Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has fought back against companies like Facebook and Twitter for some of the censoring that they've been doing. Congresswoman Blackburn explains her story of how Twitter had censored her. Plus, she has introduced the Browser Act to control and protect the 1st Amendment. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
All right, glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
We got a great show for you today, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Did you see Alan Dershowitz and Joe DeGenova last night on TV?
They were both amazing.
We have Joe DeGenova and Sarah Carter on today, where Newt Gingrich is back.
Where has Newt Gingrich been?
I know his wife is now the ambassador to the Holy See, to Rome, and to the church.
And I guess in the Vatican, I guess he's spending a lot of time in Italy having the time of his life.
He seems to have just what would you do if you were in Italy?
I think I wouldn't have been.
Let me not ask you that question.
You're not any fun.
Let me tell you what he's doing in Italy.
I'm not any fun.
You're not fun.
I'm not any fun.
No.
At all.
Say yourself you're not fun.
Well, I mean, I'm a happy person.
I love doing what I'm doing every day, but the idea anymore.
You're in Rome.
You're even happier because the grapes are sweeter.
The wine is stronger.
The air is warmer.
The sun is so good.
She's walking through Italy and she's saying the grapes are stronger here.
They're so much stronger.
I can't believe it.
I said the grapes were sweeter.
The wine is stronger.
The wine is stronger and you get drunk faster.
I have a feeling I'd be very popular in Italy.
Oh, yeah.
Who's the crazy girl from New York?
Who's that crazy woman from the United States of America?
That's the first thing they'd be saying.
I wish we could do a reality show where you and Linda travel to all different countries.
No, that's not going to happen.
All different cultures.
Okay.
And I guarantee you if we took a vote based upon the people that met us.
And we said, who do you think?
They would like you.
They would like you.
Obviously.
Obviously.
I'd be there on my iPhone looking up the latest news.
I'd be walking down the road.
I'd be watching the Drudge Report, my head down, my glasses.
He's like, hold on, I just got to send this tweet out.
One second.
Well, I don't tweet as much as I used to.
All right, so we have DeGenova.
We have Sarah Carter.
It's getting really scary with all of these social media sites censoring.
They're doing data mining on you.
They're spying on you.
And we've got all the evidence.
I mean, look at these examples.
Facebook admitted they routinely suppress conservative news stories from their trending news section in 2016.
Now, just recently, Facebook, and I meant, I told this to Lauren the other day, I gave you that news piece, rejected an ad because it had a crucifix with Jesus Christ on it on the cross, and they said it was too violent.
That is so offensive.
But why?
Because it's unbelievable.
In the past, Facebook has approved Christian hate groups, and they've shut down Christian groups.
I mean, they're run by a bunch of left-wing radicals.
On top of that, then you've got Facebook removed a patriotic picture honoring fallen Marines.
You have an instance where Facebook removed a Photoshop picture of Obama wearing a Che Guevara shirt.
And I mean, I'm pretty much all free speech except if you start making threats of violence or some type of terroristic threat.
I mean, we've got to monitor social media sites because almost all of these school shooters and church shooters and all these people that are involved in terrorism, they're all telegraphing what they're planning and what they want to do.
So we've got to do something on that front.
Now, Dan Bongino, Jonathan Gillam, and Diamond of Diamond and Silk fame, they've all been through this, and we've been through it.
You know, Twitter has now, how many times told us officially, well, you guys have been compromised.
I'm like, okay, so then like, well, don't use this site, this part of the site.
I'm like, why do I even go on your stupid site if you can't protect your stupid site?
And nothing, by the way, is private anymore.
Nothing.
It's unbelievable.
Government spying on you.
You got these companies spying on you.
I'm like, leave us alone.
It's unbelievable.
Linda will be interested.
Spy on her.
Now, think about this, though, because then it becomes a sorry.
Sorry, are you inviting people to spy on me?
Yeah, absolutely.
And they'll find that you're pretty boring, too.
Just saying, all right, what do you do every weekend?
No.
Okay, what do you do every weekend?
You go home to your two-year-old and you go to two-year-old extravaganzas, which is like that's the operative word, extravaganza.
Extravaganzas.
Extravaganza.
Okay, so you go to a pond.
You go to, I think recently you went to an aquarium.
You go to museums.
By the way, taking your kid to a museum, that is the worst thing you could ever do to a kid is take him to a museum.
That's about what I do when my son's awake.
It's about what I do when he's during his nap time.
Oh.
That's when you want to spy.
That's when you're cleaning, and that's when you're cooking that night's dinner.
Just a guess.
You better watch yourself, man.
Why?
Because I know what she does.
She tells us what she does.
Did I say anything that's not true?
No, I do.
I clean, I cook, and while I do it, I dance around and I.
Yeah, all right.
We don't need the details.
Oh, see, now you don't want to spy uncomfortable now.
No, I don't.
I have absolutely no design.
I wonder how many shades of red I can make you here.
This would be interesting.
You can't embarrass me in a million years.
Thank you.
Nice try, though.
All right.
So, you know, and here's all of this is going on.
And I went through this in great detail last night about the president because, you know, something happened in the last week.
And I can't really explain.
There's been a huge momentum shift because we've spent like 30, 35, 40 days or so, and it has been a non-stop assault on Donald Trump.
And you know what?
The media has to look at his approval rating holding now at 51% today.
And they've got to be saying to themselves, wow, this isn't working.
And you look at the president, okay, he's keeping another campaign promise.
Fine, Congress is slow.
They only appropriated X number of dollars.
I'm sending the National Guard to the southern border, and we'll protect the border that way until we can build the wall.
He deserves credit.
In other words, this guy wants to keep his promises.
People say, oh, he didn't really mean it when he said build the wall.
Yeah, he did.
And the wall's going to get built.
I bet any amount of money.
And, you know, for everyone, all the liberals are wetting their pants over this and having a heart attack and getting hysterical.
The problem they have is that that precedent for doing that was already done by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
And the president's tough rhetoric, he's now demanding Mexico disband the caravan of asylum seekers.
You've got the Prime Minister of Canada now saying, yeah, it looks like we're going to probably get a deal, a NAFTA deal, and it's going to be more favorable than the one we already have.
Oh, I guess Mexico is going to make less money, and that means they'll pay for the wall.
But remember, and for everyone, I said to him during the campaign, you don't expect Mexico is going to write you a check and build the wall.
He goes, no, not at all.
Well, I said, well, how are they going to pay for the wall?
He goes, because I'm going to renegotiate trade deals more in our favor.
And we'll get more money and we'll apply that money to the wall.
So the headline on Drudge right now is a new NAFTA deal is near.
So all of which tells me that this president's serious about keeping his word.
And it's showing up in the polls.
And it ought to be something that the rest of the Republican Party follows because if you keep your word, you fight for the things you believe in, well, then people are going to reward you with higher approval ratings and with re-election.
Then he even have the fake news CNN poll.
The president making major gains in key voting groups.
He went up eight points with men since February.
He went up five points with young voters since February, nine points with middle-aged voters since February.
And he's up by 10 points with college graduates.
Now, what's so interesting about these polls, imagine if he didn't have Robert Mueller hanging all over his head and a corrupt media, you know, talking Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia nonstop, and the media having an apoplectic meltdown over the fact that he's not a target.
Oh, he's going to be a target.
It's a year and a half later, but he's going to be a target.
And meanwhile, they missed the biggest abuse of power scandal in their history.
It's become nothing but a witch hunt.
Now the president's got to decide if he's going to sit down with Robert Mueller and Robert Mueller's now big threat.
Even the Washington Post has a report out today.
Mueller unlikely to indict Trump.
You're not going to indict a sitting president.
It's just like everyone thinks that collusion is a crime.
Collusion is not a crime.
All these things that they've been throwing out, the president has an absolute right to fire anybody he wants in the government.
And the first witness in the firing of Comey would be Rod Rosenstein, who's conflicted 500,000 ways and sideways.
You know, now we got Mueller's chasing down Russian oligarchs, seeing if they donated to Trump.
This is how far off face this has gotten.
You got FBI.
Why do these FBI lovebirds still have a national security clearance?
You know what I'm beginning to suspect?
I'm thinking they flipped.
I'm thinking Strzok and Paige are now cooperating witnesses because they know we've only seen about 1,000 of the 50,000 emails that are out there.
And their insurance policy, I'm sure, was discussed in a lot more detail.
That's my guess.
Anyway, so you got the president.
He's doing his jobs.
And, you know, we got 3 million jobs created since he's become president.
You got 2 million fewer people on food stamps since he's become president.
Manufacturing, now the strongest in three years, the American people are getting results on top of the 3 million jobs created.
ADP and Moody's Analytics, they're now saying 241,000 extra jobs were created in March.
That's on top of record low unemployment levels in the country, the lowest unemployment level for Hispanic Americans and black Americans.
Home equity is now at a record level, $5.4 trillion.
And the president's making a big step.
I think what he did on health care, I was trying to explain this a little bit yesterday.
