Sean Hannity Show - Not Backing Down - 12.11

Dec. 11, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:36:49

Not Backing Down - 12.11

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.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	That was just why people love and fight so hard for Donald Trump earlier today.
	Glad you're with us, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	So the president, the vice president of there, the body language is priceless.
	It really is.
	And I'll play parts of it here.
	Maybe we'll play more of it later.
	But just amazing exchange with Pelosi and Schumer.
	Now, remember, we've got the old Democrats.
	And at some point in the program, I'll replay for you the Democrats in the Obama years sounded just like Donald Trump on the border, on illegal immigration, on the wall, on everything.
	And it means all of them, including Hillary, including Obama, including Schumer, including Pelosi.
	They were all in the same spot.
	By the way, this just breaking in the Washington Post.
	It just doesn't get any better than this.
	Moments after returning to Capitol Hill, after an Oval Office standoff with President Trump, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi questioned Trump's manhood.
	I'm not making this up.
	It's in the Washington Post.
	I swear.
	No, where did I get it?
	Hang on, maybe not the Washington Post.
	Yeah, it's Washington Post.
	Manhood and said the border wall is a matter of masculine pride.
	Wow, it's like a manhood thing for him, as if manhood could ever be associated with him.
	This wall thing, she said.
	Well, this wall thing, you know, you would think that maybe she would recognize that there are many angel moms and dads out there, like Kate Steinley, I believe, was in San Francisco.
	And what happens sometimes when illegal immigrants, but of course, she lives in a sanctuary state in a sanctuary city.
	And she made the remarks in a Democratic caucus committee meeting where she was recounted, which were recounted by an aide present and not authorized to comment.
	She told colleagues that she was trying to be the mom in the room while Trump and Chucky Schumer bickered about coming about the coming funding showdown on the wall.
	But she described Trump's admission during the 17-minute on-camera battle that he would be proud to shut the government down as a political triumph.
	You know, there's a myth that somehow these government shutdowns hurt Republicans.
	They don't.
	Remember they said that when Ted Cruz had the nerve to dare to go up and do a real filibuster for like 24 hours and blaming him for 2014 ended up being a great year for Republicans as it relates to the Senate.
	Let me just play a couple of the key moments just to give you a flavor of what this was like in the Oval Office today.
	And we'll get to the heart of where this is all headed and why this is good.
	Again, let us have our conversation.
	Then we can meet with the press again.
	But the fact is, is that legislating, which is what we do, you begin, you make your point, you state your case.
	That's what the House Republicans could do if they had the votes.
	But there are no votes in the House, a majority of votes, for a wall, no matter where you say.
	Exactly right.
	If I needed the votes for the wall in the House, I would have them in one session.
	It would be done.
	Go do it.
	It doesn't help because we need 10 Democrats in the Senate.
	Put it on a negotiation.
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	And we're doing this in a very friendly manner.
	It doesn't help for me to take a vote in the House where I will win easily with the Republicans.
	It doesn't help to take that vote because I'm not going to get the vote of the Senate.
	I need 10 senators.
	That's the problem.
	You have the White House.
	You have the Senate.
	I have the White House.
	The White House is done.
	And the House would give me the vote if I wanted it.
	But I can't because I need, Nancy, I need 10 votes from Chuck.
	Let me say something.
	Let me just say one thing.
	The fact is, you do not have the votes in the House.
	Nancy, I do.
	And we need border security.
	Nancy, Nancy, we need border security.
	It's very simple.
	Of course we do.
	We need border security.
	Chuck, did you want to say something?
	Here's what I want to say.
	We have a lot of disagreements here.
	The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of Pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much of the wall is built and how much is there.
	But that's not the point here.
	We have a disagreement about the wall.
	Washington, whether it's effective or better.
	Not on border security, but on the wall.
	We do not want to shut down the government.
	You have called 20 times to shut down the government.
	You say, I want to shut down the government.
	We don't.
	We want to come to an agreement.
	If we can't come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass the House and Senate right now and will not shut down the government.
	And that's what we're urging you to do.
	Not threaten to shut down the government because you can't get your way.
	Let me say something, Mr. President.
	You just say, my way, or we'll shut down the government.
	We have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do a CR that will not shut down the government.
	We urge you to take it.
	And if it's not good border security, I will take it.
	It is very good border security.
	And if it's not good border security, I won't take it.
	It's what.
	Because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our border security, and when you look at the job that we're doing with the government.
	You just said it is effective.
	Can I tell you something?
	Yeah, you just said it is a good question.
	Without a wall, these are only areas where you have the wall.
	We want to do it.
	Where you have walls, Chuck, it's effective.
	Where you don't have walls, it is not effective.
	One thing I think we can agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute.
	And you want to shut it down.
	You keep talking about it.
	The last time, Chuck, you shut it down.
	No, no, no.
	And then you opened it quickly.
	I don't want to do what you did.
	20 times you have called for, I will shut down the government if I don't get my wall.
	None of us have.
	You want to know something?
	You've said it.
	You want to put that in.
	Who said it?
	I'll take it.
	Okay, good.
	You know what I'll say?
	Yes.
	If we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government.
	Okay, that's fair enough.
	And I am proud, and I'll be disagree.
	I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country.
	So I will take the mantle.
	I will be the one to shut it down.
	I'm not going to blame you for it.
	The last time you shut it down, it didn't work.
	I will take the mantle of shutting down.
	And I'm going to shut it down for border security.
	But we believe you shouldn't shut it down.
	These are only areas where you have the wall.
	Where you have walls, Chuck, it's effective.
	Where you don't have walls, it is not effective.
	Let's call a halt to this.
	We've come in here as the first branch of government.
	Article 1, the legislative branch.
	Awesome.
	We're coming in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open.
	We're going to keep it open if we have border security.
	We don't have border security.
	We're not going to keep it on.
	Let me check it.
	We haven't had border security.
	And it's the same border.
	You're bragging about what has been done.
	We want to do the same thing we did last year, this year.
	That's our proposal.
	If it's good then, it's good now, and it won't shut down the government.
	Chuck, we can build up a bigger shit.
	Let's debate.
	Let's debate in private.
	Okay?
	Yeah, let's debate in private.
	Let's debate in private.
	This is not going well for me.
	This has to end right now.
	You know, this is what people want in terms of if you're going to fight, fight for something the American people that you promised the American people you do.
	This is what was missing when Trump first gets into office in 2017.
	All those Republicans that voted 65 times to repeal and replace were nowhere to be found.
