska?
	I've heard the name.
	Fair to call him a Putin-linked Russian oligarch.
	Well, I'll leave that characterization to others, and certainly not in this setting.
	Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee last week, sent a letter to a London-based lawyer who represents Mr. Deriposka and asked if Christopher Steele was employed either directly or indirectly by Oleg Daraposka at the time he was writing the so-called Steele dossier.
	Do you know if Christopher Steele worked for Oleg Deraposka?
	That's not something I can answer.
	Could we discuss it in a classified setting?
	There might be more we could say there.
	Next is Russia, where President Putin will continue to rely on assertive foreign policies to shape outcomes beyond Russia's borders.
	Putin will resort to more authoritarian tactics to main control amid challenges to his rule.
	With respect to Russian influence efforts, let me be clear.
	The Russians utilize this tool because it's relatively cheap, it's low risk, it offers what they perceive as plausible deniability and has proven to be effective at sowing division.
	We expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false flag personas, sympathetic spokesmen, and other means to influence to try to build on its wide range of operations and exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States.
	There should be no doubt that Russia perceived that its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 U.S. midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.
	An op-ed by a number of former intelligence analysts called the Nunes memo and its release, quote, one of the worst cases of politicization of intelligence in modern American history, end quote.
	You said you had concerns about that memo.
	I know you can't get into the gritty details of that, but can you say in your view whether or not one of those concerns is that it may have selectively cherry-picked information without presenting the entire fact pattern that led up to that FISA warrant application?
	Well, Senator, I would just repeat what we said at the time, which is that we had then and continue to have now grave concerns about the accuracy of the memorandum because of omissions.
	We provided thousands of documents that were very sensitive and lots and lots of briefings, and it's very hard for anybody to distill all that down to three and a half pages.
	All right, so that's the FBI director, Christopher Wray, writing, you know, he's not answering Tom Cotton's question, and that is whether or not Christopher Steele was employed by Russians while writing the bony Russian dossier.
	And then, of course, Ray testifying that, you know, he has grave concerns about the Nunes FISA memo, but I'm assuming that's because they don't want any memo out there because they're the ones being investigated by the House Intel Committee.
	All right, when we come back, great piece by Byron York is out: how Comey and even Strzok told Congress the FBI didn't think that Michael Flynn lied, then why was he charged with that?
	All right, we'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	News Roundup Information Overload is next.
	Coming up next, our final news roundup: an information overload hour.
	And I'm a big believer in the idea that the FBI speaks through its work, through its cases, through the victims it protects.
	And I encourage our folks not to get too hung up on what I consider to be the noise on TV and in social media.
	So you haven't seen any evidence of some sort of inherent political bias in the agency.
	No.
	All right, that was Christopher Wray earlier today and testifying about he's not seeing any bias at the FBI, which I don't believe he even believes that.
	But what is he going to do?
	Yeah, I see a ton of bias at the FBI.
	Let me just come here before the committee and tell everything that I believe is wrong.
	Somebody that I think has been On the outside that's been doing amazing work on all of this is Byron York.
	He joins us now.
	He's with the Washington Examiner.
	He has a great column out, and it's Comey told Congress that FBI agents did not think that Michael Flynn lied.
	Well, then that raises the question about General Michael Flynn, who, quote, admitted to lying to the FBI when they came to his office in January of 2017.
	Why did A, General Flynn go along with that?
	And B, if they thought he didn't lie, why would they make him agree to that?
	Byron York, welcome aboard.
	How are you?
	Hey, Sean, thanks for having me.
	All right.
	So if Comey and the other agents didn't believe he lied, why would Michael Flynn agree to take that plea?
	Well, I think something changed.
	I mean, the timeline here is that, you know, you have to think back to January and February and how crazed everybody was about Russia and Flynn and talking with the Russian ambassador and all of that stuff, talking about sanctions.
	And basically, the FBI goes to interview Flynn on January 24th, the fourth day of the Trump administration, and asks him about these conversations that he, Flynn, has had with the Russian ambassador during the transition, which, by the way, was a perfectly proper thing for an incoming National Security Advisor.
