RNC Spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany, author of The New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement and Jeffrey Lord, Former associate political director in the Reagan administration take a deep dive into the media spin over the course of the last week. From the Nike ad, to the op-ed, to the late night shows and the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, there is no shortage of news. 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.
With only a kite, a house key, and wet hemp string, Benjamin Franklin captured lightning in a bottle.
Over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it.
Ensuring Americans have the energy they need whenever they need it.
Learn more about the nation's leader in energy storage at NextEraenergy.com.
All right, 60 Days.
It's Friday.
Glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
It's 800-941-Sean if you want to join us.
I agree with Barack Hussein Obama.
I agree with him.
He's right.
This November election is more important than any I remember in terms of a midterm.
How long have I been saying the most important midterm in our lifetime?
And I know politicians say it all the time, but just a glance at recent headlines should tell you the stakes are higher.
You got to understand something about Obama and Hillary and even crazy Uncle Joe Biden and everybody.
They want, they do not want this president to succeed.
And they've got everything, you know, they're hoping on everything that it's going to kick in and take place.
So the economy's on fire.
And what is Obama's answer?
Well, I did that.
No, you didn't do that.
No, you weren't responsible for that.
You know, he said, we have a collective responsibility to care for the sick, conserve natural resources of this country for future generations.
Each time we get closer, somebody somewhere pushes back.
I mean, I'm listening to him.
He believed everything that he did, but it resulted in a failure, a massive failure.
So when I'm listening to him, it's like it should be the greatest reminder of what is at stake in 60 days in terms of the economy, our safety, our security, energy independence, ending the government bureaucracy.
Look, I'll be the first to say Donald Trump steps on a lot of people's toes.
He's breaking a lot of dishes, and he's getting more done that's working than any president in modern history.
Now, the question is, you know, if he sort of, you know, becomes a chameleon, if he transforms himself into the establishment figure that says all of the right things and doesn't tweet and doesn't take on the news media, doesn't challenge NATO allies to pay their fair share, doesn't take a tough stand to get better trade deals for the American people, even against our allies, if he doesn't fight to get done tax cuts,
if he doesn't end burdensome regulation, if he doesn't appeal directly to big business to create jobs and factories and manufacturing centers, then we don't have any of this success.
At the end of the day, their hope is he fails because if he fails, that means that everybody gets their power back.
That means the deep state gets a sigh of relief.
That means the investigations go away.
That means the investigations into Trump, all things conservative begin.
Those are the good old days of just attack politics.
And it's about impeaching the president.
Chuck Schumer said it this weekend.
It's about everything I've been telling you about.
It's they want their crumbs back.
It's about, you know, imagine they say you get a tax cut and they refer to the tax cut, the largest in history, as crumbs, and then they want the crumbs back.
Well, I mean, you'd think if there were just crumbs, we could keep them.
I mean, even when you're eating your dinner and your crumbs fall on the table, the dogs get the crumbs.
You have a puppy like I do.
Let the dog have the crumbs.
We the people, we want our, you know, smelly Walmart people, irredeemable, deplorable people.
You know, we cling to our God, guns, Bibles, and religion people, as Obama said.
You know, we kind of want the crumbs.
And a lot of us, you know, look at these incidences of crime that have been committed.
I sat through a security briefing, 642,000 crimes against Texans alone in a seven-year period.
Yeah, some of the crimes were horribly violent.
Some murders, some rapes, some were petty crimes.
But that's a long, that's a lot of crime for one state.
Obama didn't go to that briefing, even though Governor Perry at the time invited him, so I took his place.
You know, he talks about, I'm listening to the president, the former President Obama, and this is what he says: politics of paranoia has found a home in the Republican Party.
Attacks on voting rights make it hard for minorities to vote.
What do I always say?
I play a history.
The Democrats got the same playbook every four years.
Republicans are racist.
They're sexist.
They're misogynistic.
Republicans want dirty air and water.
They want little children to die and they want to throw Granny over the cliff.
He played them all today.
These are like the greatest hits.
Slash the safety net wherever they can, he talked about.
Take away health insurance.
You know, a lot of good that Obamacare promise was.
Keep your doctor, keep your plan, and pay less.
Millions lost their doctors, their plans, and they're paying more.
I mean, the worst health care disaster we've ever had.
They embrace conspiracy theories like my birth certificate.
Actually, that wasn't really true at all.
Maybe some people bought into it.
I just said, why don't you show it?
I mean, if somebody says, Hannity, where's your birth certificate?
Metropolitan Hospital, December 30th, 1961, it was a very bad year for liberals.
A bad day for liberals.
Anyway, they reject science and fact on climate change.
Well, that means that they want burdensome regulation so business can't function and compete in the international marketplace.
Embrace the idea of not paying the bills.
He accumulated more debt than every other president before us combined.
Republicans in Congress have provided tax cuts to people like me, who I promise don't need the tax cuts.
No, the average family's got tax cuts.
You know, crumbs, $1,000, $2,000 on average per family.
That was money he was taking out of their pockets.
And I'm sitting there listening to them.
He talks about cozying up to Russia.
And I'm like, does anybody remember Dmitry Medvedev?
Tell Vladimir.
Tell my last election.
You know, tell him I'll have more flexibility after my election.
The only one that cozied up to Russia and Putin with him.
The one that's put tough sanctions on Russia and Putin is Trump.
Cozying up to the former head of the KGB.
That was him on tape.
He didn't know his microphone was hot.
Blocking legislation that would defend us from a Russian attack.
No, Mr. Obama, you were warned by Devin Nunes in 2014 that the Russians were going to try and influence our elections.
And you said just two weeks out of the 2016 election, no serious person would ever believe that anyone can influence our elections.
There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections.
In part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.
There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.
And so I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.
There's so much here.
Basically, everything he says is wrong.
He gave us the worst economy.
He has a worst recovery since the Great Depression.
Lowest home ownership rate in 51 years.
Lowest labor participation rate since the 70s.
We now have the highest labor participation rate.
We now have more jobs than people that are on unemployment.
We just added another 201,000 jobs.
The economy is on fire.
4 million new jobs total.
4 million fewer people on food stamps.
He gave us 13 million more Americans on food stamps in eight years.
8 million more Americans in poverty in eight years.
And he's lecturing us.
He gives $150 billion to mullahs in Iran.
He says, Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election.
Talk about cozying up to Putin.
No serious person believes that our elections could be influenced by it.
Stop whining, Trump.
You're going to lose.
You know, we do not pressure the DOJ.
What are you talking about?
Eric Holder was in your back pocket the whole time.
If anything, you just made a better choice for Attorney General than the president did.
Or FBI to punish political opponents.
Are you serious?
What do you think has happened under your watch with the deep state?
And why was there a 350% increase in unmaskings?
Why did your UN ambassador pretty much unmask an American a day during the time?
How is it possible your FBI exonerated Hillary when she committed multiple crimes?
You know, you want to talk about Russian interference.
Your favored candidate, Hillary Clinton, paid for Russian lies to lie to the American people.
They presented it, your FBI, your DOJ, to a FISA court.
That all happened on your watch.
You're the one that allowed that.
And he says, we denounce not, well, Donald Trump has denounced Nazi sympathizers in the KKK repeatedly.
You just choose not to hear it.
Doesn't make it true.
How many times has he?
We played it over and over again.
We have a million tapes.
The other thing is, I didn't hear you say anything about your friend Bill Clinton, who sat on a dais at Aretha Franklin's funeral.
Four seats down, three seats down from him was screwy Louis Farrakhan, one of the biggest racist and anti-Semites in the country.
Oh, and there was a picture of Obama with Farrakhan.
We just never saw it until after he got out of office.
Sorry to just bring up the truth and the facts and everything in between.
He can't stand that the president's successful and Democrats can't stand it.
Every bit of good economic news that comes out scares the living daylights out of them.
When Kim Jong-un announces that he's setting a date for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, that's not a win for them.
Just like Mr. Anonymous writing, you know, what they write, oh, well, the president, he prefers, he literally said this, he prefers despots.
You know, he shows a preference for autocrats and dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un.
No, he's had tougher sanctions than any president in modern history against Putin.
And let's see, Little Rocket Man has been firing missiles over Japan.
The remains from the Korean War in 1953 have made their way back to their families in the U.S. Hostages have been returned.
One missile site has been dismantled.
And Kim Jong-un yesterday said that he wants to have a date of denuclearization of the entire peninsula.
You know, but we have people now, and we have a deep state like in the case of the New York Times, anonymous op-eds that they take on that actually go as far.
Well, given the instability that many have witnessed, you know, whispers within the cabinet, who of the 25th Amendment, that would start a complex process for removing the president, but no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.
So this is what to say.
So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another, it's over.
Well, that means I guess he serves out his time as president.
That would be over.
Or they put their hopes and their prayers in Robert Mueller and the Democrats if they win in 60 days to impeach him.
What else?
What other way or another is there?
Is that a threat?
Does this anonymous person have access to intelligence?
Does this person have access to our enemies?