You know, finally, they're implementing what the president signed as an executive order.
And what this does, it allows trade associations and groups of people to join together and buy in bulk, even across state lines, their health care plans.
So that increases people's choices.
It lowers their costs.
It expanded by just expanding the Association of Health Plans.
You know, I could organize everybody that works on the Sean Hannity show now, and we can come up with our own health care plan.
Whereas, let's say otherwise, we actually all have to, most of us have to be union here, but it's a long story.
If you work in New York Radio, you have to.
But, you know, these plans now allow any business to come together.
Let's say you're in the My Pillow business and you want to work with Mike Lindell.
He's in the pillow business.
Well, you can bring all the pillow people together and join as one and buy a health care plan that in bulk at a lower price with better services.
You know, then the president, I thought one of the most amazing thing he did was he was pissed off signing that $1.3 trillion omnibus bill.
Well, now he's going to use the Empowerment Control Act of 1974.
That allows a president, gives him the authority.
You just need a simple vote up or down in the Senate to cancel spending already approved by Congress.
He has 45 days to get that done.
That would be good for the Republicans if they can get it done.
You know, I've listed way too many times the list of accomplishments that the Republicans have.
You got Nancy Pelosi is already saying that she's going to try and repeal the tax cuts.
And we know that, you know, we got a whole chorus of people led by Maxine Waters, impeached 45, impeached 45 if Nancy Pelosi ever becomes Speaker.
So, you know, the Republicans have an opportunity now.
How about reallocating that money to build the wall, put it in escrow so the wall will be built in full.
On top of that, we got the National Guard down at the border.
On top of that, you got jobs being created.
You got the tax cut plan.
America now has opened up Anwar.
We have the pipelines that are being built.
We saved the coal industry, and we're going to drill in the 48 states and off the coast of the East Coast, West Coast, and in the Gulf.
I mean, everything is now beginning to work the way it should work.
And that means now people that have been left behind are now in a better position than they were.
And all the media has been talking about is stormy, stormy, stormy.
And that creepy Anderson Cooper interview is so bizarre.
Very weird.
You know, it's nice when you can say, hey, guess what?
3 million more Americans have jobs.
Yeah, the corporations now have tax cuts.
Manufacturing is up the highest level we've had in three years.
You see corporation after corporation committing millions and billions of dollars to the American economy and to building factories and manufacturing centers in America.
That's all great news.
And you never hear about any good news from any of these idiots that call themselves journalists.
Now think through this.
Their only hope is that they get Trump.
They stop Trump.
After eight years of Obama, you know, you would think, who are they cheering for here?
What is it they actually want?
What is it?
Collusion is not a crime.
Alan Dershowitz, Joe DeGenova, every Greg Jarrett, every lawyer, Mark Levin, I've talked, collusion's not a crime.
Today, we see that Mueller announces that one of the things that he's going to go after Trump for, and Rosenstein says he can do it, is collusion.
Now, he's inventing a crime.
There's no such crime as collusion in the federal statute.
You can't just make up crimes.
Nobody likes collusion.
If collusion had occurred, and there's no evidence it did, if collusion had occurred, it would be a political sin.
But neither Rosenstein nor Mueller can simply magically make up a crime and say, now collusion is a crime.
You want to make collusion a crime in the future?
Pass the statute.
It's not on the books.
What is the media in this country looking for?
Why can't they ever report anything good about Donald Trump?
Especially because there's so much good that you can discuss.
I've gone through the list.
I put it up on the screen even last night.
And what is their goal?
It's obviously not about the American people.
They don't advocate for the working men and women that are in poverty out of work and on food stamps.
They're not out there celebrating that companies are going to spend billions.
They're not celebrating the tax cuts.
They're just trying to take the president down any way they can.
I don't even think they realize how sick they are.
This is an illness on their part.
It's bordering now on psychosis.
And it's just hate Trump, hate Trump.
If Trump is quiet and doesn't tweet, they're like opioid addicts that are going through withdrawal.
And their body is contorting and twisting and purging.
And they don't, you know, like a spiritual warfare taking place.
And they need their next fixed.
Are they hoping that the president fails?
What does that say about their lack of caring for the American people?
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
We'll get to some calls here in a minute.
You know, so we're getting to a tipping point as it relates to Robert Mueller.
There's really nobody left to interview that I know of.
Wish he'd bring me in for an interview.
I'd start interviewing them about their background, about their credentials, about exculpatory evidence that some of the people he hired had withheld in high-profile cases, about innocent people going to jail, about anthrax, about $100 million plus dollars paid to four individuals, two who died in jail, turned out to be innocent.
That's in the Whitey Boulder case.
Then we'll get to Andrew Weissman, exculpatory evidence withheld, tens of thousands of people losing their jobs, and of course a 9-0 decision in the Supreme Court.
Why would you hire that guy?
Puts four Merrill executives in jail.
And then they were found innocent.
Fifth Circuit overturned that.
Why did you hire these people?
I'd answer every question with a question.
Why did you hire these people?
Let me ask you, are you the guy that withheld exculpatory evidence?
Why would you withhold exculpatory evidence?
And people say to me, Hannity, you're living in your mind in a fantasy world.
You would never act that way.
Yeah, I probably would.
Yeah, I think I probably would.
You know what?
Because it's wrong.
You know, all of this good news that I'm throwing out here, nobody in the media covers.
Here's another thought.
Now, I was just talking about the president keeping his promises, talking about millions of jobs created, fewer, you know, 2 million fewer people on food stamps, and how the economy's roaring back and the commitments by all these companies now to spend billions on factories and manufacturing centers.
That's going to create jobs for Americans.
That's all I care about.
I want to make sure that they can feed their families.
They can get a nice house.
They can live in a nice, safe neighborhood and got a decent car and send their kids to a decent school and take a yearly vacation and go out to eat once a week or whatever, whatever they like to do.
You know, go to a movie or something, bowling.
I don't know, whatever people like to do.
Go to a baseball game, football game, not bankrupt you.
A lot of people that can't do all this stuff.
Sad, especially after the eight years of Obama.
You know, how ironic would it be, though, if the president meets with Little Rocketman?
Can you imagine we're now discussing, and this is the president that didn't decide to bring in cargo planes full of cash and other currencies, adding up to $150 billion, like Obama did with Iran or billions that were handed over by Bill Clinton to Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father.
So he just says, Little Rocket Man, we've got bigger weapons.
We'll annihilate you.
Now, all of a sudden, the next thing that we know is Kim Jong-un, he wants to go to the Olympics and he wants to meet with Trump to talk about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Well, that's good news.
Any way you slice it, maybe it doesn't work out, but at least we got a shot.
You know, people said to me, or some one of these political fact-checkers wrote, well, Hannity said that Obama shouldn't talk to the Mulls and Iran because Obama's weak.
There's a reason.
You know, you got a different president here.
Obama wants to give these people $150 billion and they still continue to spend their centrifuges.
I mean, I never trusted Obama because Obama's clueless about negotiating.
And more importantly, you know, he's too willing to bow down and kiss the ring of dictators and mullahs.
And I was not, he wasn't the guy to do it.
Now think about this.
If we ever denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and look at where we are.
Look at the new Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.
Look, do I believe everything he's saying in terms of liberalizing policies and pulling back on Sharia and modification on basically everything and human rights and more tolerance?
We'll see.
Time is going to tell how they treat women, whether or not they still kill gays and lesbians and whether they persecute Christians or Jews.
But he did say that Israel has a right to exist and Israel has a right to their own property because it is historically their land.
That's progress.
But what's happened is because the Iranians are so nuts and they have the money because of Barack Obama, it has created an unprecedented moment in Middle Eastern history where literally now the Israelis,
the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Emirates, they're now working together, sharing intelligence to prevent Iranian hegemony in the region.
Now, can you imagine if everybody would just literally surround Iran and prevent them from getting nuclear weapons or just take them out?
And that all these countries, once and for all, they finally could make peace and get on with their lives and start making a better Middle East?
I don't know.
I'm beginning to sound like John Lennon.
Give peace a chance.
But, I mean, that could happen.
But the media doesn't even talk about that.
They don't talk about economic success.
They don't give the president credit on anything in foreign policy.
You know, we have a new NAFTA deal is near.
You know what?
Let me interpret that for you.
Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
That's what the new NAFTA deal is going to be.
I know everybody's worried about China, and China holds a lot of our debt.
China's not going to pull out from our debt from this country because then they're going to be the ones.
We don't have to pay them back.
They're last on the list to pay back.
They're not going to take that chance.
What's going to happen is they're going to negotiate a better trade deal.
I'm all for open free trade.
I'm a free trader.
But I'm also for free and fair trade.
And there has been, we have been abused by some of these countries.
Now, here's the biggest obstacle for the president to keep going forward.
His name is Robert Mueller and his merry band of Democratic corrupt donors that he appointed.
So we're at the point in the investigation where, by the way, this is bad news for the Destroy Trump media.