	In other words, he's talking to his counterpart or his soon-to-be counterpart.
	Exactly, exactly.
	And he was getting calls.
	Flynn was getting calls from hundreds of people around the, you know, representatives of foreign governments around the country.
	If Hillary Clinton had won, her incoming National Security Advisor would have been getting calls from hundreds of representatives of foreign governments around the world.
	So anyway, the FBI comes up, well, the Justice Department really comes up with this theory that maybe these conversations that Flynn has had, these entirely normal conversations, violate the Logan Act.
	I'm sure you told your listeners about the Logan Act.
	It's that 200-year-old law that has never, ever been successfully prosecuted.
	Perhaps he violated that.
	Or maybe, maybe that Flynn might be susceptible to blackmail.
	So they went and questioned Flynn.
	Not clear whether they made their intentions clear before they actually questioned him or not.
	He met them without a lawyer.
	Nevertheless, when Congress inquired, wanted to know what was going on, in early March, James Comey goes to Capitol Hill, talks to lawmakers.
	They say, well, what about Michael Flynn?
	Comey says, well, the FBI agents who interviewed him do not think he lied.
	And one of them was Peterstrz.
	One of them was indeed Peterstrze.
	So you go from there, that's in March of last year.
	Go from there to December 1 of last year when Flynn pleads guilty to doing just that, to lying in that particular interview with the FBI.
	And the question is, what changed?
	And I have to tell you, I don't really know the answer.
	I don't lay out the answer in the story because I don't know, but I do know.
	I have a theory.
	Now, it's only a theory.
	You want to hear what my theory is?
	I'll be happy to hear.
	Okay, I think, and this, again, I'm telling everybody, this is a theory.
	Now, if the surveillance, lack of minimization, unmasking, and we know he was unmasked, and then the leaking of raw intelligence, which we know took place of General Flynn when that meeting took place, I believe it was the 24th of January or somewhere right after he became National Security Advisor, correct?
	Yes, 24th of January.
	Okay.
	So at that point, they already knew everything that he had said in the transition to his Russian counterpart.
	They were asking him about a conversation of which they had a recording and a transcript, which they had read.
	And I doubt they told him that he had a recording or they had a recording or a transcript of it.
	Well, Flynn is a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
	And as such, everyone that I've talked to believes that Flynn certainly would have known that this is the kind of conversation that would have been wiretapped.
	In other words, the U.S. intelligence would have been wiretapping the Russian ambassador.
	So my theory goes like this, that he either misremembered, which is very possible.
	I mean, if you asked me who was on my show last Friday, I'd have to sit here for a while and think.
	But if you ask me about Reagan's economic statistics in 1980, I can rattle them off in seconds.
	So I'm not sure what he remembered or didn't remember, or if he lied on purpose or didn't lie on purpose, or he misremembered or didn't.
	But let's put that aside for a second.
	They should not have had that information.
	Because when we, in fact, when there is surveillance, as we should have, of foreign enemies or a hostile regime such as Russia, in this particular case, he was talking to the soon-to-be counterpart as the Russian ambassador.
	And they pick up an American on that line.
	They're supposed to minimize that.
	Those reports are supposed to be written without identifying or unmasking the American that was speaking to the Russian ambassador.
	And they would usually, if a proper protocol were followed, they would write an American, that the ambassador was talking to an American.
	And then they wouldn't leak, then that raw intelligence would not be leaked either.
	So I suspect that there was some type of, and we know what happens with grand juries and we know what happens with aggressive prosecutors.
	And here you have a big special counsel set up and they want to justify their existence.
	And I think he was probably given a choice.
	Either you agree that you lied to the FBI or we're going to go back into all of your financial dealings.
	And that includes that of your family and your son and others.
	And that would put them in jeopardy.
	That's my working hypothesis.
	Well, it has been reported that Flynn's son, who was in business with him, might for a while have been in jeopardy.
	And that, amazingly enough, after Flynn pleaded guilty, that the son was no longer in jeopardy.
	In other words, he fell on his sword for his kid, and that's what they came up with.