Does this person, the saboteur within the White House, do they listen to the president talking about national security and issues of war and peace, sources and methods and intelligence?
Because if they do, this is a direct threat to our country.
I take it as one way or another, what does that mean?
And if it was said about Obama, how would the media react?
And would the New York Times ever print it?
Now the Washington Post is saying we have sleeper cells in America of resistance.
Not just sleeper cells, they're inside the White House.
They're inside the president's cabinet that think that they know better as unelected bureaucrats, unaccountable to you, what they can do with this country.
That ought to scare the living hell out of everybody.
With only a kite, a house key, and wet hemp string, Benjamin Franklin captured lightning in a bottle.
Over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it, ensuring Americans have the energy they need whenever they need it.
Learn more about the nation's leader in energy storage at nexteraenergy.com.
I'm not sure.
I don't have a sense yet.
I just don't.
I know I probably should.
I'd like to pride myself on the fact that I talk to a lot of people, read a lot of polls.
I got a lot of polls in front of me.
But, you know, we're 60 days out of an election.
A lot is going to happen between now and Election Day.
It's just going to.
You know, what's up, Robert Mueller's sleeve?
It seems like now that he's really fixated on getting Roger Stone next and, you know, getting Roger Stone.
Roger Stone wasn't even involved in the Trump campaign.
Longtime advisor over the years to Trump.
They knew each other.
He's always been a character as it comes to politics in America, been around, even has a Nixon tattoo on his back.
I mean, but the guy, you know, he said a number of things, I'm sure, just to mess with people's heads.
That's the way Roger, that's the way he rolls.
I've known him.
He's taken a million shots at me over the years.
It is what it is.
But I think he enjoys getting in people's heads.
So he might say something like, oh, something big is coming out.
And there's lots of rumors running around during campaigns.
Lots of them.
You know how many different people have called me in the last 48 hours telling me who the anonymous person is?
And you know how many different names?
I'm sure it's this person.
I'm sure.
It's 100% this one.
And I could give you the names of everyone that's being rumored.
Frankly, it's ridiculous that cabinet officials now find themselves in a position.
Was it me?
Not me.
And the game goes on, but that's not even the serious.
What if this person had access to intelligence?
What level of classification of intelligence do they have?
What secrets of our country do they see?
What meetings are they in that they hear the president talk about?
You know, private American national security issues.
This is not a game that the, you know, the media is playing a very dangerous game here.
What about sources and methods and intelligence?
What they think is right?
Well, what a lot of people think is right is wrong.
Obama thinks he's right, but he's failed.
That's why he's so desperate.
But it all sums up to this.
They want to get Trump out one way or another.
They want to either impeach him.
They're hoping Mueller gives him a roadmap.
They're hoping the Democrats take over the House.
There's so much at stake in 60 days.
But I don't have any confidence yet Republicans are going to hold the House.
I think they hold the Senate.
I think they pick up seats.
But I don't know about the House.
How do you feel about that?
A little scary to me.
All right, Gladiators, 25 till the top of the hour.
I can't give you a gut feel yet.
If I just look at numbers, here's my honest take.
I think that Republicans, if the votes held today, would lose the House.
Hannity, you can't say that.
Why?
I tell you the truth.
That's our job.
I think they pick up a net gain in the Senate if the election is held today.
I think a lot of people, it's very hard for people.
I think if you look historically, there's only been three times in the last hundred years that the party that wins power, the presidential power, that the next midterm that they don't lose seats in the House of Representatives.
Last time that was George Bush, but that was after 9-11, 2001.
Talking about the 2002 midterm.
So it's not something that happens a lot.
And that's, look, there's a reason that you got Hillary Clinton now is out on the road with Obama.
She's hitting the campaign trail on behalf of incumbent Senate Democrats.
Let me tell you, there are a lot of pickups available.
There's a pickup availability, Donnelly in Indiana.
Nelson should lose in Florida.
Rick Scott should be the next senator there.
Clare McCaskill should lose.
You got Heidi Heichamp should lose.
I have no idea why Joe Manchin is so popular in West Virginia.
But honestly, and maybe, you know, some of these candidates are charismatically challenged.
I've experienced this in my life a lot.
I've introduced politicians.
All they need to say is, thank you very much.
Do you want lower taxes?
Do you want your borders secure?
Do you want business, regulation, burdensome regulation to go away?
Do you want to protect Social Security and Medicare?
Do you want stronger borders?
Thank you very much.
Vote for me on November, whatever.
And they'll go up.
They'll drone on.
Boring and dull.
They suck the life out of the room.
It's amazing how bad they are.
And they're supposed to be in the business of inspiring and serving people.
If they would just keep it simple, stupid, they'd win.
And all you have to do is make promises that your constituents impact your constituents' life, passionately go out and say, I'm going to fight for you and represent you and represent your interests.
That's what I don't get about Manchin.
Everybody thinks he's a nice guy and he is kind of a nice guy, but he's not helping the people of Virginia very much because he's a 95% vote for Chuck Schumer.
You might as well have Chuck Schumer representing you in West Virginia, but he's up like 10 points in that race.
He shouldn't be up 10 points in that race.
And a lot of you would think of Sean Hannity.
My congressman or woman is a rhino.
They're weak.
They're visionless.
They're spineless when we needed them to keep their promises.
They're not out there fighting.
You never even hear from our congressman or woman.
Yeah, but they're not going to go along and make Nancy Pelosi the next speaker.
So that right there, that's a huge plus.
You know, that's worth getting up off your ass and going to vote.
That right there, because we know what they want.
Chuck Schumer said it over the weekend.
When are you going to impeach Trump?
The answer he gave, the sooner the better.
Sooner the better.
Sooner the better.
And a few Republicans.
I'm honored to join, to ask you to join me for a women for Mernendez evening reception.
Special guest, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
By the way, a plaintragant's $5,400, which is pretty alarming until you remember Menendez has, well, expensive taste.
Remember, he was accused of running the different.
Get away from me.
Whoo, hello.
Now, latest polls, one interesting thing in California.
Remember, California, you got a gubernatorial candidate out there, Gavin Newsom, that is promising free health care for everybody, including illegal immigrants.
And it's a sanctuary state.
That means that if somebody commits a crime and they're put in jail and ICE wants to deport them, they won't cooperate.
But they'll take federal money.
But two of California's best-known Democrats are slipping in the polls, Gavin Newsom and Diane Feinstein.
They only have single-digit leads in liberal California.
According to the latest Probloski research poll, it says Newsom is leading John Cox.
John Cox is fascinating.
I actually think, look, it's a long shot in California.
But I think John Cox actually has a shot because Gavin Newsom is so radically left-wing.
I don't think it's a great shot, but he's got a shot.
It's worth getting out trying to vote for him.
Plan to get single-payer pass.
It needs to be pulled into the governor's office.
The executive needs to lead it.
Obamacare would not have happened.
It was just exclusively a legislative fiat.
That said, Nancy Pelosi did a magical job of organizing that.
Mad required the concerted contributions of the president.
Anyway, 17% of respondents, according to San Francisco Chronicle, are still undecided.
That's in California.
It's almost within the margin of error against Newsom.
This guy, John Cox, a businessman.
Diane Feinstein faces similar problems.
She's got only an eight-point advantage, which in California for her is, that's not good.
A text message was sent out by a Democratic Senate hopeful down, where is this, in Texas, you know, with this guy, what's his name, O'Rourke, everybody loves so much.
Beto Rourke is the guy's name.
Locked in a tight race, they say, with Ted Cruz.
I think Ted Cruz will win.
Ted Cruz has been an enormous help for this country.
A tremendous advocate for constitutional conservatism.
And look, I know that he got in a big fight with Trump, but he's been one of the president's most reliable senators.
And frankly, he's admitted both on air and off that he just didn't think Trump had conservatism in him based on his New York donations and business dealings over the years, which, by the way, is not any illogical conclusion.
So I kind of always understood it.
I just happen to know Trump.
Trump was a businessman who understood if I don't play the game in New York, I'm not going to get a building up.
And I'm not going to get my plumbers and builders and electricians and contractors to work.
So, yeah, okay, I'll give you your money for your stupid donation.
Now get off my back.
It's a horrible game that's played.
He played it.
But otherwise, nothing gets built.
That's the way it works in New York and most big states, sadly.
Anyway, anyway, where Rourke is raised, it goes on to say, we're in search of volunteers, help transport undocumented immigrants to polling booths.
They're doing that in Texas.
I'm making it up.
It was in the Austin American statesman.
Don't believe me.
90% of donations from big social media goes to Democrats.
That's not a thing.
Look, Obama, you've got to understand, I can go through a list of Trump accomplishments for you, and the list is quite long.
And a lot of you forget.
And a lot of you are saying, you know, look at August job creation.
Wage growth comes in far better than expected, according to CNBC today.
You know, you have, oh, you have a brilliant, what's the woman's name in New York?
Cynthia Nixon.
She wants to beat Andrew Cuomo.