	If they would have fought like that, all of those people, we would have repealed and replaced all of it.
	We only got rid of the individual mandate because that was thrown into another supplemental bill of some kind.
	Now, it's the same thing with the wall.
	What the president is saying, the polls show absolutely dramatically that the American people, you, we, the people, want border security.
	It's really that simple.
	There's a January 2018 Harvard Harris poll where 81% of those surveys want immigration slashed.
	79% want secure borders.
	79% want merit-based immigration.
	68% want an end to the Visa lottery.
	65% want a DACA deal with no amnesty.
	61% say the current border is inadequate and say no DACA relatives.
	And 54% want the wall.
	It's a winning issue.
	I'll take responsibility.
	Yeah, I'm going to shut down the government.
	This is what's been missing.
	Like the seven senators in 2015 that voted just to repeal Obamacare, the same exact bill, same exact language, and they, you know, they didn't really mean it in 2015.
	When it would have mattered in 2017, they were nowhere to be found.
	It's pretty pathetic.
	But they keep trying to get this president to back down on the border wall, and he's not going to do it.
	He's only asking for $5 billion.
	He's not asking for all of it.
	We have three and a half, I think, or $4 billion already allocated to it.
	And the president, and they want to, we're going to blame you.
	And he said, I'll take that.
	I won't blame you.
	Absolutely.
	I'm going to fund the wall or blame me.
	Now, these government shutdowns, essential services all continue.
	Everyone gets their Social Security check.
	Vets hospitals stay open.
	Our Defense Department is up and running.
	And Intel services.
	You know what happens with government shutdowns?
	You got a bunch of bureaucrats that get a free vacation because we always end up giving them back pay for whatever time or days they have off.
	Now, they could try all they want.
	Maybe they think that Mitch McConnell is afraid of a government shutdown, and maybe he is.
	But it is a top priority that the president, you know, for whatever reason, Republicans have felt under Obama, now under Trump, doesn't matter who's in office, they don't want to get blamed.
	I don't know why Paul Ryan is almost as afraid of a showdown and shutdown as Mitch McConnell.
	It maybe just hides it a little better.
	But the problem for Chuck and Nancy is they're not dealing with Paul Ryan.
	They're not dealing with Mitch McConnell.
	If they were, they'd be able to steamroll the GOP within a few minutes.
	You got a president that's saying, no, it's not going to continue.
	We're going to fulfill a promise, and I'm going to fight to fulfill the promise.
	And if that means you don't want to fund it, that's fine, but there are going to be ramifications.
	And he's holding the line.
	Now, another good thing that's happened in all of this, Lindsey Graham, he's saying the exact same, this is the fight we're going to have.
	He needs to dig in, meaning the president, and this liberal agrogance, take it on and stare it down.
	This is a new and revitalized Lindsey Graham, which I'm very happy to see.
	Now, the president also said, and is warning Congressional Democrats, remember, he just sent down the military to build and put up the, you don't call it barbed wire, what is it, razor wire fences down there, which were very helpful in the lead up to the caravan coming.
	And we saw what happened when some of them tried to bang down one of our borders and bottles and rocks were being pelted at our border troops and ICE agents down there.
	Anyway, so the AP reported the president threatened repeatedly today to shut down the government if Congress doesn't provide the money.
	Now, notice he kept the press in the room for that exchange.
	Chuck, we want to do this in private.
	Why?
	Because they can come out and mischaracterize what happened in private.
	So Trump's comments come as he opened this contentious meeting with Schumer and Pelosi, and they both said legislation to keep the government open and provide additional border security could pass.
	But Chuck has said, I want a fence.
	We don't need a wall.
	A fence?
	They got a chain-link fence?
	I could tell you that it doesn't.
	I have deer sometimes running in my backyard.
	They leap over it like it's nothing.
	I mean, people just cut through a wire fence simple and easily.
	And the purpose is to keep people safe on both sides of the border, to protect American laws and American sovereignty, and to stop what?
	We now know that 67% of people that are in this country illegally, that they are on American assistance at a greater rate, 67% greater rate than the American people.
	We know now a study that came out weeks ago, $70,000 per illegal immigrant in this country.
	We, the taxpayers, we foot the bill.
	That's for the educational system, the healthcare system, the criminal justice system.
	And then, of course, on top of it, you have people that we noticed in the caravan, we identified between us and Mexico 600 criminals that were trying to get across the border.
	If you have an open border, they can get in.
	Now, anything like the caravan would ever cease to happen if you had the border wall properly built all the way across the southern border.
	So I like, this is what, you know, everyone says, well, the president fights too much on Twitter.
	Okay, but when he's fighting to keep the promises he made, it's worth it because this fight needs to happen.
	And let me tell you, Nancy Pelosi going back to our caucus and talking about his manhood shows that they are just, they are out of their league in terms of negotiating and dealing with the president.
	And they can throw all the subpoena cannons they want at him.
	It's not going to matter at the end of the day.
	Just like campaign finance.
	No, that's not a problem either.
	Hey, guys, remember when you need gifts that you need to bring a smile to somebody's face, 1-800flowers.com, they have to be your go-to.
	Whether it's a birthday, an anniversary that slipped your mind, or maybe you just want to get ahead and deliver something just because you want them to know you're thinking about them.
	1-800-Flowers.com, they have the deals, the bouquets that are guaranteed to show people you love them.
	And right now, when you order 12 peppermint roses for $29.99, well, 1-800 Flowers will give you an extra half dozen roses and a vase absolutely free.
	Now, that's up to 40% off the original price.
	Peppermint roses from 1-800flowers.com are picked at their peak and they're shipped overnight to ensure maximum freshness.
	Now, to order 12 peppermint roses for $29.99 plus another half dozen roses and a free vase, just go to 1-800Flowers.com slash Hannity.
	That's 1-800Flowers.com slash Hannity.
	But you got to hurry.
	This offer ends on Friday.
	You know, we're going to have to start monitoring a little more the rising Democratic star, Ocasio-Cortez, apparently called war hero General John Kelly a coward.
	She just, you know, the things she's saying on a daily basis are just nuts.
	You know that General Kelly lost his son fighting for his country.
	And where's the apology?
	I'm sure that's forthcoming any minute now.
	All right, 800 941.
	This is the showdown.
	This is what this, we ought to be thankful for these moments.
	That finally, and I know, you know, everyone talks to me about, well, the president's style and he's combative and he fights.
	And, you know, why does he always say these things on Twitter?
