Sean is joined by Senator Lindsey Graham to discuss the upcoming battle to nominate Judge Kavanaugh. The Senate is eager to make some moves before the midterm elections but it could be close. Plus, what would life under a Democrat-controlled House look like? Hint: It's not pretty. 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.
Why can't I do Scott Shannon?
Sean Tanner.
How come I can't do that?
A little story before we get started today.
So my first professional job, Huntsville, Alabama, and this guy, John Stone.
And John Stone had one of these coming to Madison Square Garden.
He does all these spots.
And I would watch, and back in that day, we didn't have computers to edit everything.
Right now, everything, you know, you want to edit some tape.
You just, all right, cut this out, boom, it's put it in the computer and the hard drive and it's done.
It's right, Quinn.
It's simple.
It's easy.
That's what you do.
And anyway, so, but we used to in the olden days, early days of radio, you know, I'd spend hours in a production room and you'd have to, you'd cut this tape with a razor blade and then you'd have to put the little blue tape and match it together and then you'd replay it.
Jason's shaking his head.
How much easier is it now, right?
I mean, it's like it's nightmare.
Imagine having to do that with sports.
Oh, it's you did that in the sports world?
Forget it.
Basketball game.
Like highlights.
Football.
Oh, yeah.
Hockey.
And the problem is, is sometimes you think you do it perfectly.
Did you do a diagonal cut or did you usually do a straight cut?
Diagonal.
We had the reel-to-reel machine.
Yeah, reel-to-reel.
Yeah, it had like the grooves built in, and I believe they were diagonal.
I know, but this kid spent hours and hours and hours.
And he had a deep, booming voice like my buddy Scott Shannon.
And as we say in radio, great set of pipes.
And it turned this almost every concert spot you hear.
He does it today.
I mean, it's amazing.
And I watched him build his career and he just stood there for hours and hours and hours over that tape.
And I hear from my buddy John every once in a while.
And he's done so well for himself.
And he just loved it.
He was born to do it.
Loves it today.
Sometimes during the Freedom Concerts, he cut a couple of spots for us back in the day also.
All right, you look absolutely ridiculous with that Blair thing that you have on your head.
So where were we?
I guess we were in Singapore and then we were in Helsinki.
And whenever Linda wants you to break, she's not shy about it.
She takes both of her wrists and like bangs them together, like break, break, break, break.
And I could be in the middle of a sentence and it's like, excuse me.
That's because you're in the middle of the fourth sentence when you should have been done six sentences ago.
Okay, so he got you the Wonder Woman thing because you click your wrists and it looks ridiculous on your head.
I mean, I think it looks amazing.
Go ahead.
I think you send it out on your Twitter account.
If I need to distract you to get you to break, I'll do it.
Dress up like Wonder Woman.
Dressed up like Wonder Woman.
Well, you got the, apparently Blair was so, we had such fun making fun of you about it.
I've got two sets, too.
You got two sets of Wonder Woman.
The cuffs and the tiara.
Oh, it's amazing.
Very shiny.
All right, let me go to, and I think this is important.
This is Sarah Sanders taking on fake news CNN, and she just blisters them today.
I'm trying to answer your question.
I politely waited, and I even called on you, despite the fact that you interrupted me while calling on your colleague.
I said it's ironic.
Which is why I interrupted.
I'm trying.
If you finish, if you would not mind letting me have a follow-up, that would be fine.
It's ironic, Jim, that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country.
Repeatedly, repeatedly, the media resorts to personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger.
The media has attacked me personally on a number of occasions, including your own network.
Said I should be harassed as a life sentence, that I should be choked.
ICE officials are not welcomed in their place of worship, and personal information is shared on the internet.
When I was hosted by the Correspondents Association, of which almost all of you are members of, you brought a comedian up to attack my appearance and call me a traitor to my own gender.
In fact, as I know, as far as I know, I'm the first press secretary in the history of the United States that's required Secret Service protection.
The media continues to ratchet up the verbal assault against the president and everyone in this administration.
And certainly we have a role to play, but the media has a role to play for the discourse in this country as well.
And, sir, if you don't mind if I hold on, if I may follow up, if I may follow up, excuse me.
You did not say in the course of those.
Oh, forget, I don't want to hear from these people anymore.
There's such a bunch of big crybabies that you just, it gets so old.
You know, I said this last night, and I'm very serious about it.
And I'm not being flippant, and I know that people, I know they don't like when they go to rallies and hearing CNN sucks.
I myself, what was it like when we were in London and we went in the middle of the anti-Trump protest?
The first thing that shocked me is that I wasn't just known to a few people.
Everybody there, very quickly, they knew who I was, so they knew I was pro-Trump.
It was a little testy.
You were, you, I don't know.
I don't think I think I'd use a stronger word than testy.
What would you say?
Violent and vile.
Yeah, it was a little vile, a little testy, but we knew what we were doing when we put ourselves in that environment.
At least I did, and I dragged all of you with me.
Why are you here today?
To protest everyone else just to protest Trump.
I think he's a horrible person and doesn't deserve to come to our country.
It's all racist, sexist, misogynistic cake.
What is that?
Now, why don't you like the president of the United States?
I think he's gonna basically racist, sexist pig.
The Trump administration, it's quite scary.
It is very, very scary.
Says resist.
What are you resisting?
Fascism.
And who's a fascist?
You.
I'm a fascist.
Okay, and we went in there and then we got out rather quickly, but I've gone on the floor of Democratic National Conventions and I've had more than a few mean things to said to me.
And I expect it.
Words are very, very different than people that are violent.
And I think there are two things going on simultaneously here.
I think there's an effort, an attempt, a desire to silence people of opposing views.
I'm sure that the people at fake news don't like it when it's being chanted that their network sucks.
But nor would I support anybody ever raising a hand to anyone.
All during the Obama years, I went out of my way on this program to say we must keep our president safe.
Conservatives that I know, that I support, that I believe in, none of them are violent or support violence in any way, but calling out a network for lying constantly and misinforming the American people and having an abusively biased agenda and not being real news, but it's every minute, every second of every day, its opinion when they say that they're news and they're not.
Getting called out on the carpet by people is part of what you sign up up for if you're going to be in the public eye.
So let's just cut the bull here.
I've had as many death threats as everybody else.
I don't come on the program and whine about them.
I know that it's sadly, if you're in the public eye, there's a lot of kooks and a lot of nuts and a lot of dangerous people.
And, you know, I won't let anybody raise a hand to anybody.
I'd be the first one to step in, any journalist, anybody in news that was ever attacked under any circumstances.
I'd jump right in the middle of it.
But it's a big leap from there going to the things that the news media is claiming when people are just chanting CNN sucks.
I mean, you know, and the irony of all of this is I can go back in time and I can give you, you know, I remember Barack Obama telling people to get in people's faces.
You remember that?
You can go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors.
I want you to talk to them whether they're independent or whether they are Republican.
I want you to argue with them and get in their face and get in their face.
Maxine Waters, you know, after we had what happened to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, not only run out of one restaurant, she decides to go home, but her children are with her.
And then she moves forward and they follow her family to a second restaurant.
Kicking them out of one place wasn't good enough.
They had to kick them out of a second place.
They can't even sit down and enjoy dinner.
The same with Secretary Nielsen.
The same with Pam Bondi.
The horrible things even said this week about Melania Trump again.
The horrific things that have been said about the first daughter, severed heads of the president, people fantasizing about blowing up the White House, people thinking of wanting to punch the president of the United States in the face.
They're all on the left.
And with this kind of inspiration, I will go and take Trump out tonight.
Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?
I want to clarify, I'm not an actor.
I lie for a living.
Just not gentle.
However, it's been a while.
And maybe it's time.
How dare you say the things he does?
Of course I want to punch him in the face.
The press always asks me, don't I wish I were debating him?
No, I wish you were in high school.
I could take him behind the gym.
That's what I wish.
Crazy Uncle Joe wants to take him behind the gym and punch him out.
You know, once Obama said to one of his supporters, we'll send Mr. Burgess to tear me up, tear Sean Hannity.
I might have to put Mr. Burgess on Fox News.
I'll put Mr. Burgess up against Sean Hannity.
He'll tear him up.
Tear him up.
Get in their face.
This is all coming from the left.
You know, Corey Booker, another one that is out there telling people to get in people's faces.
How many times are we going to say they want to punch, beat, attack?
How many times are they going to say follow him into the grocery store, the mall, wherever else they happen to go and get in their face?
This is all coming from the left.
I don't hear anybody else at all talking about it.
I mean, I can give you literally a chapter and verse on fake news CNN.
You know, you got Fareed Zakaria, one saying January 3rd, 2016, self-destructive whites are responsible for Trump's frontrunner status.
Another guy on CNN blaming the GOP playbook of intolerance for creating Trump and Cruz and their morning show decrying Trump's dangerous anti-press rhetoric.
And you got another guy saying, nice that the KKK hasn't endorsed him lately.
And this is not news.
This is all opinion that they like to say is news.
You know, then Cokie Roberts invoking Jim Crow, claiming Trump created hatred.
Are they not watching these actors, these actresses?
I didn't see any feigned outrage over the women that support Trump, Sarah Huckabee and Sanders and Secretary Nielsen or Pam Bondi, or what was said even about Melania Trump this week.
