Sean Hannity Show - 30 Years of Truth - 9.18

Sept. 18, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:32:16

30 Years of Truth - 9.18

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast.
	All right, glad you were.
	There's a lot of breaking news right now.
	So far, apparently the Judiciary Committee has not heard back from uh Professor Ford, and there's some questions as to whether they said they were going to testify.
	She is going to testify.
	Grassley said, well, then Judge Kavanaugh might not be going back next Monday.
	We'll give you the latest on that.
	Also, I have so much information to share with you as it relates to a huge massive double standard.
	We'll get to all of that.
	We have new uh text messages that are really bombshell.
	The president's decision that he will unclassify and uh send out unredacted versions of the Pfizer Warrant applications against Carter Page that everybody needs to see.
	And the 302s as it relates to Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele, all of the 50,000 text messages, emails between oh, let's see, Strzok and Page, but also Comey and McCabe and Orr and Christopher Steele.
	It's all coming out.
	Isn't that interesting?
	The only one that's having a conniption about it and a meltdown about it is Adam Schiff, who I predict is going to be proven to be liar schif.
	All right, but first the president now is with the president of Poland, President Duda, as he now is talking about a number of things, especially Judge Kavanaugh.
	Let's listen in.
	John Decker of Fox, please.
	Thank you, Mr. President.
	Uh two questions for you, one on Judge Kavanaugh and also one on trade.
	On Judge Kavanaugh yesterday, you said we want to go through a full process.
	You said we want to make sure everything is perfect, everything is just right.
	To that end, what would be the problem with the FBI reopening their background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh?
	Would you support such a thing?
	It wouldn't bother me other than the FBI John said that they really don't do that.
	That's not what they do.
	And now they have done supposedly six background checks over the years as Judge Kavanaugh has gone beautifully up a ladder.
	He's an incredible individual, great intellect, great judge.
	Impeccable history in every way.
	in every way.
	I feel so badly for him that he's going through this, to be honest with you.
	I feel so badly for him.
	This is not a man that deserves this.
	This should have been brought to the fore.
	It should have been brought up long ago.
	And that's what you have hearings for.
	You don't wait till the hearing is over and then all of a sudden bring it up.
	When Senator Feinstein sat with Judge Kavanaugh for a long period of time, a long, long meeting.
	She had this letter.
	Why didn't she bring it up?
	Why didn't she bring it up then?
	Why didn't the Democrats bring it up then?
	Because they obstruct and because they resist.
	That's the name of their campaign against me.
	They just resist and they just obstruct.
	And frankly, I think they're lousy on policy.
	And in many ways, they're lousy politicians.
	But they're very good on obstruction.
	And it's a shame because this is a great gentleman.
	With all of that, I feel that the Republicans, and I can speak for myself, we should go through a process because there shouldn't even be a little doubt.
	There shouldn't be a doubt.
	Again, they knew what they were doing.
	They should have done this a long time ago, three months ago.
	Not now.
	But they did it now.
	So I don't want to play into their hands.
	Hopefully, the woman will come forward, state her case.
	He will state his case before representatives of the United States Senate.
	And then they will vote.
	They will look at his career.
	They will look at what she had to say from 36 years ago.
	And we will see what happens.
	But uh I just think uh he is at a level that we rarely see, not only in government, anywhere in life.
	And honestly, I feel terribly for him, for his wife, who is an incredible lovely woman, and for his beautiful young daughters.
	I feel terribly for them.
	On trade On trade, Mr. President, uh, you announced new trade tariffs against China.
	Uh trade tariffs are a very important part of your economic and trade policy.
	In your first year in office, the U.S. trade deficit increased by 12 percent.
	And last month we saw the trade deficit increase to uh, I believe it was 72 billion dollars.
	So my question to you is, is your trade tariffs policy working?
	Well, we just started.
	Uh we didn't do anything with respect to China because we wanted to have the benefit of China having to do with North Korea.
	And they have been helpful.
	I hope they're still helpful.
	There's a question about that.
	But it got to a point where the numbers were too big.
	This should have been done for the last 20 years.
	If you look at the WTO, the World Trade Organization, that's when China really happened economically.
	That's it was like a rocket ship because they took advantage of the rules of the WTO.
	And whoever was standing at this podium in this incredible White House in the Oval Office, they should have done something about this long ago.
	Uh over the last number of years, China's taken out of this country $500 billion and more a year.
	$500 billion.
	That would go a long way for Poland, wouldn't it?
	You could rebuild your whole country.
	And that's what China did.
	They rebuilt their country with tremendous amounts of money pouring out of the United States.
	And I've changed that around.
	And if you look at what's going on, our market is going up like a rocket ship.
	I don't want their market to go down, but their market is down 32 percent in three months.
	Because we can't let them do any more what they've done.
	And uh I watch trade deficits because to me deficits are very important.
	They're not everything, and they're not exact.
	Sometimes you can have an you know a deficit, and that's not such a bad thing.
	But when you have $375 billion in trade deficits, and then many billions of dollars in other liabilities of all different types, you have to do something about it.
	We are the piggy bank to the world.
	We have been ripped off by China, we've been ripped off by, excuse me, Mr. President, the European Union, of which you're a part of.
	We've been ripped off by everybody.
	And I want to protect the American worker, the American farmer, the ranchers, the companies, and we're not being ripped off, you will see in a little while.
	Speaking of that, we've come to a conclusion with Mexico.
	We have a wonderful deal for both parties.
	It was a very one-sided deal.
	Now it's a good deal for both parties, very happy with it.
	Um the new president had conversation and it was uh terrific.
	I think we're gonna have a very good relationship.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	Uh we want help on the border because we have the worst immigration laws in the history of mankind or womankind.
	We have horrible, horrible immigration laws, so we want help.
	But we've come to a conclusion with Mexico.
	Uh, Canada has taken advantage of our country for a long time.
	We love Canada.
	We love it.
	Love the people of Canada.
	But uh they are in a position that's not a good position for Canada.
	They cannot continue to charge us 300 percent tariff on dairy products, and that's what they're doing.
	So this is a process, it takes a little time.
	The European Union wouldn't talk to us, they wouldn't talk to President Obama, wouldn't even talk to him.
	And then I said, that's okay, you don't have to talk to me.
	Jean-Claude is a uh tough man.
	He's a very good man.
	I like him, but he's tough.
	He's nasty.
	The kind of guy I want negotiating for me.
	But he's a tough, tough cookie.
	And I said to him, we have to renegotiate the deal.
	He said, but Mr. President, we are very happy with the deal.
	We don't want to negotiate.
	I said, you may be happy with the deal, but I'm not happy with the deal.
	And he didn't want to renegotiate.
	And after three times, he still didn't want to Renegotiate.
	I said, that's okay.
	We don't have to renegotiate any longer.
	We're going to put a tariff on all of the millions of cars you send into the United States.
	And honestly, he was in my office so quickly from Europe that I didn't know they had airplanes that flew that fast.
	I said, where did you find this plane?
	And we have the semblance of a deal.
	Because it's to a large extent economically all about cars.
	Cars is a very big factor.
	And they sent millions of BMWs and Mercedes into our country.
	So we are working on trade very hard.
	It's very important to me.
	It has been for 30 years.
	I've been saying for 30 years.
	Started with Japan.
	I talked about Japan.
	I was right.
	I talked about China.
	I was right.
	That's what I do.
	And I like doing it, but I like doing it for the people.
	Because our country has been abused and taken advantage of by virtually every country that it does business with.
	And we're just not letting that happen anymore.
	And that includes what I said previously about the military.
	Please.
	President Tuta, President Tuta, welcome back to the U.S. Uh as it relates to U.S. EU relations, as the President mentioned, you are proud Poland is a proud member of the European Union.
	How would you describe US EU relations right now?
	Did you talk about improving that relationship?
	Did you carry a special uh message to the president from Mr. Yunker?
	Some of the Panier Bartow.
	Sir President of Poland.
	Wow, the president on fire on trade.
	And America has been ripped off.
	What's really fascinating, and I've said this, and I've actually argued with some of my conservative brethren about the president's position on trade.
	I don't think he wants a trade war with anybody.
	I just, you know, think about this.
	Whether you're negotiating with NATO in terms of we pay 72 cents of every dollar, or you're negotiating a better trade deal with Mexico and Canada and the European Union.
	Um, how far do you think you're gonna get if you say, look, we really need to redo this uh Bob up?
	It's not gonna work.
	The only way that you're gonna get a better deal is you gotta act like you're willing to have a trade war.
	And once they see that, so far the response has been positive, and they start renegotiating uh because there is a lot of truth to it.
	I mean, it's sad when you think of our European allies in particular, and we bear the burden of cost for protecting them, and and we're just asking them to pay their share of GDP.
	We're paying nearly four percent GDP, about three and a half, a little over three and a half percent.
	And then countries like Germany, not only are they not paying their fair share, you know, under two percent, but then they end up doing deals, you know, making Russia rich again and making billions and billions of dollars in energy deals with Russia.
	It is stupid, because all that's doing is strengthening the main enemy that they're worried about for Europe, and that is Putin.
	And they're now putting, you know, 70 to 80 percent of their economy, the lifeblood of their economy is energy, and they're getting it from somebody that is not stable in a hostile regime.
	It's not smart.
	As far as China goes, my prediction is they're gonna come to the table, just like Canada is is now at the table, and they're gonna make a deal.
	That's my prediction.
	All right, we've got a lot of breaking news.
	Uh Senate Democrats now.