The Washington Post is even reporting, this is from the Washington Post, that it is unlikely Robert Mueller will indict President Trump, but will instead issue a report summing up his investigation to the Justice Department.
And it turns out the Republican Congress or even President Trump may have the power to decide whether Mueller's report ever sees the light of day.
By the way, somebody better get some Xanax for Maxine Waters and some of these other people that have been screaming about impeachment.
Now, Robert Mueller will have a lot of discretion here.
And Robert Mueller can do as much damage in a report as he could do with anything legal that he might put together.
Again, you're not going to indict a sitting president.
But anyway, for the Washington Post to go on and say it has always seemed unlikely that Trump would be indicted, that's not how they have been presenting it.
Or the New York Times or fake news, CNN, or conspiracy TV, MSNBC.
You know, particularly obstruction of justice, they've been treating it like this is going to be a crime.
That the president's going to be proven to have committed crimes.
Rather, the question has been how serious his misconduct was.
They act as though he's guilty.
And if you ask them to site any information, well, they'd always say the same thing: a lot of smoke, but there's no fire.
But anyway, Mueller's investigators have indicated to the president's legal team that they're now considering writing reports on the findings and stages.
Now, what's the purpose of that?
Because if the Democrats ever got control of Congress in the 2018 midterms, well, all of that would mean they're going to use that as the basis of making a case for high crimes and misdemeanors.
In other words, that Pelosi could use it in the instance of trying to impeach the president.
But when the first report is supposed to focus on obstruction of justice, under the regulations that govern the appointment of a special counsel, Mueller's supposed to provide a confidential report explaining his conclusions to the Attorney General.
In this case, I guess it would be Rod Rosenstein, the man that shouldn't be there, the man that's conflicted, the man that would be witness number one as it relates to anything involving obstruction of justice, for example, in the firing of James Comey, because he recommended it.
And every single legal expert I talked to said the president has an absolute right to fire anybody he wants like he has an absolute right to the power of the pardon.
Well, did he ever discuss pardoning any of these people?
Not with me, but he does have an absolute right to do it.
Anyway, Mueller is so Rosenstein is then supposed to provide the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate judiciary committees with an explanation for any decision to conclude the investigation.
The explanation can be released if he decides it would be in the public interest.
The real question may be whether Rosenstein's support is ever going to come out and what it might look like.
According to many legal experts, the regulations appear to give Rosenstein room to decide what his explanation to the judiciary committees would entail in terms of detail and scope.
Now, this is the same Rod Rosenstein doesn't want anything out there that's negative against the DOJ or his buddies that have been in the upper echelons of the Intel or the FBI communities that have been doing nefarious things.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Sounds just like Alec Baldwin.
He could write a two-sentence explanation, according to Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham Law School.
At that point, Rosenstein could release it himself.
Or if not, the report could leak or portions could be described to reporters.
But however, congressional Republicans could block a vote on whether to release Rosenstein's report or vote against it.
Or President Trump could respond to a congressional vote to release the report with a veto, or Trump might try some kind of executive action.
You know, it's just this is what they're doing to the country.
That's interesting.
Interesting.
This is talk show host Alec Baldwin.
I think it was the best five minutes of radio that I've ever heard in my entire life.
When we come back, we've got some time.
Oh, great.
We're going to.
When can we take some calls, Ivan?
Whenever we want.
We have calls that are on there now.
No calls yet.
No calls.
No calls yet.
What number do people call to get on the air?
Ivan, do we have that number?
It's right there.
Do I have the call number in front of me?
Oh, I'm so sorry.
That's interesting.
Interesting.
At 1210 at PHT.
Of course, any other questions you have, any other comments you have, call us to the what else?
Call us, please, at 215-1210.
Now, if you don't call, we're going to keep reading from the Scientology manual.
You might not feel it.
You might not feel the energy right now.
You might not feel the swell of what's happening here.
Do we have any calls yet there, Ivan?
No calls.
Let's read some more about Scientology.
Is Sean Hannity a Scientologist?
Alec Baldwin posing the big questions tonight here.
Do we have any calls here yet, Ivan?
None.
Boy, it's just incredible.
Unbelievable.
Well, you leave us no choice, listeners.
And then he called his mother because he had nothing left to say.
Here's the funny part.
Now, Rush used to do this bit about the Tom Dashel show.
And it was a bit.
It was, you know, what a boring liberal like Tom Daschell would sound like.
This is real.
That really happened.
He was auditioning for a job.
Oh, man.
So funny.
All right.
One other point.
And I mentioned this yesterday, that Devin Nunes, House Intel Committee Chairman, he sent a letter to the Deputy Attorney General, the ever-so-corrupt Rod Rosenstein and the FBI director Christopher Wray.
Nunes blasting the repeated stonewalling by the department.
This goes back to August of 2017.
They've been asking for documents.
Now, Rosenstein is the guy that didn't want to release what eventually became the Nunes memo that talked about and exposed all the FISA abuse issues that we have discussed, also part of the Graham-Grassley memo or the Grassley-Graham memo.
Without these documents, had Rosenstein successfully been able to plead his case to Paul Ryan and Ryan capitulated, we wouldn't have learned any of this.
We wouldn't know about any of the massive scandals that we've been following, like the FISA abuse scandal, lying to the judge to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate.
Rod Rosenstein, for whatever reason, doesn't want us to know anything.
And Nunes has been looking for these documents since August of last year.
It's ridiculous how the entire process now is, you know, they don't want to give us any information.
Why not?
Why don't you turn over any of these FBI memos related to the Bureau's opening of the Russia investigation?
And why are Peter struck and Lisa Paid?
Why are they still on the payroll?
Anyway, well, now Nunes has given them an April 11th deadline.
And given, you know, of course, what we see from Rosenstein, it's going to be a long time before the House Intel Committee gets to see it.
Listen, I'll be honest.
I think they just ought to go straight to court, or they ought to bring these people in and hold them in contempt of Congress.
And it's time for people like Rosenstein to stop hiding the truth from the American people.
And Jeff Sessions, he needs to get involved here.
He might be recused, but he's not recused from being the boss of Rod Rosenstein.
And if Rosenstein doesn't want to do it, then he needs to go.
He's already conflicted as he has signed off on one of the FISA extensions.
And he appointed Robert Mueller.
Can you not say that's a conflict of interest?
Because it is.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show 800-941-Sean.
By the way, the number of illegal immigrants who've been stopped while trying to enter the U.S. has now doubled since Donald Trump became president.
So he's getting the job done that way.
California issues, you know, key voter registration document to a million illegal immigrants.
They're just breaking the law out there left and right.
And that caravan, by the way, canceled their plans to storm the U.S. border.
Thank you, Donald Trump, again.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show.
Glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800-941, Sean.
You want to be a part of the program?
I think he must be mad at me because he is usually, used to be, once upon a time, a regular on the program, but we never hear from him anymore.
And we do miss him.
I guess he's spending a lot of time now that his wife, Callista, is the ambassador to the Vatican, the Holy See.
And how are you, Mr. Speaker?
I'm doing great, and I miss being on the show.
I just told Linda we're going to do it a lot more often.
I love having a chance to chat with you about all the different things we're doing and how the country's evolving.
Well, the first thing that I wanted to point out is you look at the president, and he's got the highest approval rating now he's had in some time.
And this is after he's been through nonstop abuse about Russia, Russia, Russia, the creepy interviews of Anderson Cooper with women that may or may not have been with him 12, 15 years ago, whatever it is.
But then you got the president, you know, what a day he had yesterday.
He signed a proclamation.
He's sending the National Guard to the border.
The president has now opened up that people can create their own health care cooperatives and buy in bulk and buy across state lines, a way of circumventing Obamacare.
The president now has moved towards energy independence.
We have now 3 million jobs that have been created in the country.
Then you look at, you know, even in the CNN poll, the president gained eight points with men since February, five points with young voters, nine points with middle-aged voters, and 10 points with college graduates.
Then you have the lowest unemployment rate in the African-American and Hispanic communities.
And I'm looking at, you know what, things are really changing for the better, and people are beginning to feel it.
And I think the media is just lost into these narratives that they can't get out of.
Well, you know, I did my newsletter at Gingrich Productions, and the title of it basically was Trump up elite media down.
And I think they lost.
I think they threw in the kitchen sink for 30 days.
I think they thought, boy, this will really get him.
And the country, first of all, as Rasmussen has reported, by something like 52 to 5, the country now believes that the elite media lies.
I mean, 52 to 5 is really a big deal.
No, no, it's even bigger.
77% of Americans now believe that news media is absolutely involved in fake news.
77%.
What it means is they try to beat up Trump and people just shrug it off.
And I don't think anybody, you know, at these various networks and newspapers realize what they've actually done is they haven't heard Trump.
They've destroyed themselves.
Because people have to.
One of the things Trump understood beginning in 2015 that in retrospect was amazing was if you're seeing him on television, unscripted, sometimes he's clumsy, sometimes he's brilliant.
But you get the sense he's always authentic because he's never scripted.
He's never in some kind of setup deal.