Andrew Cuomo's not going to lose in New York, but he's not going to be president either.
And she said, well, you have to pass the health care plan, universal health care plan, then figure out later how to pay for it.
I'm like, do you watch politics at all?
Do you pay any attention to anything?
But there are five states, interestingly, that will probably play the role in who takes over Congress.
Believe it or not, there's five competitive races in Minnesota that you've got to pay attention to.
And I'm going to go over this.
We're making up maps that are interactive on our website that we'll put up for you.
California has nine competitive races.
Even my friend Dana Rohrbacher hope he gets re-elected if you're in his district.
New York has five competitive races.
You know, in California, Democrats need to gain five seats, net five.
That's why Obama and Hillary are going to spend a lot of time in California.
But they have such a weak top of ticket with Gavin and Feinstein.
You know, we've got a chance to do well there in those nine competitive races.
Anyway, five competitive races in New York.
Pennsylvania has nine competitive races.
You know, Illinois has three competitive races that got to be won by Republicans.
And this should be a year where the Democrats do well based on historical precedents.
But this is a year that we can't afford for them to do well.
Because if they do well, you're going to get everything that they want.
You're going to get the impeachment in somehow, some way.
That's what they talk about.
That's what they want.
They want to stifle the president's agenda.
It's going to be nonstop, endless investigation into Donald Trump, Donald Trump's taxes, Donald Trump's family.
They're going to go back and restart Russia, if you can believe it.
Mueller will wrap it up and they'll pick up right where he ended it.
They're going to stop the deep state investigations because those are their friends that helped them and helped Hillary.
You know, we've got new unemployment claims at a 49-year low.
Record unemployment in 14 states.
Record low unemployment for African Americans, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Hispanic American unemployment, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Asian American unemployment rate, the lowest record ever recorded.
Women in the workplace, a 65-year low.
Record low.
Same thing with youth unemployment, 51-year low in the country.
4 million Americans off of food stamps since the election of Donald J. Trump.
4 million jobs created since the election of Donald J. Trump.
More manufacturing jobs created since Donald Trump's been president than in the last 30 years in this country.
The biggest tax cut in history.
We have more originalist conservative justices put on two on the Supreme Court and filling up more appellate courts than Obama did in the last four years.
95% of manufacturers in this country are optimistic.
Consumer confidence is at an all-time high.
Retail sales are up over another 6% over last year.
You know, the biggest tax cut reforms in history.
You know, small businesses now have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years in the country.
By the way, personally fights and wins the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, helps get the U.S.-Mexico-Canadian United bid for the World Cup.
You know, all the regulatory relief.
The individual mandate is gone.
Anwar is open.
The pipelines are approved.
Coal has been saved in West Virginia and elsewhere.
What else do you want?
Little Rocket Man's not firing rockets.
Putin is on defense.
NATO is paying more of their fair share.
Trade deals have gotten better because he dared to negotiate with allies that took advantage of us.
Does any of this matter to you?
Because it's all going to end.
You want it to end?
Don't vote in 60 days.
At the end of the day, I'm going to be fine.
At the end of the day, a lot of us are going to be fine.
But a lot of people that are benefiting right now, because 2016 was about the forgotten men and women, the 13 million Americans on food stamps.
We're now down to nine.
Lowest labor participation rate.
Now we're up to the highest labor participation rate.
Poverty rate has dropped by millions also.
Those are millions of our fellow citizens, their lives, their families, people they love, now doing better.
The world is safer.
Our military is being rebuilt.
And the wall, this $3 billion that has already been spent that is now being used to build the wall.
Yeah, I want the other $22 million, $22 billion, sorry.
Billion, trillion, million.
What's the difference, right?
It's Washington.
They don't care about our money.
You know, the deep state, all the actions of them, it gets worse and worse every single day.
You know, it's just, there's a lot at stake here.
And I'm just hoping that those of you, you know, there are enough people in this audience alone that if you don't want ICE to be, you know, to get rid of ICE and have open borders, if you want to secure the borders,
if you don't want Obamacare anymore, if you want to keep your crumbs, if you don't want to go through a president's impeachment because they just hate Donald Trump, not for any real reason, and you don't want to put the country through that, if you want your vote to matter, even though we now know they tried to undermine it and impact the electoral process in 2016 in a thousand different ways, then don't vote.
You're going to get the government you deserve.
Or you can say this is too important.
There's too much at stake.
This is for our children and grandchildren.
The abuse of power has got to be exposed.
That we got to get rid of Obamacare.
The wall is good for the country.
Of course, we can put a door in the wall, which would be a good idea.
And yeah, we're overtaxed.
We're not undertaxed.
And I don't want Nancy Pelosi being the speaker.
It's a dead up straight choice election.
The winner is going to be decided by turnout, whether or not you're motivated and see the importance to secure the victory you had in 2016.
If you like what the president is doing and you want it to continue, you're going to have to get up and vote for Republicans, even some of them that really kind of suck.
But they're still better than the people that will vote for Nancy Pelosi and company.
That's what you're going to have to do.
Hannity, your dire view of things.
No, I don't have a realistic view of things.
I look at numbers, and there's nothing more that I liked than an election night than winning.
I enjoyed what happened in 2016 because we kind of shocked the world.
And you know what?
I believe in miracles.
We could do it again.
And just to piss off the media and watch them, you know, literally have a meltdown on election night would be awesome.
It's worth the price of admission.
You get up, you go vote that day, you turn on your TV that night and watch a crackup.
They are going to be on there and you're going to be crying, screaming about, what is the white lash or whatever else they're going to be saying?
You know, because how did he do it?
Well, success matters.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show 800-941-Sean toll free telephone number.
Well, they'll do anything to get rid of President Trump.
And that's why the midterm elections in 60 days mean so much.
I mean, even Elizabeth Warren desperately clinging to the hope that maybe the resistance, maybe what we're learning that is in the White House, the sleeper resistance cells that exist around the president.
You know, the people that were writing that, well, there were whispers among the cabinet of Donald Trump, this is anonymous New York Times, that they'd invoked a 25th Amendment, but that would start a complex process for removing the president.
No one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.
So we'll do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another, it's over.
What does that mean?
One way or another.
Am I the only person that says, okay, you get ousted, your term is up, you get ousted and beaten in the 2020 midterm, the dream, the fantasy of impeachment happens.
What is another way?
One way or another.
Are there other ways?
Sounds like a threat to me.
You know, interesting that Ram Paul has urged the White House to use lie detector tests.
And I'm thinking, well, that's a pretty interesting idea that Ram Paul would say that.
And I know Elizabeth Warren wants to use the 25th Amendment, and Wolpi Goldberg is suspecting the New York Times was a setup written by Anonymous.
And I don't know if I believe this.
She said there's something stinky about the op-ed for me.
I'd say the same thing.
But there's a lot of interesting questions about all of this.
Now, there is, if you want to get a flashback on Drudge, there is an interesting Washington Examiner piece that has come up.
May surprise a lot of you as it relates to Anonymous.
Obama prosecuted staff leakers and gave lie detector tests.
This goes back today.
Should the president need to model the use to track down leakers inside the administration like the anonymous insider who challenged the authority of the president.
Remember, this person's unelected, unaccountable.
According to reports at the time from even New York Times journalists, no administration was tougher on leakers and punishing to the media than Obama's saga reinforced by reporters who called Trump's team more forthcoming.
Criticism of Obama's attacks on the media and leakers did not just come in tweets and TV appearances, but in an official report from the Committee to Protect Journalists, authored by former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downey Jr.
This is the most closed control freak administration I've ever covered.
David Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, saying about the Obama administration.
USA Today said the reported portrays an administration gripped by strict policies about information flow and paranoid about leaks across all executive branch departments.
It detailed prosecutions and even the use of lie detectors on staffers.
Some have encouraged Trump to use lie detector tests on his staff, something he has so far ignored.
Now, Trump has ripped leakers, an anonymous Times writer, of being cowards and traitors, but it was Obama who took the war to a higher level by targeting staff and reporters while also cutting out the media to promote its story via social media.
Oh, Obama did that.
And he's lecturing Trump today.
I know you can't make this stuff up because there's such utter hypocrisy.
We have a lot of news as it relates to the deep state.
There are rumors running rampant that the president is finally going to unredact the FISA memo, specifically pages 10 through 12, 17 to 34.
Those are the 20-plus pages that, if unredacted, we're told, would be a bombshell against the deep state.
Rod Rosenstein signed that particular, the third renewal application or the fourth FISA warrant altogether.
We've got all of that.
We also have John Solomon's story about Christopher Steele's phony dossier was likely the basis for the ongoing witch hunt into alleged Trump-Russia collusion after it was pushed by several high-ranking deep state officials, but they all shared one thing in common.
They hated Donald Trump.
Quote, there's growing confidence that the FBI's sudden pivot from Papadopoulos to Steele was driven by several officials, all with serious political baggage.
Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and of course, Bruce Orr.
And of course, the other Trump hater, which is Christopher Steele himself.