	Because that's his nature.
	But when the president fights and gets the reductions in the bureaucracy that lead to the good news that we gave you yesterday that we're energy independent and now exporting more energy than we have in 70 years, we have NATO now, countries now stepping up to pay their fair share.
	We have 4.5 million new jobs, 400,000 manufacturing jobs, 3.5 million people off the food stamp rolls, and another 4 million out of poverty.
	First time in 75 years, the U.S. is not dependent on foreign oil.
	I mean, that's what you want in a president.
	By the way, Justice Kavanaugh, well, that was not a good first ruling on his part.
	An early decision involving abortion, he sided with the liberal left of the court in declining to hear a case that could have allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood in state Medicaid programs.
	And by the way, Clarence Thomas was not happy and was very strong in his dissent saying, why are we punting?
	We'll continue.
	Smoking is not about politics.
	It's about people.
	There are 34 million Americans that smoke.
	For me, Juul was a game changer because you switch to Juul.
	It's simple, it's satisfying, and no more smell.
	I watch people all the time.
	They run outside in the freezing cold.
	It can be grabbing their cigarette.
	Well, with Juul, you'll take a quick puff and you're good.
	That's it.
	Now, Juul is designed with smokers in mind from its form to technology.
	It's easy to use, no buttons, no switches.
	And the goal of JUUL is to impact the lives of adult smokers by providing a satisfying alternative.
	Switch to JUUL.
	You'll wish you had done it a long time ago.
	To discover the smoking alternative that is nothing like any e-cig vape you have ever tried, go to this website, j-u-u-l-jewel.com slash switchamerica.
	That's j-u-u-l.com slash switchamerica.
	Warning, this product contains nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
	J-U-U-L.com slash switchamerica.
	We need border security.
	That's what we're going to be talking about, border security.
	If we don't have border security, we'll shut down the government.
	This country needs border security.
	The wall is a part of border security.
	Let's have a talk.
	We're going to get the wall built, and we've done a lot of wall already.
	That bigger part of border security is the wall.
	It's a big section.
	It's a big part of it.
	Everything that you need, it's a big part of it.
	We need to have effective border security.
	We need a wall in certain parts.
	No, not in all parts, but in certain parts of a 2,000-mile border, we need a wall.
	How much money?
	We are doing it much under budget.
	We're actually way under budget on the areas that we've renovated and areas that we've built.
	I would say if we got $5 billion, we could do a tremendous chunk of wall.
	Except Lesto are your guests.
	Well, we're going to see.
	We're going to see.
	Look, we have to have the wall.
	This isn't a question.
	This is a national emergency.
	Drugs are pouring into our country.
	People with tremendous medical difficulty and medical problems are pouring in.
	And in many cases, it's contagious.
	They're pouring into our country.
	We have to have border security.
	We have to have a wall as part of border security.
	And that was the president allowing the press to stay in this meeting with Chuck Schumer and with Nancy Pelosi.
	And Chuck Schumer, please, please, can we speak about this privately, pretty please?
	And they're just, you're going to shut down the government.
	How is a government shutdown?
	Why is this there always been an inordinate fear when every key part of government stays up and running and is funded?
	And you just throw continuing resolutions at it and the military and checks to seniors.
	And nobody gets hurt.
	If anything, the people that get free vacations, paid vacations, ought to be happy about it.
	But I'm not saying they don't do important work, but I'm saying it never is the great threat that people make it out to be.
	This is about having been down.
	This is the opportunity we have.
	This is the moment.
	And if you want, if you ever want to be a politician, let me tell you my advice to you is if you make promises, keep them.
	If you promise to serve the people where you live in your state and your district, then serve them, not yourself.
	I'm asking people now, every time you watch what they're calling the cannons of subpoenas that they're going to throw at the Trump administration every day and Adam Schiff and Gerald Nadler and everybody in company.
	It's not a winning strategy because they're not serving the American people.
	They're serving their own political power grab agenda, period.
	And as you listen, as we start the new year next year, we are going to follow these people like they've never been followed.
	Their every word, their every comment.
	We will have every insane thing they say.
	Nancy Pelosi leaves this meeting with Donald Trump and says this is a manhood issue for him, this wall.
	It's not they're nuts.
	I've been down there 13 times.
	I've seen people arrested, seen a gang member arrested.
	I've also watched the, been in the drug warehouses, seen the tunnels, seen the vulnerability.
	You know, 67% of people now, a higher percentage of people, illegal immigrants, that need government services, welfare, et cetera.
	We're paying all of this.
	I don't think it's too much to ask that people respect our laws, our sovereignty, and they go through the process legally.
	That's all we're asking.
	I don't think it's that much to ask for.
	And I also think on the political side of this, I mentioned the poll before, it's a winning political issue, the Harvard-Harris poll.
	81% want immigration slashed.
	79% want secure borders.
	79% want merit-based immigration.
	Part of that means we vet the people and they have to show they have the ability to take care of themselves while here.
	68% want to end the Visa lottery.
	65% want to dock a deal with no amnesty.
	And 61% say the current border is inadequate, and it is.
	And 60% say no to Docker relatives.
	And 54% want the wall.
	So the president, in true Trumpian form, is standing by his words.
	And that's what we want.
	And he's saying, look, Chuck, too bad.
	This is what we need.
	I am the commander-in-chief.
	Nancy Pelosi one point, we're the first branch of government.
	We're the legislative branch of government.
	Right.
	He's the president, and he's the executive branch of government.
	And he's also the commander-in-chief as part of his duties.
	And to stop human trafficking and drug trafficking along our southern borders is a good idea.
	And it's costing every illegal immigrant, according to a study from a couple of weeks ago, 70 grand per illegal immigrant.
	Well, we have plenty of Americans that need help here first.
	Not against having a big door and an open legal immigration system, but it's got to be legal.
	Certain things.
	Anyway, so the president also is saying repeatedly that, hey, listen, if I have to, I'll have the military build it.
	Now, it's going to be interesting as we watch that to watch Democrats arguing.
	They're going to claim the military has no business protecting America from thousands of illegal immigrants that are invading our borders.
	Democrat Bernie Thompson, the upcoming Homeland Security chairman, said using the military to build the wall just doesn't make any sense.
	I can think of a lot more important things we could do with the military than build a fence.
	We're not building a fence, we're building a wall.
	Now, on the other hand, you got key Republicans, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, appropriations committees, both saying today that they would consider the president's newest suggestion that, in fact, the Pentagon build the southern border wall.
