Sean Hannity Show - No Sanctuary from Sanctuary Cities - 3.8

March 8, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:32:06

No Sanctuary from Sanctuary Cities - 3.8

Sean has some startling statistics that reminds 'Hannity' listeners of just how awful Sanctuary Cities can be. Perhaps Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf should download this episode and listen before she puts more police officers' lives in danger. 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.
	So, for a few years now, I have been working with Express employment professionals, and they've been helping you, my listeners, know where to turn in your job search.
	Now, Express offers local connections to the good jobs where you live in a variety of industries.
	So, if you're looking for a job, go online, find the nearest express office at expresspros.com, and let them help you.
	Now, recently, one Express associate shared this: After applying everywhere for work, I called ExpressPros.
	After going into the office, I had a job that day.
	Now, when you turn to Express Pros, you benefit from 35 years of experience in putting people to work.
	They help more than a half a million people find jobs each and every year.
	And job seekers at Express Pros never pay a fee whatsoever.
	Just go to expresspros.com, find the location nearest you.
	And another Express associate said, Express called me to come in for an interview right away and then sent me to interview with a company that same day.
	So, don't go it alone any longer in your search for a job.
	Find your local Express Employment Professional's office at ExpressPros.com.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	This is pretty interesting.
	Now, there are calls for all these friends of screwy Louis Farrakhan to, well, basically resign their offices.
	Can you imagine if you have any equivalent of Farrakhan, a virulent, hateful, racist, anti-Semite, and any elected Republicans hanging out with him?
	And now, a picture emerges.
	It was purposely hidden from view.
	Obama and Farrakhan together.
	I always wondered, considering they live so close to each other in Chicago, if they knew each other.
	I mean, they both know Jeremiah Wright and Father Flager and the unrepentant terrorist Arizon Dorn.
	And pretty much nobody in the media I know of is ever going to ask, What about your buddy Farrakhan?
	And this picture here, and the fact that you had a meeting and that you hid that you were going to be friends so it wouldn't hurt you in your election to become president.
	That would be lying by omission again.
	All right, so we'll hit that today.
	We have Jay Seculo who's going to stop by the program, counsel to the president, chief counsel, American Center for Law and Justice.
	We have the latest on the Department of Justice going after the state of California that we're going to get into.
	And also, there are comments by Jeff Sessions that everybody in the media is missing.
	That we're going to highlight and pay attention for you and outline it for you.
	One of the things that is interesting me is James Comey.
	Because there's certain things we know about James Comey.
	Now, James Comey is, as I predicted, is going to be coming out with a book.
	And I'm just wondering, I've talked now to numerous attorneys that are aware.
	I would say if I was the attorney of James Comey, I would remind him that he does have the right to remain silent.
	Remember, you're not allowed to reveal executive privilege, confidential information between you and a president, and he did just that, and he did it for the distinct purpose of getting a special counsel.
	So that's an issue that he has.
	Now, James Comey has a lie problem that he's going to have to deal with.
	Because if you remember, the department, the FBI, Department of Justice, remember the original application for the Pfizer warrant that the deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe said, oh, if we don't have the dossier, then we don't have even an application for the Pfizer warrant.
	Well, remember, the dossier is paid for by Hillary Clinton, bought and paid for by her and the DNC whose finances she controls.
	Okay, the FBI knew this.
	James Comey knew all of this.
	In the FISA application, they never told the FISA judge that, in fact, it was Hillary Clinton's document bought and paid for.
	Now, as a matter of law, there is a responsibility of the FBI and the DOJ to actually independently verify and corroborate any evidence that is put before the FISA judge.
	Otherwise, we don't have Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure if the FBI can take uncorroborated, unverified information, which we now know turned out to be false, bring it before a judge, and not tell the FISA judge where the information came from and that it was bought and paid for by an opposition party in the lead up to a presidential election.
	All of that, Comey never did that.
	We know that James Comey, you know, remember, three months later, he's telling Donald Trump in Trump Tower about the dossier, but he's telling Trump it's not verified, and he's telling Trump it's salacious.
	But three months earlier, they're presenting it to the FISA judge as though it's gospel truth, having followed the law and done their own verification and corroboration.
	So he's got legal problems way beyond that which perhaps he knows now, and it's going to be interesting to watch all of this unfold.
	Then he's got another problem.
	That's an obstruction of justice problem, in my view.
	And that is that, you know, here he had him and Peter Strzok are exonerating Hillary Clinton before any investigation.
	But it's almost like if you listen to Stephanopoulos, well, who's Stephanopoulos?
	Stephanopoulos, go watch the war room when Bill Clinton was running in 1992, and you'll learn, you know, just how close Stephanopoulos is to the Clintons.
	So you got Stephanopoulos, then you got, you know, Steve Colbert, who owes his entire career to Donald Trump right now because his ratings were in the sewer until he took a hard, hard trip to the left side and started trashing Trump every night.
	Anyway, they're both promoting these appearances.
	Listen.
	James Comey, for the first time since being fired by President Trump, is ready to talk.
	Nothing's off limits, Stephanopoulos.
	Comey.
	I'm also really excited because I just found out, is this true?
	What's the date?
	17th.
	April 17th.
	My guest sitting in that chair will be former FBI Director James Comey.
	That's what I said.
	I said, woo!
	So I wonder how hard he's going to be pressed on putting the fix in and rigging the Clinton investigation.
	It's going to be fascinating to read the IG report that is out maybe in the next week or so.
	You know, he's the guy that got fired from the FBI.
	He's the guy that leaked potentially classified information in order to trigger the special counsel with his buddy Robert Mueller.
	Now he's getting ready, you know, to pursue his television career on conspiracy TV, MSNBC.
	And, of course, then we have the whole contradiction over the FISA warrant.
	And if I was his lawyer, I think I might be warning him, you better stay away from A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and on and on and on.
	You know, we all knew this was going to happen.
	I mean, you just can tell certain people.
	They love the spotlight.
	You can see it.
	You taste it.
	You feel it.
	And he's one of those people.
	And he's so arrogant on his Twitter account, so sanctimonious and self-righteous, as if he is the sole arbiter of all that is good in America.
	Clearly has a total disdain for Donald Trump, like a lot of people in his orbit.
	But anyway, so the first steps are, you know, he's now going to do these interviews, and the mainstream media can barely contain their excitement.
	And given their unrestrained glee over this interview, you know, are we really going to expect these guys to ask the questions that are going to matter?
	You know, I mean, is Colbert and Stephanopoulos going to ask, you know, why he never investigated Clinton's lies, why he never prosecuted obvious felonies, crimes, mishandling, classified information, why he lied to the American people.
	We learned yesterday that, yeah, Peter Strzok knew that that email server had, in fact, been hacked by Russia among other hostile nations.
	And that puts people's lives in jeopardy.
	That's why it's so serious.
	And then the destruction of such information.
	And then the, you know, deleting and acid-washing away with Bleachbit, you know, the rest of the information.
	You know, I mean, is Stephen Colbert going to press him on why he looked the other way when the Attorney General is meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac?
	They have their secret meeting days before the FBI decides not to recommend charges.
	Is he going to be forced to discuss the exoneration letter before any investigation?
	Is the mainstream media going to address his potentially unlawful leaking of classified information after he was fired?
	Well, it doesn't really matter.
	What matters is what the Attorney General Jeff Sessions does in all of this.
	You know, looking at the dates, do you realize it was one year ago, and I was talking and touching on this at the start of the show yesterday, one year ago today that Sarah Carter and John Solomon broke the story and gave us the first reports that there had been a FISA warrant issued as it relates to Trump associates.
	One year ago, everything that I'm talking about, we have now learned in the course of a year.
	You know, we didn't know that Clinton bought and paid for the dossier full of Russian lies.
	We didn't know that that dossier was presented to get a FISA warrant.
	We didn't know that they withheld, they purposely withheld information from the FISA judge in the original application and the three subsequent renewals.
	We didn't know that they never told them that Hillary bought and paid for it.
	We didn't know they didn't verify it.
	We didn't know they didn't corroborate it.
	We've learned a lot.
	We didn't know that Strzok and Page hated Trump the way they do.
	We didn't know that Peter Strzok was involved in pretty much every aspect of this case.
	We didn't know a lot of that.
	Now, there was an interview last night on Fox News.
	My colleague Shannon Bream was doing the interview, and she asked the questions about more specifically whether he's going to consider naming a special counsel, a second special counsel to the FBI and the Justice Department in their investigations into possible collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
	Remember, just last week or a week and a half ago, even Adam Schiff said there was no evidence of this.
	Diane Feinstein, Joe Manchin, Clapper, Brennan, they've all said that there's no evidence because there has been no evidence presented to this point.
	And Sessions' answer is pretty interesting because he says, well, I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatt, and we're going to consider seriously their recommendations for a second special counsel.
	And then he said to Shannon Breen in this interview, I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years at the Department of Justice, to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us, and we are conducting that investigation.
	Now, it's like nobody paid attention when we broke on this program the story about he never recused himself from anything dealing with uranium one.
	And then, what, about six weeks ago, lo and behold, an issue that was already litigated, according to Hillary, and it's all been debunked.
	Well, we had another indictment in the Iranian One case.