	But we also have to remember there's a lot that goes on between March of last year, 2017, when Comey tells this to Congress and December 1, when Flynn pleads guilty.
	First of all, the president fired Comey.
	And then as a result of that, you have the appointment of Robert Mueller, the special counsel.
	Then you have Mueller creating this office and hiring a bunch of gung-ho prosecutors, the people who would make prosecutions.
	So the thing that changed is Comey's out and the prosecutor's in and the prosecutor then has to justify his existence.
	There's no doubt that these prosecutors, the specific ones that Comey has hired, Weissman and others, have a reputation for kind of take-no-prisoners prosecutions.
	And, you know, I don't know.
	I mean, people who are very supportive of Flynn say that, look, people sometimes plead guilty to get an investigation off their back.
	They've had enough.
	They've suffered enough.
	They're broke.
	They're worried about family members.
	They do things like that.
	I've had other people who say, no, they had clear information that he lied.
	But the timeline doesn't work.
	Because if you have James Comey saying he and his fellow agents didn't think he lied, this is before the special prosecutors appointed, then how did we ever get to this point?
	Does that make sense?
	I mean, it doesn't make sense.
	No, I totally understand what you're saying.
	We should say that prosecutors, excuse me, FBI agents normally do not make the prosecutorial decisions.
	And we should have a big exception because remember in the Hillary Clinton email case, the Attorney General essentially gave James Comey the power to make prosecutorial decisions.
	But normally they don't.
	So what we had here was FBI agents going over to question Flynn.
	But the decisions would be made by the people like Sally Yates who came up with this theory of blackmail or the Logan Act or of some sort of criminal exposure.
	Sally Yates has only testified once about this.
	She testified in May of last year before a Senate judiciary subcommittee.
	And she talked about how she went.
	After this interview with Flynn on January 24, she thinks the news is so critical that she's got to go over to the White House and talk to the counsel, Don McGahn.
	So first he hears of it on January 26th and tell him about this.
	And Don McGahn says to her, and this is according to her account, says to her, look, what if Michael Flynn lied to the vice president?
	Let's just say he did.
	What's that to the Justice Department?
	I mean, what's the crime there?
	And that is when Sally Flynn apparently goes into her theory about what she called the underlying conduct, meaning the Logan Act, possible Logan Act violation, and this idea, which again is her theory, that Flynn might be vulnerable to blackmail.
	So she, Sally Yates, had to intervene and have the FBI question Flynn on pain of perjury.
	So, you know, I have to say, I wrote this story about what Comey told lawmakers.
	You know, I just think that's important information.
	I don't know what might have changed, but I do know that a lot of lawmakers view this whole Flynn case as really weird.
	Well, listen to the things that happened.
	I'm troubled by it.
	All right, Byron York, hang in there.
	We'll have a couple more questions on the other side.
	800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
	All right, as we continue, Byron York is with us with the Washington Examiner and his piece is out.
	Comey told Congress FBI agents didn't think Flynn had lied.
	Look, we're colleagues, and you can tell me anywhere you disagree with me, but this is what I think where we are.
	I think you have Hillary Clinton was protected by Comey and struck.
	I've never heard of an exoneration written before an investigation.
	That allowed her to stay in the presidential race.
	I think the crimes that were committed were overwhelming and incontrovertible if we're going to follow the law, mishandling classified information, et cetera, with the email server scandal.
	We'll learn a lot more with the Inspector General report.
	And then, so she's allowed to continue on.
	She pays for a Russian dossier full of salacious lies and misinformation.
	And now we've learned that that was the basis, the bulk of the information given to a FISA court by Comey and others, and they're just trying to justify it.
	And I think it was all designed to impact an election.
	And then when they lost the election, it impact an incoming president in ways that we've never seen before.
	Is there any part of that you disagree with?
	Well, I think there are some of the things I wouldn't go as far as what you say, although, I mean, clearly there are a lot of things that are obvious facts.
	I mean, Christopher Steele is working for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	But I think once we straighten out all these actual facts, and that's going to take a long time, I think we have to kind of step back and look at the troubling aspect of the FBI inserting itself into a presidential election on both sides.