	And if that's what it comes down to, Richard Shelby, Senate Appropriations Committee chair, who would oversee the Pentagon spending on a border wall, said the president's got a lot of leeway on all of this because under the Constitution, he has the right and the duty to defend the nation and protect the borders and everything that goes with it.
	Jim Inhoff, Senate Armed Services Committee, said he spoke with the president last week about his bill that raises what he says is enough revenue to pay for the wall.
	Now, directing the military to build the wall, possibly out of military construction funds, could also be an option if the push by Inhoff and other defense appropriators works for a $750 billion defense budget plan that is coming next year.
	That's a big amount of money.
	And certainly we have other areas that need fixing, but this is priority number one.
	This is going to be fun to watch.
	I'll tell you that.
	We'll get back to this later in the program today.
	You know what's amazing?
	Something to watch.
	There are hundreds of congressmen that paid apparently millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded hush money to those that are claiming some type of sexual harassment or worse.
	You know, with all the talk, I wonder how many of these are Democrats.
	Now, the problem is, you know, everyone's making arguments that somehow a non-disclosure agreement that the president might have gone into with somebody 12 years ago.
	And these agreements are far more common than you ever think.
	You know, people say, all right, well, it's worth this much if I litigate it.
	And I got, whatever, I don't need the headache.
	Let's just, we'll come to a deal, whatever happens.
	So sometimes it's done for those reasons, sometimes for legitimate reasons.
	And it's hard to know the difference.
	But that's an individual making an agreement on their own using their own money.
	Very different if you work for the government.
	For example, if the House wants to really push this issue of a campaign finance violation, I said, well, let them push it as hard as they want to push it.
	Because if you go back to November 2017, it was the New York Post that broke the story telling the story of Representative Jackie Speyer, that millions of dollars had been doled out to alleged victims of harassment from congressional members over the past decade.
	Many of these members still working there.
	And she testified that current members of Congress who are known sex harassers and that $15 million in taxpayer hush money has been made to accusers.
	So as you hear the sanctimony over, well, we couldn't get him on Russia.
	There's no Russian collusion at all.
	And their hopes and dreams of what they would get out of Mueller's filings last Friday didn't come to fruition.
	Then they all settled on a, well, we think he broke a campaign finance law.
	And I'm watching this unfold here.
	Well, if that's the case, then, well, then I think we have a pretty strong case about campaign finance violations as it relates to, oh, maybe Hillary Clinton.
	And that case was made in a piece by Mark Penn because the steel dossier was at least partially paid for by the DNC committee law firm.
	Remember, they funneled money, the Clinton campaign, and Donna Brazil claimed that Hillary was in charge of the DNC money.
	Remember how Mark Penn points out in the Hill today that Hillary's payments to Christopher Steele were first funneled through her campaign lawyer and laundered.
	Remember, it was sent to Perkins Cooey.
	Apparently, not even, what's it that James Comey didn't know who Perkins Cooey was.
	I don't believe that either.
	As he was saying, I don't remember 250 times.
	But then laundered through Fusion GPS to hire a foreign national to come up with the phony Russian lies that they use to influence the American people consciously in the election of 2016.
	How Robert Mueller and the Pitbull Andrew Weissman and Company and Jeannie Ray are not focused on that is a miracle.
	The Steele Doss CA was paid in part by the Democratic National Committee.
	They used a cutout on the FEC forms by saying it was a legal expense.
	It's settled law, as Mark Penn points out, that the ultimate recipient, not some intermediary, must be disclosed in cases along with the proper use category.
	So it was not a legal cutout.
	Yet the complaint against the DNC and Hillary's campaign is slowly working its way through the FEC and the law firm.
	They've not been raided by prosecutors.
	We don't see anyone making, you know, pleading guilty to felonies here.
	Mueller's prosecutors are looking the other way on Uranium One, and that's giving Putin 20% of America's uranium, the foundational material for nuclear weapons.
	We had a spy in there telling Robert Mueller himself about bribery, extortion, money laundering, and kickbacks.
	And Mueller's prosecutors look the other way on, what, a campaign finance violation?
	You don't think this is going to come up for Hillary and that they're going to get away with this?
	There was a great post today by the great one, Mark Levin, on his Facebook page.
	You know, some stuff we already know, sitting president can't be indicted.
	That's official DOJ policy since 73.
	Neither the special counsel nor the SDNY, Southern District of New York, or the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein can defy a 45-year-old policy.
	So it's not an issue for the president.
	He points out also that the Southern District of New York, they're not experts in campaign finance violations.
	And neither is the Clinton appointed judge, district judge.
	They rarely handle these cases.
	Now, they're known for doing great work in the Southern District of New York, especially on terrorism cases and the Blind Shade case and so many others.
	And a lot of great lawyers, Andy McCarthy, Rudy Giuliani, John Sale, who's going to join us later.
	They've all come out of there.
	But the media and others intentionally refused to actually look at what the real rules in context are.
	And they would have you, once they didn't get anything Russia out of the Friday filings, this is what they ran to, regurgitating what prosecutors have merely filed in their own self-serving briefs.
	Now, he points out that the actual campaign rules and context do not include non-disclosure agreements or infinite other contracts or payments or arrangements, acts of a private nature as campaign contributions.
	In other words, especially, you know, 12 years ago, this is normal human behavior.
	People have a right to enter into agreements for whatever reasons they choose to do it.
	Private payments can be made in any manner, any amount.
	And again, they're private payments involving private parties.
	So there's no reporting requirement because they're not campaign payments made with or without campaign funds.
	Top of the fact that the president can donate as much as he wants to his campaign, even if it was, but it's not.
	And the Southern District's inclusion in these charges in the Cohn plea deal is kind of a PR attack against the president by an office coordinating with Mueller, obviously aligned with Comey, and they knew that Cohn would plead, but it's why did they believe that version of what Michael Cohn said when he said a very had a very different version when he said he did it on his own with his own money early on and was paid back?
	You know, so I don't think that this would work in any court anyway.
	But, you know, as Mark points out here, they knew the left-wing media politicians would use that to just pivot away from Russia.
	That was all part of the strategy.
	By the way, no due process, no presumption of innocence.
	They knew they couldn't charge a sitting president.
	That's never been brought up either.
	Thus, they convict the president, scream impeachment as loud and as often as they can, and it really has no chance of going anywhere.
	And it's all for political purposes.
	By the way, when have you ever seen judges or people release materials that are redacted the way we saw?
	That's another question.