	So I'm interpreting this, that there's a lot going on behind the scenes that none of us know about.
	At least I'm hoping.
	If we're going to be a country of laws, equal justice under the law, the Constitution, we better be holding people accountable that are violating all these laws.
	And then he goes on to say that he's well aware that we have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the FISA process.
	Well, I interpret that as him saying, yeah, I get it.
	The FISA judges were lied to, and we have a responsibility to look into that too.
	And then he even used the phrase, we're not afraid to look into that.
	And then he said the inspector general, something that our inspector general is not very strong, but he has almost 500 employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors, and they are looking at the FISA process.
	We must make sure it's done properly, and we're going to do that, and I will consider the request.
	Jim Jordan mentioned about this, that we need a special counsel, someone from like Oklahoma, Iowa, from the middle of the country, a well-respected, retired judge or some prosecutor as well-respected to assemble a team and let them do what they do.
	I don't see any other remedy.
	And he says, if you pick the right person, there's a chance at the conclusion that there can be some type of closure and acceptance on the part of the American people.
	They want people held accountable, which is all true.
	All right, so we're following that very closely.
	One year ago today, think of all that we learned in a year.
	For those of you that are impatient, we're getting there.
	We've made a lot of progress.
	And for those in the mainstream media that have missed the biggest story in their life, the biggest abuse of power story in their life, and the biggest corruption scandal in their life, that's their problem.
	And they will be proven wrong.
	Well, unlike what that Nunberg nut said about me.
	Hannity's going to be proven wrong.
	Okay.
	Have you been drinking?
	No, no, no.
	I just took my meds.
	That's okay.
	All right, a lot is being made over recent elections and an upcoming election.
	There is a bellwether election race coming up next Tuesday in Pennsylvania.
	New poll shows that the Republican is holding on to a slight lead.
	This guy's name is Rick Sarcone.
	Let me just warn everybody ahead of time what part of the argument has got to be.
	If you want this country to descend into utter and complete chaos, then go vote for Democrats or stay home.
	Because that's exactly what's going to happen if Nancy Pelosi and the radical left take over.
	And, you know, so am I happy with the Republicans?
	No, the only people I like are the Freedom Caucus members.
	They're the ones that get things done.
	The president, as I've said many times, it just came out a week or so ago, 64% of his agenda, which is a conservative agenda.
	I don't want to get into this nationalist populist debate, but a conservative agenda.
	Energy independence, tax cuts, repatriation, getting rid of the mandate, all the things that he could do on his own, getting rid of burdensome regulation.
	It's all having a huge impact.
	You see it every day with almost every single statistic that comes out in terms of the economy.
	Anyway, so if you look at this particular place, anyway, so next Tuesday, voters in Pennsylvania's 18th district are going to go to the polls and a pretty high-profile special election.
	And anyway, if you look at the polls, they now have the Republican up by three.
	The president is going there on Saturday.
	I assume that would probably help.
	But we were hearing over and over and over again, Democrats were suggesting that there's this big blue wave coming.
	Big blue wave coming to Texas.
	Well, the big blue wave never happened in Texas.
	As a matter of fact, Senate Democrats, based on what they had been predicting and what actually happened, they'll be lucky if they avoid a bloodbath if this latest Axios survey is even remotely accurate.
	You have five Senate Democrats would lose to Republican candidates if the elections were held today, and three have approval ratings under 50% according to this new survey.
	Now, Democrats are defending 10 Senate seats in states that Trump won in 2016.
	In six of those states, Trump's approval is higher than 50%, and these numbers underscore how hard this work is going to be for the Democrats to pick up two seats needed to win the majority despite all of the nonstop, obsessive,
	compulsive coverage that is all things negative Trump, all things chaos, all things Stormy Daniels, all things anything but exposing the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the country and the biggest abuse of power scandal ever.
	Now, some of the more vulnerable senators are Joe Manchin of West Virginia, John Tester in Montana, Claire McCaskill.
	I'd love for her to lose in Missouri.
	That'd be great.
	By the way, she only goes home to Missouri to sound like she's more conservative than she is, but she always votes with Chuck Schumer.
	And the same, I hate to say it with Joe Manchin.
	He's going to sound as conservative as he can, but he pretty much votes with Schumer.
	And each of their approval ratings is under 50%.
	And while Trump is above that in all three states, then you got Bill Nelson, Bob Casey, and Sherrod Brown.
	Those are going to be interesting races to watch.
	I'll explain more as we continue.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
	We expect the president any minute to sign this new tariffs that he's putting out there on aluminum and steel.
	And some people don't like it.
	Some people do.
	I have a very different take than everybody else.
	He will be exempting, at least for the time being, Mexico and Canada.
	Where did this dog that you're holding come from that's in our studio?
	It's just a stuffed animal.
	What is that?
	It's just a stuffed animal.
	No, where did you get the dog?
	I'm taking it home to Liam.
	Where did you get the dog?
	It's just a stuffed animal.
	It's not a stuffed animal.
	Where did you get the puppy?
	It's a very real-looking stuffed animal.
	All right, so did you buy a present for somebody?
	Liam's two.
	He doesn't listen to this radio program.
	He's not listening right now.
	We're trying out for a new advertiser, very lifelike-looking stuffed animals.
	Okay, what is the real dog on your lap doing on your lap?
	We can take pictures and videos and prove to the audience.
	Is it for Liam?
	Is that what the thing is?
	You're not telling me?
	I'll tell you on a break.
	Well, maybe you should have informed me before I blasted it out on 575 stations.
	Maybe that would have been a smarter way to handle it.
	I mean, I'm not used to just looking up, and there's this little puppy dog, cutest, actually is a very cute dog.
	Very cute.
	And licking your face and distracting you from doing your job all day.
	I did my job.
	People draw up all day.
	First of all, I do my job, dog and no dog.
	That's right.
	Coffee or no coffee.
	No, it's always with coffee.
	Always with coffee.
	Black rifle.
	Yeah, black rifle is the best.
	All right, so the president is going to sign the new tariffs, and he's going to exempt.
	But what I think everybody has missed here is this.
	Knowing this president as long and as well as I know him, it's a negotiation.
	I mean, during the campaign, if I said, I'd like to interview you, I know you're going, you're going to be in Pennsylvania, you're going to be in Wisconsin.
	I want to do the whole hour.
	We did it with the other candidates.
	Would you like to do it?
	Why do we have to do it?
	Why don't we just do a 20?
	And then it was always with him a negotiation just for the sake of negotiating.
	And I say, all right, I'll tell you what.
	We'll do 42 minutes and we'll call it a day there instead of the hour.
	We'll meet in the middle.
	And he goes, okay, that's fair.
	The problem is he didn't know that 42 minutes was the whole hour of the show, and it's just another way of saying I got the full hour.
	But everything with him is a negotiation.
	So I think what's happening here is he's hoping to negotiate better trade deals.
	Anyway, so when he speaks, we'll go to that.
	So you have five Senate Democrats that would lose to Republican candidates if the elections were held today.
	Now, the least vulnerable senators are Bill Nelson of Florida, Casey of Pennsylvania, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
	And Trump's approval rating is at 46 percent in Florida, Pennsylvania, 54 percent in Ohio.
	So his approval rating is higher than the incumbent senators in six states, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio.
	It's higher than his national approval rating in all 10 states.
	Now, North Dakota voted for Trump over Hillary by a 36-point margin.
	Any generic Republican candidate would lead over Heidi Heitkamp.
	And Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin's narrow three-point advantage over a generic Republican is underscored by outside conservative groups that have spent millions now.
	And these are all going to be winnable races.
	Senator Casey in Pennsylvania is polling nine points ahead of his GOP challenger, whom Trump has already publicly endorsed, though the president's approval rating is 46 percent in Pennsylvania.
	You know, so even the New York Times steel and aluminum workers, and you are truly the backbone of America, you know that.
	Very special people.
	I've known you and people that are very closely related to you for a long time.
	You know that.
	I think it's probably the reason I'm here.
	So I want to thank you.
	I also want to thank Secretary Mnuchin, Ambassador Lighthiser, Secretary Ross, Peter Navarro, Mike Pence, our great vice president.
	They've worked so hard on getting this going and getting it done.
	And people are starting to realize how important it is we have to protect and build our steel and aluminum industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are really friends of ours, both on a trade basis and a military basis.
	The strong steel and aluminum industry are vital to our national security.
	Absolutely vital.
	Steel is steel.
	You don't have steel, you don't have a country.
	Our industries have been targeted for years and years, decades, in fact, by unfair foreign trade practices leading to the shuttered plants and mills, the laying off of millions of workers, and the decimation of entire communities.
	And that's going to stop, right?
	It's going to stop.
	This is not merely an economic disaster, but it's a security disaster.
	We want to build our ships.
	We want to build our planes.
	We want to build our military equipment with steel, with aluminum from our country.
	And now we're finally taking action to correct this long overdue problem.
	It's a travesty.
	Today, I'm defending America's national security by placing tariffs on foreign imports of steel and aluminum.
	We will have a 25% tariff on foreign steel and a 10% tariff on foreign aluminum when the product comes across our borders.
	It's a process called dumping, and they dumped more than at any time on any nation anywhere in the world.