	And, you know, basically we had a presidential election in which both candidates were under FBI investigation.
	And I think you've got to wonder whether maybe the FBI has just ended just.
	Well, let's go.
	Do you doubt that the fix was in?
	Have you ever heard of an investigation that exonerates?
	They begin the exoneration letter months before they interview the principals?
	No, I haven't.
	And, you know, we've seen some of the early drafts.
	We know that in May, James Comey was circulating drafts of that exoneration letter.
	Obviously, the interview with Hillary Clinton doesn't happen until July 2nd of 2016.
	She's exonerated on July 5th.
	Yeah, you've explained it to your listeners many times, but not only did they write the exoneration letter before interviewing Clinton, they did it before interviewing lots of critical people.
	17 other people.
	Yeah.
	Well, let me ask you this.
	It was astonishing the way they did it.
	So it's bad enough that Hillary pays for this phony Russian dossier with salacious lies, but then it becomes the bulk of the reason presented before a FISA court to get this Pfizer warrant on Carter Page so they can see what's going on within the Trump administration, or the Trump campaign rather, and later on the incoming presidency and the president-elect.
	And they never told anybody.
	In other words, they didn't tell the court that it was Hillary Clinton bought and paid for.
	And also, it was unverified because in January, when James Comey went up to Trump Tower to talk to Trump, he said it was unverified and salacious.
	But that's not what they were telling the court in October.
	Yeah, if I could add one thing about this warrant, you know, you've heard some defenders of the FBI say, no, no, no, they weren't spying on the campaign because they didn't get the warrant until after Carter Page had left the campaign.
	But the fact is, these warrants are very powerful things, and they allow the FBI to listen to phone conversations going forward after the warrant is issued, but also to look at email and text and any other thing that leaves a record going backward as far as they've got the records.
	So if Carter Page had had emails with members of the Trump campaign in, say, May of 2016 or June of 2016, this warrant would allow them to read all those.
	And by the way, the warrant also allowed the FBI to break into Page's house and plant listening devices if they chose.
	Unbelievable.
	Do you have the same issues that I have with the team that Robert Mueller has assembled?
	All the Democratic donors, people like Andrew Weissman and his track record going back to Anderson Accounting and Enron and four Merrill executives being overturned 9-0 in the Supreme Court, people spending a year in jail that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, tens of thousands of jobs lost.
	You have a problem with some of these people?
	Yeah, I do.
	I think it certainly looks bad.
	And you could also have mentioned Weissman sending this kind of cheerleading note to Sally Yates when she refused to enforce the president's executive order, which got her fired quickly.
	And Weissman was a big fan of that.
	I think it would be better, it just seems like it would be obviously better to hire apolitical prosecutors for this.
	I also think, and I wrote about this at the time, haven't seen as much since, that Mueller and James Comey are good friends.
	And James Comey is going to be, if there is to be a case of obstruction of justice against the president, the firing of James Comey is going to be the centerpiece of that case.
	The key witness, the star witness will be James Comey, who will be a good buddy of the prosecutor.
	So, you know, it's just, it's not the great situation.
	All right.
	Byron York, thank you for being with us.
	800-941, Sean.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	A lot has been made about past presidents and their faith.
	And anyway, there's a new book out by my friend David Brody.
	It's really well done and fascinating and interesting.
	And it's called The Faith of Donald J. Trump.
	And David's the chief political correspondent of the CBN network.
	And here's the president talking at the national prayer breakfast.
	In their selfless deeds, they reveal the beauty and goodness of the human soul.
	When catastrophic hurricanes struck, first responders and everyday citizens dove into rushing waters to save stranded families from danger, and they saved them by the thousands.
	Neighbors opened their homes to those in need of food, clothes, shelter.
	Firefighters braved blinding smoke and flames to rescue children from devastating wildfires.
	During the horrific shootings, strangers shielded strangers, and police officers ran into a hail of bullets to save the lives of their fellow Americans right in Las Vegas.
	A terrible day, a terrible night, but such bravery.
	Families have adopted babies orphaned by the opioid epidemic and given them loving homes.