	And as for impeachment, Mark points out the NDAs involving wholly private matters occurring before the president was even a candidate, unrelated to his office, cannot legitimately trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
	In other words, they could not be more irrelevant.
	And the history of the clause and its high crimes and misdemeanor language make it clear that the office and the president's duties are not affected in any conceivable way by earlier private contacts.
	Now, Gerald Nadler and Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff can say whatever they want.
	Doesn't matter what they say.
	You know, they'll, Mark writes in his piece, he's more than thrilled to be an executioner in this French Revolution redux.
	The Constitution be damned.
	Meanwhile, he and others wave around the Constitution as if they're defending it against a tyrant when in fact it's them who know not its meaning in any way.
	All right, 800-941 Sean, toll free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Jim Jordan, we'll talk about all these things when we get back.
	Who entered the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.
	The president's decision to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless.
	When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.
	Hundreds, hundreds of thousands of families will be ripped apart.
	If you don't think it's illegal, you're not going to say it.
	I think it is illegal and wrong.
	Tens of thousands of American businesses will lose hardworking employees.
	And the argument there, Mr. President, is Americans don't want to do the work.
	We just can't find American workers to do the work.
	Mr. President, that is a crock in many instances.
	It's just not true.
	In my view, Trump's decision to end the DACA program for some 800,000 young people is the cruelest and most ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country.
	I cannot think of one single act which is uglier and more cruel.
	We've got to do several things, and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.
	People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.
	Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx.
	You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.
	You know, itty, this is not a problem that the people who are coming into the country are solely responsible for.
	They wouldn't keep coming if we didn't put them to work.
	My proposal will keep families together and it will include a path to citizenship.
	Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
	We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.
	Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship.
	The flipping, the flopping, the flailing that goes on on the issue of immigration, and of course the beatdown that the president had with Pelosi and Schumer today.
	And he's not given up.
	And it's clear.
	And the other good news is he has the support of even people like Lindsey Graham saying, no, he's got to hold out.
	This is a fight worth fighting.
	And, you know, the president also taking major steps today to rein in the abuse of our welfare system by non-citizens who utilize federal subsidies in far greater numbers than their U.S.-born counterpart.
	I mean, 67% of illegal immigrants, according to a recent study that came out.
	And the president now also threatening that if he has to, he'll use the military to get the wall built that way.
	And that exchange goes back and forth.
	He says, look, get it done.
	I'll have the military do it.
	And if I have to shut down the government, it's a myth that Republicans get hurt by government shutdowns.
	They were afraid to do it when Obama was president.
	Now they're afraid to do it when a Republican's president.
	They're just afraid.
	So, you know, 3,000 people on a single day got caught jumping the border recently.
	And there's nothing that they're proposing, meaning Nancy or Chuck, that is going to fix that.
	Anyway, Jim Jordan, Freedom Caucus member with us, by the way, our two Sean Hannity show, 800-941, Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
	What did you think of the president's exchange with Pelosi and Schumer today?
	Sean, I loved it.
	I mean, this is why the American people elected this guy president, because he is standing firm and going to, this is not about shutdown.
	This is about doing what we said, doing what we told the voters we were going to do.
	And one, the central promises made in the 2016 campaign is that we were going to build a border security wall.
	We were going to get control of the border.
	And the president is standing firm for that.
	We took a position as a Freedom Caucus last night that we will only think about supporting this big spending bill if, in fact, we do what the president said today.
	So I thought it was great.
	And I think the American people think the same thing.
	Well, look, he pointed out that everywhere the wall is, it's 100% certainty we stop all illegal immigration.
	Also, it's good.
	We saw a potential catastrophe building with the caravan.
	And as much as if what happened at the southern border of Mexico, and it was attempted up here, had happened up here and we didn't have the means to stop them, then at that point, it becomes unlimited illegal immigration into the country.
	And also, you know, it was bad enough to watch rocks and bottles being thrown at our ICE guys and the border patrol people, but it was happening right before our eyes.
	Yeah.
	The president is, this is common sense, and the president is standing strong for common sense reform here.
	Build the wall and reform our asylum law.
	Stop the catch and release, change our asylum law.
	And if you do those two things, this caravan phenomena that we've watched the last several weeks, that's how you deal with it.
	That's how you send the right message.
	That's how you have orderly legal immigration, not what we've been seeing the last several weeks with this caravan and the attempts to try to get over the wall, under the wall, through the fence, all the things they're trying to do.
	So again, I love what the president did.
	He stood firm there.
	And I think this is where we got to be.
	Stand firm for doing what we told the American people we were going to do.
	More importantly, what they elected us to do.
	Any insight as to what's going on with Mark Meadows?
	Keep reading his name all over the place as a potential candidate for chief of staff, which I'm sure you would probably like because then it's a coup for you, and you'd be probably back in the driver's seat.
	Well, as chairman, you were the chairman, right?
	But you lost your chairmanship.
	I love what you bring it up.
	You're the honorary member, you know.
	You're the only honorary member outside of our group that's into Freedom Caucus.
	You're the only people I trust.
	Honestly, I will tell you one person that is impressing me more and more is Lindsey Graham.
	Lindsey Graham said, No, this is a fight we're going to have, and the president's going to win.
	And he's right.
	We have to win it because if not, this never goes away.
	And it's interesting to watch the Democrats.
	There's nothing that, apparently, that the president would offer them that they would take because they so desperately want to just say no to him and not be seen as making any deals with this president.
	So that means no progress at all for the country if they follow up on that.
	It doesn't matter what the president's for, they're against it.
	You played the montage there at the front end where it shows all the things they said before.
	Now they're for the borderless hemisphere, as their candidate for president said in 2016.
	They're for abolishing ICE.
	So they've changed dramatically.
	To your first question, Mark Meadows would be a tremendous chief of staff.
	I hate to lose him on Capitol Hill because he's my best friend up here, but he would be great for the president if that's who the president chooses.
	I think the country and the president and our entire nation is well served if that's who he picks.
	But on this immigration issue, Lindsay, Senator Graham is exactly right.
	Stand firm, Mr. President.
	Stand firm.
	Let's get this done.
	Now we've got a few weeks left where we have the majorities in both houses.
	Let's make it happen.
	Well, I said Mitch McConnell saying that he's going to go forward.
	How do you feel about the prison reform bill?
	I interviewed Jared Kushner last night.
	The one thing that had bothered me is one part that Tom Cotton had been pointing out.
	There can't be any possibility that any violent felons are released as part of that deal.