	Um there's something going on that I can't quite put my finger on as it relates to uh Professor Ford.
	Uh apparently she's not willing to testify and is not accepting the invitation and stonewalling a little bit on the invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
	Uh Senator Grassley saying he's not gotten an answer yet.
	And more importantly, that Judge Kavanaugh may not even be called back if she doesn't want to go forward.
	There's something I don't know what it is.
	Something is off here.
	I'm not going to speculate because there's no point.
	We're going to find out in the days ahead.
	So we'll get to uh all of that.
	We have news there.
	We also have the president now giving the unredacted portions of Pfizer warrants and the 302s with Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele and messages.
	Let's see.
	We got Comey and McCabe and Strzok and Page and Orr and Steel.
	It's all coming out.
	Uh Let's see what's there.
	Everybody that tells me they know what's in it.
	I have not seen it, tells me the same thing.
	All right, so much going on in the news today.
	Russia Gate prosecutors preparing to indict a top Obama official.
	I'll get to that.
	More released text messages showing Strzok and Page plotting to concoct uh bogus chargeable crimes for Russia Gate prosecutors.
	And the president, this is going to be a big deal.
	President declassifying, unredacting the Pfizer warrants, the 302s, gang of eight, and a lot of the information, emails, text messages, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, or Christopher Steele.
	It's all going to come out.
	The reason that you see Shifty Shift panic the way he is, is because he's scared because he's going to be caught in one big lie.
	This is, I don't know what to make of this, except that Senator Grassley has now said, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, that he has not heard from Professor Ford or any of her representatives as to the invitation that he extended to the professor who made the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.
	And he said he's considering the possibility of having an independent questioner ask all the questions to Ford.
	He should not do that.
	I think the American people need to see it.
	And it's interesting that Senate Democrats want an independent counsel to question the Kavanaugh accuser.
	Why I she now wants to tell her story.
	She said they said it themselves.
	The lawyer said it that she wants to go and tell the story to the Senate Judiciary Committee now that the door is open.
	Now, for whatever reason, there's stonewalling.
	I don't know the reason, and I won't speculate.
	We'll continue.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	Toll free on numbers 800, 941 Shauna.
	If you want to be a part of the program, uh I see the Daily Caller as a piece out.
	Senate committee on the judiciary, uh postponing Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, which was supposed to be Wednesday, tomorrow, Wednesday or Thursday.
	Today, tomorrow.
	Okay.
	And uh anyway, it's because of the allegation made by the professor, Professor Ford accusing Kavanaugh when they were teenagers of when we went through all the allegations yesterday, and the Senate, I think appropriately, I do think it's appropriate.
	I think that she ought to be given an opportunity to present her story in full.
	I do.
	And I think that everybody else in the last 36 years in Kavanaugh's life, similarly, if we're going to be fair, ought to be able to give testimony to the committee so we can get the full picture of a man's life.
	I mean, we have 65 women that knew Brett Kavanaugh from when he has been in high school this very same time period.
	They have all said that he treats women with respect and decency.
	That's in their letter.
	And we have a letter from his former Yale College female classmates that says he was always humble, kind, and accessible.
	And then we have a letter from female colleagues who served with Kavanaugh in the Bush administration.
	Kavanaugh is a man of the highest integrity.
	Watch it on Martha McCallum last night, her show.
	She had two of uh Kavanaugh's girlfriends from the time when he was in high school and when early college, it said he was always a gentleman.
	Um Kavanaugh is a strong record of supporting women.
	Letter from his former female law clerks.
	Kavanaugh's character is exactly what the Senate should be looking for, and a nominee of such an important position, Julie O'Brien as mother of one of the girls that Judge Kavanaugh coached in basketball.
	In other words, there is, you know, everybody now, this is the fact that they had this in July and did nothing with it raises questions rightly so in everybody's mind.
	And the president just pointed that out.
	Why didn't they bring it up at the time if they thought it was so serious?
	Uh Lindsay Graham brought up a point last night, which I thought was pretty interesting.
	And why did she never planned on becoming going public?
	Why did she take a lie detector test in August?
	And they had this since July.
	I just, you never know.
	Look, after Robert Bork and what happened to Clarence Thomas, who I think is one of the finest Supreme Court justices we've ever had and has served his country with great honor and distinction.
	And if you have never read my grandfather's son, it's such a good book.
	I highly recommend it.
	Tells about his life growing up and how hard and tough it was.
	I mean, I it's it's so inspiring to me.
	Anyway, so we have one Senate Democrat now suggesting the Senate should appoint an independent counsel to question both Brett Kavanaugh and Professor Ford.
	And uh Doug Jones, who floated the idea, he doesn't mean like a uh Robert Mueller style special prosecutor, but still when you start tossing around terms like independent counsel, um, I'm I'm not really sure, you know, what the Democrats mean by this.
	Politico points out, I'm reading from Politico, while the GOP waits to hear about whether Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine uh Blossey Ford is going to testify, they also are discussing the use of a third party to question Ford in an effort to make the hearing appear more fair, less political, according to one GOP senator.
	Well, I think I have faith that the senators would have the ability to be fair, ask her questions and uh about the experience.
	I mean, I think this is I think this is such an important position that I think everybody should be heard.
	And then I think after you hear the totality of witnesses and all that literally span the course of 36 years of Judge Kavanaugh's life, I think at that point you're gonna have a pretty good idea of whether or not this is a person that ought to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
	Anyway, so it would be better to have either a counsel for the majority, a minority staff that might do this.
	It could be an independent counsel or designate just one or two senators.
	I'm trying to understand why.
	Why all of a sudden this resistance, because they said she would testify.
	They said she was going to appear.
	As of now, Charles Grassley has said that she has not accepted the invitation to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
	And uh Grassley also suggested the last minute Kavanaugh hearing could be canceled if she doesn't want to accept the invitation.
	And then we have, let's see, Kavanaugh accuser now, you know, stonewalling.
	Let me read from the political on this.
	The woman who is accused that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting her decades ago when they were teenagers, has not yet confirmed her appearance at a public hearing.
	The GOP is planning next week, according to a top Republican senator.
	That would be Charles Grassley.
	They reached out to Professor Ford's camp several times since the professor came forward with the story of a high school era assault by the president's pick to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Although Ford's lawyer said that her client would be open to a fair proceeding.
	It remains unclear whether she would agree to a planned hearing on September the 24th that Republicans have set up for all sides in this particular case.
	Look, I do think that of all people, I don't often agree with Senator Susan Collins of Maine, but she rightly pointed out this is unfair to everybody involved that they had this information in July, and then they would not share it with anybody or allow anybody to pursue it.
	And then the week of the vote, all of a sudden, now that gets printed in the Washington Post, everything gets revealed.
	Anyway, back to Politico.
	The lack of response raises the question do they want to come to the public hearing or not?
	Grassley said in an interview with uh my old friend Hugh Hewitt.
	And if Ford and a lawyer ultimately opt out of the GOP's public hearing invitation, Democrats have skipped a staff level call with Kavanaugh on the matter, casting doubt on their participation.
	Republicans will face another tough decision on whether to press ahead with the nomination.
	I don't think it's that tough a decision at that point.
	If she doesn't want to take the opportunity to go further and expand and discuss the issue with the Senate Judiciary Committee, because it's the constitutional role of the Senate to advise and consent, then you know, Diane Feinstein started this whole thing.
	She leaked the identity to the press.
	And in many ways, I wonder, although I think the attorney who's pretty left-wing, Remember, the attorney that represents Professor Ford is somebody that didn't believe Paula Jones and was also very active in helping to defend Al Franken.
	So she has a political agenda.
	I don't know anything about Professor Ford, other than what I've read that she has said.
	And I do believe that she has a she should and deserves a full opportunity to be heard.
	I really believe that with all my heart.
	And let me tell you about all you people in the public eye, you want to serve in government.
	This is your life.
	You don't have to choose a public life.
	You know, if you choose to be in the public, you're gonna take your hits.
	I've chosen a career that is public.
	There's a part of me that absolutely wishes I could be anonymous.
	But I made a choice a long time ago.
	And I'm on the air four hours a day giving my strong opinions, reporting the news, breaking stories, investigative reports, and I know people can't stand.
	There are people that hate my guts and would love to see me drop dead, you know, on the mic, literally thud right now.
	Hannity's dead, Twitter would go nuts, I'd start trending.
	Ding dong Hannity's dead.
	There'd be some happy people.
	True or false.
	Is that true or false?
	Why you well say it on the microphone?
	It's absolutely true.
	It's absolutely ridiculous that people you are a great person knowing you personally, so it's just seems ridiculous.
	I'm not looking for compliments.
	It's very nice of you.
	Jason would miss me the most, I think.
	Maybe a little bit.
	Linda, only slightly.
	Depends if it's the good Linda or the bad Linda day.
	When Linda's having a bad Linda, you know what?
	You're you've become put your microphone on.
	You have become humorous.
	I say one little it'sy bitsy thing to her, you know, and you take everything personally.
	This is not okay.
	It's not okay.
	What?
	Say what you want.
	I don't have anything to say.
	Hillary did it for me.
	Back up, you creep.
	Get away from me.
	Just think of all of the time she would have, though, if that were to happen.
	Well, the thing is, if if she doesn't testify, then the Republicans really have a dead end there.
	And as far as uh I thought Spartacus, Corey Booker wanted everything to be public.
	I don't see any Democrats happy that the president is sending out the unredacted portions of FISA.
	I see Adam, you know, shifty the liar shift.