	And it drove our plants out of business.
	It drove our factories out of business.
	And we want a lot of steel coming into our country, but we want it to be fair.
	And we want our workers to be protected.
	And we want, frankly, our companies to be protected.
	By contrast, we will not place any new tax on product made in the USA.
	So there's no tax if a product is made in the USA.
	You don't want to pay tax?
	Bring your plan to the USA.
	There's no tax, which we will benefit from the massive tax cuts that we have in place.
	We have passed the largest tax cut plan in the country's history, and that has caused really tremendous success between that and regulation cutting.
	And I think maybe regulation cutting every bit as much.
	And we have a long way to go in regulations, but we've already cut more than any president in history.
	So we're urging all companies to buy American.
	That's what we want.
	Buy American.
	The action that I'm taking today follows a nine-month investigation by the Department of Commerce, Secretary Ross, documenting a growing crisis in our steel and aluminum production that threatens the security of our nation and also is bad for us economically and with jobs.
	The American steel aluminum industry has been ravaged by aggressive foreign trade practices.
	It's really an assault on our country.
	It's been an assault.
	They know better than anybody.
	Other countries have added production capacity that far exceeds demand and flooded the world market with cheap metal that is subsidized by foreign governments, creating jobs for their country and taking away jobs from our country.
	I've been talking about this for a long time, a lot longer than my political career.
	I've been talking about this for many years.
	For example, it takes China about one month to produce as much steel as they produce in the United States in an entire year.
	Because we've created a lot of the.
	All right, that's the president with a steel announcement.
	And if he says anything else or takes any questions, we'll bring them to you as they happen.
	So I want to get into this election.
	Doug Schoen, a Democrat, wrote a phenomenal analysis of what happened down in Texas.
	And he said the results of the recent primaries in Texas were surprising and for Democrats concerning.
	Remember, the media, they were predicting a big blue wave in Texas.
	This was the end of Republican wins in Texas.
	Anyway, the overall turnout and trend was much greater turnout for Republicans.
	62.8 percent of the U.S. Senate primary votes were cast on the Republican side as opposed to 37 percent for the Democrats.
	In the race for governor, it was 60 percent of the votes cast for the Republican primary, 39.8 percent Democrats.
	And all of this contradicted the Democratic optimism that this is finally going to be the year that Texas goes blue.
	And, you know, earlier predictive metrics that were being used and early voting, yeah, Democrats outnumbered Republicans, but it didn't turn out that way at the end.
	The results of these primaries clearly show that the Democratic establishment probably needs to rethink their strategy if they want to capitalize on what they think is a backlash to President Trump.
	Now, Schoen goes on, even more concerning was the lack of Democratic enthusiasm in districts that Hillary carried in 2016.
	He points out, for example, in the 7th district where Democratic votes numbered only 46.6% of the total despite having voted for Clinton in 2016.
	And he makes the point the lack of enthusiasm is particularly striking as the primary there has gotten much attention for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's unusual efforts to undermine a candidate, Laura Moser, whom they criticized for being a Washington insider.
	Now, what's fascinating about this is the Democrats think they need to go left.
	They think they got to go more left to Hillary, and that's the only reason they lost the election.
	And I don't think they could have it more wrong.
	And as it relates to this big blue wave in Texas, even the New York Times issued a de facto apology for predicting this blue wave in Texas.
	Remember, just a few days before the Texas primary, the New York Times was predicting a big blue wave of Democratic primary voters that meant the Democratic dreams of flipping Texas had finally been realized.
	Well, then they said the day after, today, that they said, well, the thinly veiled, you know, they go on to say the prevailing wisdom suggests that there will be a Democratic wave election in 2018.
	By the way, it could turn out that way.
	Most people vote with their pocketbooks.
	Most people vote peace and prosperity.
	At the end of the day, if the economy's roaring back and jobs are created and wealth is created and people are happy, they're not going to really care that Donald Trump tweets in ways that some people in the media find offensive.
	That's not going to matter.
	It's all going to come down to are we safe and secure?
	Are we more safe and secure?
	And are we more prosperous than we've been?
	Anyway, so the, you know, you got the New York Times then going on, well, in a matter that suggests Democrats learned little from the 2016 primary or general elections, pundits and analysts seem committed to this narrative that they promote it even when their data points in the other direction.
	The primaries in Texas on Tuesday are a good case in point.
	Oh, okay.
	We really needed that observation.
	All right, back to our busy telephones here.
	Jonathan, Mississippi, what's up, Jonathan?
	How are you?
	Welcome aboard.
	Very good, Sean.
	Just thrilled to death what I just heard from the president.
	Just brilliant move.
	Here he is telling the companies, if you want to make steel, you want to sell in America, guess what?
	Bring your company to America and come make the steel here.
	And our taxing is going to be better than anywhere in the world.
	We're going to take care of you.
	We're going to give you good workers.
	And you can come to America and make your steel here, and you ain't got to worry about the tax.
	See, that's the brilliant thinking we need in Washington.
	He continues a fight to drain the swamp.
	He's doing awesome.
	I'm thrilled to death as a young conservative.
	This movement is amazing and excited to see what happens here in Mississippi.
	And we're behind you.
	Love your show, man.
	Have a great day.
	All right.
	Thank you, sir.
	Appreciate it.
	One of the things that people don't pay attention to, if I'm a free trader, but if countries like China are screwing us and there's no reciprocity to allowing our products in their country or Japan or wherever, you know, I think what the president more than anything else is doing here is he's demanding reciprocity.
	He's demanding fundamental fairness.
	Now, nobody wants a trade war, but I don't think we're going to get there.
	I think these countries are going to realize this is not in our best interest.
	Okay, we've got to open our markets a little bit more to Americans and not tax them to death.
	And everybody, I don't understand why people never challenge the other side of this equation and always go after the American side.
	Now, I think at the end of the day, you're going to see trade deals begin to emerge with a lot of these countries because they're not going to like it or want it.
	That's my prediction.
	We'll see.
	You know, the other thing that, you know, look at the natural gas industry was flourishing.
	Well, what did OPEC do?
	They dropped the price of oil so it made it unprofitable for American companies to drill shell or to get natural gas.
	And then they, as soon as they're out of business, then they put the jack the price up again.
	But now we're moving towards energy independence.
	It won't matter.
	Start with the president's tweets yesterday, this idea that maybe President Obama ordered an illegal wiretap of his offices.
	If something like that happened, would this be something you would be aware of?
	I would certainly hope so.
	Had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance.
	Would that be information you would know or not now?
	Yes.
	You would be told this.
	I would know that.
	If there was a FISA court order on something like this.
	Was there any request made by the FBI or Justice Department to wiretap Donald Trump turned down by a court?
	That's one of those subjects I can't comment on one way or another.
	Please don't interpret that in any way other than I just can't talk about anything that relates to the FISA process in an open setting.
	Third, the president stated, I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October just prior to the election.
	Director Comey, you're a good lawyer?
	Can you make out a great case that President Obama wiretapped Mr. Trump's phones just prior to the election in light of the fact you have said there's no evidence of that?
	All I can say is what I said before that we don't have any information that supports those tweets.
	I know nothing about this.
	I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Yunes on that count today.
	I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been.
	The President of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign.
	Nothing of the sort occurred, and we've heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House, can order the surveillance of another American citizen.
	That can only come from the Justice Department with the approval of a FISA court.
	So today, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was illegal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
	All of those cuts, by the way, our two Sean Hannity show, write down our number, it's 800-941-Sean.
	All of those comments were made that you just heard back in March of 2017.
	Now, we reported one year ago today, right here on this program and on Hannity, Sarah Carter first reported that FISA and John Solomon was acquired to wiretap Trump.
	We broke that story on radio and on television.
	Now, by the way, eight days later, you had the media ripping Trump because he put out, oh, I'm being wiretapped, and perhaps not the right language, but factually he was right and others were wrong.
	And then you go and you pay very close attention, and what do we have?
	James Clapper denying that there was a FISA court order for wiretapping when it's pretty, I'm pretty certain he knew pretty darn well there was.
	And then, of course, James Comey, you know, he's not going to comment on the FISA process.
	No evidence, of course, that Obama or anybody wiretapped Trump before the election.
	And Susan Rice almost trying to justify it.
	Now, as we look at this timeline, certain things have emerged.
	Joining us to sort through it all is Jay Seculo.
	He is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, also counseled to the president.
	Jim Comey is about to go on a big book tour.
	Right.
	Jim Comey knew about the FISA warrant in October of 2016.
	He knew that it was presented to the court with glaring omissions.
	They never told the FISA court judge in their application that Hillary Clinton bought and paid for it, nor did he follow FISA law nor FBI protocols in verifying and corroborating that the information, in fact, being presented to the court was true.
	And then in January, he told the president-elect January 2017 that, well, yeah, there's this dossier, but it's unverified and it's salacious.
	So he was either lying in January or lying in October.
	Which is it?
	Well, here was the nature of his false statements.
	I like to put in the legal term, lying is fine, but false statements.
	So you have a situation where they had already obtained a FISA warrant based on that dossier.
	And then on January 6th, he tells the president-elect of the United States, hey, by the way, we have this dossier, but it's salacious and unverified, so we're not doing anything with it.