Didn't they use the word hoe?
Yeah, that was used by a Democratic congressional candidate.
They inciting violence against her?
You know, it's Trump's very conservative dog whistle, etc., court picks.
You know, the media have missed racist undertones in the GOP.
I could keep going on.
It is, you know, this is a whitelash.
Remember that?
Van Jones right after the election?
You know, there's a lot that has been said, and they just can't acknowledge that they're not news.
They are the whole thing is being perpetrated as just a total, they're a bunch of total frauds.
And the American people see it, and they're not blind.
And guess what?
They don't have any problems calling him out.
But I'll say this: you know, if you listen to this program, you know, it's our job to be peaceful.
You don't have to be that respectful.
They're not respectful to us.
I wouldn't get in anybody's face.
I wouldn't create any confrontation that's going to lead to any type of physical confrontation.
You know, I'd be respectful.
Like when I tell you to call Congress, I always say be respectful.
If you see these reporters, you can say, yeah, I believe you're fake news and you're abusively biased.
Say it respectfully.
That's fine.
If you want to chant and you're at a rally, that's fine too.
That is not creating an atmosphere of violence.
And maybe if they had even just the slightest bit of introspection and humility, they might think for a second that maybe there's a reason for this because it's pretty much widespread.
All right, glad you're with us.
Sean Hannity Show Toll Free 800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
All right, so we have now day three of the Manafort 2005 case.
This is big, big, big news.
If you watch the phony news networks in the country, this case is not about Russia.
This case is not about the campaign.
This case is not about Trump.
This case is not about collusion.
And the judge is obviously pissed off about even doing this case.
For the third day in a row, the judge in the Manafort case is excoriating the prosecution.
Now, I don't want you to read into that, that it somehow means that Paul Manafort is going to be found not guilty of whatever 2005 issues he was involved financially with as it relates to Ukraine.
But I'm only saying that the judge's patience for what has happened here is so obvious.
He's like, remember when he wanted to see the original mandate of Rod Rosenstein?
What is the mandate?
You know, are we looking into a so-called collusion with the Trump campaign in Russia?
And the mandate turns out to be so broad, so widespread that you could talk about that now.
It's legitimate to go into a 2005 tax case that literally was pulled out of mothballs for the judge, as the judge says, so that you can put the screws to Manafort for the purpose of making them sing or compose whatever story they want, meaning Mueller and his pit bull Weissman and the rest of them.
And then he'll, then he'll, as he sings and composes, they'll find something to prosecute Trump or impeach Trump over.
And that's it.
And the judge even said yesterday, the prosecution was saying, well, their main witness, remember, apparently Paul Manafort and his former partner Gates, you know, they were saying they may not bring him in because apparently we're going to see that a lot of the money, wherever it went and wherever it stayed, was with him.
Now, you got to understand, 95% of these cases end up with a guilty verdict in terms of the federal government.
They have the power, the force of the government.
But this is the third day in a row this judge has tore them to shreds.
You can't prove a conspiracy without him.
Stop talking.
It's not a crime in America to be rich.
Don't use the word oligarch.
He now controls the Republican Party as a presumptive nominee, as an incredibly divisive figure.
Huge negatives, toxic policy proposals.
What he's done is create a lot of hatred and hostility between groups in this country.
after a half century of us trying to bring people together.
This list is a dog whistle to social conservatives.
But are the talking heads missing something?
When they pin it all on the economy, what about racial anxiety as a factor?
I think this piece of the Trump story has been overlooked.
How many media folks have actually asked Donald Trump or any of his key supporters, hey, what does that hat mean?
You're wearing this hat that says make America great again.
When exactly was America great?
And not just for white men with money like Donald Trump, but when was it great for people of color?
When was it great for LGBT folk?
When was it great for women as women?
It's not that big a deal.
A bunch of people like the guy got his hat knocked off.
I mean, you know, he shouldn't have his hat knocked off.
The last guy who got his hat knocked off and picked it up and tried to get it back was beaten to a pulp and was taken off the scene with blood rushing down his face.
That's what happened to the last guy who tried to get his hat back.
One person getting hurt is unacceptable, but it's one person.
I just don't think anybody should, you know, think that this is a bigger deal than it is.
They're crazy.
They're over the top.
You know, it's one thing to say you don't like the foreign policy decisions that I've made.
It's one thing to say that you don't like the alliances that I've made or how I've done trade deals or anything like that.
And it's quite another thing to say she belongs in prison.
And to say it in an angry sort of mob chant, right?
Gladiator kind of way.
Yeah, it puts her back in her sweet spot where she can say, hey, you may not like me and I know I'm not perfect, but look at that craziness.
I kept thinking about Donald Trump watching Mike Bloomberg.
That's got to hurt.
There's nobody else who could have done it in quite that way.
It turns out he's a quack doctor.
The second opinion says Donald Trump is a quack.
I like this line so much, I will use it twice.
He used it to beat Donald Trump over the head.
The president making a constructive case for why Hillary is the only choice in this election while others took to the podium last night to give the GOP nominee a beatdown.
When you start your campaign with a slogan like, make America great again, when some of us hear shackles in our minds or we hear dogs and see fire hoses, that's not an era that we want to go back to.
The only thing Donald Trump has done since the beginning of his candidacy is make those race relations even worse.
Everything he's saying is designed to appeal to the base that is sick and tired of African Americans trying to get political power in this country.
So this is a team of Trump and Pence that has said, we will jail our opponent.
We may not accept the election result and we don't accept the rule of law.
This isn't from a group that says they love America.
In the last 48 hours, we're seeing Trump, frankly, talking like a tyrant again, right?
I mean, this is the guy who said, I'm going to jail my opponent.
I may not accept the election results.
And I was vice president saying, oh, no, she committed a crime by mishandling classified data in contradiction to what Comey said.
And he's saying, Trump is saying that this is all rigged again.
Again, this is not somebody who sounds like he loves America and loves American institutions.
Fake news infects the left and the right.
I've seen Clinton supporters sharing fake links this week with election-related conspiracy theories.
But the evidence indicates that this is more of a problem on the right among some, not all, but some Trump supporters.
This is exactly what authoritarians do.
This is what strong men do.
This is what happens in authoritarian regimes.
I think we need to start using those words on TV at least to discuss the possibilities before us.
What you do in an authoritarian regime is you delegitimize the press.
This is CNN.
Yeah, fake news.
That was all CNN fake news in 2016.
That's what they do every day.
That's what they've done since he, they laughed, they mocked, they ridiculed the idea that Trump came down that escalator and said he was going to run for president.
And this is what they do.
And the public sees it and they hear it.
And I actually believe in their own twisted brains that they think, it's sort of like some people think that they're super patriots.
Like when Peter Strzok testified, I said, this guy really believes he's a super patriot, that he knows and he knew better than we, the people, in terms of who the country should select as president.
And arrogance is breathtaking.
There's so little faith in the American people.
Well, I actually have faith in the American people.
And the American people saw and witnessed eight years of failed policies of Obama.
I won't give out the statistics again.
Most of you know it by heart, which is good, because then maybe when they try to convince you to vote Democratic in 96 days from now, maybe you'll remember what happened when they were in charge and the disaster that was the economy and the weakness that was their foreign policy.
And you can compare it to just now, 18 months of Donald Trump.
By November, you'll be able to compare it to two years ago when the American people went to the polls and they elected him in Wisconsin and in Michigan, came close in Minnesota and in Ohio and in North Carolina and in Pennsylvania and in Florida and the states in between.
And I think if the president, if people understand what the Democrats are advocating for this election season, which is it's very obvious they want to impeach.
They just have stopped saying it.
They want to.
They've told every member, stop saying it.
Don't say it.
Just keep it quiet.
We'll do that after we win the election.
Sort of like, you know, a Democratic playbook.
It's like Obama saying to Medvedev, tell Vladimir, I'll have more.
I'll have more flexibility.
I'll have more flexibility.
I transmit to Vladimir.
I transmit.
Well, that sounds like hallusion to me.
You know, I know that most of you probably don't give a flying rip about Paul Manafort or what's going on in this trial, but you need to.
Because, you know, I'm watching this judge who's, he's on a razor's edge patience-wise.
And after he looked at the wide mandate, broad mandate of Rod Rosenstein, he felt compelled to allow this to go forward.
Even though he said, let's cut the bull here in the courtroom.
And this is what it is.
You don't care about Paul Manafort and a 2005 tax case.
Stop acting like you do.
This is about putting the screws to him, making him sing or compose to get Trump to impeach or prosecute.
Now for the third day in a row, the Manafort judge, T.S. Ellis III, wrapped him across the knuckles again from the bench today.
And he said this today that he will continue to block the government from showing the jury photographs illustrating the prodigious spending habits of the former Trump campaign chairman.
Remember, Manafort only worked, look up exactly how many days, Linda, that Manafort worked for Trump.
I think it was less than 100.
And ruling that such images unfairly besmirched the defendant.
And he on day one of the trial said being wealthy is not a crime in America.
That's not what he is on trial for, reminding the jury right up top that the defendant is innocent in this country until he is proven guilty.
And then the judge went on to say that images of designer suits and lavish homes and a luxury car endangers resentment against rich people.
And he was responding to an appeal from prosecutors who said the illustrations of the items were important proof of Manafort's motive.