And after a while, people begin to go, you know, that's the real guy.
You know, look at what else he did.
That's the real guy with all the phony reporters.
When the president signed the $1.3 trillion omnibus bill, and I was pretty disgusted by that omnibus bill, you know, I go, I'm never doing this again.
But Congress had pretty much left town, so he really didn't have a choice.
And he wanted the authorization for the defense funds.
Now, the president, as he has done many times, he goes back into the law, and he's been able to find a way that there is a 1974 act called the Empowerment Control Act, which gives him the authority to cancel spending that was already approved by Congress.
You only need a 51 majority in the Senate, and Congress has 45 days to approve of the request of the president to cut it.
Now, I would think that's an opportunity for Republicans to stand for small government and fiscally responsible budgets.
Well, I think it is.
And I think, frankly, that, and I wrote about this at the time, having lived through the Reagan years as a member of Congress supporting Reagan, he always had three goals: national security first, economic growth second, balance the budget third.
And I thought candidly that Reagan would have signed this bill because I think Reagan would have said, with Secretary Mattis, retired four-star Marine General, saying to him, Obama has so radically weakened our military that we're putting our young men and women at risk every single day that we don't fix it.
And I think as commander-in-chief, Trump felt that that was his number one priority, and I granted.
With deregulation and with tax cuts, he's begun to work on economic growth, which was Reagan's second goal.
And you saw the numbers this week of continued application for more and more jobs.
Last year, I believe over 2 million people left food stamps and went to work.
Correct.
By the way, it's worth almost $5 billion a year every single year in savings.
And so, you know, things are moving in the right direction.
But I do, it'll be interesting to watch if they design it correctly.
The rescission bill, which is what it's called, the rescission bill could put people in Congress in some very difficult challenges because some of this stuff is so stupid that it's really hard to go home and defend it.
What do you make now?
It's been a long time since I've interviewed you, and you're going to join me on TV tonight.
We'll get into more details.
Now that we've discovered so much about Robert Mueller and Mueller's team, and it's been, you know, 14 months, and here we are, we have two committees, three committees looking into Trump-Russia collusion.
There's no evidence.
And, you know, then everything that we see in terms of the overreach by Mueller and the fact that he put a very biased team together to do all of this with, I think, some of the greatest corruption issues and problems and ethical problems that I've ever seen of any special counsel.
What is your take on it at this point and what should happen?
Well, first of all, I'm glad that we do have a new attorney who was brought in by Attorney General Sessions to look into the corruption and the way in which the Clinton scandals and the Clinton illegality was handled.
I think that's an important step in the right direction.
Second, I think it's very telling, if you put it correctly, with all of these very high-powered Democratic lawyers, with all of this effort, Mueller this week said, you know, the president's really not the target of the investigation.
Now, if, in fact, this continues into the summer and we discover, oh, say, around August, that there's nothing there at all, that even Mueller can't find anything, the left is going to have a really big problem because they have banked so much of their energy, so much of their enthusiasm around the notion that Trump did something wrong that if even Mueller ends up saying, you know, in the end,
there ain't nothing there, I think you're going to see an enormous collapse of energy on the left.
What do you think of the argument that is now going on?
Because we appear to be at the end of the investigation.
And, you know, by that, what do we mean?
We mean that now they're having discussions and some negotiations of some kind about questions the special counsel wants to ask the president.
Now, collusion is not a crime.
There is no underlining crime.
You know, the idea that they want to know why the president fired James Comey, well, Rod Rosenstein would be witness number one.
He's got more conflicts of interest in this than anybody.
You know, and how do we get to the real investigations?
It is, the evidence is overwhelming.
Hillary obstructed justice, violated 18 U.S. Code 793, mishandled and destroyed classified information.
Then she deleted subpoenaed emails, asset washed her hard drive, and then beat up her devices with a hammer.
And then people like Comey and Strzzok and Paige and McCabe and Loretta Lynch, they were all involved in an exoneration before they ever investigated or even interviewed her.
And then, of course, it was Hillary that paid for Russian propaganda to manipulate the general election in her favor.
And that then becomes the basis, even though it's unverified.
And they never tell a Pfizer court that she paid for it as a Pfizer warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate in the lead up to the campaign.
What do we do with that?
Well, that's where I think that the Attorney General, having appointed this prosecutor to look into it, took a step in the right direction.
I think they are reopening all of that.
I think they thought they had to reopen it because there are so many different crimes that are associated now with the Clinton campaign, the Clinton staff, the Clinton Foundation.
It's almost impossible to avoid having to look into it and dig into it.
I think that will become, as we get into the fall, as all of the attacks on the president disappear, I think that will reappear as something that is just astonishing.
And, you know, it really is.
Every time I try to understand it myself, and like you, I've spent a lot of time on this.
It is so complicated.
There are so many different things that were illegal and wrong and unexplainable that we almost need an encyclopedia of corruption to do you know how hard it is to explain this every day?
I mean, we have new developments every single day.
And the difference between what we have reported, Mr. Speaker, and what the rest of the media has reported on Trump-Russia collusion is we actually have the evidence.
We actually have the text messages.
We actually found out Hillary did pay for the phony dossier.
She did fire a foreign agent.
She did erase subpoenaed emails.
She did acid wash the hard drive.
You know, Strzok Page or Strzzk and Comey in particular did write an exoneration before an investigation.
You know, I'm not making any of this up.
We have evidence.
They don't.
Well, one of the most amazing things about all this, and I guess the reason I remain an optimist, is that facts do matter.
And in a free society over time, facts do outweigh propaganda.
And the facts of their corruption, this is the perfect example of a deep state.
Think of the people you're describing.
Describing very, very senior people in the Justice Department, very, very senior people in the FBI, very, very senior people in the State Department.
And I think it may well reach all the way up to President Obama, but clearly there's a level of corruption here unprecedented in American history.
And I believe it's all going to keep coming out.
As I've said to you before, these things have a tendency to start unraveling.
And as they unravel, more and more pieces fall apart.
And it just becomes kind of mildly amazing.
Well, I hope we do get to the truth.
How do you think all of this impacts the 2018 midterms?
And if you could give advice to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and the president, and here we are in April, these elections coming fast in November, what would your advice be so this media predicted blue wave doesn't materialize?
Well, my first advice would be to have the Senate adopt a series of reforms so they could actually approve all the people the president sent up there.
I mean, it really weakens America.
Forget whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
It weakens America to have Chuck Schumer blocking so many different appointments all around the world in a way which is really unconscionable and unpatriotic.
So that'd be my first piece of advice.
And you'd see the Senate suddenly become a lot more effective.
Second, I think they have to keep hammering away at the tax cuts.
Every single Democrat voted against the tax cuts.
The tax cuts are clearly working.
And I think going to the country this fall saying, if you want your taxes to go up, vote Democrat.
Do you want to create more jobs, vote Republican, is a pretty good dividing line.
And then third, I think they've got to bring up issues that matter.
I think people want to see a work requirement for welfare.
I think people want to see drug testing for people who are going to get government aid.
I think there are a number of steps we could take that would clearly distinguish the two parties and would remind people that there's a huge difference in terms of who wins.
All right, we've got to take a break.
Former Speaker of the House, Fox News contributor, actually join us on Hannity.
For some reason, he has abandoned us now for a while.
He's been spending, I guess, a lot of time at the Holy See in the Vatican.
800-941-Sean is our number.
You want to be a part of the program?
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue.
And also the great one, Mark Levin, will join us tonight, and we'll continue.
All right, as we continue with former Speaker of the House Fox News contributor, Newt Kingrich, here's the most compelling argument I think that you can make for 2018, and that is Nancy Pelosi A is going to rescind the tax cuts that the Republicans passed.
More importantly, I don't have any doubt in my mind that if Nancy Pelosi is Speaker, that they will find something to try and impeach this president with.
Do you agree with that?
Well, I agree.
In fact, you have a number of Democrats now running for Congress who have signed pledges that if they get elected, they will automatically vote for impeachment no matter what, whether there's any reason to or not.
But in addition, I just want to say, I've watched with real surprise as the Democrats have turned into an anti-Semitic socialist party.
I mean, you look at the people who are running in these primaries, you look at the attitude of a large number of Democrats towards people like Farrakhan, who's clearly an overt, anti-Semitic person, and you realize that this is a party which is going to a radical view in a way which would be pretty scary.
If they were to get power in the House, as radical as they're becoming, I think it would really be scary for the country.
Yeah, I think you're right.
You know, we used to have blue dog Democrats, Zell Miller, who recently passed away.
We both knew well.
I mean, Zell Miller was a good man, and he was a Democratic governor in Georgia at the time.
And very different parties.
If you remember, Zell ultimately endorsed George W. Bush, spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2004.
I knew Zell 1963 on.
I dropped out of college and ran a congressional campaign.
Zell was a young state senator running in a Democratic primary.
And so we had a friendship that went for a long time.
And when he came to Washington as a senator, he asked me to come over for breakfast one morning, and I was happy to do it because he's a great guy.