Goes on to say, we're learning that Bruce Orr was attempting to steer the FBI's Russia investigation toward the Steele dossier much earlier than previously thought.
Well, his wife was working on it.
Why shouldn't he?
It's all in the family.
Several officials with serious political baggage.
But remember, the dossier that Hillary and the DNC funded, they funneled the money through the law firm Fusion GPS.
They hired the foreign spy, foreign national Christopher Steele.
Nellie Orr worked at Fusion GPS.
No one verified it.
No one corroborated it.
And even Steele himself never stood by his own dossier.
And it got worse when the dossier was leaked to the press.
Well, that was to lie to the American people and tell them things about Trump that weren't true.
And then we find out Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele are BFFs, and there's some 70 communications between the two of them.
It was used as the basis for the FISA warrants.
And the basis now we see that, you know, Christopher Steele was asking Bruce Orr, how do we get this information to our good friend over at the special counsel's office?
So it's Hillary pays for it.
And you have Bruce Orr and his wife's helping produce it.
Bruce Orr is best friends with the guy that built the lies, Christopher Steele, who's being paid by Nellie Orr's organization.
And then he's asking how he can get his lies into the hands of the special counsel.
And apparently, there were meetings even with Andrew Weissman, who is Mueller's pit bull.
You can't make any of this up.
Sidney Powell, licensed to lie.
Sarah Carter, investigative reporter.
David Schoen, criminal defense attorney.
Welcome all of you to the program.
Sarah, let's start with the news side of this.
And is it true that all these things are going to be released or unredacted by the president?
I absolutely believe that it will.
I've talked to a number of sources here in Washington, D.C., on Capitol Hill and other U.S. officials.
This is the direction that the White House will be taking, and I think it will be very soon, possibly as early as next week, Sean.
And I think it's vital right now.
There is actually, and it's unbelievable for me to say these words, but it appears to be a war, even within both parties, to try to oust a duly elected president of the United States.
The op-ed was just stunning.
Yeah, I'm like you.
You know, what do we think about it?
Who is this person?
But, you know, it's the same kind of tone, the same kind of tone that we heard from John Brennan, the same tone we hear from James Clapper.
It's this elitist.
I know what's better.
And in fact, if you read the op-ed, it's a joke because they don't really say anything.
And they're, okay, our country's doing a lot better, but this guy, we got to keep him in check.
It's all disinformation.
It's lies to discredit President Trump with no factual basis.
It's propaganda, and people have to understand this.
This is propaganda.
This is what people do when they try to divide a nation, when they try to sow chaos.
I've seen this in other countries.
I never thought we would see it here in the United States, but we're seeing it right here and now.
And as Americans, we should not put up with this.
Put your name on an op-ed.
If you really feel that way about the president, put your name on an op-ed or get out of the White House.
Get out of the administration.
It is disingenuous, too, for the New York Times, for the New York Times, which is supposed to be a staple of journalism, to run an opinion piece with nobody's name on it because nobody can challenge the opinion maker.
So the New York Times should be ashamed of themselves.
This is something that, I mean.
Well, they should be, but we know that that's impossible.
Yeah, well, we know that that's impossible, but we could be ashamed for them.
We should be ashamed.
And I think at this point in time, you know, whether or not the president decides to give lie detector tests or not give lie detector tests, the important thing that you brought up, Sean, was from that column.
It appears in that column, because we don't know who that person is, that there was an indirect or direct threat to the president.
What did they mean by that?
I've talked to another person.
One way or another.
One way.
One way.
One way or another.
What does that mean?
Well, if I'm the Secret Service, I want to know who that person is and what they meant by that.
I think this should be a Secret Service investigation.
I agree with you.
As well as a Department of Justice investigation.
The Secret Service needs to find out.
They need to go to the New York Times.
This is a threat against the President.
We want to know who this person is.
What do you think, David Shone?
Well, I mean, that's easy because I always agree with Sarah Carter and you.
But look, in this case, again, we come back to this.
One way or another also means literally what it says.
His folks will not stop at anything to undo the election results.
And that really means one way or another.
Listen, the president, again, was elected as a man of action.
It's time to take action.
When he acts, everyone says, well, you see, he embraces dictators where it's totalitarian.
That's not the case.
Listen, as you just pointed out, the Obama administration probably had the most robust exercise of Article II power in the history of this nation between the use of executive orders and this prosecution of leakers.
Can you imagine if President Trump did those things?
He's perfectly entitled to, and it's time to do it now.
It's as if Mr. Mueller and all of these other people have been elected to run our government, and they're just paralyzing the government.
The president has to take decisive action, and the American people want that, need it, and are ready for it.
Well, I think so.
Sidney Powell, you've exposed a lot.
Your buddy Andrew Weissman is back in the news.
If you notice, here we find out that Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele, 70 communications text, emails, and even meetings.
And apparently, you know, in these notes that we now find, what does it say?
Oh, geez, I hope I don't get caught.
I don't want to get exposed.
And also, I hope you're getting all my information over to your buddies at the special counsel.
Did they get it?
Then, of course, it's revealed that, yeah, they had contact with Andrew Weissman, which should be disturbing to everybody.
And what does it mean that the firewalls hold?
Sounds to me like you got a vast conspiracy underway, and we might have now put it all together as to what was the insurance policy with John Solomon's piece.
I think I've said for a long time, I think the insurance policy is the entire Russia collusion narrative that they put together going all the way through the appointment of Mueller as special counsel.
For about six months now, I've had up a website, creepsonamission.com, where there is original artwork depicting Comey and Mueller and Weissman and McCabe, Stroke, Page, and Orr, and Orr is handing off the dossier to Mueller.
It comes from a collection of Comey's memos, Susan Rice's note to self, the history of Andrew Weissman.
I think, frankly, he was brought in to target Manafort, and of course, we know that he held that meeting with the Associated Press.
Well, he said in November of 2016, you know, M and Keep Going With M and Christopher Steele.
So we know from the beginning they had their eyes on Manafort.
Oh, yeah.
They targeted him early on, along with Carter Page and Papadopoulos.
I think the president should also redact or have declassified the Page Stroke text messages.
I think there'll be references to Weissman in those as well.
And there are other messages I'm sure we haven't gotten.
There was a huge classified section of the Inspector General's report.
And the 302s.
Yeah, you're right.
All right, we've got to take a break.
More with Sidney, David, and Sarah.
We're going to carry them also into the next half hour.
We'll get to some of your calls also, 800-941, Sean.
All right, as we continue, Sidney Powell, David Schoen, and Sarah Carter.
Sarah, what if all these things become unredacted?
You know, I haven't seen these items myself.
I have many sources as you do.
They all say on a scale of one to ten, it's a nine or a ten.
I don't, you know, when I hear that in Washington, I always get my hopes up.
I usually get disappointed.
What do you think?
I don't think we'll be disappointed.
I consider some of the sources I've been speaking to very well versed on these documents.
You're saying your sources are better than mine, is what you're saying?
No, not at all.
You know, we may both be surprised.
I think even more so than a nine or ten.
Sean, I think what the push for this was, they were so adamant.
All of the congressional members that have seen these documents, the people that have been working on these investigations, you know, they know when they look at them whether or not there were national security implications here, whether or not these documents should be made public.
Remember, these are people that hold very highly classified security clearances.
And what I've been told is that the DOJ was misleading the Trump administration, basically lying about the national security implications here.
And they are trying to hide all of the malfeasance that happened within the investigation, protect the FBI, protect the DOJ at all costs, at the expense of the American people.
So what I've been hearing is that if these documents are released next week, as we hope, by the president, if he declassifies them and allows Congress then to share them with the public, the answers will be given.
This will blow this entire thing wide open and the American people and the rest of the world.
Because this is not just about us.
This is about what we represent and how this chaos and infighting is destroying our reputation overseas.
So the whole world will know once and for all what the CI and DOJ did.
Well, if Rod Rosenstein, this is the one that they want, I mean, he appointed Mueller.
He's got the keys to the kingdom.
He's very powerful right now.
I guess he would weigh in on whether they subpoena the president or not.
How much trouble is he in?
I think he's in big trouble.
Like I said again, we saw this week that McCabe is, you know, now there's a grand jury convened in his case.
I got to think that everybody that signed off on this phony FISA warrant with the dossier is the information is in trouble.
Everyone.
And they're all going, and you know what?
And this is going to come out.
And this is why the DOJ has been fighting so hard because it's incredible to believe that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is overseeing all of this when he signed off on that fourth FISA and would have known everything about the three previous FISAs if he did anything.
So he's making decisions about what to release or not release, and some of it impacts him.
Absolutely.
Total conflict of interest.
Stay right there.
Sarah Carter, and I promise we'll get to David Schoen and Sidney Powell as we come back.
We've got an amazing Hannity blockbuster, including Rudy tonight at 9 on Fox News.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean is our number on this Friday.
And as we continue, Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, attorney David Schoen, author of License to Lie, Sidney Powell.