	Meanwhile, he knows that he obtained a FISA warrant on it.
	Then, it was the day before the inauguration, they obtained a renewal on that FISA warrant with the same evidence.
	So they utilized that dossier on multiple fronts while they were telling the president it was salacious and unverified.
	And then you heard from James Clapper.
	You hear from all these experts who I would have known and I knew nothing about it.
	None of that is true.
	It was ongoing.
	It had been issued multiple times, and it was based on the dossier.
	Well, let's use the legal term if you make it.
	That's been proven by the Adam Schiff memo.
	Let's go back for just a second here.
	If you're making an application for a FISA warrant, there are certain stringent rules, part of the law, that must be followed.
	Isn't part of that that the information you're presenting to the judge, that it's got to be verified and corroborated, which never happened with the Steele dossier?
	Isn't that also part of FBI protocol?
	And secondly, if you omit purposely, because they all knew that it was bought and paid for by Hillary by October of 2016, if you purposely withhold information that would impact the judge's decision, isn't that making a false statement by omission?
	Well, sure, but here's what they did.
	I mean, well, even take it a step back.
	They, and Andrew McCabe testified to this, that absent the dossier, they would not have even sought to obtain the FISA warrant.
	So they wouldn't have even gone to court to obtain the FISA warrant but for the dossier.
	Then Adam Schipp says in his oral statements on some other networks how that was fundamentally not true and incorrect, and he's going to address that in his memo.
	He comes out with his memo and what's avoided.
	Any discussion about Andrew McCabe and that testimony.
	Why?
	Because he wasn't going to make a knowing false statement.
	And it was clear that what McCabe said, based on the information that was shared with the House Permanent Intelligence Committee, Select Intelligence Committee, that in fact it was based on they wouldn't have even sought the application without the dossier.
	Well, that's Andrew McCabe's statement, and that was not contradicted in the Schiff memo.
	And McCabe was saying we wouldn't have even applied had it not been for the dossier.
	But again, it's unverified.
	Have even sought, would not have even stated together or gone to court under those circumstances.
	Let me throw a hypothetical out at you.
	Jim Comey's going out on his big book tour.
	If you were his attorney, knowing what we now know about all of this, knowing that he was writing an exoneration of Hillary long before he had even interviewed her or 17 other key people in the Clinton email service.
	He granted immunity to.
	He didn't even interview witnesses he granted immunity to.
	My question is, if you're his lawyer, would you advise him to go out in public and talk about these issues?
	Do you see legal jeopardy for him?
	Well, I think he's got to be very, yes.
	First of all, discussions he had with the President of the United States are privileged.
	It's called executive privilege.
	And that's why when he leaked that information in those memos, that to a friend of his to get, you know, remember to obtain the special counsel, that was his testimony, that that was in clear violation not only of the Department of Justice protocols, which can you imagine if an FBI agent leaked a 302 interview form of an interview witness and a key witness, they'd be fired, I guess, although with the Department of FBI, who knows what would actually happen.
	What about the rumors that some of those 302s were changed?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah, right.
	But in writing a book, the book better not have any discussion of confidential communications he had with the President of the United States or other executive members of the administration because those would all be protected under a privilege unless the government, unless the President or the White House were to waive those.
	But knowing what we know now that they never followed the FISA law to verify and corroborate, isn't that another issue of legal jeopardy?
	Well, I mean, first of all, could you imagine if you're the FISA court judge how you feel about that?
	Where are these?
	There are four separate judges.
	Why haven't we heard from them?
	Because one of the judges responded.
	Go ahead.
	One of the judges actually said that the executive branch could compel them if they wanted to release the FISA applications.
	Correct.
	So these judges generally aren't public about this because this is a FISA proceeding.
	This is not a court proceeding where you have a government lawyer and a private lawyer representing the interests of the party that's about to be or has been under surveillance.
	That's not the way FISA works.
	It's a one-sided system.
	It's a chamber, in a sense, that you go in and it's a government, it's a secret court.
	We set it up because of intelligence concerns.
	But then taking it to the next, I guess the next logical step is they drop in a footnote that this may have been political research from another party, but they don't identify what it is.
	No, it may have a political component to it.
	Component to it.
	But they knew that it was Hillary.
	Hillary's bought and paid for.
	I think that was intentionally misleading the court.
	And the individual lawyers and FBI agents that signed those affidavits and the lawyers that presented that should be held accountable ethically.
	Well, I would be honest.
	I would be afraid to be in that legal jeopardy.
	If I had purposely misled a judge, why do I think that a contempt order would be slapped on me and I'd be sent to the nearest jail and be calling you and begging for a cake with a file?
	Well, that's because what you would have done would have been a violation of the law.
	And clearly, here, in my view, based on the evidence that we know, that's what happened here.
	And I said, I haven't talked to these FISA judges.
	I don't know, but I can't imagine that they're taking this in a positive way.
	Why wouldn't the president, though, release it if he has the authority to?
	Well, there's a lot of reason.
	Look, I'm speaking here as the president's private counsel, so I'm not part of the Department of Justice.
	I'm the President's private lawyer.
	So I'm counsel the President in a private capacity, so I don't speak for what the agency or what the White House can or cannot do.
	Let me pull you off this.
	There may be reasons they don't because of intelligence sources and messages.
	I don't know.
	That's outside of my jurisdiction.
	All right.
	So Jeff Sessions, these are what my sources, and I think he pretty much confirmed this last night in an interview with Shannon Bream.
	You know, everybody, Bob Goodlatt, Trey Gowdy, Devin Nunes, all these people, I think rightly, have been calling for a second special counsel.
	Including Sean Hannity and Jay Seculo, months ago, right.
	And so what I'm told by the Justice Department is, no, we're working through the process.
	The process is the IG report comes out.
	Well, an IG has no prosecutorial standing.
	And then the Justice Department lawyers would look at what the findings are, and then they would maybe then consider a special counsel.
	The only problem is we know laws were broken already.
	Yeah, well, that's not what's actually happened, though.
	So What the Attorney General said to Shannon Breeman, a lot of this is not getting reported because of the way the edits of the video were done just for TV purposes.
	But he said that I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatt, and we're going to consider seriously the recommendations.
	He then said, I'm also aware that we have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the FISA process, and we're not afraid to look at it.
	But the sentence before that reads, I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Justice Department, to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us, and we're conducting that investigation.
	That's not an independent counsel.
	That's not an Inspector General.
	So that's a lawyer that they is either within the Department of Justice or someone that the Attorney General has designated to look at this to determine and probably.
	What does that sound like to you?
	You've been around Washington a long time.
	How do you interpret that?
	It sounds like to me it's the preliminary to the appointment of a special counsel.
	Okay, we'll take a break.
	We'll come back.
	He is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, also counsel to the President.
	Jay Seculo is with us.
	As we continue, Jay Sekulow, he is the chief counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, and also counsel to the President.
	I want to go back to what the Attorney General said last night, because a lot of conservatives I know are frustrated.
	They're frustrated that the Attorney General recused himself immediately after he was appointed to be the Attorney General, which resulted in Rod Rosenstein making the decision for a special counsel.
	You know, we've heard Russia, Trump, Trump, Russia for an entire year, but nobody has, quote, any there's smoke, but there's no evidence.
	And now the special counsel we are, you know, are reading that now they're looking into the UAE, and their indictments have nothing to do with Trump-Russia.
	Even Adam Schiff said there's no evidence of any Trump-Russia collusion, but yet it goes on and it literally dominates headlines on every news channel, every newspaper, every day.
	Don't believe everything you read.
	So what happens in these is there is an echo chamber inside of Washington, D.C. I've been a lawyer and practicing in Washington going on four decades.
	So there's an echo chamber inside of Washington and stories tend to create themselves and they're self-verified.
	So a lot of what you read is just not true.
	And I'm not going to get into details, obviously, of any conversations that I have or have not had with the Office of Special Counsel.
	But I'm not concerned about allegations I read in the newspapers.
	What about the issues that I've been following so closely?
	And that is that, you know, what has happened with the dossier?
	Who bought and paid for it?
	How a FISA warrant was obtained?
	How is it possible that an investigation is rigged and you write exonerations before you do the investigation?
	When I read about, you know, Uranium One and we had an undercover operator inside of Putin's network that's committing crimes, and then we still allow 20% of America's uranium to go to them.
	You know, my audience is listening to this.
	There's nothing that anybody has ever corrected me on in terms of the facts, but nothing happens.
	Why?
	Because we have not yet had appointed a special counsel, nor have we had a release of the Inspector General's reports on this.
	So when I, you and I have been talking about this for a long time, back last year, when we said there was a need for a special counsel, we said we wanted several areas, scope of inquiry.
	What were those?
	It was the there was Goodlatt and Graham and Grassley were talking about the special counsel to look at the Clinton Foundation matter.
	Then there was discussion of including Uranium One.
	Then the FISA stuff broke in the fall, remember, more of the FISA information came out in the fall.
	And then we said, now the special counsel, separate, this is independent from what Bob Mueller is doing.
	It's outside of Bob.
	And you're confident this is all going to get done.
	Yeah, look, I don't have any personal knowledge that Jeff Sessions tomorrow morning is going to make an announcement of a special counsel.