And he said he wanted to apologize to me.
And I said, what are you talking about?
He said, you used to tell me how left-wing the Democratic Party was in Washington, and I didn't believe you.
He said, now that I'm here and I'm in the room, he said, they're worse than you said they were.
I had to apologize to him once.
I was because I was so hard on him when I was a radio host in Atlanta, and then we became great friends.
He'll be missed.
Mr. Speaker, we'll see you tonight on Hannity.
Great to have you back.
I hope you're enjoying Italy.
Thank you, sir.
First of all, it's not really a new set of texts.
That's one thing we learned because this is not some new batch that just went over to Congress.
These texts were released earlier, and they were redacted.
They were blacked out.
And remember what the Justice Department said to Congress?
They said, well, Strzok and Page are having an affair.
I mean, that's private stuff.
Yes.
Personal stuff.
So we're going to black that out.
And Congress said, fine.
And then they started looking at what was sent over, and there were things like meeting tomorrow in so-and-so's office, and the name would be blacked out.
And I thought, well, that doesn't sound like personal stuff.
And some of these names were names like Dennis McDonough, the chief of staff in the Obama White House.
So that has made a number of members of the House, House Judiciary Committee, very suspicious of what they're getting from Congress, from the Justice Department on this.
Now, the bigger picture is they have been trying to find out how far knowledge of things like the Trump dossier, the allegations in the Trump dossier, how far did that go up the chain in the Obama administration?
Remember, we first thought it was just a few people at the FBI.
Then it went higher in the FBI.
Then it was the State Department.
And now it looks like the White House, too.
I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations.
I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line and always have maintained it, those presidents.
Just to button this up.
I guarantee it.
I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case.
And she will be full stop, period.
And she will be treated no differently.
Guaranteed.
Full stop.
Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law.
Even if she ends up as the Democratic.
How many times do I have to say, Chris?
Guaranteed.
Hi, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, toll-free telephone number.
Did Obama's White House coordinate with the DOG, DOJ, and the FBI against Donald Trump?
And I guarantee there's no political influence in any investigation conducted by the DOJ or the FBI.
All things we now know to be true.
Joining us now, Fox News, investigative reporter Sarah Carter, Joe DeGenova of DeGenova and Tunsing.
Welcome both of you to the program.
We have some news that we have been following.
The House Intel Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence demanding that the FBI and the DOJ finally comply with their committee subpoena to review documents pertaining to the Bureau's Russia investigation.
And particularly, they want the committee to turn over unredacted versions of the original investigative document known as the Electronic Communication that launched the FBI counterintelligence investigation into the whole Russia issue.
That, and of course, the question of, well, should a president, a sitting president, when there's no underlying crime, be talking to a special counsel.
We start with Joe DeGenova.
Joe, collusion A is not a crime.
Firing Comey is not a crime.
Hoping that General Flynn doesn't get in trouble after 35 years of military service, that's not a crime.
Looking at the team that Mueller has put together and the incestuous friendships of Mueller and Comey and Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, I don't know what the special counsel has in his mind.
What should the White House and the lawyers for the White House do?
I'm not speaking for the president, but I can tell you this.
Under no circumstances should the president agree to an interview with Mr. Mueller.
And the reason is very simple.
The president, and this is the most important news out of all this nonsense over the last 48 hours, the president is not a target of a criminal investigation and never has been from the beginning of this idiotic investigation authorized by the incompetent Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The president is said to be a subject.
That is, a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.
That's pure crap.
It doesn't mean anything.
He's a witness.
And guess what?
He's a witness who doesn't know anything about anything.
The special counsel knows that.
This is nothing more than a fog designed to try and get the president into an interview and trap him into a perjury trap.
This is a disgraceful abuse of power by Mueller.
It is a disgraceful abuse of supervisory authority by Rosenstein, who has stopped nothing in this idiotic investigation.
Rosenstein is a fool, an absolute fool, but he's worse than that.
I have finally come to the conclusion that Rod Rosenstein is purposely forcing the issue to force the president to decide whether or not to testify, to force a constitutional crisis,
to force a confrontation in the courts so that he, Rod Rosenstein, can stand up just like James Comey did in that idiotic July 5th, 2016 news conference and claim that the only thing he, Rod Rosenstein, cares about is the rule of law.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Rosenstein is a coward.
He didn't want to do all the tough work that had to be done like Sessions has decided to do in appointing Mr. Huber to look into the files.
Do you trust Huber?
Do you trust Mr. Huber?
I do.
I do.
I have every reason in the world.
I've been looking into him.
I have every reason in the world to believe that he is a stable guy.
And by the way, let me just tell you something.
Sean, I've been a U.S. attorney.
I've been an independent counsel.
I've been a prosecutor and an investigator for over 40 years.
Cadence, there is a cadence to criminality.
I want to repeat that for your listeners.
There is a cadence to criminality.
And the plot to frame President Trump has that criminal cadence.
Mr. Huber knows that.
We now know that he's had a grand jury underway for a considerable number of months.
I think that Mr. Brennan and Mr. Clapper have much to worry about.
There's no doubt that Mr. McDade is gone.
He is going down.
What about the only issue now is whether or not Sally Yates and others who came up with this idiotic criminal theory that Michael Flynn violated the Logan Act in order to do spying and criminal investigation,
whether or not Huber will push the envelope so far as to say that those decisions made by senior DAOJ people were so politically corrupt that they are criminal.
The bottom line for me is it was all criminal.
And it's so obvious right now to a seasoned investigator that there was a plot to frame Trump if Hillary lost the election that I am predicting right now.
Huber will indict a number of former FBI, DOJ, CIA people, and it will happen this year.
That's a bold prediction.
Sarah Carter, let me bring you into all of this.
The Washington Post is saying that Robert Mueller is now unlikely to indict Trump, but will issue a series of reports.
If he issues reports, well, isn't he basically, because he's not going to indict a sitting president anyway, but he's going to issue a report that is going to be interpreted by Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, this is an impeachable offense.
Therefore, if the Democrats win, they want to impeach him.
Isn't that what it's really about?
I absolutely believe that's what it's really about.
I've been speaking to a number of sources today, Sean, that are very concerned about that.
You know, they tried to downplay this report.
Oh, he's just putting together this obstruction report, his report on what he's discovered.
You know, he's really pushing for the president to do this interview with him in order to finalize this report and get this report out.
But I have to agree with Joe DeGenova here, based on the people that I've been speaking with today.
If the president chooses to speak with Mueller, he is really setting himself up.
If his attorneys say go ahead and speak with him, he could be setting himself up for some type of perjury trap.
I mean, there's a lot of leeway here with the special counsel, and he's able to pretty much direct where he wants to go with this.
It could be very concerning if the president does speak with him because he is a subject, not a target of the investigation.
Well, let's talk about how far can Mueller take this, Joe DeGenova.
In other words, the president says, no, there's no underlying crime.
And, you know, the idea that maybe they want to know what he was thinking at the time when he fired Comey.
Well, thoughts aren't crimes.
You know, that's why I never understood the idea that, well, you give more penalty for somebody that kills somebody if they have certain thoughts in their head.
You should punish murderers.
You should punish people that are violent.
You know, without trying to.
But my question is, what is Mueller's move if the president and his attorneys say, no, no, go.
We're not talking to you.
Well, that depends upon what his purpose is.
If his purpose is, as the Washington Post has reported, that he just wants to interview a president so he can finalize his report, then he has absolutely no right to interview the president of the United States.
And whether that's his reason or not, let's assume he writes a report.
He can't issue that report.
That report goes to Rod Rosenstein.
Well, it's obvious what Rod Rosenstein is going to do.
The guy has no cojones.
He'll issue the report because that's what he does.
He's a bureaucrat.
He's a political hack.
He pretends to be this above-the-fray lawyer who makes all these wonderful decisions.
Rod Rosenstein is a career guy who cares about one thing, his next job.
So what does Mueller do if the president says, I'll answer some written questions and that it?
And Mueller says, well, that's not good enough.
In my opinion, because the president is not the target and because he obviously is not a witness who has any information whatsoever, that this is a trap.
And he should refuse.
The president should refuse.
He should refuse to give any questions.
Okay, and then what happens from there?
Mueller has a choice.
Mueller has a choice.
He can write in his report that the president refused to testify, and therefore he harmed the investigation by not providing his views.
He can issue a subpoena, which the president can then claim the Fifth Amendment, and then the subpoena has to be withdrawn.
And then, if Mueller wants to, he could try to immunize the president, at which point he should be fired.
Why would he be fired at that point?
Because trying to immunize the president in that scenario, as it played out, would show that the only thing he's trying to do is force his testimony so he can trap him into perjury.
I don't disagree with anything either one of you is saying.
And based on the team of people that he has put together, I think we have to lean in that direction, that that's what they're trying.
Joe DeGenova, Sarah Carter, quick break.
We'll come back more with them on the other side.
As we continue with attorney Joe DeGenova with Genova and Tunsing and also with Sarah Carter, Fox News investigative reporter.