Doesn't matter what the motive is.
Did he or did he not do the things that they are accusing him of?
And the government is contending that Manafort relied almost exclusively on untaxed money.
Then yesterday, they actually went the extra step saying, well, we're not necessarily going to bring in our star defendant.
He worked five months for Trump.
Okay.
Wow, not even a half a year.
So Robert Mueller's prosecution team, you know, set off the smoke alarms yesterday when they announced that they may decide not to call their star witness against Manafort.
Now, that's not a good sign when your star witness goes belly up from the get-go.
And now Mueller's team is scrambling to correct the record-only kind of sort of because Mueller's team dismissed earlier suggestions that they would not call Manafort business partner, Rick Gates, their star witness.
And anyway, it was brought up by the prosecution team, prompting surprise from the judge again.
The prosecutor, Greg Andres, told the court today that the government had every intention of calling Gates, who agreed to cooperate with prosecutors earlier this year after pleading guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI.
It's our intention to call him.
But to say you intend to do something is a lot different than saying you will do something.
I'm sure the captain of the Titanic had every intention of avoiding the iceberg.
Didn't quite work out that way that night.
You know, and it goes even further because Judge Ellis in this case, you know, said basically that they can't prove a key part of their case unless prosecutors call Gates and Manafort's business partner to the stand.
And he issued warning after prosecutors suggested yesterday that Gates, who's cooperating with the prosecutors, has been considered their potential star witness, might not be called to the stand at all.
Referencing Gates, the judge told prosecutors, in court they can't prove conspiracy without him.
And not necessarily, said Mueller's prosecutor, Greg Andres, responding before saying that they still have every intention to call Gates.
Now, the White House said that Paul Manafort had a limited role in Trump's campaign, but this is not the point here.
So for the short period of time that Manafort, who did a good job, because remember there was talk at that time about pulling delegates away from Trump and getting him to support another candidate because the establishment hated Trump.
And he did a really good job of making sure that that team held that the delegates weren't stolen.
Great job on the part of the establishment.
Forget what the people want, then they're acting like Hillary Clinton, stealing the primary from Bernie Sanders.
But the point is this.
This is not at all what Mueller's team was set out to do.
And by the way, the Russians that they indicted will never, those trials will never occur.
The Russian bot companies, they never thought that they were going to fight back.
Now they're trying to convince a judge not to allow discovery when they have every right to defend themselves.
That's how desperate they are.
Now think about this.
This case has nothing at all to do with Russia.
I doubt Russia will ever be mentioned in this case.
It's not about Donald Trump at all.
Donald Trump didn't even know Paul Manafort at the time.
It's not about collusion at any point.
It's about a tax case in 2005.
Now, why is this important?
It's important because if we lose the equal application of our laws in this country, you've lost your country.
We have a two-tier justice system, one for the Clintons and one for the rest of us.
You know, I dare say that if any of you did what Clinton did, and let's just take the obstruction case alone, and you have subpoenaed emails and you delete them, and you bleach bit your hard drive, kind of like an acid wash, and you beat up your devices into itsy bitsy pieces, it's never going to work out for you the way it did for her.
Well, that means we have a big problem in this country.
Anyway, let's go to Larry in Chicago.
Larry, hi, how are you?
You're on the Sean Hannity show.
Good, good.
I just wanted to tell you, I'm a former federal prosecutor.
I've prosecuted over 100 jury trials.
And if the judge telegraphs to the jury that the judge doesn't like the case, there's like a 95% chance the government will lose because the jury implicitly trusts the judge.
They watch the judge constantly.
They pick up on everything.
And they don't necessarily know to trust the lawyers or not.
So the bottom line is, and usually judges try to keep out of it, but if a judge doesn't like a case, they let the jury know.
Trust me, he's going out to judge.
Well, the problem is the odds are not with Manafort because in these federal cases, usually the government wins 95% of the time.
That's scary.
Karen in Medford, Oregon is next.
Karen, hi, how are you?
And welcome to the program.
Hello.
Hi, Karen.
How are you?
Pretty good.
Hey, I have a couple of In-N-Out Burger hats I'd like to send.
Well, I don't want the hat.
I want the burger.
Okay, I'll send you the burger.
I'd be happy to.
I want to call the people that own In-N-Out Burger, and I want to open one in New York City.
Well, let me tell you what.
They are not a franchise.
I know, but I want to make a deal with them.
Can't they make a deal with one person?
It's the best burger ever.
It is the best burger, and I live in Medford, Oregon, and we have them here, not just California.
And no tax.
I pay no tax to get them In-N-Out Burger.
I'll pay the tax.
Just give me the burger.
I just, you know, I'll pay whatever it takes.
Well, do you want the hats?
Oh, you're very nice.
Yeah, you could send us the hats and we'll put them on and we'll beg the people that own In-N-Out Burger to let me have one franchise.
I'll do it exactly the way they want.
I think it's a woman, in fact, that is the head of it.
I could ask.
All I want is a double-double with animal style with onions.
Double-double, animal.
You know that they have like a secret menu, right?
Oh, I do know.
Yep.
Well, Animal Style is one.
What are some of the other secret menu?
don't know them all because you know what i love i think what makes them special is the is some kind of garlic butter that they put on the bun i don't even eat it with the bun I eat it with a lettuce rot, veggie style.
Okay.
Boy, you're hardcore.
I'm a hardcore In-N-Out burger person.
I really am.
Anyway, thank you for the call.
It's very nice.
We'll let you talk to Linda about the hats.
We appreciate it.
All right, busy day ahead of us.
Lindsey Graham, he's going to check in with us.
Got a lot of questions to ask him, especially about Judge Kavanaugh, how that is going.
There are a lot of Democrats don't even want to meet with him.
Democrats have gone borking mad on Kavanaugh, said Senator Arn Hatch and Graham Menendez and a bunch of others are pushing for Russia sanctions.
We'll tell you about that.
Brett Kavanaugh is, in effect, a get-out-of-jail free card for Donald Trump.
He is a way for Donald Trump to protect himself because Brett Kavanaugh has said, just coincidentally, he doesn't think the President of the United States ought to be subpoenaed to a grand jury.
How convenient.
He doesn't think the president is barred from refusing to enforce a law.
He thinks the president can refuse to enforce the law, even if the courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have said it's valid and constitutional.
The president would, in effect, be a monarch.
The president would be a monarch if Brett Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice.
I don't think Americans want an imperial presidency.
Do you?
Sanctions on Russia will remain as is.
As far as a pipeline is concerned, I'd like to see a competing pipeline.
So, Mr. Prime Minister, I hope you're going to be able to do that competing pipeline.
And we are already talking to the European Union about building anywhere from 9 to 11 ports, which they will pay for, so that we can ship our LNG over to various parts of Europe, and that will be more competition.
But the sanctions on Russia will remain as is.
We're at hour two, Sean Hannity Show, toll-free numbers 800-941.
Sean, if you want to join us, he's from South Carolina.
The senator Lindsey Graham is back with us, who we kind of have a love-hate relationship with, but lately we've been in pretty good stead.
How are you?
Good.
The day's not over.
No, that's true.
Enjoy it while we've got it.
Listen, Nick.
I'm just working hard if you want to know the truth.
I don't know how you do it.
I mean, this is a, you know, keeping people informed and entertained about eight hours a day is not easy.
You know what?
I actually feel blessed to do it.
I really do.
And it's my great honor to be here.
Yeah, no, that's true.
No, and listen, I did hard work for 20 years of my life, so I know what it's like.
And I know the people in your state work hard every day.
Every day.
It's kind of like what this election is about.
To me, the agenda of the Democrats is pretty simple.
They want to impeach the president, but they don't want to say it.
They want their crumbs back.
They want to eliminate ICE.
They want open borders.
They want to keep Obamacare, and they want these investigations into all of this deep state corruption to literally give Hillary Clinton a pass and rig an investigation and then turn on Donald Trump and lie to FISA courts.
I think they want that to all go away.
You know, I think it's even worse than that.
I think they seem to want single-payer health care, a tax code that will crush every business in the country and redistribute everybody's income.
There's a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party between an extreme form of socialism and liberalism.
Let me ask you this.
How's Kavanaugh doing?
I see that Heidi Heitkamp is going to meet with Kavanaugh, but a lot of Democrats are refusing to even meet with him.
Well, he's going to get confirmed.
Here's what's happened.
You know, I don't know.
We've been doing this, what, me and you, 10 years, talking about all these judges.
I've always believed that qualified judges need to be voted upon positively.
You know, Ginsburg got like 96 votes and Scalia got like 95 votes, but it's all changed now.
He's going to get somewhere in the mid-50s.
The question is not whether or not he's qualified.
The question is, if you vote against him, are you going to lose your seat as a Democrat?
So there are a handful of Democrats that will wind up voting for this guy because not only is he qualified, it would be bad politics for them to vote no.
And it's sad it's gotten to that, but that's what's going to happen.
Let me talk about this whole issue of Russia and sanctions.
And we heard from the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary Nielsen today and the FBI director today, et cetera.
I think I can make a pretty strong case that Donald Trump has been way tougher on Russia in 18 months than eight years of Obama.
Am I right?
Yeah, you're right.