Now that we know, Sydney, that a grand jury has been impaneled as it relates to Andrew McCabe, and now that we know that the dossier was the basis for all these Pfizer warrants and that there were glaring omissions and a fraud was committed four times on Pfizer courts, I would imagine anybody that had anything to do with them, which would include McCabe and Comey and Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, that they're all probably in a heap of trouble.
We just don't know because of grand jury secrecy.
What do you think is likely going on?
Well, I hope they're in a lot of trouble.
They certainly should be.
But it's entirely possible the McCabe grand jury is looking simply at the offenses of his lying to the Inspector General and to FBI agents with respect to the Inspector General's interview.
You know, I don't want to really stick up for McCabe here, but and, you know, think about this for a second.
Hillary Clinton obstructs justice in the single most egregious case that I've ever seen in my life.
And, you know, but we'll go after Flynn and we'll go after Papadopoulos and we'll go after Manafort and Michael Cohn for not being truthful on bank loan applications, whatever other crap they're involved in.
But she always gets a pass every single time she gets a pass.
Why?
Well, that's a whole nother investigation that needs to be done because we know it wasn't done right the first time.
It was all just part of the huge, massive cover-up that the FBI and DOJ have been engaging in to get to protect Hillary and then to go after President Trump.
But the McCabe grand jury should at least be looking at indicting him for the false statements he made to the Inspector General that are documented in the Inspector General's report.
And then hopefully they'll proceed beyond that to other things and other people that were involved in the cover-up and the prosecution of President Trump and all people related to it.
David Schoen, your technology Rod Rosenstein.
Yeah.
It's also Dana Boente, who was acting Attorney General at the time.
He signed one of the FISA applications, and he's now general counsel at the FBI.
That kind of quietly happened under the radar.
And he was also the Eastern District of Virginia person that Page and Stroke referred to in their text messages.
I think the Page and Stroke text messages being unredacted is maybe a missing link that people haven't been talking about.
David, your thoughts on all of it.
My take on this is that the entire set of activities going on with the Department of Justice is Orwellian.
The idea that Rod Rosenstein is calling shots when he's in the middle of this conflicted activity and that these other cases, McCabe, Comey, et cetera, are being relegated to sort of behind-the-scenes U.S. attorneys' offices doesn't give me a great deal of confidence.
Quite frankly, and I don't mean this to pander.
Were it not for Sarah Carter and you and your show having an eye on everything that's going on with all of these things and bringing it out to millions of listeners and viewers you have, it would still be going on uncovered, undercover, under the cover of darkness.
Well, if the Democrats win, it's going to continue because they're going to stop all of it dead in its tracks.
That's right.
My sense is, you know, the Mueller report we see, it will be time to come out before the midterms and be especially damning for that reason.
This is not an investigation.
It's a political agenda.
This is what we mean by one way or another.
And the idea now, getting back to one of your early subjects, the president, you know, might be answering written questions, may sit down for some questions, won't answer about this, won't answer about that.
It unduly dignifies this so-called investigation.
I don't believe that any properly thinking person in this country believes that Bob Mueller wants to sit down with the president or ask him written questions to really find out the information.
Sarah has to run, but I want to ask her one last question.
You know, we don't hear the names of Baker and Rabiki and others that have come and gone.
And, you know, by all accounts, I'm hearing is Bruce Orr apparently opened up more than anybody knew in his testimony of seven hours last week.
What about these guys?
Are they in any legal jeopardy that would maybe cause them to sing, not compose, but sing and tell the truth?
Oh, absolutely.
I think, you know, we got to keep our eye out on James Baker.
There was a lot of concern.
Remember, he was the general counsel for the FBI, and they were seriously looking at him for leaking information to the media as well.
And he would have been very close, obviously, to McCabe and to Comey.
I think they do want to call back in some of the people they've already interviewed.
That's Congress, I mean.
They want to call back, you know, Lisa Page.
They want to interview Nellie Orr, Bruce Orr's wife.
I think that's something we should be looking for in the future.
Who are the people that they're going to be calling in and re-questioning based on the testimony given by Bruce Orr?
Because a lot of it contradicts what people originally said to Congress, and they're going to want answers.
Yeah.
All right, sir.
We're going to see you tonight on TV.
I know you have one of your daughter's recitals or whatever you got to run to.
We appreciate your time on this Friday.
Thank you so much, Sean.
It's been great chatting with you.
By the way, there's nothing worse than a dance recital.
I'm going to tell you why.
I don't know.
Does your daughter do dancing?
Yes.
Yes, she does.
She does a lot of little kids' shows at school.
She's only six.
No, well, my daughter did it when she was very young, and you go to a recital, and they've got 40 age groups.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
Oh, you've got to get through all the age groups.
No, no, no.
But then it's like five minutes.
No, no, no.
It's like three minutes, but you have to sit through three hours of somebody else's kid, and I don't have any interest in anyone else's kid.
And then you're like, and then your kid gets out there, and like, you're like, which one is it?
Because she keeps dancing.
They're all in the same costume.
They're all in the same costume.
My daughter was a frog last time.
There were like 10 frogs on stage.
Exactly.
But then they don't let you leave the theater either.
I mean, you got to sit there.
No kid is allowed to leave.
Like, if you're lucky and your kid goes first, you still have to sit there and be tortured because they don't free your child, even though your child has nothing to do.
And quickly, if you sit in the back, they give you dirty looks because they know you're just going to try to sneak out afterwards.
And, you know, your kids are giving you dirty looks.
I said I had something to do, and I went and grabbed my daughter, and it was like I was kidnapping her in their mind.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
I've tried doing that to you.
And I know every other parent's really proud of their kid, and I appreciate it.
But you watch your kid, I'll watch mine, and I'm leaving.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
Or just give me a recording.
Or give me a recording.
I swear I was there.
It was the best show I've ever seen.
Which one are you again, sweetheart?
You know, because there's 50 kids on the stage, and they're all dressed in the same costume.
Frog number three.
Yeah, frog number three.
Oh, Mr. Hannity, that's frog number 92 in the back in the corner.
Just like when you were in school, they told you to mouth the words.
That was, you know.
Oh, that's right.
That's how I used to do.
Have fun at the recital.
Thanks, Sean.
I'm glad we can have fun, David, and Sydney, while our country is literally in tatters, and we have an election in 60 days.
And I'm not sure everybody quite knows how urgent this all is.
Oh, and by the way, we just got the Papadopoulos sentencing, too.
Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days, which, by the way, I'm actually happy for him.
Yeah, he was totally set up and screwed and had no idea what he was getting into.
Yeah, 14 days.
Anyone can suck up 14 days.
Then 13 months supervised release, 200 hours of community service.
Now, it was a 15-minute recess.
The judge sentenced him.
Judge Papadopoulos did speak on his own behalf, said I made a terrible mistake.
I have paid dearly.
I'm ashamed.
I was not honest.
It might have hindered the investigation.
I'm deeply embarrassed and shamed.
My entire life has been turned upside down.
I hope to have a second chance to redeem myself.
And the defense was arguing for probation only, and already had been under supervision for a year.
I mean, you know, seriously, this guy wasn't even a part of the campaign for crying out loud, David.
Yeah, no, that's true.
By way of full disclosure, however, I've spoken with his wife at great length about this case.
So maybe it's not something I should comment on.
Well, why not?
Well, I mean, just speaking, I mean, do you think he was treated fairly or unfairly?
I think he was treated unfairly.
I think he was, you know, he's a person who was treated in the same manner that these folks in the government seem to always treat them when they have the power of the government behind them.
And I'm talking about Sydney's friend, Mr. Weissman, and that's sort of folks.
They turn the screws to you so that, you know, they just don't know what hit them.
These are people who've never been in any kind of confrontation with the law before.
All of a sudden, they see their lives passing before them.
His wife potentially was at risk.
So, yeah, I don't think that's the way our system should treat people.
I think this guy was a young guy, made a mistake.
He was interviewed.
I don't even know what mistake he made.
I mean, this is the danger.
Every time, man, I got into this the other night on TV with Dershowitz and Andy McCarthy.
And, you know, Dershowitz agreed with me, Andy McCarthy, you know, that a little varying view.
But, you know, it's sad to me that I have FBI friends, and we've talked at length.
They're very angry over all of this because they love their institution.
They have such pride in what they do.
And they're amazing people.
And they've reached the upper ranks of law enforcement.
And they take great risks for the protection of all of us.
We've got to remember that.
And it's not those guys.
It's not the field office guys.
But anyway, you know, we're talking about it.
And I said, well, all these people get in trouble for lying to the FBI or lying to the investigators.
And I'm like, well, what if you don't remember it properly?
I mean, does that then set you up for a possible accusation of lying?
Because I'd have to really think who was on my show on Monday, and I don't think I'd even get it right.
That's right.
Simply opening your mouth when you sit in an interview with these folks opens you up to prosecution because some prosecutor may have an agenda, and he decides what's the truth and what isn't the truth.
Listen, there's no bigger goofy to the FBI than I am.
As I said before, my father was an FBI agent.
I'm happy to hear my scrapbook.