	But on the other hand, do you remember Alice Marie Johnson, the woman when she had her sentence commuted by the president?
	She comes out of prison, 20-plus years in prison, one-time offender, it was a drug deal.
	And she got out and she said something that I thought was amazing.
	She said, first, thank you to the president.
	Thanks to the country.
	And then she went on and said, I'm never going to let you down.
	Thank you for giving me a second chance.
	And then I got a chance to interview her, and she's as lovely or more lovely in person.
	Yep.
	We have to find those people that deserve that second chance and maybe even transform the use of the pardon power of the president.
	I'd love to see that.
	Exactly.
	We're all in need of God's grace.
	If you do something wrong, you're going to have to serve your time.
	But while you're in prison, let's get you the training, the help that you need so that when you do get out, you can go on with your life and get that second chance.
	And I know Jared has been working hard on this.
	We think this is the kind of legislation that makes sense.
	There were some concerns that Senator Cotton raised.
	I think those are being addressed.
	We had Mike Lee at our Freedom Caucus meeting last night.
	Mike's been a strong proponent of this legislation.
	So, again, I think Jod and the team have done a lot of good work.
	And let's see if we can get this thing done.
	And I think we can.
	All right.
	So let's imagine at first I was a little concerned, and I heard Nadler and some others saying, We're going to end the deep state investigation almost immediately.
	There's no point.
	So we all knew that was going to happen.
	However, we now had the testimony of, were you in the testimony when Comey gave it last week?
	Heck yeah.
	The whole time.
	Okay.
	And James Comey literally said, he said in that meeting, well, first of all, he said, I don't remember, some 250 times.
	Put that aside.
	He never vetted the dossier.
	We already knew it, but now he's on record saying they never vetted the dossier, but he put his signature to it, right?
	And Sally Yates did, and Rod Rosenstein did, right?
	Yeah.
	Well, I think it's even worse, Sean.
	He didn't know anything about Christopher Steele.
	So it's one thing to take his work.
	You don't know anything about the work product.
	The guy who wrote the work product that you took to the court to get the warrant, he never talked to Christopher Steele, didn't know Christopher Steele was meeting with Brussels, a top Justice Department official, didn't know that Brussels was passing Chris Steele's information to the FBI, didn't know that they had terminated Christopher Steele, didn't know that Christopher Steele continued to give information to the FBI after he was terminated.
	didn't know any of that, and yet takes his work product to the FISA court to get the warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
	Literally, that was the biggest takeaway I had: you didn't know squat about the key guy whose work product was the basis for the whole darn thing.
	Have you heard about this email chain that John Solomon was reporting about?
	Now, there were three buckets that the president has talked about that he would unredact and release to the American people.
	Bucket one would be the FISA applications.
	Both the Nunes and Grassley Graham memos say that the bulk of information came from the dossier that we now know they never vetted.
	On top of that, Christopher Steele has since distanced his own self from that by saying, I have no idea if any of it's true when he was threatened with perjury in an interrogatory in Great Britain.
	But then we want the 302's gang of ape, but there's also this email letter chain.
	Comey is on it.
	And what can you tell us about it?
	I asked him about it.
	He didn't know that was another one of his 245, I don't know.
	So I did ask him about an email chain relative to the fact that Christopher Steele, this was in Mr. Solomon's reporting, and I went basically from Mr. Solomon's reporting that Mr. Steele had met with reporters in September 2016 prior to, again, his dossier being taken to the FISA court as the basis for the Carter Page FISA.
	So I asked him about that, he didn't know anything about it.
	I specifically asked him, so you didn't know anything about Christopher Steele possibly meeting with Michael Isakop at Yahoo News?
	He didn't know anything about that either.
	I do think we need to come back to that and explore deeper because it was basically two questions is all I got a chance to ask him about.
	I think we need to dig a little deeper into that, but he didn't know anything.
	And that's what he told us in the deposition last week.
	So we have the sentencing memos.
	You know, this is what the whole Mueller investigation has become: lying to the FBI, lying to law enforcement about taxi medallions, loan applications, not paying your taxes, which is really stupid if you don't pay them.
	You got to pay your taxes because that's the easiest way to throw anybody in jail.
	And, you know, so we have all of this hysteria by the media and the left, and they're all throwing around the word impeachment.
	By the way, these are the people that have been hating on the president from day one and even before he got elected.
	The reality is you can't indict a sitting president.
	That's DOJ policy, period.
	Neither the special counsel nor the SDNY nor Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein can defy that policy.
	Not only that, there is no campaign finance violation here for a multitude of reasons, which I went into earlier today.
	Right.
	No, right.
	I mean, this is all about, you know, Cohen did a lot of things he shouldn't have done.
	Mr. Manafort didn't register right as a lobbyist.
	It's all that kind of stuff.
	But where's the relationship to what the underlying mission of the special counsel was?
	Where is any type of collusion or coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to date?
	Not one bit of evidence in any of that to show that there was any type of coordination.
	So I always just come back to the basics.
	That's what Mr. Mueller is supposed to be looking at.
	We have not seen any of that.
	And yet, Jerry Natal and Adam Schiff, they already got the president going to prison.
	No, I don't know.
	Hey, listen, I'm just hoping that the new Attorney General will believe in equal justice under the law and equal application of our laws.
	And if that's the case, and we really are worried about Russian interference, then I think the Uranium One deal shows a lot of stupidity, bad decisions, corruption, and Putin influence.
	And I think the same thing with the dossier that was disseminated to the American people to make Americans vote against Donald Trump.
	I'd like that to be dealt with as well.
	But stay right there.
	More with our good friend, Representative Jim Jordan, House Freedom Caucus member.
	And as we continue with Jim Jordan, House Freedom Caucus member, Congressman from Ohio.
	All right, so it's a little different.
	I mean, it's a good thing I will say that the president worked so hard to save the Senate because it doesn't matter what Nancy Pelosi does in the end or what the House Democrats do, as extreme as they are, but it makes your job harder.
	And if they come in with a cannon of subpoenas as they are telegraphing, how do you in the minority fight that?
	You focus on the truth.
	I mean, that's all that's what you've been focused on, Sean, does such a good job with.
	What we've been focused on, Mark Meadows, Matt Gates, and a bunch of us in the House, you focus on the truth.
	And that's got to be our job.
	So, look, we have an obligation, constitutional duty, to provide oversight of the federal government, particularly in the oversight committee, where Elijah Cummings already had 64 subpoenas he wanted to send this Congress.