	He's he's freaking out about it because he's going to be exposed as having lied at a very on a colossal level about things, and oh well, I'm already digging up all the tape of his 250 appearances.
	I'm way ahead of you.
	Anyway, if she backs down and she doesn't want to do it, um, I think we have to respect Professor Ford's decision, and I think it would be a hard thing to do, but she's not agreed to appear, according to a person close to the nomination.
	Uh one of uh Kavanaugh's allies suggested that, you know, I that apparently behind the scenes there's they're trying to put some very strict conditions on any testimony.
	I'm not sure what they are.
	That was in the political piece.
	Democrats have received no new commitments from Professor Ford as of Tuesday morning.
	Uh Chucky Schumer's pushing back hard on the call for the hearing and other people as well, but it's now become politicized.
	The Democrats have nobody to blame for the timeline here except for themselves because they had the information.
	And when Diane Feinstein met privately with Judge Kavanaugh, it was a private meeting where she could have brought this information to his attention and gotten answers to a very serious charge.
	She didn't do it.
	She chose not to do it.
	We had public hearings, all those senators had plenty of time.
	Kavanaugh sat there hour after hour after hour.
	And listen, all these senators politicize a lot of this.
	We do have another piece in the Daily Caller that the lawyer for Professor Ford made the bizarre claim yesterday that the burden of proof in this case rests not with her client, the accuser, but with government investigators whose job it should be to prove that her client's Let me explain the law here.
	And this is why I said this last night.
	I said it yesterday, and I said it today.
	I don't care if you like President Trump or don't like President Trump.
	Whether you like Judge Kavanaugh's selection or you don't like Kavanaugh as a selection for the Supreme Court.
	I know many people on the left, they wish Hillary won the election and she was making these appointments.
	I understand that.
	I lived through eight years of Obama.
	And you know what?
	You just fight for the things you can fight for, and you have to accept in a constitutional republic that sometimes you lose.
	I didn't like the Clinton years.
	I didn't want Clinton to win.
	I didn't want Obama to win two terms.
	And I did want Donald Trump to win, and I do believe conservative principles make this country stronger economically.
	I think on every measure we're doing better, infinitely better as a country.
	But that is one of the jobs of somebody that becomes a president of the United States.
	But we do have still in this country the presumption of innocence.
	It is a foundational principle that this country has.
	And knowing the Democrats' past history with Supreme Court nominees, there is a healthy dose of skepticism I have about them.
	I don't Ted Kennedy smeared and slandered Judge Robert Bork.
	And he didn't get on the court.
	Told outright lies.
	I believe Clarence Thomas to be a man of integrity.
	I think he told the truth.
	That's my personal opinion.
	The country, the Senate at the time, they got to hear from both sides, and they made a decision.
	It was a close vote.
	It was 5248.
	And I think he's he's conducted himself in a way that I would have expected in in all these many years on the on the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But if you're going to believe in the presumption of innocence in this country, as I do, as everybody should, yes, she has a right to be heard.
	This is a serious allegation from when they were teenagers, 36 years ago.
	But so too do in the one person that was in the room, I know he had problems, alcoholism, et cetera.
	Take that into consideration.
	He says it absolutely didn't happen.
	Take Judge Kavanaugh.
	He said it absolutely didn't happen.
	Take all the women that came out that knew him in high school and in college, and in the Bush administration, and in law school, and that clerked for him, and that he's worked with in these many years in the district court where he serves.
	And then you got to make a decision based on the entirety of one's life, whether you believe the professor, whether you believe Judge Kavanaugh, whether you believe the other people that knew him at the time and known him all throughout these many years.
	And at that point, people make decisions.
	Do you think he is the person that do you think he was guilty?
	Do you think he's not guilty?
	Do you think, but it's not his job to prove his innocence.
	You know, this guy's been investigated by the FBI over and over again.
	They haven't found any evidence of this type of behavior.
	But the Senate Democrats should have brought this up earlier.
	To be fair to both sides in the words of Susan Collins, I agree with her.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800 941 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	This is an interesting development to me.
	Um first of all, we got Shifty lying at him, Schiff, lying again about declassifying.
	I want to get to that when we get to Jay Seculo coming up at the bottom of this half hour.
	That's an important Jeff Flake, Snowflake, sorry, I can't help myself.
	Uh it's interesting because he was the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to announce that he couldn't vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh unless Professor Ford had an opportunity to testify before the committee.
	But now with Ford seemingly balking at the idea of testifying and refusing to respond to what has been multiple invitations to testify.
	Uh, Senator Flake seems to be losing patience.
	And Senator Flake, who's been undecided, said he is insisting on the following Senate rules, which means providing a notice of one week.
	Quote, I don't know how you say you're not going to appear.
	And he said Ford had the option of a hearing open or closed with or without cameras.
	We want her to appear.
	And she said, we made the decision That she wanted to appear.
	It's the system we've got.
	I don't know what else we can do, he said.
	I personally think if it's gonna happen, I think the American people do need to see this.
	And that we it would be good for them to see it, then they can make a decision as well.
	And the president mentioned that today.
	He wants everybody to be confident with his decision, and he stands by his man, Judge Kavanaugh.
	And again, I made the point.
	I won't reiterate all of it, but I personally believe that everybody should be heard.
	I think the allegation should be taken uh seriously, but also all the 65 women that knew him at that period in his life, and the women that have come out for him that knew him in college, and the people that dated him in high school in college, and then uh when he went to law school, and then when he worked in the Bush administration, and all the clerks that have worked for him over the years and his fellow employees on the court.
	And then I think everybody makes a decision from there.
	I think that I think that's fair.
	Anyway, interesting development.
	Uh joining us now is Carrie uh Severino.
	She's the chief counsel policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network.
	Uh Megan McCaleb is with us.
	We welcome her to the program.
	She went to high school with Brett Kavanaugh.
	They remain good friends to this day, somewhat 36 years later.
	Uh Mora Kane is with us.
	She actually dated Brett Kavanaugh in high school and is friends with him as well.
	Uh thank you all for being with us.
	We appreciate it.
	Carrie, welcome back.
	Um, you know, I'm sure this is probably a hard thing for all of you because of the the public spotlight in all of this.
	Um Mora, you you dated Brett in high school.
	This is around the time that this supposedly happened.
	This allegation is being made.
	What kind of person was Brett Kavanaugh back in that day?
	True.
	Um, yes, this is uh just about the same time as when um I started going at Brad.
	We started dating in the in the fall of our senior year of high school.
	We're the same age, and um Brett was a leader in his class, a scholar, you know, outstanding student, captain of the football team, stand-up guy, responsible, thoughtful, respectful.
	I do not recognize the person um that the uh alleged uh accuser is uh talking about when she's talking about Brett in her uh claims.
	Did he drink as much as is being described by Professor Ford?
	Well, he did drink, we drank beer, we were legal, and you know, it back then in Washington.
	Uh I was tending bar when I was 17.
	I don't get this 21 thing, but I don't tell my kids I said that.
	So yeah, we drank, we drank beer, but Brett was never one to be out of control, to be falling down drunk, to be blackout drunk, never knew he he just always had a demeanor that was a little bit more responsible than some of the other goofballs are out there.
	Yeah, in other words, that he wouldn't have been hanging out with my crowd, um, and in the sense that we were a little irresponsible at 17 tendenbar.
	It wasn't the smartest thing I think for a 17-year-old to be doing in my day.
	But back to his character, you found him to be uh I I think you used the term a total gentleman.
	Yeah, a gentleman.
	I there was never any issue of him being inappropriate or not respectful um when we were dating.
	You know, he was wonderful.
	My parents, you know, liked him and were so happy I was going out with such a nice boy.
	It was it was very nice.
	And when, you know, as typical uh high school, you know, relationships kind of fizzle out, we remain friends.
	And you know, that doesn't happen that often.
	But he was just that kind of guy.
	You were happy to to stay friends, and um, we still are friends.
	Let me ask uh Megan, um, by the way, Lassie, you still remain good friends.
	Have you remained friends with him all throughout those years?
	Yes, all all the time.
	And um and he has a terrific circle of friends.
	His class at Prep is really kind of a very close post-knit class, and um friends with many of the other people in that class, and um, you know, we just sort of all all continue to grow up together.
	What about you, Megan Mikhailov?
	Thank you for being with us.
	You also went to Brett Kavanaugh, and uh you remain good friends to this day, uh, 30 years later.
	Tell us about it.
	Uh I I agree with Mora.
	Um, you know, I met Brett when I was a freshman.
	He was a year older than me.
	He always behaved honorably, treated women well, was always in control, just a really great guy.
	And that's why I remained friends with him all the way through college at till today.
	Yeah.
	And what you know, describe him back in that time.
	And you know, I I don't know of any perfect teenage kids.
	I just uh maybe they exist, but there were kids that you knew that were really off the deep end.
	Everybody knew who they were.
	And then there were kids that, you know, were just regular, normal kids, but responsible and didn't want to get in trouble and didn't get in trouble.
	Um that was Brett.
	That that was Brett.
	I can tell you.
	I I was one of the people who spearheaded the letter of sixty-five women who signed it, and it was simple to do.
	I you know, we have so many friends and so many people respected him and liked him that they absolutely were like, I would love to sign a letter on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh's character.
	And these were people that knew him in high school.
	What do you make Carrie uh and you're the chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network?
	What do you make of the fact that there's no answer to the Senate Judiciary Committee, even though the attorney for Professor Ford had said that she'd be glad to testify.
	Uh why do you think there's been no answer up to this point after apparently multiple invitations?