And the question for me is, what will it take to get them to stop trying to undermine the electoral process?
That's where we need to go.
This gas stuff that I just heard, that's the first I've heard it, that we're actually going to compete for Russian gas.
It will do more damage to their economy than any single thing we could do.
It will destroy.
Listen, if we ever figure out a way.
If we pull this off, that's beyond anything any president's ever done in terms of Russia.
Well, this is what I want to ask.
So here we're spending all this money on NATO, and the president, all he's asking when he goes over and meets with his NATO partners is that they pay their fair share, and we pay over 70 cents of every dollar that's spent for NATO, and we don't mind helping, but I don't think we should bear the burden of it all.
Yeah, I agree with that.
You know, American First to me is not America alone.
It's burden sharing.
Why should we pay for the lion's share of NATO's defense budget when they've made promises for decades to get to 2%?
You know, Germany's at 1%.
Their economy is strong and roaring.
They should be paying 2% of GDP.
Well, yeah.
I mean, they're only paying 1.4.
We're paying 3.5%, and we have massive GDP compared to theirs.
Why would Angela Merkel allow Germany to billion-dollar deals with the hostile regime of Russia and the hostile actor Putin and give him 70% control over their energy sources, the lifeblood of their economy?
That's a very good question.
I think the president asked her that, too.
If you really believe Russia's a threat, and I do to Western democracies, why would you enrich Putin by giving him a gas deal?
I would look for everything around the world to try to wean myself off Russian gas, and I would even take some pain because if you're really serious about stopping Russia, you're going to have to take some pain.
So the idea of us having an alternative to Russian gas in Europe, it would be the single most devastating thing we could do to punish Russia for coming after our election.
Well, look, I think that's the single greatest weapon we have because that is the lifeblood of their economy.
They're a gas station masquerading as a country.
No, you're 100% right.
So how do we get, for example, we have more natural gas, more coal, more oil reserves.
Why is everybody laughing?
They just laughed at your last statement.
I'm funny.
Well, you're not that funny.
I mean, you're okay.
Don't tell me I'm not.
You're not.
You're okay.
But think of this.
We have all these natural resources, and we're still dependent on foreign energy.
How do we get our natural gas over to Europe in a way that we would make it even a lower price for our Western European allies?
So I just met with the ambassador of China.
They want to buy as much natural gas as they can.
The state of Washington will not allow us to have an exporting terminal for LNG.
So we need to either put this on a military base somewhere, but we need to export facilities on the West Coast to go to China.
We need to export facilities along the Gulf Coast and the East Coast of the United States.
We need to frack natural gas.
We're sitting on tons of it in an environmentally sound way and have an energy renaissance in this country, not only to supply our economic needs, but ship gas to our friends, which will hurt our enemies.
Can you imagine what would happen to the Iranian economy?
Look at what's happening already.
Their economy is tanking, by the way, and so is China right now.
Well, you know, I've just met with a Chinese ambassador.
They're open to buying natural gas.
They don't produce enough in their own country.
Environmental policies under Obama stopped exploration.
It stopped exportation.
So if you really want this to be real, let's elect Trump in 2020.
Let's keep the House in the Senate so we can make this a reality.
Why has there been so much Republican hostility and resistance toward the president?
He's got like 90% approval rating.
I'm not talking about those guys where you work in that sewer that you work in.
The sewer I work in?
Yeah, called Washington, D.C.
I would say that working with the president, we've done a lot of good.
We've passed a historic tax cut.
We're going to have two Supreme Court justices on the bench under his tenure, working with the Republican Senate and House.
Done a lot of stuff together, but we could always do better.
Why would it be a good idea to wait and not use this opportunity with the spending bills coming up to demand the money to build the wall completely and fund it completely?
So we're at 1.6 in the Senate.
They're at 5 in the House, and that's about what we need this year.
Here's what I think the President will do.
I'm going to see him Sunday.
I think he has every right to get $5 billion this year.
We've got a 680,000 DACA population that's one day going to have no place to go because I think Trump will win in court that what Obama did by executive order was illegal.
These kids have come out, young adults, whatever they are, have now signed up and they've got no place to go.
I think he could get the money and do the DACA deal in 15 minutes.
So, in other words, do you think you can get full funding for the wall?
I think we get all we need this year.
We need $25 billion.
But you and I both know this Washington game.
For example, you always get the tax increase, you never get the spending cut.
You always get the amnesty, you never get the wall.
I got you.
I forgot to mention we just passed a $717 billion defense bill, and I want to thank President Trump for keeping his word to destroy ISIS and rebuild the military.
I'm the happiest guy in town because of that.
But back to the wall.
$25 billion, I think, does the wall.
$5 billion we can spend this year.
You could spend $25 in one year.
So my view is put it at, you know, get $5 billion to be spent, not to be promised, but actual a check written for $5 billion.
You know, I think if we, I don't understand, this is always the case.
Man, you know how these spending deals go.
You end up getting a tax increase, you never get the spending cut.
You get the amnesty, you never get the wall, you never get the...
That's been history, for sure.
Okay, so I don't understand because we can't hold future Congresses to the spending commitments on the wall.
You know that, and I know that.
But you can't actually, you can create an account that you can draw down from.
You can actually create an escrow account.
That can't be touched, that has to be appropriated towards.
appropriated dollars so the deal for me can we do can we appropriate all of it then It's $25 billion total.
The more you get for the wall, the more you're going to have to deal with the DACA population.
There's 1.8 million eligible DACA folks.
There's 680,000 who signed up.
The president already said he'd make that deal.
I know.
I'm scratching my head.
I don't know why we haven't made that deal.
That deal would be made.
Here's what I think the president will do, Force all said and done.
By 2020, he will have substantially fixed a broken immigration system.
You've got to remember, Reagan gave amnesty to $3 million, and 20, 30 years, 40 years later, we got $11 million.
Trump's goal is to be fair to the people here illegally.
We need workers.
We don't need crooks.
But make sure we don't have $11 million 20 years from now.
That is his goal, is to end this forever.
And you've got to have a law.
The 1986 deal was supposed to create the security also.
They never followed up.
Never.
They did exactly what you said.
They gave amnesty and nobody secured the border.
Nobody did e-verified.
Nobody increased legal immigration.
Nobody got to the heart and soul of it.
I'm going to introduce legislation either this year or next year about birthright citizenship.
We're one of three countries in the world that allow you to come here.
And if you're born in America, you're automatically a citizen.
That entices people to come here legally.
We've got to get to the root cause of it.
We'll never fix it.
I know John McCain doesn't particularly like me.
We've kind of had an up-and-down relationship over the years.
How's he doing?
He's hanging in there, Sean.
You know, I was thinking about that today.
Remember, you were on the plane with me and Sydney and John when he was running in 2008.
You know, I'm in time now thinking about all things, McCain, in terms of our history together.
He's hanging in there.
He's tough.
I appreciate you asking.
Well, listen, what he did for his country, we should never forget.
You know, and I just feel bad for him that he's ill and he's in our prayers, even though he did come back and said, don't listen to those idiots and talk radio and talk cable TV.
Well, nobody listened to him because you're doing great.
That's true.
That's a good point.
But we do keep him in our presence.
Just in conclusion, we're going to get Kavanaugh on the bench because he's highly qualified.
We'll get a handful of Democrats because they have to vote yes.
We're going to get the military back in good condition.
We're going to pick up seats in the Senate.
Yeah, I think we're going to be when we do the Kavanaugh hearing, let's do kind of play-by-play like we did last time.
We'll talk about it each day.
But yeah, I think we could be, I think we'd be north of 54.
I really do.
It's a good map.
You know, Trump won a bunch of these states by double digits.
And I think we've got a really good chance to grow our numbers.
And I think the House is a toss-up.
I really do.
We've got to get the House.
Yeah, that's important.
If we're going to get the House, they're going to just go nuts and try to impeach the guy every day.
And that'll bring a lot of the things we want to do to a halt.
But I'm actually feeling pretty good.
Look at what we got to say in November.
We've cut your taxes.
You've got a historically strong economy.
We're rebuilding the military.
We're destroying ISIS.
We're on the offense.
We're respected again.
We've got two Supreme Court justices that are going to interpret the law and not make it.
It's a damn good story to tell, and we need to tell it.
The other good part would be if we could say we repealed Obamacare and we appropriated every penny for the wall.
Those are two things that I think would put it over the top.
We'll get the money for the wall, but if we quit on Obamacare, we deserve it needs to get done.
All right, Senator, thank you.
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, 800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
I'm trying to answer your question.
I politely waited, and I even called on you, despite the fact that you interrupted me while calling on your colleague.
I said it's ironic.
Which is why I interrupted.
I'm trying.
But if you, if you finish, if you would not mind letting me have a follow-up, that would be fine.
It's ironic, Jim, that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country.
Repeatedly, repeatedly, the media resorts to personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger.
The media has attacked me personally on a number of occasions, including your own network.
Said I should be harassed as a life sentence, that I should be choked.
ICE officials are not welcomed in their place of worship, and personal information is shared on the internet.
When I was hosted by the Correspondents Association, of which almost all of you are members of, you brought a comedian up to attack my appearance and call me a traitor to my own gender.
In fact, as I know, as far as I know, I'm the first press secretary in the history of the United States that's required Secret Service protection.