But it's a big mistake.
You know, this guy got off.
Well, that's what my friends say.
But I'm a guy that wants to help the FBI.
I'm inclined to like the FBI.
My mom was a prison guard.
My dad worked in family court probation.
I have cousins, cops all over the place.
And we had two people, extended members of my family, that were in the FBI.
They were deity.
And my instinct would be to talk to them.
And every FBI agent that I say, don't do it.
Don't ever talk.
I'm like, why?
That is ridiculous that we can't even talk to our own FBI for fear that, oh, we're going to get accused of lying to them.
It's a bad system.
But by and large, you know, it may not be the FBI agent on the scene who's the bad guy.
It generally isn't.
There are some renowned bad guys.
You've got Connolly, you've got DeVec, you know, people who have lied, cheated, and killed to help organize crime.
There's some bad apples there.
But by and large, the FBI agent you meet with, you know, may not have that.
Well, that's what they said to me.
They said probably the agent interviewing you would love you.
But then the people that are above them are going to get a hold of it and say, Hannity, we hate his guts.
Right.
And that's what you have in Andrew Weissman who then says, I don't really care what the evidence is, indict him.
We'll go from there.
You mean like the four Merrill executives, Sydney, that went to jail for nothing and was overturned by the Fifth Circuit?
Or, you know, the tens of thousands that lost their jobs at Anderson Accounting, those people you write about and licensed to lie?
Yes, all those people.
In fact, my client still has a perjury and obstruction conviction against him for expressing his personal understanding of a telephone call that he wasn't even on after Mr. Weissman asked him to share that understanding with the grand jury, whether it was accurate or not.
Wow.
Didn't he get excoriated by judges?
How many times for withholding exculpatory evidence?
I think that was in one of the cases in New York that is not in the book.
The main people who got excoriated that I talk about in Licensed to Lie are the Stevens, Ted Stevens prosecutors who Judge Sullivan tore a new one for and held in contempt of court and then appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the entire Department of Justice and the ironically named public integrity section, which is wrongly prosecuting people.
What were you going to say, David?
You're both absolutely right.
Andrew Weissman was excoriated by Chief Judge Sifton in the Eastern District of New York for withholding exculpatory evidence for having a mistaken moral ethical compass.
Judge Sifton suggested he should be sent to the bar right away.
And you know what happened?
This is how he got away with it there, as he always does.
The United States Attorney wrote a letter to Judge Sifton saying, oh, please withdraw that order.
You could hurt this young man's career.
Judge Sifton withdrew Weissman's name from the order.
I have a copy of both orders, the before and after.
It was outrageous.
This is a good judge.
Look what happened.
Look what he went on to do after he was cleared.
You know, I just don't understand what happens to some of these prosecutors.
And, you know, both of you deal with this, one on one side, one on the other, but that they seem to lose touch with the fact that these are real people, real lives, and it becomes more of a challenge or a game than it does about justice.
And they want to win the game.
They're absolute narcissists, and it's a game for them.
It's a power trip.
They get high on destroying other people.
These prosecutors were high-fiving each other in the courtrooms in the Anderson and Merrill Lynch and other Enron-related cases.
Their behavior was absolutely contemptible.
I mean, why when tens of thousands of innocent people lost their jobs and all that?
It's what's to celebrate there.
I don't understand it.
I mean, I was a prosecutor for 10 years in three different districts under nine United States attorneys from both political parties, and I never saw anybody behave that way.
And if I had, I would have reported it up to the whole up the line and expected them to be fired.
Unbelievable.
All right, Sidney Powell and David Chone, thank you both for being with us.
We appreciate it.
And we'll have a lot more on this tonight.
A lot of breaking news regarding this and whether or not the president moves forward with these redactions, what happens to the grand jury is going to be interesting.
800-941 Sean, we got a lot coming up.
News Roundup Information Overload Hours next.
Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of IC, IG, attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server.
And when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.
It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source.
Do you recall that?
Sir, I don't.
Well, he went on to explain it.
And you didn't say anything.
You thanked him.
You shook his hand.
But the problem was that it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.
And from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton.
Did you wipe the server?
What, like with a cloth or something?
No.
All right, that was Louie Gomert and Ed Henry asking Hillary, oh, did you wipe the server?
You mean like with a cloth ad?
You mean like with a cloth?
One of the now infamous answers she gave.
Our friends over at the Daily Caller have an amazing story out today.
Now, this follows on the heels of a report yesterday that in fact, only 0.5% of the Hillary emails that were on the Wiener laptop were actually looked at.
Some 700,000 were ignored.
And it is believed by people within law enforcement that were involved in the case that there was almost 700,000 emails, and they believe the entire missing 33,000 emails would be included in all of that.
Now, that's a big deal.
Now, it gets taken a step further, which I have been, I think, a lone voice here in saying that why do I imagine not just Putin and the hostile regime of Russia, but probably the Chinese, probably the North Koreans, probably the Iranians and other nations all hacked into that server.
Now, the headline on the Daily Caller is sources, China hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server.
A Chinese-owned company penetrated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private server, according to sources briefed on the matter.
The company inserted code that forwarded copies of Clinton's emails to the Chinese company in real time.
The intelligence community, Inspector General, warned of the problem, but the FBI subsequently failed to act.
And Texas Republican, our buddy Louie Gohmert, said all of this and had picked up on this back at that July hearing.
Anyway, the Chinese-owned company was operating in D.C.
They hacked Hillary's private server, and it raises a lot of questions about A, yeah, once again, the Espionage Act that she was never charged with because Peter Strzzok and James Comey exonerated her before they even did an investigation.
That is a crime.
And then, of course, the deletions of subpoenaed emails and the deletions of a hard drive and the busting up of devices.
Well, it might be for nothing.
I guess if anybody said, well, I hope the Chinese released the emails, then I guess you'll be considered a puppet of the Chinese.
But certainly, it appears they have them.
Joining us now, Richard Pollack.
He is a reporter from the Daily Caller.
He's broken this huge story.
Also, Scott Ullinger is back with us, retired CIA ops officer, Russian Intel Operations Expert.
All right, so how certain are you of this reporting that the whole thing was hacked?
I'm very certain.
Not only do I have multiple sources that I quote in the article, that the Chinese government launched a very sophisticated intelligence operation against Hillary Clinton.
And what is most breathtaking to me, and in real time, they were able to intercept her emails, both going in, incoming, as well as outgoing.
Since the article has run, I've had actually another intelligence official contact me to confirm the story as well.
And this is perhaps one of the greatest national security breaches in the history of this country, in my opinion.
Because you have to understand, whoever was listening, or in this case, was actually copying.
Let me just say one thing.
They said, the intelligence sources, that each time an email came in or went out, there was a courtesy copy that was produced, especially for the Chinese government.
So in real time, within seconds, they're seeing the conversation the secretary is having about negotiations, discussions with heads of state, armament issues, military, tactical, and diplomatic issues, all of that within seconds.
The Chinese government is reading it in real time.
And this is just simply, I think, probably one of the biggest national security scandals of our history.
Well, what I don't understand is they probably, I'm sure they never erased one of them.
That would mean we could get a hold of all 33,000, right?
They got all 30,000 of them, absolutely.
And I think, I don't have any evidence of it, but the people I've been speaking to, the sources believe that they also probably shared some of this intelligence with their allies, North Korea, perhaps with Iran, perhaps with other heads of state and other governments.
And we're not saying that this is the only foreign hostile actor or state that penetrated the system.
I believe that there were probably other countries that were also sort of listening in as well.
But this one is, in fact, confirmed.
It's confirmed by multiple sources from the intelligence community.
None of this is a surprise to me, Scott.
Does it raise questions about maybe everybody saying it's Russia, Russia, Russia?
Could it have been China?
Or is it, as I suspect, it was probably Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and probably other hostile nations.
Yeah, Sean, I agree with you.
I believe, you know, this bathroom server had no security controls on it.
And in fact, it was almost certainly penetrated by multiple actors, the countries you said, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
There's no doubt about it.
But what's really interesting, and I'm really happy that Mr. Pollack wrote this article, is that the time factor, the Inspector General found out about this in early 2015, and they briefed the FBI, including Strzok, but nobody was going to tell Hillary to stop using her private server.
And so it continued.
The information bleed out continued.
And that is absolutely.
Is that why when Strzzok eventually gets involved in this, that he could have even been implicated himself for not having done the due diligence, knowing a year earlier that, in fact, this was going on?
I think absolutely.
I mean, it's monstrous that none of these people seem to have done their jobs.
And this is what happens when PC outshines actual performance in a government bureaucracy.
Hillary was not the Secretary of State, though, at that point, though, in 2015.
She was out running programs.
Right.
It would have reflected poorly on her candidacy.
Exactly.
But the fact that it certainly shows that Strzzok was in the tank from the beginning with Hillary Clinton and was willing to overlook basically fulfilling his job responsibility.
He has a mandate to protect the American people against CI incursions, and he did nothing.