	But you will tell you this.
	The preliminaries are being laid out for the American people, and he said it yesterday.
	And I think that this is going to, I think the request for this is coming from citizens, is coming from their elected representatives, and I think the executive branch needs to respond appropriately.
	And that would be the appointment of a special counsel for this.
	All right.
	Thanks, Jay Seculo.
	We'll see you also tonight on Hannity, 9 Eastern, Fox News Channel, 800-941, Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	When we come back, Fox News Channel's chief White House correspondent, Ed Henry, weighs in.
	A lot going on in Washington today.
	That's straight ahead.
	This is Gary Cohn's last meeting in the cabinet and of the cabinet, and he's been terrific.
	He may be a globalist, but I still like him.
	He is seriously a globalist, there's no question.
	But you know what?
	In his own way, he's a nationalist because he loves our country.
	You know, we have an infrastructure proposal in front of Congress.
	The Democrats don't want to approve it because they don't want to give us a victory.
	They think we've had too many victories.
	We've had a lot of victories.
	We've had a lot.
	And we're trying to have a DACA victory for everybody, by the way.
	And the Democrats are nowhere to be found.
	They're nowhere to be found.
	It's really terrible.
	We're ready.
	You know the expression, ready, willing, and able.
	We're ready, willing, and able.
	They are nowhere to be found.
	James Comey, for the first time since being fired by President Trump, is ready to talk.
	Nothing's off limits.
	Stephanopoulos Comey.
	I'm also really excited because I just found out.
	Is this true?
	What's the date?
	April 17th.
	My guest sitting in that chair will be former FBI Director James Comey.
	Yeah, Fuck Willie.
	That's what I said.
	I said, woo!
	All right, 24 till the top of the hour.
	I can't wait to see Comey either.
	We've invited Comey on this show.
	We'll give him three hours.
	We'll give him an hour on my TV show.
	Wonder if he's going to come on.
	Anyway, a lot to talk about, obviously.
	James Comey, I predicted from day one he'd want to be an MSNBC contributor, and I also predicted he'd write this book.
	And he has.
	We have Gary Cohn leaving.
	We have the president talking about infrastructure and DACA and the battle against the Department of Justice versus California.
	And joining us now to put perspective and light into all of this is Ed Henry, Fox News Channel's chief White House correspondent.
	How are you, sir?
	Sean, great to talk to you.
	You know, my first question to James Comey would be: who did you lie to, the FISA judge or the president-elect in the United States, when you told the FISA judge that you had corroborated some of the information from the dossier?
	Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
	Yeah.
	Because they told the FISA judge in October of 2016, well, they never told the FISA judge.
	They presented the dossier as if it was gospel truth.
	By law, they're supposed to vet it and corroborate it.
	By matter of FBI protocol, they're supposed to do the same.
	And all of it was presented, and they never told the judge purposely that, and they knew it, that Hillary had bought and paid for it.
	But then he told Trump in January, just before he got inaugurated at Trump Tower, it's unverified and salacious.
	So you're right.
	That's a great question.
	Yeah, he also told that to then President Barack Obama.
	I think it was about a day before he went to Trump Tower.
	James Comey had a highly classified meeting in the Oval Office, we now learn.
	And the New Yorker has a big piece on this this week.
	Jane Mayer reported it.
	I think it was January 5th, 2017, if I have it right.
	Barack Obama, Joe Biden, James Comey, and other top officials where James Comey said, Mr. President, here it is.
	It's unverified.
	Here's what we know.
	Here's what we don't know.
	And again, that's in sharp contrast to what they told the FISA judge, which is all done in secret.
	You know, I had Greg Jarrett, our Fox News legal analyst, on the show last night, and I said, okay, if you were James Comey's lawyer, would you advise him to go on this book tour?
	And he said, absolutely not.
	He said he is in jeopardy of being charged with a lot of crimes that, you know, we'll see and learn a lot when the IG report comes out.
	But I'm listening, we also know why did you start writing an exoneration of Hillary Clinton months before you interviewed her or other key witnesses?
	Yeah, well, look, I love Greg as I love you, but I'd have to gently disagree with both of you because I don't think James Comey has anything to fear.
	I don't think this Justice Department is going to do anything to him.
	If you're James Comey, you figure, why not go out and sell a whole lot of books, tell your version of the truth, because he's skated so far.
	None of these contradictions that you're pointing out, James Comey hasn't been called out largely by Congress.
	Sure, I think Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham and others have written tough letters and have called him out.
	They've got a criminal referral for the former British spy who put together the dossier, Christopher Steele.
	But none of that has really, you know, none of it has resulted in any charges or any real investigation with teeth as far as we know right now from this Justice Department.
	Well, but look at the interview that Jeff Sessions did with our colleague Shannon Bream last night.
	And Jeff Sessions is not against putting together a special counsel, one sort of like an investigation into the investigators.
	But Greg laid out six specific laws that he believes Comey himself could have violated.
	And that also includes leaking classified information to his Columbia professor friend so he can get the appointment of a special counsel who ended up being right about that.
	And I reported this week.
	We went back and found some congressional testimony.
	I mean, James Comey has testified many times the last year and a half or so.
	And at one point, he was asked directly, I believe by Chuck Grassley, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, whether, to James Comey, whether he or any other top officials leaked out any of this information.
	And under oath, James Comey said no to both.
	Now, as you just pointed out from Greg's reporting and elsewhere, and certainly James Comey himself suggested he did leak out some of this information, number one.
	And number two, we now know that his then deputy director, Andrew McCabe, who was overseeing the Clinton email investigation, also leaked out information.
	That's now being looked at, and there may be some accountability here by the Justice Department Inspector General, as you know, Michael Horowitz.
	But again, Jeff Sessions has been pretty clear.
	Look, I agree with Gowdy, Goodlatt, and a lot of other people in Congress that we need a special counsel.
	I really think that's the way to go.
	Up till last night, Sessions' answer was: okay, it's a process.
	The IG is going to come out with his report.
	We're going to see what's in it.
	And then, as a natural course of events, because he doesn't have prosecutorial powers, that would mean the Justice Department lawyers would take a look at it.
	And then, in all likelihood, I've got to believe, because the evidence now is incontrovertible, that in fact laws were broken.
	And if there's equal justice under the law, then the special counsel would find that rather expeditiously, in my opinion.
	Yeah, all I'm saying is you're right to a point there.
	But Jeff Sessions is.
	What are you saying?
	I'm wrong to a point there.
	Why are you insulting me on my show?
	I can't believe you're insulting me on my program.
	Well, here's the thing.
	You noted to your vast audience, coast to coast.
	Why are you taking me seriously?
	I'm only messing with you.
	I know, but you just said to this vast audience that Greg Jarrett was on your TV program last night.
	Who was not on your program?
	Ed Henry.
	I was not on there.
	Oh, so that's what this is all about.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh.
	Well, I think you're on tonight, so we'll have you on tonight.
	I'm looking forward to that.
	But what I want to say is that Jeff Sessions, I'll gently disagree with my friend here that Jeff Sessions saying I'm not opposed to a special counsel.
	Okay, maybe he will appoint one.
	But all I'm saying is that's not the same thing as saying I want a special counsel.
	But I have spoken to numerous Justice Department officials.
	This is how they're explaining it, that Jeff Sessions views it as a process.
	And that is first the IG report, then they have their own lawyers within the Justice Department looking into whatever the IG finds.
	And then the likelihood based on what we know now is at that point a special counsel would be appointed.
	They're saying that outright, that that's the way they believe the process should work.
	And if that process works, that is very smart and shrewd and is following the facts, which is what this whole thing should be.
	But as you pointed out at the top of this program, the fact of the matter is James Comey didn't do that.
	He was writing an exoneration letter for Hillary Clinton with McCain and Peter Strzzok and others months before they even interviewed her or concluded the investigation.
	So what I would say for all the criticism Jeff Sessions.
	By the way, what you described, Ed, is called obstruction of justice.
	Well, and if Jeff Sessions does the opposite and takes all this heat, but in the end follows the facts, I think he's going to be vindicated as well for all the heat that Jeff Sessions has taken.
	If he follows the facts, I think that's all anyone is asking here, both for the Clinton investigation and the Trump investigations, by the way.
	Follow the facts.
	Don't go with hearsay.
	Don't go with dossiers that are unverified.
	Follow the facts.
	Well, you've been following the story about alleged Trump-Russia collusion.
	And, you know, you're an objective reporter.
	You're not an opinion person like I am.
	Do you see any evidence you could share with my audience that exists about Trump-Russia collusion?
	I chuckle because every time you ask someone that, no one ever has evidence.
	So I think it's very clear that at least at this somewhat late stage, after months and months of investigation, there's no evidence of collusion.
	Now, I will say to you, though, as a friend, is there evidence of other crimes by anyone around Donald Trump?
	We don't know what Robert Mueller has.
	I'll add that caveat.
	But you are correct that where this investigation started, there is absolutely no evidence of collusion.
	Look, if there is, let the American people see it.
	But if that's the case, then I would also argue that Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for dossier that we know is full of Russian lies and propaganda to mislead the American people in the lead up to an election and then was used unverified, not corroborated as the basis for a FISA warrant.