The media continues to ratchet up.
The verbal assault against the president and everyone in this administration, and certainly we have a role to play, but the media has a role to play for the discourse in this country as well.
Was there any choice there?
Why, if this was salacious and this particular part of the dossier unverified, still unverified, by the way?
Yes.
So far as when I got fired, it was unverified.
Did you tell him that the steel dossier had been financed by his political opponents?
No.
I didn't even think I used the term steel dossier.
I just talked about additional material.
But did he have a right to know that?
That it had been financed by his political opponents?
I don't know the answer to that.
It wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information.
The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
And we have to affix our signature to the charging document.
That's something that not everybody appreciates.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
The Dutchman charges 12 Russian military officers by name for conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
11 of the defendants are charged with conspiring to hack into computers, steal documents, and release those documents with the intent to interfere in the election.
One of those defendants and a 12th Russian military officer are charged with conspiring to infiltrate computers of organizations involved in administering elections, including state boards of election, secretaries of state, and companies that supply software used to administer elections.
According to the allegations in the indictment, the defendants worked for two units of the main intelligence directorate of the Russian general staff, known as the GRU.
All right, that was Jim Comey and Rod Rosenstein and both saying things that we really have to pay close attention to, knowing that James Comey was his name and signatures on the first FISA warrant application, the spy on a Trump campaign associate, and Rod Rosenstein signing off on the last one.
I think it's pretty amazing that during his book tour, Comey admitted that it was still unverified and salacious, and they had no evidence of it.
And we now know most of it was debunked, but it was the bulk of the FISA application.
Did he actually admit to committing fraud on a court here?
Anyway, joining us now is Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor, columnist, editor, National Review, former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing great, Sean.
You know, I was taken when you were playing those clips with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's description of how a law enforcement agent swears to the warrant, a law enforcement agent who's done the investigation, et cetera.
It seems to me that they're probably laying a kind of a foundation for the likes of Rosenstein at the Justice Department and former Director Comey to say that what their certification means is that there's been compliance with the statutory requirements of what you need to have for a FISA warrant.
And then if there's any mistakes, blame it on the agent who was doing the investigation.
But if they applied for this in October of 2016, he tells the president in January 2017 it's not verified and it's salacious.
Then he tells during his book tour this past year that it's still not verified.
Isn't by law, if there's something on a FISA warrant application that you find out not to be true, especially considering it was the bulk of the application and the renewal applications, didn't they have an obligation to fix that?
Did they commit fraud on the court?
Well, I think, Sean, they take the position not that it was shown to be not true.
They take the position that it hasn't been corroborated.
But you're quite right that their procedures, including the domestic operations guide that they operate under, that is the FBI's guidelines, which are promulgated by the Justice Department, say that you can't go to the FISA court with unverified information.
You have to corroborate it before you.
I don't mean to interrupt you, but there's two issues we're dealing with.
One is FBI protocol, and you're right.
And the second is the FISA law and statute itself.
And then it's the, then we can go to either the Grassley-Graham memo or the New Ness memo or even the redacted FISA warrant pages that we have available.
And we know for sure that this was presented to the court.
They purposely didn't tell the court that it was paid for by Hillary, and they never told the court that this was not verified.
So by making such a presentation, isn't it really a fraudulent presentation?
And isn't it, as Rod Rosenstein said himself, that they're putting the full faith and professionalism of their name on this document?
Sean, I don't want to mince words.
I think it is a fraudulent application.
You know, I think FISA is pretty serious business.
I don't agree with the FISE approach.
I don't think we should have it.
But that ship has sailed like 40-something years ago.
I don't think a court should be involved in this.
But if you're going to have the court, the reasons for having the court is that an American citizen gets some due process.
And the big problem with this is if this is a normal criminal case, Sean, when you apply for a warrant, everybody knows that eventually the case is going to be indicted and everything's going to be unsealed and become public, and your defense lawyers will be able to go through it with a fine-tuned comb.
And if the government did anything wrong, it'll be revealed and there'll be, you know, action can be taken.
The only due process that an American citizen will ever get in a FISA proceeding is if the FBI honors its duty to present the information honestly to the court.
But if they prevent, if they present information that they don't know to be true at all.
Right.
That's exactly right.
And that will never, usually in these situations, that never ever becomes public.
And every time we get a little window into what goes on between the Justice Department and the Pfizer Court, what we see is that they're pushing the envelope knowing that nobody's ever going to check their work.
But now that's beginning to change as we're likely now to get at some point the unredacted pages, I would imagine.
Let me move to the Manafort case for just a minute.
This guy, Judge Ellis, is a pretty fascinating guy.
And he's the guy that said that you don't care about his tax case from 2005.
Let's be real.
The only reason you dug into the Justice Department archives is because you want to put the screws to Manafort to get him to sing or compose.
And that's for the purpose of either prosecuting or impeaching Trump.
He has now three days in a row excoriated Mueller's team.
And I don't know if that's in any way is going to impact the outcome of this because I don't have a clue about what Paul Manafort did with the Ukraine.
But we do know this has nothing to do with Russia.
This has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
It has nothing to do with the campaign.
And it has nothing to do with any type of collusion.
Yep, I think that's all right.
And I think the other thing that's interesting about it, Sean, is it really calls into question why did we need a special counsel in the first place?
If you notice, the government lawyer who gave the opening statement to the jury is not from Mueller's staff.
The government lawyer was an assistant U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia.
And this underscores something that a lot of us have been complaining about from the beginning, which is that there was no factual basis for a criminal investigation that created such a conflict for the Justice Department that they needed to have a special counsel.
That's the reason that they proceeded under this pretext of a counterintelligence investigation.
And you're seeing the results of it now.
Would Paul Manafort have been tried, been charged at all, but for the 100 days or less that he worked for Trump?
I don't, what's our reason to think that, Sean?
I mean, this stuff has been out there, some of it going back to 2004, and he wasn't charged for it.
And before Mueller came along, the Justice Department's general way of dealing with lobbyists who did work for foreign governments was to tell them to get right with the law and register with the Justice Department.
It wasn't to file felony charges.
I don't think it's a smart thing, even with Supreme Court arguments, to assume any way a judge is going to go, because even after Judge Ellis said all of that, he had ruled in favor of Mueller's team a lot more often.
But since the trial has begun, you know, being rich is not a crime.
You can't use the word oligarch.
They were saying yesterday they didn't have any necessarily any intention to bring Gates on board.
But, you know, look, I know you've done this.
The Southern District of New York is probably one of the best known districts in terms of prosecutors in the entire country.
And you were there for a long time and you prosecuted the blind shake, et cetera.
But I have this question.
You know, I'm watching all of this unfold and I'm watching what the judge is saying here.
And I just get the impression this judge is disgusted by the whole process because of the wide mandate of Rod Rosenstein himself.
Yeah, I think, Sean, I wouldn't fall into the trap that some of the commentators I've heard have, I think, fallen into of interpreting the judge reaming out the prosecutors to mean that the government's case is cratering.
The sense I'm getting is that they have to prove to make out these tax charges, they have to prove that there's a lot of wealth that hasn't been reported as income and that Manafort controlled these overseas accounts.
There's a lot of ways to do that.
You can do it very dryly on just banking and financial records.
The way they've gone about it is to prove what he spent his money on.
Yeah, he bought an ostrich coat.
He bought an ostrich coat, apparently, which just shows to me he has bad taste.
Right, exactly right.
But, you know, the thing is, that's not what he's on trial for.
He's on trial for did he report his income?
Yeah.
Did he control those accounts?
So what the judge is saying to them is, all right, you've already made the point that he had lavish funds to spend.
Get on with proving the tax accounts.
And I think he's right about that.
But the problem is, and let's be real, I think the conviction rate is somewhere between 95 and 98 percent in a federal court.
Isn't that true?
Right.
Yeah, no, look, it's a very strong case on him.
And I would point out to people, I thought that it was reprehensible for Mueller to give away the story like he did in the plea for Rick Gates because he had this case indicted before Gates, you know, Gates obviously came on board after it was indicted.
When you indict a case, that's a way of saying I'm ready to go.
I know you're going to disagree with me.
Yeah, I know you're going to disagree with me.
But look at Sammy the Bull.
And I know it's a rather extreme case, but I think it illustrates the types of deals that get done all the time in terms of prosecutions.
But if you're guilty of killing 19 people and you make a deal not to go to jail, get in the witness protection program, get a house in Arizona and the government protection and never spend a day in jail over the murders just because they want you to testify and get a bigger fish.
I believe in that case it was John Gotti Sr.
Sounds to me like the prosecution is bribing you.
Yeah, well, look, you know, there's different ways of going about this.
I don't completely disagree with that.
But, you know, in my office, you mentioned, you were good enough to mention the Southern District of New York.
The reason I think that that's such a good office in many ways is that when we had cooperators, we didn't give people a discount to sign on and plead guilty.
We made them plead guilty to everything they did.
And then at the end, if you cooperated and were truthful, you would then, you know, the judge had the option of sentencing you to whatever the maximum was.
So you're not promised everything like Sammy the Bull was promised no jail.
And all right, we'll take a break.
We'll come back.
All right, as we continue, Andy McCarthy is with us, Fox News contributor, Columnist National Review.
I want to go back to this issue.