Now, it became a big deal at some point during the campaign when Donald Trump said, Richard Pollack, well, maybe they'll share the, maybe the Russians will share their emails with us.
You know, because there's still, look, the Intel community is pretty, they're almost universal in their belief that the hackings took place by Russia.
And that would be the DNC and Podesta, et cetera.
Nobody's ever shown us any evidence to back up that point.
And when I interviewed Julian Assange, I specifically asked, did you get this from Russia?
He said, no.
I did not get it from Russia.
Anybody associated with Russia?
No.
No state party.
So, you know, I don't know what to think, except that I think what Scott is saying is dead on accurate, is that there was such a vulnerability, and we now know that our enemies are trying to hack into everything that it could have been any number of these people, or probably were any number of them.
So it's certainly not.
And certainly they would have shared with one another also.
The bad guys would have, the Chinese would have shared it with the Russians, etc.
You think so?
Certainly.
Certainly in ways that would enhance their relationships.
I'm sure that they would give each other selected snippets of information of interest.
Absolutely.
Why do you think that if they wanted to get to the bottom of it, why didn't they go to WikiLeaks, which did make it public?
And by the way, it wasn't just WikiLeaks.
So too did the New York Times when they got it, and everybody else reported it.
So, you know, why didn't they say, well, where'd you get it?
Do you have any evidence of where you got it from?
Why wouldn't they ask him?
Look, you know, the major media has decided to ignore the whole question of the vulnerability of the Secretary's communications, including some of the most sensitive secrets that this country has.
And they're not interested.
It's not in their interest to go and pursue this.
And that's what you've been saying for years now.
Yes, in 2015, the ICIG did determine that there was anomalies in the emails, and they began to do a real due diligence of thorough search, then went to the FBI, in which Peter Strzok was in one of several meetings in which they made their presentations.
My sources tell me that Strzzok just looked at them coldly in a very hard way.
He was indicating he was not interested in this information.
He was actually apparently very close to enraged that they should come to him with this kind of information.
So Strzzok, and you saw it in Strzzok's two-way with the Congressman Goeberg.
Imagine someone comes to you of great credibility and says that there's a national intelligence operation against the Secretary of State and all of these secrets, and you're the top counterintelligence official at the FBI, which is what Strzok's position was.
You would immediately be ringing bells.
You would be immediately launching investigations.
You would be then bringing other members of the intelligence community in there.
He says to our good friend Congressman Gomert, who had the courage to do this, he said, I don't recall that conversation.
All right, we take a break.
We'll come back more with Richard Pollock and Scott Ullinger is with us.
800-941 Sean is on number your calls at the bottom of this half hour.
All right, as we continue, Richard Pollock, reporter, Daily Caller, and Scott Ullinger is with us, retired CIA ops officer, Russian Intel ops expert.
I have one big question.
You know, all of this, if you go back to Assange when he was young, 16, breaks into the DOD, breaks into NASA.
You know, now he's in his mid-40s.
At what point does America have to look in the mirror and say that we have not done a good enough job of preventing these type of cyber attacks?
We're not protecting our national secrets.
At what time do we make it a national security issue so that nobody has the capacity ever to hack into anything in the United States?
Scott, to me, that with that basic, you know, that you build the sword, you build the shield.
We've known now for 40 years that people are hacking into us, and we're not doing anything about it.
They keep doing it and doing it and doing it.
And when does it become our fault?
That's right.
I know when we've passed that point.
We've passed that point now.
It is our fault.
I mean, we are being, the United States is being bled dry of its secrets, from the Chinese hacking of the Office of Personnel Management to stealing the F-35 designs to what we have in front of us now to Senator Feinstein's driver who was working for the Chinese.
All of these things are swept under the rug.
But the real problem is that we are hemagering out secrets at an unprecedented rate, and it must stop.
Let me ask you both this.
I mean, from what I understand, and I've done some background and research into this, we have like 250,000 U.S. government IT employees.
And I understand that some of these bad actors are really smart and clever, and they're very, very, you know, there's a level of genius and brilliance associated with what they're able to do with computers.
But are we saying that we have to throw our hands up and we can't defend against these attacks?
Well, I think one of the issues here is that a considerable number of these folks who have security clearances, some of them are actually foreign nationals under the H-1B program that work for the consulting firms that consult for either the intelligence community or the CIA.
I mean, this is an open book at this point.
And this is where Scott is absolutely 100% right.
We are, gentlemen, you were probably old enough to remember the party line on phones.
You had a private line or a party line on the party line.
You shared it with other people.
Well, I think that the U.S. Thank you very much.
I do remember a dial rotary phone.
That's as far back as you're getting me.
Thank you very much.
All right.
All right.
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton's server was on a party line.
That was not a private line.
But that is only one of the many cybersecurity attacks that this government and our industries have faced.
But aren't we risking sources and methods?
Didn't she put lives in jeopardy?
I think that that is very possible just from the sheer volume of information that the Chinese had access to.
You know, one thing that as an ops officer, you sometimes stay awake at night thinking about is if you have one high official say the wrong thing or leaks out a document, it could undo all the work that one well-trained operations officer did maybe for several years.
So what we're looking at with this is, you know, is a similar thing.
Her flouting of the law with her junk server, I'm sure it threw away thousands of man hours of work of hardworking patriots such as myself.
It just made all that work useless.
Millions of dollars and possibly even the lives of some people who may not have been sources of information, but maybe the subject of some of her emails, different people crusading for human rights in Africa maybe were eliminated because of her emails, because this stuff should not have been public knowledge.
All right, I want to thank you both for being with us.
Richard Pollock, great report with the Daily Caller.
We'll continue to follow that up.
Scott, thank you so much for being with us.
800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
Write to our phones when we get back.
800-941-Sean is our number.
All right, we're going to have a lot more by the time we get on television tonight.
Nine Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Bruce Orr, I have spoken now with a number of people that know it was a hell of a day with his testimony, a lot of it in conflict.
Look, to put it very, very simply, he's had to admit to a lot more than a lot of people thought he was going to admit to.
And I think that's perfect for everybody.
But, you know, the bottom line is by all accounts, it went very well today.
And we're going to find out what actually went on in that as the rest of the day goes on.
But, you know, let's take you back.
We have, of course, the mainstream media coverage, John Brennan, everything Bruce Orr did was approved.
Well, he wouldn't know that.
He shouldn't know that.
Mark Meadows saying we have evidence that suggests the FBI agents were told there was no collusion but was ignored.
That is a huge statement.
La Ron DeSantis, who joined us earlier, Bruce Orr almost served as the intermediary between the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, Obama's DOJ, and I would even add to that, of course, the foreign national that was putting together Russian lies that he didn't believe in, Christopher Steele, and you got Matt Gates.
Rosenstein won't tell us when he knew that Nellie Orr worked for Fusion GPS.
Yeah, that'd be a smoking gun.
Here's some of the tape I'm talking about.
It's my understanding that everything that Bruce Orr did was approved and known to senior Department of Justice officials, coordinated closely with the FBI.
So I think this is something that will have to be looked at.
I don't know all the facts here, but I think some of the facts that are being purported by some members of Congress may not, in fact, be the actual facts.
Will Bruce Orr verify what we already know?
One of the interesting things is that we have evidence that would suggest that FBI informants were told that there was no collusion and yet it seemed to be ignored.
So we're going to ask Bruce Orr about that.
Additionally, when you have Christopher Steele and Nellie Orr being paid tens of thousands and in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars to put forth a false dossier, why would they rely so much on those two witnesses and ignore others?
So there's about 60 plus questions that I have.
Hopefully we'll get some truth, be able to report back to you.
But we're looking to honestly have a full day of questioning here.
What are you anxious to hear from Bruce Orr?
Well, I want to know his precise role.
I mean, we know just from the documents that we have that he was functioning almost as an intermediary between the Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS and the Obama Justice Department.
He was one of the highest-ranking officials in Obama's Justice Department, reporting directly to the anti-Trump Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
So it's really an unprecedented use of official prosecutorial resources to have him that deeply involved in generating this opposition research.
We need to know who else at the FBI knew what he was doing.
We need to know when he started dealing with people like Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, what his interactions were with Christopher Steele, and the financial interests that he had in stake because his wife, Nellie Orr, worked for Fusion GPS, and you're not allowed to be a federal official and participate in matters that you have a financial interest.
So I think there's a whole host of questions, but he really is a critical kind of wheel in this whole collusion cog that we've been able to expose over the last few months.
Judge, I wanted to make a point about what Greg just said.
Rod Rosenstein won't tell us when he first learned that Nellie Orr was working for Fusion GPS.
So I want to know from Bruce Orr, when did he tell his colleagues at the Department of Justice that in violation of the law that required him to disclose his wife's occupation and her sources of income, he did not do that.
And so when did all the other people at the Department of Justice find this out?
Because Rod Rosenstein, I've asked him twice in open hearing and he will not give an answer.
I think there's a real smoking gun there.
All right.
So a big day.
We'll have full, complete reaction coverage and what this means.
And when will we get a transcript of all of this?