	Sounds like a lot of collusion with Russia to me.
	And similarly, I think then that raises questions.
	If we really care about Russia and the bad actor that Vladimir Putin is and the hostile regime that he's running there in Russia, then I think we've got to go back and ask the question, well, why when the FBI had an informant inside of a Putin operation in America that was involved, we know at the time because their informant told the FBI, involved in bribery and kickbacks and extortion and money laundering.
	Right.
	Well, why did we ever allow Sipheus to sign off on allowing the Uranium One deal, which basically put 20% of America's uranium in the hands of a hostile empire?
	Well, and where's that, Mr. Jeff Sessions?
	I mean, that's what I'm saying.
	If he's following the facts, fine.
	And maybe, you know, the Inspector General is going to say as part of his probe, you know, Justice Department officials in the Obama administration looked the other way or something like that.
	And then maybe Jeff Sessions can act.
	But as you say, the Uranium One stuff has been out there for years.
	So if there were crimes that this informant can prove, let's move forward.
	I know you don't watch my show every night, but we reported back about two months ago that, in fact, Jeff Sessions got confirmed and corroborated that he did not recuse himself on Uranium One.
	And about six weeks ago, we had an indictment in the Uranium One case.
	So it's back to life, apparently.
	Well, we'll see.
	I mean, like you say, some of this is happening in secret.
	I do think the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, you know, Jason Chaffetz and others who have worked with Horowitz over the years, back when Jason, now a Fox News contributor, was running the House Oversight Committee and really started this whole investigation of Hillary Clinton in many ways, has great confidence in Michael Horowitz as a nonpartisan Inspector General at Justice.
	As you also know, a lot of inspector generals at these various departments, they sit on these things for months, for years, and it doesn't go anywhere.
	I mean, Jason Chabitz and others have assured me that Horowitz is on top of this and that we're going to see a report that's going to be very, very tough.
	We'll see.
	Yeah, we have to wait for a lot of things, which is frustrating to me at times.
	Ed Henry, Fox News Channel's chief White House correspondent, is with us.
	We'll talk to him more on the other side.
	And as we continue with Ed Henry, Fox News Channel's chief White House correspondent.
	So I saw that Gary Cohn leaves, and what kind of irritated me about the whole thing is he's acting as though it's a big surprise that the president wants fair trade.
	And that because he said it probably in every single campaign speech he gave.
	And Gary Cohn is acting like he's above it all.
	By the way, he's a big globalist anyway, so this is an opportunity maybe to get a conservative in there.
	But he, you know, the grandstanding that goes on at the White House frustrates me.
	The palace intrigue that it seems the media is obsessed with, you know, that frustrates me as well because they don't cover stories that I think they should be covering.
	Well, and I think that you saw a narrative come out that, like, oh, oh, gosh, what is Donald Trump going to do without Gary Cohn, number one?
	And this is awful and horrible, and the markets are going to crash because of the tariffs and because Gary Cohn is leaving.
	And while, you know, two or three days ago, overnight, the futures were down, all of a sudden everything evened out because this is bigger than any one staffer.
	And so you could talk about palace intrigue as you say all you want.
	You could talk about who's in, who's out.
	At the end of the day, there's one person who's in charge here, and that's this president.
	And as you say, I would even go back further than the campaign, Sean.
	He was on Fox and other places on Twitter years ago talking about how we were getting ripped off.
	And if he's wrong, the president, about these tariffs, he shouldn't have been elected because, as you say, he's been about as transparent as any presidential candidate I've ever covered in saying, if you elect me, this is what I'm going to do.
	He was elected.
	He passed the tax cut as promised.
	And I know Gary Cohn and others are concerned that the tariffs are going to hurt the economy.
	But maybe the president thinks there's enough running room in the economy right now because of the tax cuts and the regulation cuts that Gary Cohen gets credit for being a part of, by the way.
	Let me also add one little caveat to this.
	Knowing Donald Trump as long and as well as I know him, it's all a negotiation because he's going to put the tariffs on, and every one of those countries that has kind of been taking advantage of us, they're going to want to renegotiate a deal.
	And that will be the future.
	There's my prediction.
	You're right.
	He's already doing that.
	In fact, I think your prediction is already coming true because what's happening today at the White House, the president is moving forward, sort of, but saying, look, in particular, in this case, Canada and Mexico, but I suspect you're right, that South Korea and other countries down the road are getting a chance, 15 to 30 days, to, you know, in the case of Canada and Mexico, renegotiate NAFTA.
	If the president gets a good deal, he's not going to impose these illuminating tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
	Period.
	It's all a negotiation.
	It's amazing all this time he's been in the public eye.
	People have not figured him out in some fundamental and basic ways.
	All right, Ed Henry, thank you.
	Fox News Channel's chief White House correspondent.
	We always appreciate you being on board.
	When we come back, the battle over sanctuary states like California and sanctuary cities and the mayor of Oakland willing to put law enforcement and the citizens of California's lives in jeopardy will explain, and we have the statistics to prove it straight ahead.
	For example, the mayor of Oakland has actively been actively seeking to help illegal aliens avoid apprehension by ICE.
	Her actions support those who flout the law and boldly validates illegality.
	There's no other way to interpret those remarks.
	According to Acting Director Holman, ICE failed to make 800 arrests that would have been made if the mayor had not made her statement.
	Those are 800 wanted criminals that are now at large in that community, 800 wanted criminals that ICE will now have to pursue by other means with more difficulty in dangerous situations, all because of one irresponsible action.
	So here's my message to Mayor Schaff.
	How dare you, how dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda.
	It cannot be the policy of a great nation to up and reward those who unlawfully enter its country with legal status, social security, welfare, food stamps, work permits, and so forth.
	How can this be a sound policy?
	Meanwhile, those who engage in the process lawfully and patiently and wait their turn are discriminated against, it seems, at every turn.
	How dare you vilify members of our community by trying to frighten the American public into thinking that all undocumented residents are dangerous criminals.
	Hardworking, law-abiding Oaklanders like Eusebio and Maria Sanchez, who you ripped away from their American-born children, and the cancer patients at our public hospital who relied on Maria's nursing skills every day.
	How dare you distract the American people from a failed immigration system that tears apart decent families and forces the workers that our economy depends on to harvest our crops, deliver our services, and build our cities to live in fear and work under oppressed conditions.
	How dare you distort the reality about declining violent crime in a diverse sanctuary city like Oakland, California to advance your racist agenda?
	Oh, let's always just drop in the racist agenda because you want the rule of law followed.
	We're not talking about dreamers, about DACA, about the Visa lottery, chain migration.
	We're talking about people here illegally that have committed other crimes, including violent crimes.
	You know, when you look at the numbers, they speak for themselves.
	Despite this mayor in Oakland's actions, well, ICE still did go forward with their raid.
	And as Jeff Session said, yeah, they are endangering the lives of law enforcement and also endangering the lives of people in the community.
	But they were able to arrest 232 people for violating their federal immigration laws.
	Now, of the 232 arrested out there, 180 were either convicted criminals, had been issued final order of removal and didn't leave, or had been previously deported and just came back to the U.S. again illegally because it's so easy to just walk back in.
	And of the 232, 115 had prior felony convictions for sex abuse and weapons charges and assault.
	So those are the types of people this arrogant Oakland mayor is protecting.
	And of course, Libby Schaff, she's being defiant, but she's aiding and abetting in lawbreaking.
	And it's also called the obstruction of justice.
	And, you know, keep in mind if California lawmakers continue to obstruct federal immigration officials from doing their jobs, then, well, at that point, that's going to make the people in California less safe.
	And look, you have a choice.
	We either are a nation of laws or we're a nation of chaos.
	And for lawmakers and elected officials to pick and choose and openly defy the laws of the land, then we no longer have order in society.
	800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of this program.
	All right, joining us now is Andrew Arthur.
	He's with the Center for Immigration Studies.
	He's a resident fellow in law and policy.
	Also, Eric Chase, criminal defense attorney.
	Mr. Chase, let's just stick with these numbers.
	When you have 232 people arrested in spite of the warning sent out by the Oakland mayor, and you find 115 of the 232 had prior felony convictions for sex abuse, weapons charges, and assault, tell me why those criminals should be protected.
	Well, I think what the mayor is saying and what the Attorney General for the state of California is saying is that the entire effort to round up people is not consistent with what we want to do here in California.
	Okay, but one second.
	We're not asking the people of California to do one thing.
	We're not asking the Oakland mayor to lift a finger.
	But we do have federal laws which supersede state laws, and these are people that entered the country illegally and committed other crimes on top of it.
	We're not talking about DREAMers, DACA, chain migration, or the Visa Lottery.
	We're talking about people that broke, didn't respect America's laws and sovereignty, came here illegally, and then they're responsible for committing other crimes, including violent crimes.
	In those instances, why would you support elected officials protecting them?
	Well, we don't necessarily say that we don't support the deportation of some of these individuals.
	Okay, with all due respect, you're dodging my question.
	You're putting in jeopardy law enforcement because now the people, the element of surprise is gone.
	You're putting in jeopardy people of California.
	What do you say to the families, you know, like Kate Steinley's family, when they become victims of crimes by people that had already committed crimes?