	Communities and churches have reached out to those struggling with addiction and shown them the path to a clean life, a good job, and a renewed sense of purpose.
	And soldiers, sailors, Coast Guardsmen, airmen, and Marines have spent long months away from home defending our great American flag.
	All we have to do is open our eyes and look around us, and we can see God's hand.
	In the courage of our fellow citizens, we see the power of God's love at work in our souls and the power of God's will to answer all of our prayers.
	When Americans are able to live by their convictions, to speak openly of their faith, and to teach their children what is right, our families thrive, our communities flourish, and our nation can achieve anything at all.
	Here with us today is another symbol of hope.
	A very brave nine-year-old girl named Sophia Marie Campa Peters.
	Sophia suffers from a rare disease that has caused her to have many strokes.
	At one point, the doctors told Sophia that she would not be able to walk.
	Sophia replied, if you're only going to talk about what I can't do, then I don't want to hear it.
	Just let me try to walk.
	She tried and she succeeded.
	And one of her doctors even told her mom, and they're right here in the front row where they should be, this little girl has God on her side.
	Thank you, Sophia.
	Thank you, mom.
	Great mom.
	I said, do you love your mom?
	She said, I have a great mom.
	I love my mom.
	Right?
	Just two weeks ago, Sophia needed to have a very high-risk surgery.
	She decided to ask the whole world to pray for her, and she hoped to reach 10,000 people.
	On January 24th, as Sophia went into surgery, she far surpassed her goal.
	Millions and millions of people lifted Sophia up in their prayers.
	Today, we thank God that Sophia is with us, and she's recovering, and she's walking very well.
	And I have to say this, Sophia.
	You may only be nine years old, but you are already a hero to all of us in this room and all over the world.
	Thank you, Sophia.
	As long as we open our eyes to God's grace and open our hearts to God's love, then America will forever be the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the light unto all nations.
	All right, David Brody joins us now.
	The faith of Donald J. Trump.
	It's up on Hannity.com, bookstores everywhere, Amazon.com.
	How are you, sir?
	Good, sir.
	Thanks for having me on.
	I've actually enjoyed the times I've been on with you and your network.
	And you guys are actually nice to conservatives.
	It's rare.
	Yes, we're not going to read.
	Exactly.
	Now, unlike, say, Michael Wolfe's book, you actually spoke to the president about his faith, about his religious views.
	And, you know, somebody said, or I was reading the Heritage Foundation at the end of 2017, and they were pointing out that this president is governing in his first year, governed more conservatively than even Ronald Reagan.
	And everyone's, you know, there's big argument, is he a populist?
	Is he a nationalist?
	Well, I'm watching a guy governing as a Reagan conservative.
	What did you learn about his faith that might surprise people?
	Well, there are a few things.
	And first of all, it's funny you mentioned Michael Wolfe because I was basically going to say this is the book Michael Wolf probably doesn't want you to read.
	It actually has interviews with President Trump and Vice President Pence.
	Actually, the interview with President Trump was done in the Oval Office, two with Mike Pence in the West Wing.
	Look, there are a couple things.
	First of all, what was really striking in this book is he talks about the impact that evangelicals have had on him.
	And I say evangelicals, you're talking about leaders that are around him, not just Paula White and some of these other folks we've heard about.
	We're talking specifically about many televangelists, many Pentecostals that he has never even experienced before, Sean.
	And all of a sudden, there's this whole world that's opened up to him.
	So he says the quote in the book is basically how this has impacted him greatly.
	And what we're starting to see now is a spiritual voyage, especially in the last couple of years, where behind the scenes, there are a lot of folks that are, I want to say, witnessing to him.
	They're really kind of sharing Jesus with him in a way that is something that he's not used to.
	Mainline Presbyterian, the way he grew up is not the way necessarily he's getting an experience now.
	Well, I was going to ask you in this context, because I know people like Darrell Scott, and he put together a group of, he's the head of the National Diversity Coalition for the President and others.
	And I know that they do talk to him about these things.
	I know Franklin Graham talks to him about these things.
	And I know that he's interested in these things.
	And it's interesting when he gets in an environment where he can actually talk about it, as we just heard, he does show this side of him.