I think is the next most important aspect here.
Let's go to Tim in Mississippi.
Tim, hi, how are you?
You're on the Sean Hannity show.
I'm doing great, Sean.
Big fan.
Thank you, sir.
Real quick, I'm looking at the endgame, and I don't think they have any choice but to do such a large dragnet because they have to find something on Trump.
If they don't, we know Sessions is going to be gone.
We know Mueller is going to be gone.
We know all the DOJ top brass is going to be gone.
And then a new AG is going to be put in that's going to be more like into what Trump wants to accomplish.
And all these misdeeds by the FBI and everything is going to be exposed.
I think it's huge, a lot bigger than what it is.
Well, that's why on Election Day, you know, 70%, I'm telling you right now, it's going to be a big, dramatic change if Republicans lose power.
They're going to bury all the evidence.
And destroying the power.
Not only that, but none of the Republicans will want to be associated.
If he does get any kind of impeachment, none of the Republicans are going to want to be involved in any future investigations or anything.
They will find something on Trump.
They will sacrifice the president.
I told you that I've got to change that as quote.
I've been saying this for a while.
The question is, do we have an interim fight over a subpoena or not?
And we don't know the answer to that yet.
So we'll find out when it happens.
I think if the Republicans don't start moving on this stuff, it's all going to be buried.
This midterm election matters.
If you voted for the president, you like the results, if you like the unemployment numbers, if you like the stronger national security policy, if you like him pushing for the wall, if you like endless burdensome regulation, if you like new businesses popping up everywhere, if you like that we have more jobs available than people on unemployment in the country, if you like fewer, millions of fewer people on food stamps,
millions fewer on in poverty, record low unemployment for 14 states for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace, youth unemployment now at an all-time low in what, two decades.
All of this, consumer confidence at an 18-year high.
If you like it, you want to continue it, you got to vote.
It's that important.
That's all I'll say to anybody that wants to listen.
Let's go to Pensacola, Florida.
They get an extra hour to vote tonight.
I guess the polls in Florida close at 7.
And I think for you, it closes at 8, if I'm not mistaken.
That is correct, Sean.
Thank you for having me on.
I'm really well.
And I just want to thank you first and foremost for your support of Ron DeSantis.
People down here are really, really super excited about DeSantis, mainly because, and your talk about the economy, is the main reason why Florida just hit a $1 trillion GDP this year.
That makes us the fourth largest economy in the country and the 17th in the world.
It's awesome, right?
Listen, it's awesome.
My only fear for Florida and Texas.
I have two fears for both states.
They're great states and the Carolinas, to be honest, because I know a lot of people from New York and New Jersey and Illinois, they tend to go to the Carolinas or they go to Florida.
And then you have all Californians heading out to Texas.
You know, the problem is they're welcome to go to those states, but don't bring your dumb, stupid, liberal, big tax and spend policies with you.
You already destroyed the state you came from or participated in it.
Don't do the same to the rest of the country because Florida is doing perfectly well without a state income tax, as is Texas and the Carolinas with very low taxes.
That's right.
And that's why we need to have a governor here who has the ear of President Trump and has shown that he will and can work with President Trump to continue these economic policies that are making Florida strong.
This isn't an accidental economy.
It's taken a lot of work and we've had significant gains in manufacturing that are a direct result of the Trump policies.
So we have to have a governor that's going to work with Mr. Trump and Ron DeSantis is that guy.
Listen, I'm a big Ron DeSantis guy, so you don't have to sell me.
I was down.
I actually did some town halls with him over the 4th of July weekend, had a great time.
We were in the Panhandle in Pensacola and we were, where else were we?
We were in Tampa.
We were in Fort Myers.
We had a great time.
Really good time.
And by the way, he's right.
Since I was there, his poll numbers did go up.
So I get a little bit of the credit, at least.
I'm teasing.
We thank you for it.
We want to keep Florida strong, and your support of DeSantis has definitely done that.
Yeah, he'll do a great job for your state, as will Governor Rick Scott, who I've come to be very fond of.
I know him better than anybody.
Him?
Well, I used to know Rick Perry, Rick Scott, and Bobby Jindal.
I know those three governors better than any in the country because those three— Well, that's because they're the best governors.
Well, they are, but they'd always be in New York, and they know that we have a big presence in all their states, but they'd always come up to New York for the purpose of meeting with New York businesses and enticing them to move to their respective states.
And they all were very successful at it.
And they kept coming back for meetings again and again and again.
I'd be like, what are you doing here?
Because I'm trying to take some of your business back to my state.
And all they would do is talk about the great business environment, the low taxes, and the regulatory environment being one that is conducive to making a lot more money for business.
And guess what?
A lot of businesses listened and they're leaving.
The amount of wealth that has left New York and New Jersey, you cannot believe the numbers.
It's massive amounts of money.
People are, it's like escape from New York.
They can't get out fast enough.
I'm going to be the last one to turn the lights out, of course, because I'm working.
But anyway, just, you know, people go to these states, don't bring your dumb policies with you.
Thank you, Stephanie.
Appreciate it.
Christopher's in Alabama.
Christopher, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Doing great today, Sean.
Thank you for having me on the air.
Yes, sir.
What's going on?
Previously, I didn't go and vote.
I just never felt like it made a difference or what have you.
But when Trump run for office, I had started noticing before that that, okay, something's going on.
We need to change.
I started paying a little bit more to the attention of what was going on in the government.
As the people knew what they were getting when they voted for Trump.
We knew we weren't getting a poster child for a president.
Wasn't getting a perfect, you know, what the Democrats and the leftists want to view as, you know, let's put them out here.
It doesn't matter what they know or what they accomplish.
It's how they look.
That's not what we wanted.
We wanted someone that was going to get out there and fight for the American people.
And that's what we voted for.
And we're sick and tired of them trying to bully him or block him from doing the things that we voted for.
Russia didn't show up at my house.
They didn't send me nothing to get me to vote.
I voted because I wanted to vote and make a difference.
And I was ready for something different.
Yeah, listen.
And what I would say to you is, you know, they've tried to undermine him in ways we didn't know before the election.
They tried to prevent, they cheated their way.
Every single way they could cheat, they did.
You know, nobody seems to care that Hillary paid for Russian lies, and those lies were repeated, disseminated, and used to propagandize, mislead, misinform, disinform the American people before the election.
She pulled it off with Bernie.
Why not try it again?
And then it was used for the nefarious purpose also of getting, you know, spying on the Trump campaign and getting FISA warrants based on unverified, uncorroborated Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies that have now been debunked.
It's terrible.
And the fact that nobody's being held responsible to date, I think we're going to get there, is beyond frustrating considering the level of deep concern that Mueller and his team have about taxi medallions and, you know, decades-old tax returns and loan applications from years gone by.
So we haven't found anything Russian in this whole thing, but there's plenty of Russia, you know, dirt that was pushed during the election.
Well, exactly.
And like you said, nobody's been held accountable.
There's two different tiers of justice here.
And if that's what people want, if people want their neighbor to be able to go out and do something and get away with it, but then them be treated like they're just the worst person, then don't go vote.
Yeah, well, listen, I'm telling you, this vote matters.
This vote matters big time.
There's a lot at stake here.
I'm telling you the truth.
I don't lie.
This is a big deal.
And by the way, it's an uphill battle.
You've got to fight just like you would, just like it was 2016 all over again.
So anyway, I appreciate it.
Pam is in Hampton, Virginia.
Pam, we'll move on to you.
How are you today?
I'm all right, sir.
How are you?
I'm good.
What's going on?
Good.
I just wanted to touch base.
I am like just Joe average person here in America.
And I am watching this thing unfold like a monster.
And Mueller goes on and destroys life after life after life.
And as soon as he does not get what he wants, he's on to the next life to destroy.
And he's leaving a path of destruction that I don't know if Americans will get over.
We try our best to be fair and be the kind person, be the Christian, turn the other cheek, do what you're supposed to do, treat your fellow human with respect.
And we look at this, and he's just creating this weight of destruction behind him that is horrible.
And it's horrible for the people whose lives he's touching that have done nothing.
They have done nothing to warrant the way he's tearing them apart.
And how do we get over that?
As an American, how do we get past this and get on to being American being?
You know, the best thing you could do, I keep, I'll say it every day.
You have to vote.
You have to see that the entire agenda that you voted for in 2016 is hanging in the balance because it is.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We got an amazing Friday Hannity edition tonight, 60 days till the midterms.
More on the blockbuster Bruce Orr's connections and yeah, Orin Steele.
Oh, did you get it to the special counsel?
We'll have the latest on the FISA abuse, latest on the anonymous saboteur, and whether or not that is a threat to national security.
Andrew McCabe, a grand jury, is impaneled.
Sarah Carter, John Solomon, Victoria Tunsing, Rudy Giuliani checks in with us tonight.
Congressman Jim Jordan and Matt Gates check in, and I'm going to talk about why this midterm is important.
And I'll show you 9 Eastern tonight, Friday edition, Hannity Fox News.