Sarah, what are you hearing from Nunes and his committee as it relates to the letter that they sent to Rosenstein and to FBI Director Ray?
Because they have been slow, and even Jeff Sessions is telling them to speed things up.
Well, they're certainly concerned because they haven't gotten what they've asked for.
And one of the things that they're really looking for is unredacted versions of the documents that they've requested.
One being the electronic, they call it an electronic communication.
And what that really is, is the very first document that set off basically the Trump, alleged Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
What was in that document?
Now, they received the document, but they received it so heavily redacted, they couldn't even understand what was going on in that document.
And they complained about it.
The FBI styneed them on it.
Then they said they weren't going to give it to them.
And then they said, look, if you don't give us, and this was in the letter, this information by April 11th, we will take matters into our own hands and take this to court.
We have subpoenaed you for this.
You said you were going to cooperate with us.
That was on August 24th of last year.
And now we want this document.
Not only do they want that document, they also want all of the Carter Page FISA applications.
Those are the foreign intelligence surveillance warrants that were on Carter Page.
Remember, the House Intelligence Committee did select Trey Gowdy to view those documents because they felt he was the most qualified.
And that was when they were going through their report, which they finalized and found no collusion between the president and Russia.
But what they want to do is have the members see those FISA applications.
They want to have the ability to see it themselves.
They want to.
Wouldn't that be proof positive that they know that they knew that Hillary paid for it?
We know that they didn't tell the FISA court.
So the information was presented under false pretenses.
They purposely omitted information.
Joe DeGenova, why do I believe if I purposely lied to a judge and handed over unverified false information that was paid for by a political opponent and not telling them, why do I think I'd be in jail and you probably couldn't even get me out?
You would be.
But here's what's interesting about what Sarah just reported.
According to Sarah, Nunes has said if they don't produce the documents, they're going to go to court.
Why are they going to go to court?
That's putting their fate in the hands of a third party.
Why aren't they moving to hold the same people in contempt like they did recently with sessions with Ray and Rosenstein?
Has Ryan told them not to use contempt as a way to enforce their subpoenas?
If that's the case, this oversight situation is going to be lengthy and it will not be over before the election.
That is really chilling and frightening.
Last word, Sarah.
Go ahead.
Well, no, I think that definitely is an option for them, Joe and Sean.
And I think this is something they're very serious about.
Look, I have heard that there will be a lot of infighting this next week between both of them.
And it appears that probably in the end, Director Ray is going to give up that electronic communication because, according to the sources that I've spoken with, this is not considered a highly classified document.
This is a document that the House members have requested and that they would be willing to see.
And remember, it goes all the way back to George Capadopoulos.
If this is what they said, started the investigation.
They want to know all the details and all the facts of what originally started it.
All right.
Thank you both.
Phenomenal work.
Sarah Carter and Joe DeGenova.
Also, Dan Bongino, Jonathan Gillum, and Diamond of Diamond and Silk will be with us.
We'll tell you all about the different overall patterns and et cetera that's going on.
Has Big Brother now finally arrived as conservatives now are being constantly monitored and censored?
800-941-Sean.
Toll-free number.
Quick break.
Right back.
We'll continue.
I'm the first to admit that we didn't take a broad enough view of what our responsibilities were.
But I also think it's important to keep in mind that there are billions of people who love the services that we're building because they're getting real value and being able to connect and build relationships on a day-to-day basis.
And that's something that I'm really proud of our company for doing.
And I know that we're going to keep on doing that.
All right.
That was Mark Zuckerberg and his comments.
We don't take a broad enough view of what our responsibilities are.
Now, I'm going to do a deep dive this hour, news roundup information overload into the idea that there's a lot of censorship all over social media.
And it appears that the people that are censored the most are conservatives.
And, you know, it's been happening all over the place.
And I have more people writing me and telling me it's happening on Twitter, it's happening on Facebook, it's happening on other social media sites.
I'll give you one example.
Marcia Blackburn of Tennessee, a congresswoman, has been censored because she's pro-life, and she shared those views on Facebook.
Anyway, it ends up that they apparently took down her posting because they didn't like it, and she has now introduced what's called the Browser Act last June, and that's going to require Internet service providers, you know, as well as current providers like Facebook and Google and Twitter to obtain a user's consent before collecting and selling their information for marketing, which we now know a lot of these companies are doing.
And a lot of us, of course, in this day and age of identity theft, have got to be very careful of.
Now, Congresswoman Blackburn is also running for the U.S. Senate to replace Bob Corker.
It would be an incredible step up, in my opinion.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
How are you, Sean?
Looks like Tennessee is going to get rid of a Trump-hating senator and replace them with you, which I hope you win this race.
I thank you for that.
And we are working hard, I tell you.
We think that Tennesseans want a good, solid conservative in the U.S. Senate.
They want somebody there who is going to help Donald Trump get his agenda across the finish line.
So important that you say that.
Let's talk about how were you censored for your pro-life beliefs and where did it happen?
Yes, it happened on Twitter.
And I had put a campaign video up.
And in it, I mentioned my pro-life beliefs.
I mentioned that I led the fight and the investigation into what was happening between Planned Parenthood and these third-party body part sellers.
And we were successful in that investigation, issued 15 criminal referrals, and Planned Parenthood is being investigated by the Department of Justice and the FBI, as are these body part sellers.
So anyway, Twitter didn't like that message and decided that they would just block it, but they recanted and then decided that they would let the message go back up.
But here's the thing on this: there is censorship, there is prioritization that is taking place.
And as you mentioned, with these edge providers, which are Google and Facebook and YouTube and your social media outlets, what they are doing is it's data mining.
They are using your data to sell advertising, and they are monetizing your data.
And Sean, this is the thing that caused me to introduce the Browser Act because what big tech had wanted was one set of privacy rules for the internet service providers, the ISPs, and then a different set of privacy rules for all of your social media outlets because they make their money by data mining and then selling access to.
Well, this is what happened.
Facebook acknowledged that, in fact, the personal information of up to 87 million users, mostly here in the U.S., may have been improperly shared with political consultancy, this group, Cambridge Analytics, and up from previous news media estimates of 50 million.
And Zuckerberg said in a conference call with the reporters, Facebook had not seen any meaningful impact on usage or ad sales since the scandal.
And they said it's not good if people are unhappy with the company.
To me, that just seems like they have left open a vulnerability whereby, I mean, I got in trouble once for putting up a link on my website for my best friend since childhood because he was running for Congress.
And I was charged with making an in-kind donation.
So in this sense, Facebook allowing this data to be mined this way would be warranty wouldn't they be giving in-kind donations in that sense?
Well, I think even more specific than that is looking at the way Facebook and Google and Yahoo and YouTube and all of these are profiting from your data because they are going in here and then they turn around and they sell,
they allow people to snoop in and look at everything you're going through, everything you're searching.
They look at what you are, who you're talking to.
They make those connections.
And then when you sit down to your computer, you have all and you go into a search engine or you go into a social media platform, what happens?
All of a sudden, you've got all of these advertisements that are popping up all over your screen.
That's because they are running, they have an algorithm that is running the demographics on you, and they're deciding where it is that you want to eat, what you want to wear, who you associate with, what your thoughts are, and they are benefiting and they are profiting from that.
And one of the things that I look at is how these social media companies have become big advertising companies.
And they will say, well, the sign-off is you say we're going to let you use our service for free.
But because of that, we're going to use access to your data.
And then not only are we going to use access, take access to your data, we are going to sell the results of that data mining that we do.
And then we're going to place ads, and we're going to let these advertisers into your life.
Now, what they will say, what they'll say is, well, we anonymize it all, that it's not you.
But it's anonymous.
That's right.
But they do have the ability to basically spy on any individual if they want.
Of course, of course.
Because they're doing it with the algorithms.
And this is why in the Browser Act, when I wrote that, what I said was, look, let's allow people to opt in.
I believe in privacy, and I believe an individual should reserve to themselves the right to protect their privacy.
This is something that is given to you in the Bill of Rights.
And even online, you with your virtual you do have the right to protect your information online.
So instead of all these platforms that are opt-out, let's turn it around and say to the consumer, you have your shield of privacy, and then you can choose to share the information that you want to share with a provider of a service.
And you can allow access to somebody for that service.
Now, Sean, some people will say, I like getting Alerts, and I like getting notifications on my phone that I'm near a coffee shop and they have a special going on, or I'm near a restaurant, or I'm near some other entity where there is something special.
They like that, they like that geolocation.
Yeah, but to me, it's too intrusive.
I agree with you about opting in.
All right, so we're going to continue to follow it, and I think what you're doing is the right thing, and it's amazing.
Well, the censorship of conservatives and people with political views, frankly, all views, I don't want anybody censored, even views that I find repugnant.
I happen to make my living with the First Amendment, and it's the left that's constantly out there trying to silence conservative voices.
But I just want, I don't think they should have the right to censor anybody unless maybe it's a direct threat of violence or a terroristic threat of some kind.