If I'm on a jury, for some reason, they've never selected me for a jury.
I wonder why.
I can't imagine, Sean.
You know, actually, you know what people that work for me say?
They fill out, I work for Sean Hannity.
You know what happens 99.9% of the time?
Dismissed.
That's so unfair.
I have to keep that in mind.
I got a notice.
I have to serve on jury duty for the first time later this year.
I'll have to.
Listen, I would actually like to serve.
They don't even send me any notices to serve.
I haven't gotten one in forever.
I'd love to serve on a jury.
But if my own staff uses my name to get out of jury duty, they'll say, well, do you agree with him?
Yes.
Goodbye.
Yeah, goodbye.
See you later.
But I don't, I have a problem.
I mean, bribery is a harsh word, but let's just say it's a quid pro quo.
You're basically saying, and this is what I think Judge Ellis was saying.
They're either going to sing against Trump, meaning Manafort, say what he knows, or compose means, well, what do you want me to say to keep me out of jail?
Isn't that what he's saying?
It is what he's saying.
But, you know, I would point out here, and I think he's right about that.
You have to worry that a guy like Manafort, who's looking at the rest of his life in jail, has a motive to tell the government what he thinks or he might think it would want to hear if he was going to cut a deal with them, which he, of course, hasn't done so.
Why would a juror, if this comes out in trial, I would just look at that guy and say, you'll say anything not to go to jail.
Yeah, well, that's always a problem.
So like the way I used to handle it would be to tell the jury, honestly, at the beginning of the trial, you know, look, you're going to hear from some people who are bad people, who are really, you know, rotten, lousy, dishonest people.
And we're not asking you to convict on their word alone.
If you can't find someplace that we've corroborated anything important that we've brought up in this guy's testimony, then throw it out the window and forget he even said it.
And usually that, you know, if you don't have that kind of support for a person who's got a very spotty record as far as credibility is concerned, you shouldn't bring the case.
I wondered now if Gates is going to be a liability for the prosecution.
It's going to be interesting to watch, you know, but it is a 2005 tax case that has nothing to do with Russia, nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with the campaign.
And it's only, to me, it's a political prosecution.
But anyway, Andy, we love having you on.
Thank you, sir.
800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program?
Quick break, right back.
News Roundup, Information Overload is next.
News Roundup, Information Overload hour here on the Sean Hannity show.
You know, the media is so obsessed, really?
Linda's got her present from Blair.
So when Linda breaks, it's like she puts her elbows or wrists together like Wonder Woman.
So Blair got her a Wonder Woman outfit.
Oh, that's hilarious.
Anyway, news roundup, Information Overload, 800-941.
Sean is our number.
You want to be a part of the program.
And so the media is so full of themselves.
They're so full of fake news, lies, a phony narrative.
They never talk about the president's success.
And the American people see through their BS and they're upset.
And they can't believe that the president calls them out for fake news and they're the enemy of the people.
And what the president I interpret as saying is that you're not doing your job for the American people and you're misinforming the American people and your propagandists.
And I think that's what he's calling him out on.
That's my interpretation, but they're very sensitive about it.
Jim Acosta, somebody's going to get hurt.
Well, I went out of my way last night to say nobody that I know as a conservative wants anyone.
No, there's no justification for violence, but crowds chanting CNN sucks is how they feel about CNN.
And I argue CNN earned it.
And so did Acosta because he's nothing but a radical partisan hack.
And, you know, again today on display in the White House briefing room, except Sarah Sanders kind of beat him down pretty strong.
Listen, I'm trying to answer your question.
I politely waited and I even called on you, despite the fact that you interrupted me while calling on your colleague.
I said it's ironic.
Which is why I interrupted.
I'm trying.
But if you, if you finish, if you would not mind letting me have a follow-up, that would be fine.
It's ironic, Jim, that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country.
Repeatedly, repeatedly, the media resorts to personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger.
The media has attacked me personally on a number of occasions, including your own network.
Said I should be harassed as a life sentence, that I should be choked.
ICE officials are not welcomed in their place of worship, and personal information is shared on the internet.
When I was hosted by the Correspondents Association, of which almost all of you are members of, you brought a comedian up to attack my appearance and call me a traitor to my own gender.
In fact, as I know, as far as I know, I'm the first press secretary in the history of the United States that's required Secret Service protection.
The media continues to ratchet up the verbal assault against the president and everyone in this administration.
And certainly we have a role to play, but the media has a role to play for the discourse in this country as well.
And, sir, if you don't mind if I don't want to find it, all right, leave it there.
It was the biggest checkmate moment, and it's all true.
And for all the talk, well, what about what happened to Secretary Nielsen run out of a restaurant, or Sarah Sanders and her family run out of a restaurant, or Pam Bondi, and what happened to her?
And if you want to add guys to the equation, Stephen Miller, or what's been said even this week about Melania Trump, or what's said about Ivanka Trump, or what's said about even the grandchild of the president.
And it's a never-ending, vicious assault.
But on top of it, it is misinformation.
Minute by minute, second by second, day by day, month by month, year by year.
It is feigning Trump outrage and hating everything he does.
It's what they report that is false, and it's what they choose not to report his success.
It is, and the public has had it, and the president has had it.
And they don't like that somebody is standing up to them and saying you're fake news.
Anyway, Danielle McLaughlin is with us, as well as Jonathan Gillum, author of Sheep No More.
Thank you both for being here.
Go ahead, do your nice thing to disarm me.
Go ahead.
It's great to see you showing up.
Hello, Danielle.
How are all you?
By the way, you can't see her, but Linda and the Wonder Woman get up is amazing.
Just, you know, I think she thinks it's Halloween or something.
It's Halloween in August.
Well, this is how Linda says break.
She takes her, she has those bracelets, she like clicks them together.
Right.
And break, break, break.
I sometimes think I see spocks coming out of those two wrist gods.
And when I break late, she has a fit and starts throwing things, hands up in the air.
Don't miss with Linda McLaughlin.
Yeah.
The reality is the press is anti-Trump.
That's a fact.
I disagree.
I disagree.
I think what the president calls fake news is news that the president doesn't like.
Give me examples of the media touting his economic success.
Actually, I haven't seen a single economic milestone that hasn't been reported.
We talked about 4% growth in the last quarter on the screen in the MS. You name it.
I watch the news every day.
I have to be prepared to come out of DNA.
I have three televisions in front of me, and I have one, two, three, four, five computers in front of me.
I don't see it.
Well, the other thing is, with a quarterly growth figure like that, in previous administrations, we might not necessarily have seen a press conference or something along those lines.
But I don't think it's fair to say that the economic good news in this country is not being reported.
But I will say that the president should have taken this opportunity to say the press is not the enemy of the people.
Presidents, since George Washington, have hated the media in one form or another.
And I understand why the president is not.
I don't think it's ever been this bad.
Can you give me one instance of Trump-Russia collusion?
One instance of Trump-Russia collusion.
Well, I'm not on Bob Mueller's team, so you do know a couple of things.
Wait a minute, we've had 18 months now of Trump-Russia collusion.
Is there any example that you can cite?
As a white-collar defense attorney, I can tell you right now that I don't want to know what Bob Mueller knows, and he's doing his job if we don't know that information publicly.
No, that's a nice excuse.
All right, the next question: did Hillary Clinton and her campaign and the DNC pay for and then disseminate false Russian information in this campaign in 2016?
Right, so I know what you're doing here, and you're trying to make the comparison between the steel memo on the one hand and what was happening.
Well, hang on, who paid for the steel memo?
It was perfectly legal.
It was paid for by a law firm as a subcontractor and under federal elections.
Where did the law firm that they funnel the money to Fusion GPS to Christopher Steele come from?
It came from Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and it's the same as.
Hang on.
So you're admitting that they paid for what turned out to be a dossier full of dirty lies with Russian sources, correct?
We don't know if they're dirty lies, and it's perfectly legal.
Nothing has been disproven in the dossier.
Okay, so we did have Russia collusion and Russian lies being perpetrated to the American people.
Disinformation, unverified, if you prefer, information, not only peddled to the American people to influence an election, Russian lies, but then also used unverified and not.
They didn't tell the judges in FISA applications that Hillary paid for it, did they?
There was a full page in the Pfizer application saying that it came from another opposing candidate, and it was about to do it on candidate.
It was an asterisk that said could have a political taint to it.
That's not, but they knew Hillary paid for it.
It was after the DNC and the RNC.
We knew who was in the race.
We knew who was getting dirty.
They perpetrated a fraud on the court by not telling the court.
I don't agree.
And in terms of payments.
Are you allowed to give a Pfizer court unverified information?
They didn't give them.
They said they told the FISA court and the Pfizer court.
James Comey, I have a tape of James Comey that says he still doesn't know if it's verified, but it was used for four warrants on an American citizen.
That plus independently collected intelligence.
It was not independently collected.
It was 119 pages in four applications.
It was not, what you said is not true.
What they did is what's called circular information selling.
And they gave the Steele gave the information to Yahoo and Michael Izikov, and they fed it right back to the court and they cited it twice.
Excuse me.
It was the same source.
This investigation started in July.
They didn't get the Steele memo until October.
Can you say that anything in that dossier is true?
I have not personally gone and verified it.
So wait a minute.