	Yeah, it it is a real head scratcher.
	I mean, her lawyer went on on TV at several shows, I think, on Monday, just yesterday saying, yes, she's willing to testify, she wants to testify.
	And you had the Democrats, I originally Senator Grassley, I think, was trying to set this up so it would be a little more confidential and private for her sake in and have a call that they could they could have confidentially uh in the Democrats, no, no, no, we need a public hearing, and then they said, fine, okay, we'll have a public hearing, we'll give you the week notice as per the rules.
	And um suddenly now she doesn't want to testify.
	I I don't know if this is c uh moving the goalposts, because now they're also saying, well, let's not do a hearing, let's do an FBI investigation, despite the fact that the FBI says, Yeah, we we're done.
	We've we've we've looked at that, and we don't we don't do, you know, and this kind of further estimate investigation you're talking about.
	I I don't know if that's part of it.
	I'm not sure if she's had cold feet, but I I do know that what we it what uh you know Megan and and Mora have described here is what we've seen from people who've known him for his whole career.
	And this is you know, it's it's really remarkable for someone who's been in public life as long as Judge Kavanaugh has six different background checks and never a whiff of some kind of misconduct.
	This isn't like, you know, some of those me too cases where you you hear someone and everyone goes, Oh, yep, we kinda yep, that that fits totally with that person, you know.
	No, this is this is totally out of character.
	And so you have to take that into consideration as you're looking at this.
	So I don't know if we'll get to hear from her on Monday.
	I think we'll at least get to hear from Judge Kavanaugh, but I think the senators are right.
	We if they're going to be if they're gonna be able to take this into consideration, they have to be able to to assess um her as well.
	And if not, I I I you know, I think we've done all we can to look into this investigate and we just have to move forward and and take a vote.
	Well, this just broke on the AP that Mitch McConnell is now suggesting that uh Professor Ford Um in this particular case testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and McConnell said she she can testify in private if she prefers, and he stressed that Monday is her opportunity.
	Um, you know, I I gotta believe Megan and and more, I assume that I've I uh that you're maybe not as in the political world like I am.
	And uh this is not the first time the Democrats have really gone after Supreme Court nominees.
	I don't know how familiar you are with the term Borking or the things that then Senator Ted Kennedy had said about Robert Bork that were just outright lies and slander, and I don't know if both of you are aware that what happened to Clarence Thomas, who I think turned out to be one of our greatest Supreme Court justices in modern time, myself.
	Um what do you make of it, Moore, when it came up last hour?
	They had this back in July, they did nothing with it.
	What are your thoughts?
	Somebody who dated him and knew him and and believe it that he's a man of real good character.
	Um it was it was disappointing.
	I actually went to um two days of the hearing and um the fact that they brought this up so late in in the game was really unbelievable because if it had been brought up earlier, there's so many women who would have been happy to answer to his character and the kind of person he was in that regard with any kind of accusation of that um out there.
	And that uh we weren't no one was allowed to do that because it didn't come up.
	It's just Not fair that this one alleged incident is getting so much attention and not the hundreds of people who would um you know vouch for his character integrity and respect and um it's completely imbalanced.
	Yeah, and what's your take on that, Megan?
	I agree.
	I I was at the hearings as well, and you know, he he answered so many questions and they were so thorough and so respectful and then he responded to questions in writing and uh and I felt like they had the opportunity to bring it up and they did not and they knew the information and it it wasn't fair to him and it also wasn't fair to her the person who alleged it.
	So I know I think I think Susan Collins, I'm more conservative than Senator Collins, but I really thought she captured it perfectly when she said that this is not fair to both sides, that they had this since July and did nothing with this.
	And that this comes up, you know, just two days, three days before the vote is scheduled and then everything gets put into chaos.
	And, you know, we also saw the way the Democrats were acting during those hearings.
	What did you think, Mora?
	Um it was tough to watch.
	Um I have to say how um the Democrats were uh so not um not impartial, not not following the rules of of order.
	Um it was it was disappointing to watch that show.
	You know, I believe very, very deeply, Carrie, in the presumption of innocence, and I know that we often forget that.
	I often talk about a rush to judgment.
	I I I was very critical of Barack Obama in the Michael Brown case, uh and and what happened in in that particular instance or what happened in Ferguson and and what happened with Trayvon Martin and and Trey Vaughan and George Zimmerman and Trey Vaughn could be my son and then what happened with Freddie Gray and meanwhile everybody's silent.
	There's so many thousands of shootings and people dying in Chicago and we don't know those names and I feel like they were being politicized.
	I think this happens with Supreme Court nominees in every instance.
	It's such an important job.
	But you know, think about this.
	Uh if if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, well, I saw those those two young girls having to be walked out of the hearing room and now they're gonna know that this was said about their father if it wasn't true.
	It's you know, but on the other hand, I I I think this woman has every right to make her case.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I do wish it could have been dealt with um i in the proper order, which would have meant they could have addressed it w in a way that would have protected um Ms. Ford's confidentiality and Judge Kavanaugh's reputation, because you can't unring that belt.
	I mean, now this is something that that unfortunately is gonna be out there on his record, even if it it it turns out to be completely unsubstantiated, it doesn't matter.
	I think that's part of the end game.
	I think the Democrats have said from the beginning we'll do everything it takes to block this confirmation, but I think they realized if they couldn't block it, then delay, and if they can't delay, then at least delegitimize him.
	And I think that that is part of that strategy, and it's it's not good for our process.
	Justice Ginsburg said last week, and this is before this all broke, how broken our confirmation process has become.
	And she was hearkening back to when she was confirmed.
	She was a little bit more than that.
	She got 93 votes in the affirmative, if I remember correctly.
	Last last question to Megan and Maura, and I know you're both not public figures.
	Uh you've got to imagine people like me are insane to ever want to be in the public eye.
	Because this is this is what happens.
	I mean, you know, my kids Google my name, it's gonna come up.
	Hannity is Satan first thing they'll see.
	Um I'll I'll just say that, you know, I am happy to speak out on behalf of Brett and because I believe in him and I knew him back then, and I know he was a gentleman and he deserves to be confirmed.
	That said, a a lot of our friends that are the 65 are you know not political at all and don't want it, don't don't want to come on TV or be quoted.
	And I understand that too.
	It's it's quite a circus.
	Yeah.
	Uh was that uh Maura or Megan that said that.
	I'm sorry.
	I was Megan.
	Megan, I'm sorry.
	Maura, last word.
	Uh yeah, my um are you know our thoughts we are thinking of Brett.
	We are um completely supporting Brett in this.
	I'm you know, I I feel terrible that he and his family are having to go through such scrutiny and it's tainting um his you know, his perfect qualifications for the Supreme Court.
	It's I'm I'm so disappointed, but we are all supporting Brett and We know what what's right, and that he should be confirmed without any kind of tainting of his character.
	I will say this.
	I couldn't get that many people speaking out in my favor.
	So um well, I think it's very honorable that you guys as friends feel the a sense of duty to go into the public eye.
	It's not easy because the media is so corrupt in this country, to be honest, but that's my own personal views.
	Thank you for sharing.
	Uh Maura, thank you.
	Megan, thank you.
	Carrie, thank you.
	Jay Sekulow checks in with us.
	Also, Jim Jordan's gonna join us.
	James O'Keefe.
	Yeah, there is a deep state attempted coup.
	Apparently, people think that they can uh undermine the president and get paid by you and me, the taxpayer.
	Straight ahead.
	Now let's hit our phones here.
	We have Anita in Oklahoma.
	Anita, hi, how are you?
	And we're glad you're you called.
	How what's going on?
	Oh, Sean, thank you.
	It's so good to talk to you.
	Uh, what's going on?
	Well, I wanted to give you a victim's point of view.
	I was almost raped at age five.
	Three inches and three seconds, and it would have been all over.
	And I was almost raped.
	As a uh freshman in college.
	And I can tell you I remember the names.
	I remember the places.
	I remember the times.
	I wasn't until seventh grade that I realized what I was remembering when I from from being five years old.
	But I it it just hit me like a ton of bricks.
	That was gonna be a rape.
	And I I didn't know anything about it, of course, back then.
	So it's so sad, by the way, because this has happened to so many different women, and there are predators out there.
	It scares any father, it scares anybody that has women in their life that they love or any it just it's evil to me.
	And evil exists.
	I I it's scary how many evil people are out there.
	It is.
	It and it's you know, that's why I've been, you know, people said to me, I and some people were surprised.
	I said, Uh I think this woman has a right to be heard, and I think so do all the other people in the entirety of his career.
	Um we have some news that is uh kind of breaking here now.
	Uh it looks like hang on if I can pull this up.
	The jud we have now a judiciary committee Democrat saying that Ford doesn't want to testify unless the FBI investigates her claim.
	The FBI said they've already investigated their claim.
	Now, this is very different from what we heard before.
	Now, this is all breaking in just the last hour.
	Mitch McConnell has said, okay, you're invited to testify.
	Monday is her opportunity if she wants to come testify.
	And he even said that she could do it behind closed doors if she wants, which I think is extraordinarily respectful.
	I think the American people would like to see it and hear it themselves so that they can have the confidence themselves in what goes on and what the process is all about.
	Um now we have a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee suggesting just now that Professor Ford would refuse to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee unless the FBI launches a full-blown investigation into her allegation.
	So it sounds like she's not going to be testifying to me.
	That's the way I'm reading this.
	If you could pull this up, Anita Hill apparently has now just weighed in on this and how to get Kavanaugh hearings right.
	She wrote.