Well, that is right.
You know, the virtual space should function as free speech does, and privacy does in the physical space.
And just because it's online does not mean that you give up your right to privacy or the expectation of being able to exercise that right to privacy.
So, this is why we're working back through this issue, and we're looking forward to having Mark Zuckerberg in front of us next week and looking forward to seeing where he is right now.
They have fought privacy and data security legislation, they have fought those consumer protections, and then they have censored views with which they disagree.
So, we look forward to hearing their explanations next week.
Thank you so much, and good luck.
How's the campaign going down in Tennessee?
Listening campaign is going great.
We're working on it every single day and really excited about the opportunity.
I appreciate you being with us.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number, if you want to be a part of the program, let's get some calls in here.
Tom is in Oyster Bay, New York, hometown.
What's up, Tom?
How are you, sir?
Hi, Sean.
A longtime listener, first time caller.
Well, welcome aboard, my friend.
Just want to know: do you think this Mueller investigation will be over before the midterm?
I'd like to think so, but I don't know.
I think they are wrapping it up.
I mean, I think the last step in this is going to be the negotiation.
Does the president talk to them or not talk to them?
I tend to agree with the attorneys I've been interviewed, the Geneva Dershowitz, people like the great one Mark Levin and Greg Jarrett, that I think this is all one big perjury trap.
There's no underlying crime.
Collusion's not a crime.
It's now become a witch hunt, and it's gone way beyond what the regular mandate is.
I think Rod Rosenstein approving the expansion of the investigation a week after they had already raided Paul Manafort's home.
If I'm Paul Manafort's attorney, I think that's going to be a big win in the end for them.
And then I look at the team that Mueller's appointed, and I think you have people that are bitter, bitter partisans with atrocious track records in the legal profession.
And these guys have no compunctions about withholding exculpatory evidence in multiple cases.
They've been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court 9-0.
People have gone to jail that are innocent, both in the case of Mueller and Andrew Weissman, $100 million-plus settlement in the Whitey Bulger case when he was in Boston and he was running that department.
And the same thing with Andrew Weissman, four Merrill executives, tens of thousands of people losing their jobs at Anderson Accounting.
All of this tells me it stinks to high heaven.
This never should have been brought together in the first place.
And if I'm the president, I wouldn't talk to him.
And Mueller, you want to push it that?
Push it.
Let's go.
Game on.
Let's see what happens.
All right, as we continue, Gary is in Charlotte in North Carolina.
Hey, Gary, how are you?
Well, glad you called, sir.
Oh, thank you.
Longtime listener, all the way back to Hannity and Combs.
Wow, thank you.
A little background history from myself.
I'm a medical professional and a Navy veteran.
My two questions or two points is: why aren't we calling what's happening in Washington what it truly is, which is a smokeless coup d'état?
You have this faction, the inner chamber, the inner circle, the group, trying to overthrow and upset a duly elected president or upset the government.
And by definition, it's a coup d'état.
It's a soft coup.
I mean, there's no doubt in my mind.
You know, that's why if you put the fix in for Hillary and you allow Hillary to get away with obvious felonies, multiple felonies and obstruction, and you exonerate her before you investigate her, and the fix is in to keep her in there, they thought she was going to beat Donald Trump.
And then the plan B is the insurance policy.
And on top of it, then you got the plan C is, you know, well, let's spy on these people and let's use Hillary's bought and paid for Russian propaganda dossier.
I mean, it's really, I don't think you can make this up in a novel, to be honest.
No, you couldn't.
My second point is: since they work for the people, and that's the people's house, why doesn't the House, either the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee, the Judicial Committee, call in Mueller and Rosenstein under oath and just ask them why they're not investigating FISA and the Russian collision on the other side of the coin and put them on public notice, put them under oath and ask them about it.
Well, that's why people like myself, I don't think Rod Rosenstein is capable of, or Mueller is capable, nor are they ever going to be capable of investigating themselves.
Now, we're talking about the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ.
We're talking about real corruption and we're talking about real crimes committed.
And that's why people like myself have been fighting for a second special counsel.
And the Attorney General addressed that last week, that since November, this guy, John Uber, a prosecutor in Salt Lake City, he has been tasked with looking into these issues.
And the way the Attorney General explained it, that's part of a process.
Now, when we get information from the Inspector General's report, well, that would mean John Huber can take that information and set up a grand jury, and then they can go out and indictments can be given.
And if there is justice and equal justice under the law and we remain a constitutional republic and we don't have a two-tiered justice system, one for the Clintons and one for the rest of us, then I really believe that everything that we've been telling you about is going to be proven and then some.
And there's so much more that I know that's coming out.
I think the cases are overwhelming and incontrovertible.
So we're going to stay on it, Gary.
That's all I can tell you.
So I appreciate you staying with us.
Thanks for serving your country, too.
All right, when we come back, more of these social media abuses and censoring of conservatives.
Jonathan Gillum, Dan Bongino, and Diamond of Diamond and Silk fame will join us next.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So at the beginning of this hour, we had Marsha Blackburn on talking about censorship on social media sites, Twitter and Facebook and others.
Basically, these companies have an ability to spy on every American and instances where we know, in fact, it's happening.
Anyway, we've assembled a group of people that have, on one level or another, been dealing with all of this.
We've dealt with it on our show.
I mean, we don't do any Twitter direct messages anymore.
What were the words that they were trying to use?
Compromised.
How do we restore our right to privacy?
How do we protect First Amendment rights?
And how do we protect against data mining as a means of creating profiles against us to make us buy stuff for whatever other reason they're using it for?
Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent, Jonathan Gillum, former Navy SEAL author of the book Sheep No More, and the one and only Diamond of Diamond and Silk fame are here to talk about this abuse and bias, especially against conservatives on social media.
Diamond, we'll start with you.
Has Diamond and Silk ever been censored on social media?
Oh, absolutely.
On YouTube, on Twitter, and on Facebook.
We have over a million followers on Facebook, and now Facebook has decided to put in these algorithms where people can't receive notification.
We don't come up in our people that like and follow our pages, news feed, and they just thumb it down our videos, thumb it down anything that we say and we think it's sad.
This is clearly discrimination, and this is clearly censorship of our conservative voices.
Yeah.
What's happened to you, Dan Bongino?
Well, this is a trip.
I was in a hotel room up in New York.
I was actually getting ready to do your show, and I get an email, and I thought it was a phishing email.
It was from Twitter, and it said you were no longer eligible to run Twitter ads.
And I swear I thought it was a joke, Sean.
And I sent it to my wife.
I said, is this real?
And it turns out it was real.
And the reason, Sean, get a hold of this.
You'll trip out.
It's inappropriate.
By the way, this is why I love Dan Bongino, former Secret Service guy.
They'll trip you out, man.
It's unbelievable.
This is what's happening on social media.
Well, I wasn't dropping acid, but it did actually happen.
I said to my wife, have you seen any inappropriate content?
And believe me, if it was, she would tell me.
She goes, I don't know what they're talking about.
So they banned us from running ads.
And even worse, they would never tell us what the inappropriate content was.
But I'll answer that for you.
It was being a conservative.
There's no doubt in my mind.
Well, that's the thing.
I mean, they're only going after Jonathan conservatives, it seems.
Have there been any instances?
I have not seen an outcry from people on the left that they're being censored.
No, I haven't heard, actually, I haven't heard that at all.
And here's what's really interesting is when you try to complain on somebody who attacks you from the left, it's virtually impossible.
But somehow they're always able to complain on us when we say something that they don't like.
Every time they can just do it and somebody gets blocked.
And here's my instance, too.
One with Facebook.
At one point, and I've never monetized my show because one of the things was with the YouTube, or excuse me, with Facebook, I had a million people reaching every night.
My show was reaching a million people.
And within a week, it went down to about 3,000.
And then on YouTube, two weeks ago, I was restricted from putting any live videos on because I did a show on David Hogg and criticized him.
The next day, they said I was bullying and pulled off the YouTube.
Well, we know that Facebook staffers had sought to delete Donald Trump's post calling on his position about immigration and vetting people from certain countries.
And that ended up being a violation.
They viewed the company's hate speech policies.
Well, who defines what hate speech is?
I thought this was the United States of America where we had free speech.
Now, short of a direct threat against an individual or threatening harm against somebody or threatening a terrorist activity of some kind, isn't it pretty routine that people can be pretty vicious on social media, Dan Bongino?
You know, where does the line go?
Yeah, no, you're right, Sean.
And here's the problem with social media.
They want to have it both ways.
Let me be clear.
I am not endorsing or recommending any government intervention.
I'm for a limited government all over the place.
But social media wants it both ways.
They don't want to be treated like a publisher like, say, the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, Sean, that could be legally responsible for defamatory information.
Everybody knows the rules.
Foxnews.com, same thing.
But what social media wants to say is, oh, no, no, we're not responsible.
People just put up their stuff.
They're not our ideas.
And we don't have editorial control.
But that's not true, Sean.
Do you have editorial control because they block conservatives and it's open season for liberals?