	You know, for me, a certain fundamental aspect of faith is discerning good versus evil.
	And I know we get into this all the time with Republican presidents.
	If Ronald Reagan calls the Soviet Union an evil empire, the left goes crazy.
	Or if George W. Bush talks about, you know, Iran and Iraq and North Korea as being an access of evil, and Donald Trump isn't willing to give, let's see, billions of dollars to mullahs in Iran that are talking about blowing us up and wiping us off the face of the earth or North Korea.
	You know, that frightens people on the left.
	But there seems to be a more fundamental understanding of the evil nature of some of these regimes and just how they treat their own people.
	Well, that's right.
	That's been a big magnet for evangelicals as to why they're attracted to Donald Trump.
	You know, Donald Trump sees the world in absolutes, and so do evangelicals.
	And there's a kinship, a Dr. Phil Mohammed, as I like to call it.
	And I think that's really important.
	And I also think to understand Donald Trump, you have to really know him, actually know him.
	Because in private, as you know, Sean, when the cameras are not rolling, evangelical leaders have come to recognize more compassionate side.
	There's a story in the book, Sean, about a private car ride.
	Mike Pence is telling me the story.
	The vice president, just a few months ago before the book came out, telling me the story.
	It's Mike Pence, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, Donald Trump in a car in Louisiana, 2016, the flooding down there.
	This was before he was president.
	Trump becomes deeply moved by what Graham's Christian ministry, Samaritan's Perseus, had done for flood victims.
	So right there on the spot, it's just the four of them in the car, he tells Graham he needs to give the ministry a hefty six-figure check.
	And he says, I've got to do something.
	I've just been moved by this so much.
	And Graham politely told Trump to send it to Tony's home church, not home, at home church, that had been instrumental in the recovery effort.
	So, you know, once again, cameras not rolling, a different side of Donald Trump.
	Look, Walter Cronkite, to quote the, you know, the liberal bastion media, right?
	I mean, Walter Cronkite always talks about in seeking truth, you have to get both sides of a story.
	Well, here's the other side of the story that media doesn't really want to tell.
	Well, I think that's an interesting way to put it.
	Look, I also think New York is a very different place.
	And I speak from experience because I was born and raised in New York on Long Island.
	And I was raised Catholic and I was an altar boy.
	And, you know, then I go on this radio adventure that takes me five years in Rhode Island and five years in California and two years in Alabama and four years in Georgia.
	And then, you know, fortunately, I got back to New York and I was hired by the Fox News Channel.
	But in the time that I traveled, I began to see, and this is in no way disparaging of any other part of the country or region of the country, but when I got to Alabama and Georgia, it was a very different Christianity than the Catholicism that I grew up in.
	And I came to like it, appreciate it, identify with it.
	And I don't think that there are places like this in New York, but the difference is in Alabama, it's every other street.
	There's a church.
	Yeah.
	Well, and it's interesting you say this because this is pretty much what the president told me in the Oval Office.
	He said, look, I didn't hang around these people before.
	I didn't know any of this.
	But now they're opening my eyes to this whole kind of other side of the faith that he didn't know anything about.
	And, you know, it's funny because a story in the book is Bishop Wayne Jackson, who was one of the folks that prayed at the inauguration.
	He's a lifelong Democrat.
	Trump goes into Great Faith Ministries International in Detroit.
	Trump visits the church.
	And then it was Wayne Jackson telling me that the moment Trump got out of the car, this is a quote from Wayne Jackson, the bishop.
	He says, quote, the spirit of the Lord told me that he is going to be the next president of the United States.
	So these are the circles that Donald Trump is running in now, a little bit more of that prophetic side, a little bit more of definitely that evangelical side that is kind of blown Donald Trump away.
	But at the same time, he respects people of faith, the clergy.
	I mean, he remembers a time, he's 71 years old.
	He remembers a time where you dressed up for church.
	You didn't come in baggy pants and sneakers.
	And, you know, this is a respect for clergy that he has.
	I remember Darrell Scott, you mentioned Daryl Scott.