	Um anyway, and going back to the uh to the Senate Judiciary Democrat, um, Senator, I don't know.
	I don't even remember this person's name.
	I can't read it on my report here.
	Anyway, wasn't the Senate Democrat said this about Ford's reluctance to have her be there without the FBI report?
	How do you think she feels?
	I suspect she feels totally victimized, and I don't blame her.
	Well, the FBI's already investigated Kavanaugh six separate times.
	And apparently specifically even on this issue.
	At least that's what that's what we just heard from Miss Sarah Vino was just on.
	And a professor Ford wants to hear the re report on the FBI's conclusion.
	Um remember that there's there's two different standards here.
	Should somebody be believed.
	Um we have another Kavanaugh friend saying I never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in a manner.
	Then you have the legal standard.
	Legally speaking, I mean the statute of limitations has passed.
	And one of the reasons I guess we have statute of limitations on cases like this is because over time, people's memories, evidence, witnesses, you do you don't have an opportunity to even put the case together.
	Um, whether you agree with that or not.
	Now we do know Mark Judge was identified as the person in the room.
	He says, I have no more information to offer the committee, and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter.
	And he has said it did not happen.
	So that's what he's saying about it.
	Um I have a copy just hot off the presses of Anita Hill calling on senators to get it right at Kavanaugh's hearing over sexual assault allegation.
	There's no way to redo 1991 there, but there are ways to do it better, she writes.
	The facts underlying uh Professor Ford's claim of being sexually assaulted by a young Brad Kavanaugh will continue to be revealed as confirmation proceedings on unfold, yet it's impossible to miss the parallels between the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing of 2018 and the 1991 confirmation of Justice Thomas.
	1991, the Senate Judiciary had the opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims, the needs for public confidence, and the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court.
	It failed on both counts, and obviously she has an opinion.
	You know, one of the big questions I remember back at the time about Anita Hill is she said that she had followed the then now Justice Thomas to another job after these alleged incidents had occur.
	And people were asking though those become tough questions in moments like this.
	But I stand by what I say.
	I think if Professor Ford wants to speak, let her speak.
	I think she should have a fair opportunity to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee everything she wants to tell them about Brett Kavanaugh.
	And I also think that Brett Kavanaugh has an opp should have a fair opportunity with the presumption of innocence to respond.
	I also believe that we should look at the totality of his life.
	There are sixty-five people that knew him when he was in high school, like two of the people we just had on.
	One dated Brett Kavanaugh.
	They're all saying the same thing.
	That is not the person we knew in any way.
	And then he we could also go throughout the rest of his 36 years in the interim.
	We could talk to people that he went to high school with, people he went to college with, people he went to law school with, people that he served with in the Bush administration, people that clerk for him, people that work with him on the court that he currently serves.
	Anyway, Jay Seculo is with us.
	He is with the American Center for Law and Justice.
	He's their chief counsel, he's also counsel to the president.
	That would be President Trump.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm good, sir.
	Um, I'm looking at all of this.
	It appears now one Senate judiciary democrat is now saying that Professor Ford won't testify unless the FBI investigates her claim.
	That just broke.
	What's your reaction?
	Well, that's not the way it's the process.
	The process does not work that way.
	So I think what we have to go back to here is process.
	I think that's very important.
	You said this uh just a few minutes ago.
	And that's this.
	Here's what the Constitution says.
	The Constitution says the president of the has the authority to appoint nominees to courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.
	He nominates.
	The job of the Senate is to advise and consent.
	That means they have the right to have hearings and determine the fitness of that particular candidate.
	There is no requirement that anybody in the Senate could put into the nature and scope of an uh an inquiry.
	The FBI doesn't open up investigations on this in this type of situation that way.
	That's just not the way the process works.
	So this is put in the background file.
	Uh, it's information that's gathered.
	But what has to happen here is the uh Dr. Ford has made an accusation.
	She's gonna be given the opportunity to present her case to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they will evaluate the veracity of that and as well as uh Judge Kavanaugh's response and vote up or down.
	You know, I'm I'm watching and I'm listening.
	You know, and and you can't take politics out of it, nor can you take the history of the Democrats out of it.
	And I remember, and I played for this audience, as a matter of fact, when the opening came up with Anthony Kennedy on the court, I played and reminded everybody this is what Democrats do often.
	We know every election year that Republicans are racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, xemophobic, Islamophobic.
	They want dirty air and water.
	They want children to die and they want Granny thrown over the cliff.
	It's it's as predictable as the day is long.
	And I have all of the examples on tape that I have played many, many times on radio and TV.
	Similarly, we remember what Ted Kennedy did to Robert Bork.
	It was a slander and a smear.
	By the way, of by all people, the guy that left a woman to drown after he drove a car off a bridge and went home and went to bed and didn't tell a soul.
	But they were successful in that case.
	Anita Hill just released an article in the New York Times, you know, how to get this thing right.
	Um but that came up, Justice Thomas, I mean, his background and his experience, I remember one of the big issues that came up in that case was that she had followed him from one job to another, if you recall.
	Right.
	Do you remember that case?
	Yeah, sure.
	But Sean, here's the reality.
	The reality is there was the reason the founders put forward the Constitution's separation of powers so that each branch of government has its role and authority on it.
	We're talking about a confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	So if there is an allegation, which there has been, and if, as has happened, the Senate has determined that that allegation should be vetted, in other words, discussed, then you put that evidence forward.
	Under oath, under the penalty of perjury for both sides, and they put forward their their case.
	And then the Senate makes a determination within the Judiciary Committee of whether they will move that to the floor of the Senate.
	If we follow the Constitution, it works.
	And that's what has to happen here.
	Why do you think this was withheld for so long and the Democrats knew about this back in July and they did nothing?
	Um couple reasons.
	One is maybe they thought they were going to trip Judge Kavanaugh up on some other issue, so that they wouldn't have to do this.
	Number two, uh look, I mean, eleven hour issues are frequent.
	Uh you know that, I know that.
	Um this is an eleventh hour issue.
	This is the October surprise, so to speak, except we're still in September.
	And uh I think you take it a step forward from there.
	And again, I'm not casting dispersions on anybody.
	Vet it out in the process.
	That's the best way for this to move forward.
	I see, I agree with you.
	And I know some people actually get mad at me for saying that.
	Um I know, I'm getting people getting mad at me.
	I said it on your broadcast last night, but I but I but honestly, I mean, you I I think if you do uh I think if you're gonna be fair, and I believe in the presumption of innocence, which many of my colleagues in the media clearly do not.
	I I think if somebody makes a serious allegation that they should have an opportunity.
	Now, even Mitch McConnell and has said that she can speak publicly.
	It can be an open hearing or and it could be on television or it could be a closed door hearing.
	Now, I personally I would like to see it, but I think that is done with great sensitivity and respect to her, and I think that's the way it should be held.
	I think it's whatever is whatever's best comfortable for her doctor.
	I agree with that.
	I mean, but an allegation has been brought forward.
	But I'll tell you the one thing they should not do.
	Don't have this allegation brought forward, no witness come forward and then leave the judge hanging.
	Well, it looks like it may come to that because it looks like it looks like it may come to that because I don't think so.
	I think if they follow if the Senate follows the rules and follows the Constitution, there will be a just outcome and a proper determination.
	But do you have to follow the rules?
	You know, one thing that Lindsay Graham pointed out to me last night, and I hadn't thought of it.
	Um she said that she'd never intended to go public, but she did have a lie detector test administered, and it was shown to be truthful in August.
	Right.
	That seems clearly the uh Senator Feinstein had this information for months, and the the whoever's involved in putting this forward is trying to tighten their case up.
	That's what I think this is.
	What do you mean by that?
	I mean, uh what does that mean?
	Here's what happened, here's what's happened.
	You got an eleventh hour attempt.
	The guy was sailing to confirmation, right?
	We all know that.
	Everybody knew it.
	He did great in his hearings, he's got a stellar reputation.
	Um now an incident's been raised, an allegation that when he was literally uh you're talking about when he was sixteen years old, thirty, whatever it is, six years ago.
	Thirty-six years ago.
	An allegation's been yeah, allegations been made.
	And the judge said he's ready to respond to that allegation once that allegation is put forward in a Senate hearing, which is the process.
	So everybody that says, well, you know, let's follow the rules, follow the Constitution and follow the process.
	Guess what?
	That's the way the country is set up to operate.
	So they have I think they're they're doing the right thing by offering uh Dr. Ford the opportunity to do it.
	Privately, open, whatever makes her more comfortable.
	Uh Judge Kavanaugh should be able to respond accordingly.
	And that should be it.
	Then they should decide whether to to vote or not.
	You know, whether to move it forward or not.
	They get the right to vote.
	And I think that's if we follow the Constitution here, this works out best for everybody.
	The one that's making the accusation and the one that's been accused.
	Let me ask you about you negligent.
	I'd be negligent if I didn't ask you about the president and the declassification and unredaction of FISA and the 302s and apparently emails from Comey and Strzok and Page and Orr and Christopher Steele.
	There's going to be a lot of uh and a lot of information coming out.
	When do we expect it?
	Yes.
	Well, there's a pro you know the the president issued the order as you know last night.
	So the order's been issued.
	It went over to the Office of uh Director of National Intelligence as well as the Department of Justice, including the FBI.
	They have a process.
	They are doing what they call a uh compressed schedule.
	So I I mean I don't know the dates any more than anybody else does, but I expect that we'll see documents in an expeditious fashion.
	I think you'll see them sooner rather than later, that's for sure.