Well, in 2016, Facebook workers admitted that they were routinely suppressing conservative news stories from their, quote, trending news section.
We recently had Facebook rejecting an ad with a crucifix.
They deemed an image of Jesus on the cross as, quote, too violent.
And in the past, Facebook approved hate groups while shutting down Christian groups.
And they removed a patriotic picture honoring fallen Marines.
I mean, these are just a few examples that we have.
Diamond.
Yes.
What did you experience?
Well, you know, we experienced that our videos from a million views, like he said, all the way down to 3,000, if not less.
We cannot put out a rant video or video about how we feel about things anymore.
It's not reaching anybody.
They got these algorithms in place to dumb down your videos.
And this is happening all over the place.
But if I want to see somebody get shot in the head, I can find that, and that's millions of videos.
If I want to see somebody talking bad about our president, they reach millions of people, and they don't even have but a handful of followers.
So it is discrimination, and it's not fair.
It's bias.
What should we do when there's like a terroristic threat?
One of the things that we have pointed out, Jonathan Gillum, over and over again is that a lot of these people that end up either in these school shootings or these terrorist activities, we go to their social media sites and we always find, oh, they were telegraphing, it's all coming.
Now we've got a razor's edge here between freedom and freedom of speech, and also those people that are basically making threats on social media.
Don't we have laws that you can't make terroristic threats against individuals?
You can't threaten people on social media.
Short of that, is everything else fair game?
Like, for example, there's the publication, The Anarchist Cookbook.
They literally, in that book, teach you how to build bombs to kill people.
You know, what do you do in that case?
Do you allow that to go up on social media?
That's the fine line right there.
And I do think when it has to do with national security or it has to do with threats, I mean, there's a clear difference between hate speech and threat.
A lot of the hate speech, while it may not be enjoyable to listen to, it is still a lot of this is covered through the First Amendment and our freedom of speech.
And I get that they want to eliminate some of this stuff and make a greater, more happier world, whatever that is that the liberals may feel.
But the problem is when you start trying to regulate hate speech, it gets in the way of doing exactly what you're talking about, looking for people who are doing real things that are national security threat that are real dangers to people.
And they don't make it easy for people to complain on the right things because they're trying to protect people from hate speech and things like that.
I'll give you an example.
Dan Bongino on Netflix, there was actually an interview of the guy that wrote the anarchist cookbook.
And it was back in the day, it was thought that maybe Timothy McVay actually had used that and part of the planning of the Oklahoma City bombing, or as a book that he at least had read or been associated with in some way.
This guy said, well, I didn't write this book about how to build bombs so people would actually do it.
I'd never write a book about how to build a bomb or how to kill somebody, would you?
No, I have nothing to do with it.
But we've seen this again and again, Sean, the double standard on YouTube, where there's propaganda for Islamo fascists out there on YouTube.
There's Hollywood violent videos out there on YouTube.
And then yet YouTube recently, I don't know if you guys saw this one, took down a lot of gun videos.
I mean, not just regular firearm videos where people were putting together firearms, teaching you how to put them together, take them apart, disassemble them.
They took down a lot of those videos.
By the way, I've watched some of those videos.
I like it from the standpoint it's educational.
And a lot of people, you know, they know that, you know, with an increase in terrorist activity and home invasions and school shootings and church shootings, that, you know, people want maybe if they're thinking if they ever find themselves in that situation, they want to be able to defend themselves.
Right.
I mean, I got an accessory for an AR-15 recently, and I had a tough time putting it on the rail.
It was the piece I was missing.
I went to YouTube a little while ago and I watched the video.
And so what would you rather?
You'd rather a bunch of uneducated people not knowing what to do with the firearms they have.
I mean, it's so stupid and illogical.
It really boggles the mind trying to decipher liberalism.
Well, that's true, Jonathan.
Or I'm sorry.
You know, Diamond, I always have a hard time.
I don't know what your last name is.
I just call you Diamond.
Oh, well, Diamond is fine or Diamond Hardaway or just call me Diamond.
I love it.
But go ahead.
What is it, Sean?
Well, I'm trying to understand what happens.
Why would Diamond and Silk, very, very funny?
You even have the Diamond and Silk tour now going to cities all across America.
And you guys, but you have strong biting commentary.
I've never heard you guys cross any lines.
You certainly are nonviolent.
You just support your president and you take a lot of heat for it.
But why would they ever want to censor you guys?
Because they don't like our conservative point of view.
If I'm telling somebody to go out there and get into it with the police and ACAFU, oh, that would get plenty of views.
But because I'm telling people we can no longer vote for the same system that keeps handing us crumbs, we need to support our president because we have more money in our pocket.
They don't like to hear that.
They want to keep us where we are all down, where we are in a box, where they can control us, where they can dominate, and they can manipulate us.
That's what they're doing.
And it can't be tolerated.
And we understand that these platforms are autonomous platforms and entities.
But here's the deal.
They don't have the right to silence conservative voices.
And who makes a determination what you should see, what you see, what you should hear, what you shouldn't hear?
I mean, that's domination.
It looks like somebody's dictating to us, okay, well, we don't like what you say, so you bet we can't let your stuff be seen, but we'll let this be seen.
It looks like a lot of people dominate.
There's a CNBC report that is out today, and it actually, the headline is, Facebook sent a doctor on a secret mission to ask hospitals to share patient data.
They were in talks with top hospitals, other medical groups, as recently as last month about a proposal to share data about the social networks of their most vulnerable patients.
And, you know, the idea was to build profiles of people, including their medical conditions and information and so on and so forth.
But is there anything more intrusive than people's private personal health care?
Jonathan Gillam.
I mean, that is unbelievable.
See, that just shows you the nefarious ways that they're working.
And here's something that goes right along with this, Sean, that everybody needs to realize.
Facebook owns Instagram.
It also owns WhatsApp, which a lot of people use and think that they're fully secure.
If Facebook is doing this and getting into people's direct messages on Messenger on Facebook, I can guarantee you it's happening on Instagram.
It's happening in WhatsApp.
And these people communicate.
This is the other thing.
Dan got censored on Twitter.
I've been censored on Twitter.
I've been censored on YouTube.
Diamond's been censored on YouTube and Facebook.
The fact that they're all connected.
Have we been censored in any way?
I don't even, I have no clue.
We've had some posts that we've put up that we've tried to get up, and they've said that this is sensitive technology.
Why are they so slow when, quote, Hannity's account is, quote, compromised?
But let's also remember, let's remember all the threats that we had against you, the threats against your children, the threats against your house, the threats against you, you know, that they're going to wave jihad over you.
I mean, there is, there are, you know, fatwas being waged on Twitter, but somehow the fatwa escapes everybody at Twitter.
And they never, and they never take them down, or we have a hard time, you have a hard time, because I don't do it.
You have a hard time getting them taken down when they make these threats.
Yeah, I have to get in touch with a lot of people.
You know, Jack is a very busy man at Jack on Twitter.
Yeah, at Jack on Twitter.
He doesn't answer you?
You know, he's got things to do.
Him and Mark, you know, they're looking up your private information.
Mark Zuckerberg.
No, but I'm asking, but you have actually reached out to the guy.
So who do you deal with when we have problems?
I've spoken to their legal counsel as well, some other friends that I have on the inside that they don't know.
But basically, I'm guessing you threaten that we're going to sue them, and that's how you get some.
I never threaten.
I recommend ideas.
Recommend we might sue them.
I recommend ideas.
I make suggestions about possible activities.
By the way, everybody that knows you on this line and knows exactly what they know what I'm saying.
Dan Bongino, you see what I have to deal with every day?
Yeah, I dealt with Linda on one of these, a threat to you.
And let me tell you something.
You want anyone to have your back, it's Linda May.
See that, Sean?
You should just say thank you and move on.
Forget about running through a fire.
She'll stand in the fire.
Just be thanked, Dan.
I got into this with Mark Levin once, and there's crap up on my Wikipedia page that is not true.
And any idiot can go in there and write lies about you.
Why would Wikipedia allow that?
Why don't you?
I don't know, but that's that, and it's true.
That is the truth, and all of that kind of stuff.
Even having your information out there, telling people's stuff.
Well, maybe I'll sue them.
Maybe I'll do that.
Yeah.
I had a guy yesterday on Twitter put on there that after this shooting at YouTube, that Jonathan Gillam went on CNN saying that the girl was just mentally ill.
I haven't been on CNN since 2015.
But he's good for you.
He's a philanthropist.
By the way, it shows your staying power if you haven't been on in three years and they're still talking about you on fake news CNN.
All right, so we have Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News channel.
All right, Newt Gingrich makes his return appearance.
The great one, Mark Levin, Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor, Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter, Dan Bongino, and Tommy Laron versus Kathy Aru.
Don't forget the latest updates.
You can always check out Hannity.com, the new and improved Hannity.com.
We've got everything that you need there at Sean Hannity on Twitter if you want to talk to us.
Again, we'll see you tonight at 9 back here tomorrow.