	What do you say to them?
	Sorry?
	I wish it didn't happen.
	My thoughts and prayers.
	What do you say?
	Well, people are victims of crimes from lots of people, whether it's illegal immigrants, people who are here legally, or even white supremacists.
	You can't say we're going to attack something because if somebody is in this country illegally, listen, how many times have you been down to study what goes on at the border?
	Have you ever done it?
	I don't work down at the border.
	Okay, I've been down there 12 times.
	I've been out there horseback, all-terrain vehicle, helicopters, boats.
	I've been everywhere from the Rio Grande to a San Diego office building where there's a tunnel that was dug from there.
	I've been out when criminals and gang members were arrested.
	Now, in Texas alone, 642,000 crimes were committed against Texans, some violent, by illegal immigrants in a seven-year period.
	You address the people of Texas and you tell them why you think it's okay to be tipping off, aiding, and abetting people that don't respect our laws.
	Tell them why.
	Well, the issue isn't why we do just that.
	Look, 642,000 families have been victims of crime.
	I want you to address those families why criminal, illegal immigrants should stay in the country.
	Criminal, illegal, well, actually, immigrants who have been convicted of crimes do get deported in the normal course.
	Excuse me, that's what ICE was looking for, and the Oakland mayor was stopping.
	Let me bring in Andrew.
	That's not true.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	Andrew.
	Yeah, Sean.
	Just weigh in on it.
	This is one of those situations where Mayor Schaff's action didn't make any sense at all.
	I mean, for a couple of reasons.
	One, she's talking about the declining crime rate.
	You want to bring the crime rate down, get rid of the criminals.
	The fact is, if ICE is out looking for criminals, you're going to take them off the street.
	Most interesting, as Director Homan has mentioned, most of these people commit these crimes in their own neighborhoods.
	So even if you want to keep the immigrant population safe, get rid of the criminals.
	But more importantly, or as importantly, is the effect that this has on law enforcement.
	They don't know who's on the other side of the door when they show up to look for somebody who is a criminal alien.
	There might be a gun.
	There might be a group of people who are there to assault them.
	Or even worse, if they have to arrest somebody in public.
	Can you imagine the melee that would take place?
	You know, if somebody were to carjack a car or try to run police with, you know, firearms chasing somebody down the street, it's just irresponsible.
	There's no excuse whatsoever for Mayor Schaff's action, be it public safety, be it the safety of the immigrant community.
	She's just trying to make a political point.
	She's trying to raise her political profile, and she's doing it on the back of law enforcement.
	So I want to ask, Eric, well, let's say one of these criminal aliens that were convicted in the past of a violent crime, and they get tipped off by this Oklahoma, and they go out and commit a crime against somebody else.
	Does she bear some of the responsibility for the actions of people she tipped off that were able to stay free?
	She does not bear legal responsibility.
	I didn't ask if she bared legal.
	I'm not talking about legally, but if.
	No responsibility is beyond what we're talking about.
	I want to correct you on something.
	When someone is convicted of a crime in California and they serve a sentence, immigration and nationalization places a hold on them, and they are turned over at the completion of their sentence.
	Excuse me, you're dead.
	You're dead wrong.
	What California does is they don't turn over criminal aliens.
	And if you don't believe it, look at the Kate Steinley case.
	Yeah, SB 54 restricts local law enforcement from voluntarily providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of criminal aliens and from voluntarily transferring those aliens to federal officials once their state criminal custody ends.
	Remarkably, this law, by this law, California is attempting to prevent the federal government from removing dangerous aliens from society.
	It just doesn't make any sense.
	Well, I just want to say one thing.
	If it ends up being your kid, Eric, that's the victim of crime, or somebody in your family that's the victim of crime, and you're in the middle—I think you're going to have a different—and then you find out, oh, like, for example, I know one parent in particular where a criminal alien kills this guy's son.
	He's working in a convenience store.
	I've interviewed him many, many times.
	He's working overnight.
	His name is Ronnebeck, and the kid gets killed.
	And then you find out that the guy responsible had been held by police for holding a woman hostage for a week and molesting this woman for a week.
	And he got to go free.
	And then he goes free, and then he kills this poor man's son while he's working.
	So that's the type of case.
	How do you explain?
	Look this father in the eye, Mr. Ronnebeck, and tell him, oh, yeah, it's okay what the Oakland mayor's doing.
	It's easy, Sean, to say that we can stop all bad things from happening if we take this action.
	The guy that killed Grant Ronnebeck, the guy that killed him, was in jail for years for kidnapping a woman and holding her hostage over a week.
	And when he got out of jail, he was set free because they didn't hand him over to the authorities.
	That's what your sanctuary city policies do.
	So what do you say to the father that lost his son that was working overnight so he could pay for his college?
	Well, it's not my point to apologize to him or in some way make him feel better.
	How about we change the policy so that can't happen again?
	How about every criminal, illegal immigrant that is in jail when they're released, we release them back out and send them back to their own country instead of releasing them back out in the population to put people at risk?
	How about we do that?
	Are you against that?
	How about if we say every criminal who's arrested?
	I asked you, are you never gets out?
	I asked you, are you against it?
	If they serve their time and they're here illegally, they go home.
	You don't let them back into American society to victimize other Americans.
	Is that okay or not?
	Anytime you take some protective measure, yes, you're going to cause the protection you're seeking, but it has the potential of being overbroad and bringing people into the world.
	So people that are convicted of crimes that are here illegally, you're going to allow them to go back out on the street to commit more crimes because you're not willing to deport them.
	If we say that anybody who commits any crime never gets out, then we protect everybody from everything.
	But we don't want to do that.
	And we recognize that some people who we catch for, say, petty with the prior or a simple assault, and we give them some type of sentence, say three years.
	So you basically want open borders.
	You want full-on amnesty, open borders.
	We'll take a break.
	We'll have more with Andrew Arthur and Eric Chase, 800-941, Sean, Tolfrey, telephone number.
	All right, as we continue with Andrew Arthur, Center for Immigration Studies, and Eric Chase, criminal defense attorney, I just got done asking Eric, Andrew.
	I just got done asking him, well, if somebody serves time, an illegal immigrant caught, spends his time in jail, whether or not they should automatically be deported, and he can't say yes to that.
	And I say, at what point then does it become the responsibility of whatever crimes these people may commit in the future, who gets the blame for that, considering we had the opportunity to deport people, especially violent criminals?
	I think the local politicians, starting with Jerry Brown, Xavier Becerra, the Attorney General of California, all the way down to Mayor Schaff and anybody else that engages in this activity, they should be held accountable by the voters for the carnage that is caused when they block legitimate law enforcement in the United States, be it immigration, be it the FBI, be it the DEA, it doesn't matter.
	They should be held accountable for that, and they should be held accountable at the ballot box.
	And quite frankly, I think Congress ought to think about maybe tort liability for these states and localities that engage in this sort of activity and that result in harm to Americans.
	If you or I were to run into somebody with our car, we'd be held liable in tort.
	Why is Mayor Schaff any different if somebody's harmed by one of those aliens who wasn't arrested because she yelled, cops are coming, you better run?
	All right, I got to leave it there.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	When we come back, wide open telephones.
	800-941, Sean, if you want to join us.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
	You got all these Democrats now, rightly so, under fire.
	You've got the Republican Jewish Coalition now has called for the resignation of seven Democrats over their ties to screwy Louis, Louis Furrakhan, and, of course, a known anti-Semite, Keith Ellison, the number two man at the DNC.
	Well, he said that his fellow Democrats, they're not concerned with Louis Furrakhan's repeated, virulent, anti-Semitic and racist outbursts.
	No one cares, he said.
	Oh, okay.
	You have the biggest racist and anti-Semite, and we're discovering that, oh, he meets with a lot of these congressional people.
	And then this photo finally emerged.
	I had often wondered and questioned whether or not, considering they lived only a couple of blocks apart, and Obama hung out with the most radical people in his life, especially, you know, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Father Flager, Jeremiah Wright.
	I wonder if he had known Louis Farrakhan.
	Well, a guy that had taken a picture of Obama and Farrakhan had it before the 2008 election, and he buried it.
	And it only came out recently.
	Well, here is in October 2016, Farrakhan talking about the details of his private meeting with Obama.
	Barack did not want to denounce me, but Hillary forced him.
	And he gave in and said, all right, all right.
	I renounce Farrakhan.
	I don't want his support.
	I supported him anyway.
	But I have a picture of Barack and myself together.
	You never saw it, because I would never put it out to give his enemies what they were looking for to hurt him.
	There you go.
	Oh, conspiracy.
	Yeah, apparently they were more friendly than anybody knew.
	Look, you can go through, you know, his magazine once was the God that teaches me that the white man is the skunk of the planet Earth, Louis Farrakhan.
	You know, the U.S. is number one on God's list to be destroyed.
	Trump will take us on rocket ships to the abyss of hell, he said.
	He said things like, Jews have no forgiveness in them.
	Just a vicious, virulent, racist, anti-Semite.
	And he's also a little unhinged.
	Here's him talking about having been transported to a mother wheel that hovers above the earth.
	On the night of September the 17th, 1985, I was carried up on that mountain in a vision with a few friends of mine.