	All right, Jay Seculo, uh Counsel to the President, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
	Thank you for your time.
	We appreciate it.
	Toll free on numbers 800 941.
	Sean, if you want to get want to be a part of the program, James O'Keefe.
	You know, we had the anonymous piece written, you know, somebody trying to undermine the president from within the White House.
	Uh, but apparently there are groups of people, resistance members spread all throughout government.
	It's a first in a series of video tapes by Project Veritas.
	We'll ask James O'Keefe about it.
	Then Jim Jordan is sent out a tweet today applauding the president's decision to declassify portions of the Carter Page FISA application and communications from key people in the FBI and DOJ who ran the uh Russia investigation.
	Comey, McCabe struck Page and Orr.
	We'll ask Jim Jordan about that.
	And as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, James O'Keefe.
	Remember the anonymous piece in the New York Times, James O'Keefe.
	Well, his undercover cameras are finding there are a lot of little saboteurs all throughout government.
	And in the first of what is going to be a series, he we've got the tape, and the tape apparently not flattering to people work at the State Department.
	The State Department just responded.
	We'll get to that and so much more.
	And also Jim Jordan is coming up in the next half hour.
	He's happy that the president's declassifying and unredacting straight ahead.
	All right, news round up and information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity Show.
	Glad you're with us.
	Toll free our telephone numbers 800 941 Sean.
	Uh James O'Keeffe strikes again, and of course, he is the founder of Project Veritas, and we're going to talk to him in in just a minute here.
	Um we've now learned a lot about quote the resistance after the anonymous piece went in the New York Times.
	Those that would be working within the administration, Washington, and literally trying to sabotage the agenda of the president.
	Uh James O'Keefe has been undercover with steep within and has been able to infiltrate and expose now some deep state within our government agencies.
	This is going to be part of an ongoing series.
	I've known James for many years.
	He only lets a little bit out at a time.
	He's very, very chintzy when it comes to giving me more tape than what he's revealed, and I'm only kidding, of course.
	He shares generously.
	But this newly released undercover video shows a State Department employee bragging about how they use their time at the agency to organize for what is the DC chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.
	And uh Project Veritas and James O'Keefe released this video earlier this morning.
	And uh, we're gonna show some of this on Hannity tonight, but you can hear for yourself.
	We're gonna play a number of cuts here.
	This is one, an individual, Stuart Carafa, who works at the State Department, says he does Democratic Socialist for America stuff on our dime.
	We get paid for.
	And by the way, just before airtime today, a State Department spokesperson responded to James O'Keefe's tape.
	I can confirm that Stuart Carafa is a management management and program analyst with the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations.
	We take seriously any allegation of a violation of the Hatch Act and financial disclosure rules and are closely reviewing the matter.
	This is a personnel matter that we cannot comment on further at this time.
	Anyway, here is that tape.
	I work for the State Department.
	I mean, I'm a civil servant.
	I'm a union member and all that good stuff.
	Um I look at it this way.
	So now that I the administration cut my program, like data analytics program, modernized, modernized, democratized, sign.
	And now I'm just straight like 8 30 to 5.
	So it gives me so much more time and like emotional bandwidth and roll this stuff.
	Instead of so I like it.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	Now this guy, as the undercover tape continues, he actually says that he'll resist everything and mess things up.
	Well, curse words, FSH up at every level.
	Everything he can.
	Here's what he says.
	Everything.
	Every level.
	Now he goes on just to save time, but he also says that his managers are rubber stamping as political activities.
	Uh he says that he sends out his DSA stuff, Democratic Socialist of America stuff, at 531, right after his regular job ends, but he's writing it all while he is at work.
	He doesn't believe that he'll be punished saying, well, maybe someday I'll go to, you know, Board of Elections jail.
	Probably not.
	And he says he has nothing to lose because he can't be fired from the State Department and says, you know, his managers rubber stamp it.
	Anyway, James O'Keefe is the founder of Project Veritas.
	And this is only part one of how many people did you get deep state resistors within our government sabotaging the administration and their policies.
	Many, many, Sean.
	I you described our MO accurately, and I will announce on your show, I'll give this news to you, that tomorrow we're releasing tapes of the DOJ people, Department of Justice resistors.
	So many, but of course, you have to release them one at a time.
	That's our that's what we do to get the media.
	I'm only kidding, obviously, when I say you're very generous in sharing it.
	You know, we read The New York Times piece, the anonymous piece, and I'm reading this and I'm like these.
	It's like they're openly sabotaging their own government.
	Yeah, we the New York Times just made the deep state no longer a conspiracy theory, but unlike Bob Woodward and unlike the journalists which conspire with these so-called anonymous sources that relay information secondhand.
	I'm not the source of this information, Sean.
	The State Department guy is the source of the information.
	I don't show you anonymous sources, I show you his lips moving, you could see his demeanor, you can see his mannerisms, and he's so arrogant and cla cavalier that in this tape, he literally says, I can't get fired.
	He says, quote, it's impossible to fire a federal employee.
	So they just rubber stamp my forms.
	This guy's a steering committee member of the Democratic Socialist of America.
	He does this at work, and he says, nobody will hold me accountable.
	So this is the whole thing represented in this deep state series here.
	Well, and this is the point.
	There's a couple of issues here.
	One is you have somebody that is openly sabotaging the very government that's giving him a paycheck.
	And secondly, the guy's not doing his job.
	The guy's working on his political activities on our dime.
	We're paying this guy.
	And he says he has a union that protects him, a federal union.
	He says I'm a civil service worker.
	So there's there's a need for civil service reform.
	There's a need, I mean, this is everything that Trump has been talking about.
	This is this vast administrative state, nameless, faceless bureaucrats, foot soldiers in the so-called deep state.
	We've been hearing a lot about this deep state, but we've never seen it personified.
	We never see the a face and a name to it.
	And that's what this guy represents, and this is just the first tape.
	All right.
	So let's go on into a little bit more of what he's saying here.
	Resist everything, F sh up at every level.
	That sounds like sabotage.
	Did you get the impression with with him?
	And there are you don't want to tell us exactly how many people you got on tape, do you?
	Well, uh many.
	Um in order of maximum.
	Many could be many can be like uh a lot.
	More than a few.
	More than a few and more than a few executives, many.
	You know, give help us.
	Is it a dozen?
	Is it two dozen?
	well, if you look at the trailer, you'll see flashes of DOJ, you'll see flashes of IRS, many other executive branch agencies.
	There are executive branch agencies, and then there are government oversight agencies, and Congress has abdicated their responsibilities and given all of the power to these to these agencies that that are not accountable to the voters.
	And that's the point of this expose.
	When we abdicate our responsibility, hold nobody accountable, their federal unions protect them.
	There's nothing that we can do about it.
	And in I I can tell you this, Sean, in every video, someone says, I can't get fired for anything, so I'm just gonna go ahead and subvert the will of the people and break the law and be quite brazen about it, because my supervisor, they don't care.
	And I think this is an inflection point in history because finally with this FISA stuff and this, you know, they're declassifying things, but but that's all documentation.
	This is video evidence, Sean, and that's why the journalists ought to be exposing the government corruption, but they're conspiring with the deep state people to get the scoop and the people are left in the dark.
	Well, I think that's what it's really all about.
	Now, to me, if you don't want to serve the administration and their agenda, and you have the honor to walk into the State Department every day, or walk into the Department of Justice you say is coming out tomorrow, uh, or walk into the White House every day.
	If you're not willing to serve the American people, they didn't run.
	These anonymous people didn't run.
	They didn't put their agenda out there and then have the people make a decision.
	You know, this is a constitutional republic.
	It's a constitutional crisis.
	They're replacing the very fabric of our of our democracy.
	Oh, I think Mark Levin's right.
	I think this is a post-constitutional America, and we see it with everything involving the deep state.
	Um, but you're uh how high up did you get?
	I mean, you look, you're not gonna have access, obviously, to the Secretary of State if you're looking at the State Department.
	Unless I'm breaking the law, and I have to be very, very careful.
	We did not film inside of federal buildings.
	What we did, Sean, is we went into these these meetings, they actually have these DSA.
	It's important people know what this is.
	It's deep state meetings, de d democratic socialists of America, this cabal of federal workers meet ironically enough in the basement of a church in Washington, D.C., and they took everyone's phone and they put it in a little ziploc bag, but of course we have other devices that record, and they say, be on the lookout for these people trying to expose us.
	But here's what we're gonna do.
	We're gonna elect socialist candidates, and we can't get caught doing it, foreshadowing tomorrow Department of Justice people are maybe maybe using government resources to elect these people.
	Are they doing things like stealing um stealing information and preventing information from getting to the president or getting to their secretaries because they want to advance their agendas?
	These are the sorts of people that targeted uh Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the Redhead restaurant.
	So they target people to to put pressure on them.
	They target conservative groups in particular and conservative members of the government, and they may be using government resources to do it, which is a violation of the Hatch Act.
	Explain what the Hatch Act is.
	The Hatch Act is a is a federal law that the intention of this was to prevent federal government workers from using their positions to advance a specific specific candidates or specific ideological policies.
	It's a it's a federal statute.
	And when you violate that statute and you commit a crime, what what is the punishment or what can the punishment be?
	The punishment can be— Because Robert Mueller wants to put a 30-year veteran General Flynn in jail for God knows how long.
	A perjury.
	Yes.
	It could be cri it could be jail, and that's the irony, and that's the prosecutorial discretion, which is the injustice in our country.
	They it's it's selective prosecutorial discretion.