	He specifically said to me that in meetings with clergy, Trump adopts the position of the lesser, not of the more powerful, if you will.
	Fascinating.
	That is pretty interesting to hear from Darryl Scott.
	Do you think that the president is getting more faithful?
	His faith is growing.
	Do you see that?
	Or maybe in your conversations with him, you've seen it?
	Absolutely.
	And there's a few different things I can point to.
	First of all, you know, of course, you did that interview with the president right off the top in his presidency.
	I was able to do the third interview with him.
	And during that interview, he said, I need God even more in this job.
	And just the other day, about two weeks ago at the TV network anchor luncheon before the State of the Union, I was actually there in the room in the state dining room with the president.
	He's talking about how basically as a businessman, Hart isn't involved.
	But as president, Hart is involved and compassion is involved.
	So he's getting a whole nother side of this.
	And then at the National Prayer Breakfast, what did we just see?
	I mean, we had a president who in his first year at the National Prayer Breakfast talked about the ratings of the apprentice more.
	He talked about the ratings of the apprentice, about his accomplishments.
	But what did he do this time around?
	In a year's time, he didn't talk at all about the apprentice, didn't talk at all about his accomplishments.
	Was more of God, less of him.
	And it was a subdued, very poignant speech that even the New York Times enjoyed.
	And that's saying something.
	But the point is, is that we're seeing some movement on his behalf, for sure.
	You know, I remember during the campaign, and a lot of evangelicals took a lot of heat if they supported Donald Trump for president.
	I mean, okay, he was divorced and he wasn't a perfect person and he made the tabloids, et cetera.
	And I think it was Jerry Falwell Jr., I know it was Jerry Falwell Jr. that said, we're looking, we're not electing a pastor here.
	If I was electing a pastor, I'd be looking for something different.
	I'm looking for a strong president that can fix the country.
	Well, that's right.
	And he nailed it right on the head.
	And look, in the view of evangelicals, they see a culture that's deteriorating quickly in the last decade for sure.
	They want a bold culture warrior to fight for them.
	And by the way, Sean, showing that God does indeed have a sense of humor, he gave them Trump, which I think is kind of funny.
	But anyhow, the bottom line is it's basically in God's perfection, it's a match made in heaven because Trump and evangelicals actually share quite a few important cultural points of interest.
	I mean, look, there's a disdain for political correctness and all of that.
	Judeo-Christian values.
	He remembers Bible reading in school.
	He remembers prayer in school.
	Patton, he loves Patton in the 50s.
	He remembers America who once was, dot, dot, dot.
	But on these on these cultural issues, he comes down on the side of where evangelicals come down on and where I would come down on.
	Well, that's right.
	And you talk about fruit.
	Everybody talks about the spiritual fruit.
	Well, where is it in his life or where is it in your life or my life?
	Look, the spiritual fruit can be said from a public policy standpoint.
	He has delivered A-plus for evangelicals in the first year.
	As a matter of fact, I talked to an evangelical leader the other day.
	I said, so what's on the to-do list in 2018?
	He said, my goodness, we're starting to run out of things.
	I mean, literally the president from Jerusalem to the Gorsuch to the life issue, he's been spot on, and evangelicals have loved every minute of it.
	All right, David Brody, congratulations on a great book.
	It's called The Faith of Donald Trump, and it is in bookstores everywhere, Hannity.com, Amazon.com, and we appreciate you being with us.
	Thanks, Sean.
	All right, 800-941-Sean, whoops, is our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program?
	All right, Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	All right, so tonight we're going to ask, what is in the memo that's been, or the dossier that's ever been verified?
	Well, the answer is nothing.
	Absolutely, positively nothing.
	And then that raises a question: well, why are we always talking about this?
	Anyway, we have Sebastian Gorka, James Kalstrom.
	He's great.
	Ed Henry, Newt Gingrich.
	We have Jesse Waters versus Jessica Tarloff, Dan Bongino, and Francisco Hernandez on the immigration battle.
	That's all coming up.
	Set your DVR, Nine Eastern, Hannity Fox.
	And as always, thanks for being with us.
	We'll see you back here tomorrow.

▲