	So we assume those are coming the next Congress.
	But we focus on the truth.
	They're going to drive how they want to, and they're going to do what they want in subpoenas and hearings and bring people in and all the things they do.
	Our job is to focus on the public.
	Could you imagine if anybody deleted their emails when they were subpoenaed by Gerald Nadler or any other committee chair of the Democrats and then used acid wash, bleach pit to clean the hard drive and bust up their devices?
	I wonder what they'd say then.
	I wonder if they subpoenaed me and I did all those things.
	What do you think would happen?
	You'd be in big trouble.
	This is the double standard that drives people crazy, and you've talked about it, but it's so true.
	One set of rules for us regular folk, but a different set of your name is Steve, Lynch, Lerner, Paige, Strzok, you get a different set of rules.
	You know, one of the things I was struck with, too, and I actually asked this question of Mr. Comey.
	Think about it, go to the basics.
	Remember, it was the same people who ran the Clinton investigation who then took over and launched and ran the Russian investigation.
	And I think you go right back to the beginning.
	Think of the names they gave each of those investigations.
	One was called the mid-year exam.
	That's sort of like you had to get through this.
	We had to go kind of make it look like we were doing it, but the fix was in and they were going to make sure Clinton was exonerated.
	And then the other one was called Crossfire Hurricane, which I just think when you step back and think about the names and what those names imply, that sort of right from the get-go shows you there was some extreme bias against President Trump right from the get-go.
	July of 16, right from the get-go.
	All right, Jim Jordan, thank you.
	800.
	You know, I'm going to play, you know, why don't we play this exchange in full when we get back?
	Then we'll take some calls on it because I've been referring to it now since the first hour.
	800-941-Sean is our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Later on, John Sale will look at the prosecutorial head.
	The president is in trouble over campaign finance.
	Forget Russia collusion.
	It's campaign finance now.
	The answer is no.
	We'll explain and more coming up straight ahead.
	Hannity, oh, we got a great show tonight, 9 Eastern.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
	I know a lot of you missed it earlier today.
	I think it's worth it.
	It's like a 10-minute exchange here with the President Pelosi and Schumer in the Oval Office and dealing with government funding, government shutdown possibility, and funding the wall.
	Lindsey Graham's back in the president, Republicans are back in the president.
	They're saying, no, we made a promise.
	This is what people want them to do.
	That's fight.
	Stand up and fight because it's the right thing to do.
	And so here's that exchange, which I just thought the president just nailed them multiple times, and it was great.
	Listen to this.
	We may not have an agreement today.
	We probably won't.
	But we have an agreement on other things that are really good.
	Nancy, would you like to say something?
	Well, thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to meet with you so that we can work together in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the American people.
	I think the American people recognize that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is not worth anything, and that you should not have a Trump shutdown.
	You have the right to do it.
	You have the White House.
	You have the Senate.
	You have the House of Representatives.
	You have the vote.
	You should pass it.
	No, we don't have the vote, Nancy, because in the Senate we need 60 votes.
	And we don't have it.
	You can bring it up right now.
	Yeah, but I can't, excuse me.
	But I can't get it passed in the House if it's not going to pass in the Senate.
	I don't want to waste time.
	Well, the fact is, you can get it started that way.
	The House, we can get past very easily.
	And we do.
	But the problem is the Senate, because we need 10 Democrats to vote, and they won't vote.
	The point is that there are equities to be weighed.
	And we're here to have a conversation in a prayerful way, so I don't think we should have a debate in front of the press on this.
	But the fact is the House Republicans could bring up this bill, if they had the votes, immediately and set the tone for what you want.
	If we thought we were going to get it passed in the Senate, Nancy, we would do it immediately.
	We'd get it passed very easily in the House.
	We would get it, Nancy, I'd have it passed in two seconds.
	It doesn't matter, though, because we can't get it passed in the Senate because we need 10 Democrat votes.
	That's it.
	Again, let us have our conversation, then we can meet with the press again.
	But the fact is, is that legislating, which is what we do, you begin, you make your point, you state your case.
	That's what the House Republicans could do if they had the votes.
	But there are no votes in the House, a majority of votes, for a wall, no matter where you stand.
	Exactly right.
	You don't have to do that.
	If I needed the votes for the wall in the House, I would have them in one session.
	It would be done.
	Go do it.
	It doesn't help because we need 10 Democrats in the Senate.
	Put it on the negotiation.
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	And we're doing this in a very friendly manner.
	It doesn't help for me to take a vote in the House where I will win easily with the Republicans.
	It doesn't help to take that vote because I'm not going to get the vote of the Senate.
	I need 10 senators.
	That's the problem.
	You have the White House.
	You have the Senate.
	I have the White House.
	The White House is done.
	And the House would give me the vote if I wanted it.
	But I can't because I need, Nancy, I need 10 votes from Chuck.
	Let me say something.
	Let me just say one thing.
	The fact is, you do not have the votes in the House.
	Nancy, I do.
	And we need border security.
	Nancy.
	Let's find out.
	Nancy, we need border security.
	It's very simple.
	Of course we do.
	We need border security.
	People are pouring into our country, including terrorists.
	We have terrorists.
	We caught 10 terrorists over the last very short period of time.
	10.
	These are very serious people.
	Our border agents, all of our law enforcement has been incredible, what they've done.
	But we caught 10 terrorists.
	These are people that were looking to do harm.
	We need the wall.
	We need, more important than anything, we need border security, of which the wall is just a piece.
	But it's important.
	Chuck, did you want to say something?
	Sorry, here's what I want to say.
	We have a lot of disagreements here.
	The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of Pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much of the wall is built and how much is there.
	But that's not the point here.
	We have a disagreement about the wall.
	Washington.
	Whether it's effective or better.
	Not on border security, but on the wall.
	We do not want to shut down the government.
	You have called 20 times to shut down the government.
	You say, I want to shut down the government.
	We don't.
	We want to come to an agreement.
	If we can't come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass the House and Senate right now and will not shut down the government.
	And that's what we're urging you to do.
	Not threaten to shut down the government because you just finished because you can't get your way.
	Let me say something, Mr. President.
	You just say, my way, or we'll shut down the government.
	We have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do a CR that will not shut down the government.
	We urge you to take it.
	And if it's not good border security, I will take it.
	It's very good border security.
	And if it's not good border security, I won't take it.
	Because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our border security, and when you look at the job that we're doing, you just said it is effective.
	Can I tell you something?
	Yeah, you just said it.