	They're on tape saying, I light on the forms, I use government time and resources to do illegal political things, and there's no one's gonna prosecute them.
	And Sean, everyone asked me, well, James, are these people gonna go to jail?
	I don't have the power to to prosecute people, but what I do have the power to do is illuminate things so that it outrages the pe outrages sessions or whoever, but they have to buck up and do the right thing.
	And they have to there has to be an equal justice under the law.
	We can't only prosecute Manafort.
	You have to also prosecute the people who are on tape.
	Well, it all started with Hillary, didn't it?
	If Hillary didn't obstruct justice, nobody's obstructed justice because she took subpoenaed emails, deleted them, then she literally washed clean with bleach bit her hard drives, then uh aides busted up her devices with hammers, and they remove SIM cards.
	There has to be equal justice under the law.
	And I say it every day, and I don't think there is.
	Video taped evidence can change things, Sean.
	That's why videos matter.
	Whatever level of the State Department, mid-level, lower level, foot soldiers, DOJ.
	If we have them on tape, and now we have a now, Sean, breaking news, the moment I walked in your studio, they have reacted and said they they take this violation of the Hatch Act seriously.
	We may have a crack in the dam here.
	We may actually get some people fired and some and some prosecution happening.
	Well, I don't see how you don't make that happen.
	I mean, seriously, because it's obvious you're on tape breaking the law.
	Now, this wouldn't be the first time you've had people fired, is it?
	No, we we've been doing this for years, and and uh and Sean, I I speaking of prosecule prosecutorial discretion, they've come after me and and and throw through laws at me that I didn't violate.
	But we're hoping that this series provides a critical mass, and it'll come out more tomorrow, and we're hoping that we get a reaction from the president and some big things happen.
	I think that'll happen.
	Well, I think people need to see the tape.
	You've generously given it to us, so we'll air the tape on uh Hannity tonight.
	We've got a lot of other news we're getting to, but this is important.
	If we have deep state saboteurs that are violating the law and misappropriating our money and have a different agenda and they're violating the Hatch Act, uh I and it's on tape.
	How do you now prosecute them?
	But I again I can't belabor this point enough.
	Bob Woodward relays sources secondhand, and then he attributes to it in quote, and I get attacked for selective editing.
	The words are coming out of their own mouth.
	That's a great unbelievable.
	He attributes he interviews the anonymous source who see who relays it secondhand months after the fact and then puts that in a quote from the person in the meeting.
	You mean I don't do that.
	Mr. O'Keefe, you think there's a double standard in the media, really?
	They hold me to a a a I mean, I'm not gonna complain because Bright once told me that.
	They beat me up for put letting you talk your story.
	It the tragedy is it's not about me or you, it's about the reality.
	It's about the country.
	It is about truth.
	And there's not a lot of truth in media today, period.
	No, it's but hopefully we're trying to restore it.
	There's not equal justice under the law, either.
	No.
	Or application of our laws.
	That's very that's very true.
	Yeah.
	And I'm worried about the future of our country, and there's an election in what?
	49 days.
	49 days.
	This could be a watershed moment.
	What happens right now, over the next week, with these hearings, with these videos.
	This could be a watershed moment in politics.
	People have to have to wake up, but they have to see it.
	Why do you always make me wait for the next day, and then I get another tape, and then I get another tape, then the next day I get another tape.
	No, I think you're smart, but it's annoying to me.
	It's the way that the media operates.
	And then when I met Andrew Brightbarton years ago, he told this just the way the media operates.
	You have to release it a little bit at a time because we're facing an unjust mechanism which tries to prevent this stuff from getting out there.
	You're right.
	All right, we'll take a quick break more with James O'Keefe of Project Veritas.
	All right, as we wrap things up, uh final moments we have today with James O'Keefe.
	By the way, Jim Jordan at the bottom of this half hour, Project Veritas.
	Uh Anonymous is only the tip of the iceberg, and he's got more releases coming in tomorrow.
	You got the State Department today, and then you have people from the DOJ, and why would I expect maybe the executive branch, the IRS?
	Where are we going next?
	Multiple government agencies.
	I think tomorrow we're gonna we're we're definitely gonna launch the DOJ piece where we talk about more violations of this hatch act.
	Again, this is a group called Democratic Socialists of America.
	There's a whole cabal of these DSA federal workers who are using their government positions to resist against the Trump administration.
	And we've also infiltrated their Slack.
	That's a private messaging channel.
	So we have them doing this on work hours using government property, saying if anybody ever finds out what we're doing, we'll be in so much trouble.
	So the hope is, Sean, that the people in power, I guess, apply the law equally and prosecute these people since they're getting everyone else on perjury traps.
	Right.
	These guys are on tape saying we break the law, we do bad things.
	All right.
	Well, great work as always, Project Veritas.
	Uh what's it on the web?
	Project Veritas.com.
	Veritas.com.
	Yes.
	All right, James O'Keefe, and uh I'll look forward to reading all the horrible things about you in the coming days, which is pretty much standard operating procedure for you.
	But I'm glad you share your tapes with us.
	I think it's revealing.
	And we can't have people with their own agendas that are unelected and unaccountable doing what they feel like when they're serving the supposedly serving the people of this country.
	Anyway, appreciate You being with us, uh James O'Keefe.
	We'll see you tomorrow.
	See you tomorrow.
	Thank you.
	Donald Trump first started, there were leaks.
	There were just absolute leaks that were going on.
	He would the president would have a discussion with the foreign leader.
	That would get out.
	Yes, this is how the deep state operates.
	They did it to me personally as a member of Congress when I was the chairman of the oversight committee.
	I had the Secret Service, more than 40 agents dove into my background because they wanted to embarrass me, more than a dozen offices.
	The IRS, we detail in the book what happened with the IRS.
	We go through Fast and Furious.
	You go through all of these cases and by Benghazi.
	I mean, they sent a spy essentially to to just watch what I do.
	Um it's amazing how brazen that's the State Department.
	The State Department did this.
	That's how I open up the book and talk about it.
	The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence, incredible witnesses.
	We need to prepare to prove our case in court, and we have to fix 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.
	A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
	Uh, in order to get a FISA uh 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.
	Uh 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.
	I think what's most important here is the American people are going to have a look finally at what actually was the beginning.
	What was it that started this inquiry in the first place?
	And if John Solomon and Sarah Carter are correct in the in their reporting, and that uh the information is going to show some type of potential surveillance inside the the Trump campaign, this would be an eye opener.
	This would be shocking.
	This would create a situation where you have to look at the legitimacy of the beginning of the inquiry.
	I mean, we we all focus on the fact that the inquiry, you know, it looks like started with the least testified.
	As we now know that they had no idea.
	She said that after nine months, nothing.
	But we now know also that there was a media league strategy in the lead up to the appointment of the special counsel.
	Right.
	And that, by the way, the media leak strategy, in and of itself can be a violation of the law.
	All right, that was Jay Seculo, 25 now till the uh top of the hour, 800 941.
	Sean is uh toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program, and he's right.
	Finally, we're gonna get the unredacted or the unredacted versions of what we now know to be the important pages of the FISA warrant, especially the last one.
	Apparently, pages 10 through 12, 17 to 34, I keep hearing over and over again are key.
	The 302s, gang of eight information, uh comey text, struck and page text.
	Looks like we're gonna get them all.
	And I did notice that Shifty Schiff is having a a bit of a temper tantrum all over television.
	Oh, this is outrageous.
	Oh, this is about national security.
	What I think it's going to do, and what I've been told by numerous people, is he is going to be exposed as having lied to the American people repeatedly.
	Congressman Jim Jordan, the Freedom Caucus, here to talk about all of this and all the latest information about it.
	You said in a tweet, we applaud the president's decision to declassify portions of the page PISA application.
	That would be in the case of Carter Page and communications from the key people at the FBI and the DOJ who ran the Russia investigation.
	I think all of this is crucial, Congressman.
	And uh, why is it taking this long?
	DOJ drags their feet, but uh I do applaud the president.
	What the president did so good for the American people.
	Transparency is in fact a good thing.
	Let's see the information and let's let the American people decide if in fact that what they did when they took the dossier to the secret court to get the warrant to spy on Carter Page, in essence to spy on the Trump campaign.
	Let's see if they did it in any type of appropriate fashion.
	I don't think they did.
	All the evidence points to the fact that they didn't do it the way you're supposed to.
	But now we'll get to see.
	So let's let it all and to the leak issue.
	Never forget when you have a big lie, which is what the dossier was, a big lie.
	The more people you have talking about the big lie, the easier it is for people to believe it.
	That's what they were doing.
	Remember, Horowitz had the one diagram where 13 different people at the Justice Department were talking with one reporter, one reporter.
	So this was a coordinated strategy to get information out there to pass the big lie, the dossier office, something that was actually truthful and straightforward, which in fact we know it wasn't.
	Do you know or have a good idea what you expect is going to come out of this information when it finally does become available?
	And and how long do you think it's going to be?
	I I don't uh the second question, I think we may start to see something later this week.
	I talked with uh member, uh staff member on the Intel committee.
	Um his best guess was sometime later this week we might start to get some information.
	I hope that's the case.
	I think, you know, I w I wanted this information out like you did uh a while back, but but it's gonna come at some point.
	I hope we get some of it later this week.
	So we'll see.
	I don't know for certain what it's gonna contain.
	My hunch is that the FIS application is it will largely be what's not there.