So, week, I'll play you Jim Comey saying it's not verified.
If it's not verified, how is it used to get a warrant on an American citizen?
That's easy.
There are 419 pages.
There were four.
You're not answering my question.
They verified the independently.
Nobody verified it.
What you're saying is false.
You haven't seen it because it was redacted and blacked out.
All that information is unverified and salacious, and it was used to get a warrant to spy on an American.
It was a part of the puzzle, and a judge knew that it was.
The judges were not told this information at all.
It was presented as gospel truth, Jonathan.
Thank you, Sean.
You know, I've learned a lot from you guys in radio.
And if we just stop talking for a minute, we call that dead air.
There is more truth if we sat for an hour with nothing said than in what CNN and all these other news agencies have said.
And Danielle, I'd have to say in what you're saying here, because, again, the reality is, as I say every week when we're on, you know, try not to talk out of the side of your mouth if you're in media if you don't know the reality of the details of what's going on behind the scenes.
And in this case, you don't get a FISA warrant unless it goes through a specific unit that's in headquarters.
Then they scrub the information.
They nitpick the information.
And if there's anything, these are a team of lawyers and agents that go through this.
And if it does not meet the criteria of where they absolutely know this came from a credible source and it's information that is credible, it is kicked back and you have to verify that information.
And the very fact that the dossier was even part, if it was just a small part of a FISA warrant, it completely invalidates that warrant.
But it wasn't just that.
It was the fact that the majority of this warrant or any of this warrant was not scrubbed by this group.
And if it was, they should be looked at closely.
But the fact is, if you don't have something that's verified or verifiable, it's not going to go to a FISA warrant, period.
So the fact that we have these conversations about was this or did we get this much or was this little bit not verified?
The fact is, if this unit sees something that does not meet the test of validity, it gets kicked back.
And even the judges themselves will kick stuff back.
That's how typically they scrub stuff.
But once again, as I always say, the senior executive service, when they get together, they can make things happen that no one else can.
And it appears to me in this situation that the powers that be, the very top echelon of the FBI and the DOJ were able to push this through and get a FISA warrant in basically a criminal way.
It should not have been done.
And that's the background of this whole thing.
You have to look at the details.
But Sean, unfortunately, the American people are not privy to this.
You know, I get it because they're not in the FBI.
They're not putting in FISA warrants.
So they have to go by what they're being told by the media.
And it's lies.
It's pure lies.
You want to respond, Danielle?
Yeah, I just, I don't agree with you, Jonathan.
We know that there were four applications.
There were four applications that went to four separate federal judges, all who were reported by Republicans, which frankly I don't think should matter because we put judges on the beach to do their job.
No, I agree with you.
And I actually hate to even bring it up.
I don't do investigations, and I didn't when I was in the FBI.
I didn't do investigations based on my political lane.
I did investigate and collected information that was truthful.
And that information never went forward unless it was valid.
And when information that is not valid is used to get a FISA and that FISA is approved, automatically it invalidates everything in that investigation.
If this was any other type of investigation, it would not be brought before a court of law for a conviction.
And that's what's going to happen here.
Nobody's going to get convicted out of this.
Nothing's going to come of it except for the president's reputation is going to be ruined because instead of like cutthroat lawyers and agents, the media is playing a huge role in this.
And I would say, if you want to talk about conspiracy, you want to talk about collusion, it is this upper echelon of the Bureau and the DOJ and possibly even the FISA judges working with the media to push this out and discredit this president.
You know what?
There have been a number of indictments, as we all know, related to this investigation.
So, you know, number one, we know that Russians, Russian organizations, we have Hapadopoulos.
People have lied to the FBI.
Why are you lying to the FBI unless you've got something to hide?
That's a felony for a reason.
And this is the point that I think we're really arguing about.
The vast majority of those 419 pages are redacted, which means big black lines and marks over the pages.
So we don't know what's in there.
And those pages are redacted for a reason.
That's to protect sources and methods and all of the independent information that the FBI had gathered beyond the dossier.
Let's play James Comey.
James Comey admits that it's still to this day not verified, but to quote the Grassley Graham memo, the Nunes memo, it was the bulk of information.
And it's clear from the unredacted parts, it was the bulk of the information.
That's corroborated.
Was there any choice there?
Why, if this was salacious and this particular part of the dossier unverified, still unverified, by the way?
Yes.
So far as when I got fired, it was unverified.
Did you tell him that the steel dossier had been financed by his political opponents?
No.
I didn't even think I used the term steel dossier.
I just talked about additional material.
But did he have a right to know that?
That had been financed by his political opponents?
I don't know the answer to that.
It wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information.
Okay.
To alert him, but he signed off on the warrant.
Now, both the FISA law, FBI protocol, would demand that if they haven't verified it or corroborated it, they couldn't even use it to present it.
Remember, it was the deputy FBI director who actually said, McCabe, that without the dossier, there is no FISA warrant because they had failed the first time.
So there's a difference between not verified and not corroborated.
He didn't say it wasn't corroborated.
That's not the first thing.
Verifying corroborated is a different thing.
You sound like Bill Clinton.
Parsing words.
That's not true.
You don't corroborate it.
You don't verify it.
They're totally different than that.
Let's take a break.
We'll come back and we'll get aggravated more with Danielle on the other side.
All right, as we continue, Danielle McLaughlin and our friend Jonathan Gillam.
Is there a difference if they say they didn't corroborate it or verify it?
They didn't do either.
That's the point, Jonathan.
No.
There's no difference.
And you know, also when people talk about how these things were redacted, so we don't know the truth.
You know, if Linda, if I was going to read what I ordered for lunch on this show and every other word, they bleeped it, everybody would think I was cursing up a storm when I was talking about what I ate for lunch.
I mean, that's the way redaction is.
I may have just been saying exactly what I ordered, but they can make it look like it's something just simply by putting a black line across it.
And the reality is, Sean, the nonsense that is going on from these upper echelon individuals, senior executive service members and their lackeys and these upper echelon political, quote-unquote, elites that hate Trump and the Never Trumpers, the stuff that's going on with them is so criminal that it is full of either blank statements or full of lies.
And when you throw in the media as the steroids on this thing, they can make it look like it's something that's absolutely not.
I got to leave it there, Danielle.
Thank you.
Jonathan Gillam, thank you.
When we come back, wide open telephones, 800-941-Sean and Congressman Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania's 11th district.
He'll check in for a few minutes, then we'll hit the phone straight ahead.
I'm at 25 now till the top of the hour.
So in 96 days, we have the single most important midterm election in our lifetime.
And we're going to spend time on this program going through some of the tougher races that are going to define whether or not Republicans keep control of the House and whether they not only control the Senate, but also pick up seats in the Senate.
One such race has to do with Pennsylvania, Lou Barletta of the 11th District, currently a congressman and running for Senate in Pennsylvania.
By the way, the president will be stumping For Congressman Barletta, I guess where's the event tonight at 7 o'clock?
You're running against Liberal Bob Casey.
Yeah, it's going to be at Mohegan Sunshine in Wilkesburg, Pennsylvania, right in the backyard of Senator Casey, and happens to be in my backyard as well.
So it'll be a fun night.
All right.
So let me ask you, and I think this is very, very important.
So Casey has a big name in Pennsylvania.
I think he says he's pro-life in Pennsylvania.
Is he pro-fracking in Pennsylvania?
No, and he's not pro-life either.
I think everyone thinks that he's his father.
When Bob Casey was elected in 2006, when he ran against Rick Santorum, he was a pro-life Democrat.
Since that time, he has moved radically to the left, so radical that NARO gave him a 100% voting record against life.
So, you know, he has this perception that he's a moderate Democrat, and his record is the same as Elizabeth Warren.
That might work in California or Massachusetts, but that's not the values of people here in Pennsylvania.
So tell me what are the polls now, Sean?
Because this would be the massive pickup.
And a lot, you know, Pennsylvania always has been a very big tease state, but since Donald Trump's been president, Pennsylvania has been doing a heck of a lot better than it was when Barack Obama was president.
Is that going to play a big part?
Well, it sure is.
I mean, there are 800,000 more Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania, and Donald Trump won Pennsylvania.
And if you remember, Sean, the polls leading right up to Election Day, they said Donald Trump had no chance of winning Pennsylvania.
Hillary Clinton had Pennsylvania locked up.
There wasn't any polls here that said he had a chance.
And I told Donald Trump, the candidate, two weeks before the election, we were in Gettysburg, that he was going to win Pennsylvania.
Do not believe the polls because the Democrats, the blue-collar union labor Democrats, were not going to tell any pollster that they were voting for Donald Trump.
And they made people feel that if you supported Donald Trump, you were either uneducated or racist.
And people just simply weren't going to talk.
And that's why the polls are not going to be right.
They had it wrong in 2016, Sean, and they're going to get it wrong again.
Bob Casey has been one of the leading senators resisting and obstructing Donald Trump.
He's so radical that he said it didn't matter who Donald Trump, President Trump nominated for the Supreme Court.
He was voting no.
You know, the state does have a history of electing senators like Rick Santorum.
And Pat Toomey, I believe, is now on a second term.
So it's definitely a winnable state.
Is Toomey helping?
Oh, he is helping.
There's no question that he's helping.
It's all hands on deck.