	As we reached the top of the mountain, a wheel or what you call an unidentified flying object appeared at the side of the mountain, and I was called from the wheel to come up into the wheel.
	Three metal legs appeared from the wheel, giving me the impression that it was going to land, but it never came over the mountain.
	Being somewhat afraid, I called to the members of my party to come with me, but a voice from the wheel spoke saying, not them, just you.
	I was told to relax, and a beam of light came from the wheel, and I was carried up on this beam of light into the wheel.
	I sat next to the pilot.
	However, I could not see him.
	I could only feel his presence.
	As the wheel lifted off from the side of the mountain, moving at a terrific speed, I knew I was being transported to the mother wheel or the mother plane, which is a human-built planet a half a mile by a half a mile, which the Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us of for over 60 years.
	Okay, transported to the mothership, the mother wheel, and friends with all these people.
	All right, let's get to our busy telephones.
	Tom is in Minneapolis.
	Tom, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called, sir.
	Good afternoon, Sean.
	Thank you for taking the call.
	I called in regard to a lot of your discussion about the first half hour of your show that I heard yesterday afternoon and your call for patience.
	And patience is certainly a virtue.
	In fact, I would recall that when I became a parent some, what, about 39 years ago, I thought every parent's prayer was, Lord, give me patience now.
	Give me patience yesterday.
	Hurry up.
	I'm ready.
	Exactly.
	But kind of the rhetorical question is, how much longer do we have to wait?
	You've been on your show reciting a number of things over and over, both in regard to all the investigations going on as well as what the Republicans are doing there in Washington.
	You know, it was the first give us the House and then we'll make a difference and then what we need the Senate too and then we'll do something and then give us the presidency and then we'll get something done.
	And I don't know what the excuse is.
	Well, the only thing I could say if you want some good news is the Heritage Foundation saying that 64% of Trump's agenda, which is conservative, was completed in the first year.
	You just don't see a lot of it.
	We're now seeing the economy soar and turnaround.
	You're not going to see the benefits of energy independence.
	It's going to take a little more time, although we're now number one in terms of producing on a daily basis.
	ANWAR being open, the pipeline's being built, the coal industry was saved.
	The natural gas industry is flourishing.
	So those are all big things.
	Ending burdensome regulation is all happening.
	But I just want to remind you of this.
	One year ago today is the day that Sarah Carter and John Solomon broke the story that a FISA warrant was acquired to listen in on Trump's campaign and his campaign associate.
	We reported that a year ago.
	And look at what we've learned in a year.
	We learned a lot of things.
	Remember, the president was being laughed at when he tweeted it out.
	And then we went from there and then we understand that a dossier was out there, a phony dossier filled with Russian lies.
	And then we've had a year and we haven't learned anything, not a single fact that ties Donald Trump to Russia or any type of collusion.
	We've learned that in the last year.
	And then we learned that the dossier was unverified, never corroborated, and put under false pretenses and presented to a FISA court judge, and they got a FISA warrant, and Trump was spied on.
	And then we also learned in the last year all about Uranium One.
	And, yeah, there was a network of Putin thugs in the United States committing crimes.
	And we had an FBI informant in that group, and they still allowed the sale of Uranium One to go on anyway.
	So now we're at the point where we're going to get the IG report.
	And from the IG report, I would believe that there's going to be a special counsel.
	And I'm telling you, I think if the law is followed, there's an if there, a lot of people that we talk about every day will be going to jail because we have evidence on our side.
	Now, do I wish I could snap my fingers and make Jeff Sessions move a little faster?
	Yeah, of course I do.
	But I think he's given every indication in this interview last night that he's doing a lot more than any of us know.
	And so I just have to take that on faith.
	I hear you.
	A lot of the things, though, you mentioned the uranium deal, as well as the thing about Hillary's emails and her server and Benghazi.
	been talking about for going on two years or longer and you've also said that well here's one other thing We learned the fix was in in the email investigation of Hillary Clinton.
	There's another thing we learned in the last year.
	We've learned a lot in the last year, but it's not been easy to extract this information and evidence.
	But even coming up on two years, be two years in July when Comey read the report on Hillary and had all the things that should have gone to an indictment, but decided, well, we can't charge her, though.
	But this is a new day, isn't it?
	There's a new administration.
	You know, a lot of these people, the upper echelon people, are now gone, and many more will go.
	And I, you know, if, look, it's a tipping point moment for the country.
	Either we're going to have equal justice under the law, or we're going to have a dual or a two-tiered justice system.
	We're either going to apply the law of the land equally or we won't.
	And if we don't do it and you don't have the rule of law and you allow the shredding of the Constitution with FISA warrants going out under false pretenses and lies, then, you know, that is a step towards, you know, basically, you know, a nail in the coffin of what is the greatest democratic republic ever.
	So, you know, that's why it's important and we're going to stay on it.
	But be patient if you can.
	All right, JB is in Phoenix, 550 K FYI.
	What's up, JB?
	How are you?
	Doing great.
	How are you, son?
	We got JB.
	We got JD out there.
	We got a lot of J Somethings out there in Arizona.
	What's going on?
	Well, yesterday you were talking about the lady of negotiable virtue that was being interviewed by, I believe it was CNN, and she was described as a sex coach.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	They sent their reporter to Thailand to interview a prostitute sex coach in jail because she might have the big smoking gun to open up the Trump-Russia collusion case.
	And then they sent another guy to St. Petersburg, Russia, to do some dumpster diving and some more heavy reporting on CNN's part.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, you were inquiring as to what a sex coach was.
	Oh, don't tell me you're a sex coach.
	Well, they're very much like the coach of a rowing team, you know, with the megaphone going stroke, stroke, stroke, stroke.
	Did you spend all day yesterday trying to get through to get this on the air?
	Because it's.
	Actually, the first call, first time I dialed, I got through.
	Wow, that's a record.
	Good for you.
	And they said, hey, can we call you back tomorrow?
	Okay.
	Well, we're glad we got you back.
	Oh, man.
	Everybody's a comedian.
	Mary Kay Orlando.
	You don't drive the Mary Kay cosmetic car, do you?
	I do not, but I wouldn't mind a Cadillac.
	I'd mind it.
	I wouldn't be caught dead in a pink one.
	Well, that's true.
	Yeah, pink's not my color either.
	So what's going on?
	How are you?
	Well, I'm great.
	And thank you for taking my call.
	I am so in love with your show and with your ideas and your facts that you bring forth.
	And, you know, everything you talk about, I'm like, oh, yeah, yeah, I want to talk about that.
	So it's hard to pinpoint one thing.
	But I do want to say that if our president would have run as a Democrat, these people who are so angry with him would be fawning all over him, just like they used to.
	They fawned on him.
	They wanted him on their talk shows.
	They wanted him everywhere.
	But now that he is standing for values and morals, they can't stand him.
	And the biggest problem is people are believing the lies of the media.
	The normal average American person is beginning to believe that there is all of this stuff going on, the collusion and the porn stars and all of these crazy things, when in fact, it's not the truth.
	The fact is the collusion came from the other side.
	The things have been done by the Democrats, the liberals.
	Let me just say this.
	I am extraordinarily confident in the reporting.
	You know, again, this is the one-year anniversary that we sprung it on you that in fact there was a warrant issued to spy on a Trump campaign associate one year ago today.
	Right.
	And we have been unpeeling the onion every day, and we've made so much progress, and it seems like it's taken too long, but it's part of a process.
	I used the example yesterday.
	Do you play any sports at all, Mary Kay?
	Well, as a cheerleader, does that count?
	Of course it counts.
	Did they throw you up in the air and drop you?
	And I mean, I watch those cheerleading.
	I'm like, that's actually a dangerous sport.
	I know.
	I always had to be the base.
	It was not fair.
	I had to be the base.
	Yeah, so all these people are stomping on your head and your hair and your shoulders.
	Yeah, I don't think I'd want that job either.
	But look, if you want to be good at anything in life, it takes time.
	And if you want to get to the truth in a case like this, that while simple, it's all complicated and you got to put it together, you got to work at it.
	And that's what we've been doing, and I think we've made so much progress.
	I am confident that at the end of the day, the American people will at least know the truth.
	Whether or not government does their job, equal application under the law, you know, that's not in my hands.
	I don't have the authority to weigh in any which way on that part of it.
	But I'm pretty confident that if we have people that have fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of law, that things that I have been predicting are going to happen.
	And that's why I don't, you know, I don't, I ignore the media now.
	I don't care what these people think.
	All right, Hannity, tonight, 9 Eastern Fox News.
	Hope you'll set your DVR.
	All right, Jay Succulo, who is the counsel for the president, he's going to weigh in on all things special counsel, all these reports that have come out.
	We have the latest on Screwy Louis Furrakhan.
	How is it?
	Everybody comments about anybody that is hanging around with racists or anti-Semite.
	How come nobody's commenting on the congressmen that have?
	Well, finally, that's happening.
	We'll explain.
	Joy Behar has to apologize.
	Jeff Sessions now seriously considering a second special counsel.
	We have Tommy Laron on the streets.
	And also, we have Daryl Parks and Katie Pablich.
	All right, so set your DVR, 9 Eastern, Hannity Fox News.

▲