	Like what's not there, like no no telling the court about the or's involvement in put it putting together the dossier, no talking about who actually paid for the document, i.e.
	the Clinton campaign, and probably no discussion about the fact that Christopher Steele, the guy who wrote the document, had this extreme animus towards the president.
	In fact, he told Bruce Orr that he was desperate to stop Donald Trump from being president.
	I don't think they conveyed that to the judge at the Pfizer court, but we'll find out when we get this information.
	Yeah, uh how long is it gonna take, because everyone's asking, when's it coming out?
	When's it coming out?
	Yeah, I think I I think the earliest we see anything is is later this week.
	Now, the other thing I like what the president did.
	He not only asked for the uh the notes of Bruce Orr and Chris Steele's conversations, he not only asked for the uh portion of the Pfizer that you just talked about, and he not only asked for the stuff that was given to the Gang of Eight, but he said, let's release the information from the key players.
	Comey's text and and communications, McCabe's Texan Communications Page struck as well as Bruce Orr.
	And what's interesting about these five people, they've either been fired or demoted in their jobs at the Justice Department.
	I mean, Comey was fired, McCabe lied three times under oath, he was fired.
	Uh uh, Bruce Orr was demoted twice.
	He's still working at the Justice Department.
	Lisa Page was demoted and then left, and of course, Peter Strzok was first demoted from his head uh position as deputy head of counterintelligence and subsequently fired.
	So I want to see all those communications, things we haven't seen yet.
	So I really applaud the president for also including that and what's going to be available for the American people.
	Well, I think this is the main thing.
	Did you ever think we'd be in a position in the United States of America?
	No.
	Where in fact Hillary would have a case fixed for her that in fact that that she would end up paying and of all ironies for Russian information and the very people that exonerated her, even though she was guilty of of many things, and she funnels money through a law firm to an op research group that hires a foreign national that gets Russian information,
	then they use it as the bulk of information as a Pfizer warrant, they propagandize the American people, then top people within that lied to Pfizer court judges four separate times, and then top people in the FBI, the DOJ, they're leaking before and after Donald Trump becomes president,
	before to stop him from winning and propagandizing the American people, after to undermine his victory, undermine the will of the people, and they even have a media leak strategy to do it to that that would trigger the special counsel, which it appears it did.
	Um I I I can't believe this is happening in our country.
	It's the worst thing I've ever seen.
	I thought the IRS targeting was the worst until this came along.
	And and I want to thank you, Sean, for your you have been tireless on this issue.
	You and a handful of reporters are all that cover this thing, but this is as bad as it gets.
	What what they did, what they did is never supposed to happen in this country.
	And as I travel around the country and around the Fourth District of Ohio, every single day, I just came from a lunch meeting where people talk about this.
	Every single day, someone will come up to me and said, I am so sick of this double standard, where there is one set of rules for the connected class in Washington, Comey, Lynch, Clinton, Lunar, these kind of folk, and a different set of rules for us regular people.
	And that is what has got to change.
	And I again I applaud the president for what he's doing on this, the fight he's had, and what you've been doing to expose the wrongdoing that took place at the FBI.
	Well, we also have some, you know, new information as well, newly released, struck page tax.
	By the way, isn't there 50,000 of them?
	Yeah, there's a bunch of them.
	We've been we look, our staff and and and Mark Meadows' staff in particular, well, they've been digging through this stuff, trying to find out just exactly what we're talking about.
	Well, that's right.
	They're talking about using using information that they're leaking as a pretext to go after Americans and question them, using their power and their position.
	Uh the latest one discussing an open case and quote a formal chargeable way after James Comey was fired, despite the fact that Paige told congressional investigators that after nine months that they had zero evidence of Russian collusion, which then explains their media strategy, which was to leak to get the appointment of Mueller.
	That's what Comey's deal was.
	And then it reminds us is this the insurance policy?
	Well, we don't know, but we do know what Lisa Page and said in the deposition.
	All the way up until the time Mueller's name, May 17, 2017, all the way up until that time, they still had zero evidence of any type of coordination between the.
	And that's nine or ten months of investigation we're talking about.
	Yeah, they had been investigating.
	They they started they launched the investigation on July 31st of 2016.
	They got the five in October of 2016.
	So still all the way up to they'd renewed the five a few times, and they still didn't have any evidence.
	But what we do know is what you just pointed out.
	The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Couie, who hired Fusion GPS, who hired Bruce Order's wife, Nellie Orr, who then hired Christopher Steele, who a foreign national put together a document that was not true to take to a court.
	You know, Christopher Steele talked to Russians when he put that document together, took into a court to go spy on the other campaign.
	There was the collusion, not on our side.
	So this is this is the frustrating part.
	And so many Americans are just have had it with this.
	They said, get this information out there so we can see exactly how they did it all.
	You know, I think the precipitous of this, and you know, I've not had the ability to see any of this.
	I just haven't.
	And um, but everybody that I asked that does know, I just asked them, well, is it uh, you know, where is it on a one to ten scale?
	And everybody says a ten.
	I think one person said a nine.
	I mean, is that what you hear?
	I mean, I don't know what you have access to, but it's certainly more than I do.
	But yeah, I I think it's gonna be good information.
	I mean, good in the sense we're gonna we're gonna be able to put it all together in even more clear way.
	I think it's clear right now, but I I think in a in an even clearer way what they did.
	Um, but I don't like to get ahead of it.
	I'll just say when it comes out, let's let's read through it.
	Let's figure it out.
	I like I said, I am really looking forward to seeing every all these text uh communications uh that that from Comey and McCabe and Strzok and Paige and Bruce Orr.
	I want to see all that as they're talking amongst themselves.
	Because as you said, Sean, these were the key people.
	These were the ones that ran the Clinton investigation and launched and ran the Russian investigation.
	So I want to see it all.
	All right, Jim Jordan of the Freedom Caucus.
	Thank you for being with us.
	He's also running.
	All right, my friend, 800 941 Sean is our number.
	Uh let's go to Don is in Iowa.
	Don High, how are you?
	Glad you called, sir.
	Hi, Sean.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	I uh really appreciate James O'Keefe and I appreciate you being the conduit for free information in this country.
	Thank you.
	Well, I'm trying my best, and there's a few of us out here that are fighting hard in what is an informational crisis because everybody's so agenda-driven and just lying in the mainstream media every day.
	It's corrupt as it's ever been.
	Well, you do more uh in in a in a week than I could do in eight years in the Marine Corps.
	Thank you.
	Uh no, no, no.
	I don't I don't believe that.
	Thank you for your service, sir.
	What's on your mind?
	Well, I I was calling about this whole thing with uh Judge Judge Kavanaugh with this uh with this accusation and and Diane Feinstein hold sitting on it for six weeks.
	Yes, she had this uh information and held it.
	And and I suspect that she held it all this time because uh she knew it was nothing and and how fake it looked.
	But this is j this is the Hail Mary.
	Listen, it is it it sounds like you have a wind tunnel there.
	Um, you know, look, this is what the Democrats do.
	That's why every American I'm saying I urge you to be fair-minded.
	All right, so this woman makes an accusation.
	They knew it in July.
	It's very suspicious.
	Their past history of smearing and slandering, especially Supreme Court nominees, is well chronicled.
	Um, I think there's a certain original healthy degree of skepticism everybody should be should have.
	And I say, let the woman talk.
	Now, apparently, according to everybody, she's been invited and she has not yet fully accepted the invitation of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
	And Charles Grassley said, well, if that's the case, then they might end up canceling Judge Kavanaugh's, you know, appearance Monday as well.
	If the woman wants to come forward, I say that's fine.
	Let her tell her story and explain it, and let Judge Kavanaugh respond.
	And but this is thirty-six years ago, and there are a lot of women that clerked for Kavanaugh, a lot of women that knew him back when he was in high school, a lot of women that knew him in Yale, a lot of women that knew him at Harvard, a lot of people that worked with him in the Bush White House, a lot of people that worked with him in the the last 36 years.
	Let them all tell their story, and then we look at the entirety of one's life and what everybody says about him.
	Uh, and I think then the Senate decides.
	And, you know, I think there are a lot of unanswered questions here.
	Um, is it possible somebody doesn't remember the year that something like this can happen?
	I I actually I could see that that could be a possibility.
	But let her come in in and tell her story.
	And I think Congress has an obligation to look at the entirety of his life.
	And uh, I don't know why if she said she didn't want to be public.
	I Lindsey Graham brought up a point last night that I agreed with.
	And why did she get a polygraph at that point?
	Um that, you know, at that point it sounds maybe this maybe she had ideas that she was gonna go public and thought that would help her.
	There's something that is not right here in terms of her not appearing.
	I don't know what it is.
	It it sounds fishy because they said they wanted to appear.
	They were willing to appear.
	So I don't know what it's about, but we'll find out by next Monday for sure.
	Anyway, thanks for the call.
	I appreciate it.
	All right, wrapping things up.
	Uh, what a day.
	What news never stops.
	Will she or won't she?
	Is the headline on the Drudge Report.
	Professor Ford, is she gonna go or not go?
	Um, it's interesting.
	I just got this uh Chad Program works for the Fox News Channel, quotes a colleague of Diane Feinstein, Connor Marley, uh, saying that, well, in other words, says about Ford Feinstein on Ford saying that is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted on this.
	I can't say that everything is truthful.
	I don't know.
	What does Diane Feinstein say in there?
	Well, more details at nine.
	We have some of the women that know Kavanaugh.
	We got a lot of news to break tonight, and we'll have it all for you.
	Nine Eastern Hannity on Fox.
	Thanks for being with us.
	See you tonight back here tomorrow.

▲