Last week, Vice President Pence was here helping me out.
And tonight, President Trump.
And it just shows you how important Pennsylvania is and why they think it's so winnable.
Yeah.
All right.
So the vice president was there on Monday.
The president's there for you tonight.
Where's that going to be tonight?
That's going to be in Wilkesburg, Pennsylvania.
And I believe people can watch it on Fox tonight.
Yeah, it'll be on Fox, of course.
The rest of the news media is too busy hating on the president.
So don't worry.
I think it'll be fine.
We'll be watching this race very closely, and we wish you all the best.
And we hope the people of Pennsylvania understand that these jobs, manufacturing jobs, that people like Barack Obama and Bob Casey said aren't coming back.
They're coming back big time to Pennsylvania.
And I think as America gets up to speed with its energy needs and capabilities, I think we're going to see millions of high-paying career jobs created in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and places like Michigan and places like Wisconsin.
So anyway, we wish you a lot, Congressman.
Thanks for being with us.
Thanks.
People can go on lubarletta.com to help us with the campaign.
All right, 800-941-Sean is on number.
You want to be a part of the program?
All right, Kent is in Nebraska.
Kent, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for having me on.
What's going on?
I just wanted to mention about Rush's 30-year anniversary.
I've been listening to him for about 10 years now since college.
With his voice, I guess he's turned me on to a lot of people like you and Levin and others.
I think his voice is very important.
He's kind of shaped of how I vote and how the nation's actually going too.
People like me have a great attitude towards you guys.
And I just wanted to say thank you to all the conservatives out there.
Well, we thought, listen, thank you.
What I was trying to say last night is that, you know, at the time Rush syndicated, it's weird because I started my radio career in 1987 at a college radio station, and he started a syndication in 1988.
I remember I was actually in a college radio station studio when somebody came in and started telling me about this guy, Rush Limbaugh.
And I just, you know, if you think of the 30 years of news and information, and imagine if there wasn't Rush, there wasn't what then became an entire new industry from 1988.
I think we had a little over 200 talk stations now to thousands.
It's the number one format in radio today by a long shot.
It's not music.
It's talk radio.
And that's both on the AM and FM band now.
And then the beginnings of Fox News, of which I was a part of on opening day in 1996, in October.
And I just, I can't imagine, in my opinion, at all, you know, what the country's like without that other alternative conservative voice.
I mean, we've watched in his 30 years on the air, we've watched these big networks, their ratings diminish and dwindle down next to nothing.
We see that the cable networks that are abusively biased and one-sided, they're not doing particularly well.
And, you know, Fox News, I mean, God bless us, last year we lost, what, three-quarters of our prime time lineup.
And I was at 10 o'clock for most of last year until October.
But my show still came in number one in all of cable.
It's not the easiest hour to win in all of cable.
And thanks to all of you, you know, I think there's an appetite for alternative news and information.
And we try to do that every day.
You know, none of these networks have talked about the deep state.
None of them talked about a rigged investigation into Hillary.
None of them talked about the FISA abuse.
None of them talked about this phony Russian scandal.
They've given you more misinformation, propaganda, outright lies in the last three years, and they wake up every day hating Trump even more.
And all the success we're now experiencing, that doesn't even seem to phase them in any way.
So I'm appreciative to him and to my buddy Mark and to Laura and to even the people that don't like me in talk radio, which is very few, actually.
I've become friends with most people.
You know, it's not a zero-sum game for me that my success is not predicated on somebody else not doing well.
It's just not how it works.
A rising tide lifts all votes.
It works in radio, works in television, and it works in life.
So I'm just honored to be a part of it every day and to have this microphone because I know where it comes from.
It comes from you, the people that tune in every day and tune in at TV at night.
It's driving, I am telling you, they cannot stand it that these shows, our shows, do so well.
They do not want Sean Hannity's TV show to be number one in the country.
They don't.
And they don't like us.
And they've tried many, many times to take all of us out at different points.
And they're going to try again and again and again.
And the only reason we survive is because you support us and support our advertisers and the losers that are paid millions.
There's millions of dollars now.
It's a new industry being that is propped up for the very purpose of destroying shows like this, like Mark, like Rush, and like Laura, and like Fox.
It is an industry now, and they're serious as the efforts are alive and well.
They don't believe in freedom of speech, freedom of expression.
You know, meanwhile, there's such hypocrisy on their side in terms of the things they say.
Anyway, I appreciate your kind words.
I do.
Thank you.
800-941 Sean Lucy is in McKinney, Texas, next on the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi.
Hi, Sean.
Just wanted to say we have a lot of love for you.
You are a great American, and thank you so much for everything you've been doing for all the years you've been on radio and TV.
We've learned so much from you, and you keep us, you keep us going.
So thank you.
I was calling to actually say kind of the opposite of my feelings for Jim Comey.
He is, he is just stunning.
I'm stunned at his arrogance.
And the comment that he made recently about, you know, if you want to save the country, you have to vote Democrat.
And I'm thinking, what?
And remember July of 2016 when he had that unbelievable press conference to talk about Hillary Clinton's investigation or, you know, and we all thought with all the things that he listed, all of her crimes, that he was going to say, yep, and, you know, she's going to be indicted, et cetera.
But it was no.
He let her off the hook.
And he basically said, she's basically very sloppy.
I'm trying to remember the term.
He was supposed to, what she did was actually a certain type of a crime, but he called it sloppiness or no, he was just sloppy.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
By the way, you know what's sloppy?
How you define sloppy?
Taking documents out of the archives, throwing them down your crotch and into your socks and walking them out.
That's not sloppiness.
This is a case of sloppiness.
I'm sure it was a sloppy moment.
And he admits this, and he was sloppy about it.
I'm sloppy too.
I'm sloppy.
Everyone's obviously the sloppiness was not something that we're going to regret later.
And it was a case of sloppiness.
Sloppy, sloppy.
Sloppy.
No, it wasn't sloppy.
He shoved the documents down where his private parts are.
He put them in his socks.
That's not sloppy.
No, that's crazy.
And to have the guy say, oh, we should vote for Democrats like this.
You know, really?
You know, and he's supposed to be someone we look up to and above, you know, just like this wonderful, good human being.
So I just want to say not only is he arrogant, but he is stupid.
Yeah, that's all true.
You know, it really is.
It's sad.
It's sad that they would present this information that was never verified to get a warrant to spy on an American citizen, put their name down, and then even admit a year later, two years later, that, oh, sorry, we didn't corroborate that.
We just got it.
I signed my name to it to spy on an American citizen.
Why aren't they on trial?
Here's the big question.
Back to our phones.
Let us say hello to Michael in Texas.
Michael, how are you, my friend?
By the way, be careful.
A lot of libs moving down there to Texas.
They've already ruined California and New York and New Jersey and Illinois.
Now they're taking their liberal policies down there with them.
That's troubling.
Should be troubling to most smart people in Texas.
We're converting them.
We'll convert them.
Sean, I can't lie.
I think there ought to be a political.
If I say this, people are not going to see the humor in it.
Forget it.
I will withhold my comment.
But if you're going to go to Texas, don't bring your liberal policies with you.
You ruined one state.
Don't ruin another one.
Yes, that's correct.
I can't believe I'm talking to somebody that actually knows President Trump personally.
What an honor to talk to you.
Listen, it's my honor to do this every day.
It really is.
I mean, I'm blessed to be able to do what I do.
And, you know, I take a lot of crap for it, but I mean, you know, everybody has a downside to their job, don't they?
Well, I tell you what, I've heard you and Rush and Greg and other people talk about President Trump, about why does he not release those documents?
He can do it.
He could find paper and do it and also redact all that.
And I've been trying to call for several weeks now, but my first thought was he's going to wait till October and do an October surprise.
You mean the 20 unredacted pages?
Yes, and he'll do it in October when the American people are going to be shocked to see what kind of character the DNC has.
And I think it's going to be an October surprise of all October surprises.
What do you think about that?
I think the sooner they release it, the better.
I think the American people have a right to know what was presented that was false, knowingly false, in a FISA application to spy on a Trump campaign associate to alter and steal a presidential election.
I think we better get to the bottom of that, just like we better pay very close attention to what's going on with Paul Manafort and his 2005 tax case that has nothing at all to do with Russia, nothing at all to do with Trump, nothing at all to do with the campaign, nothing at all to do with collusion.
And Judge Ellis was right.
It's about putting the screws to Manafort so he sings or composes so they can prosecute or impeach Trump.
That's a bad justice system.
And if a justice system allows people like Rosenstein and Comey and Sally Yates to sign a warrant and they didn't verify the information and they purposely withhold information from the judge like they don't know if it's true or that Hillary paid for it, we don't have a Constitution under those circumstances.
This is a very profound, deep problem that we better resolve or we'll lose the country.
We lose the Constitution, we lose the country.
You lose equal justice under the law.
You lose equal application of our laws.
You've lost the Constitution.
Hence, you've lost the country.
That's going to wrap things up for today.
Hannity Tonight, 9 Eastern.
Eric Trump, Duke Gingrich, the great one, Mark Levin.
Pastor Daryl Scott says Donald Trump may go down as one of the, if not the best president for African Americans.
He'll debate Daryl Parks.
That's all coming up 9 Eastern and an opening monologue that I think you're going to want to see.