	Without a wall, these are only areas where you have the walls.
	Where you have walls, Chuck, it's effective.
	Where you don't have walls, it is not effective.
	Let's call a halt to this.
	We've come in here as the first branch of government.
	Article 1, the legislative branch.
	We're coming in in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open.
	We're going to keep it open if we have border security.
	If we don't have border security, Chuck, we're not going to keep it open.
	We are going to have border security.
	And it's the same border.
	You're bragging about what has been done.
	We want to do the same thing we did last year, this year.
	That's our proposal.
	If it's good then, it's good now, and it won't shut down the government.
	Chuck, we can build up.
	A much bigger section.
	Let's debate on that.
	Let's debate in private.
	Okay, yeah, let's debate in private.
	It is devoid, frankly, of fact, and we can.
	We need border security.
	I think we all agree that we need border security.
	Yes, we do.
	Good, we do.
	See?
	We get along.
	Thank you, everybody.
	President, you say border security and the wall.
	Can you have border security without the wall?
	You need the wall.
	The wall is a part of border security.
	We need border security.
	The wall is a part of border security.
	You can't have very good border security without the wall.
	That's basically not true.
	That is a political promise.
	Border security is a way to effectively honor our responsibility.
	And the experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem.
	It totally solves the problem.
	And it's very important.
	This has spiraled downwards when we came at a place to say, how do we meet the needs of American people who have needs?
	The economy has, people are losing their jobs.
	The market's in a mood.
	Our members are already in the world.
	But we have the lowest unemployment that we've had in 50 years.
	60 people of the Republican Party are losing their offices now because of the transition.
	People are not at the middle of the year.
	But we've gained in the Senate.
	Nancy, we've gained in the Senate.
	Excuse me, did we win the Senate?
	We won the Senate.
	When the President brags that he won North Dakota and Indiana, he's in real trouble.
	I did.
	Let me say this.
	We did win North Dakota.
	This is the most unfortunate thing.
	We came in here in good faith, and we're entering into this kind of a discussion in the public meeting.
	But it's not bad, Nancy.
	It's called transparency.
	I know it's high transparency when we're not stipulating to a set of facts and when we want to have a debate with you about saying we confront some of those facts.
	You know what?
	We need border security.
	That's what we're going to be talking about, border security.
	If we don't have border security, we'll shut down the government.
	This country needs border security.
	The wall is a part of border security.
	Let's have a talk.
	We're going to get the wall built.
	We've done a lot of wall already.
	That's big a part of border security as a wall built.
	It's a big section.
	It's a big part of it.
	Is it everything that you need?
	It's a big part of it.
	We need to have effective border security.
	We need a wall in certain parts.
	No, not in all parts, but in certain parts of a 2,000-mile border.
	We need a wall.
	How much money?
	We are doing it much under budget.
	We're actually way under budget on the areas that we've renovated and areas that we've built.
	I would say if we got $5 billion, we could do a tremendous chunk of wall.
	Is there any way to accept less, though?
	And are your guests?
	Well, we're going to see.
	We're going to see.
	Look, we have to have the wall.
	This isn't a question.
	This is a national emergency.
	Drugs are pouring into our country.
	People with tremendous medical difficulty and medical problems are pouring in, and in many cases, it's contagious.
	They're pouring into our country.
	We have to have border security.
	We have to have a wall as part of border security.
	And I don't think we really disagree so much.
	I also know that Nancy is in a situation where it's not easy for her to talk right now.
	And I understand that.
	And I fully understand that.
	We're going to have a good discussion, and we're going to see what happens.
	But we have to have border security.
	Mr. President, please don't characterize the strength that I bring for this meeting as the leader of the House Democrats who just won a big victory.
	Elections have consequences, Mr. President.
	Sandy just said.
	That's right.
	And that's why the country is doing so well.
	But the President is representing in terms of his cards over there are not factual.
	We have to have an evidence-based conversation about what does work, what money has been spent, and how effective it is.
	This is about the security of our country, to take an oath to protect and defend.
	And we don't want to have that mischaracterized by anyone.
	I agree with you.
	No, no, I agree with it.
	So let us have a conversation where we don't have to contradict in public the statistics that you put forth, but instead can have a conversation about what will really work and what the American people deserve from us at this uncertain time in their lives.
	The one thing I think we can agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute.
	And you want to shut it down.
	You keep talking about it.
	The last time, Chuck, you shut it down.
	No, no, no.
	And then you opened it.
	20 times.
	I don't want to do what you did.
	20 times you have called for, I will shut down the government if I don't get my woe.
	None of us, if you want to know something, you want to put that in.
	You said it.
	I'll take it.
	Okay, good.
	You know what I'll say?
	Yes.
	If we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government.
	Okay, that's fair enough.
	And I am proud, and I'll be just because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country.
	So I will take the mantle.
	I will be the one to shut it down.
	I'm not going to blame you for it.
	The last time you shut it down, it didn't work.
	I will take the mantle of shutting down.
	And I'm going to shut it down for border, but we believe you shouldn't shut it down.
	Thank you very much, everybody.
	Thanks, William Guy.
	Let's go.
	Come on.
	Thanks for being on the street.
	We have a lot of great people for chief of staff.
	A lot of people want the job.
	A lot of people want the job.
	And I have some great people.
	A lot of friends of mine want it.
	A lot of people that Chuck and Nancy know very well want it.
	I think people you'd like.
	We have a lot of people that want the job, chief of staff.
	So we'll be seeing what happens very soon.
	We're in no rush.
	Why?
	We're in no rush.
	Why no rush, Mr. President?
	Why?
	Because we have a wonderful chief of staff right now.
	We are in no rush.
	Over a period of a week or two, or maybe less, we'll announce who it's going to be.
	But we have a lot of people that want the position.
	Thank you very much, everybody.
	Thanks, guys.
	All right, so that was from earlier today.
	That was the president with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, in the Oval Office.
	I'll take a quick break here.
	We'll come back.
	We'll continue.
	800-941 Sean is on number.
	We'll get to your calls when we get back.
	John Sale, formerly of the Southern District of New York prosecutor, is going to analyze this ridiculous notion that campaign finance is the big Mueller find here because it's not and it's ridiculous and anyone that tells you it is doesn't know what they're talking about.
	All right, as we continue, let's get to our busy phones here.
	Michael is in Pittsburgh, PA.
	Mike, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called, sir.
	Dr. Sean, good afternoon.
	The only problem I think I have is the fact that the representatives created a slush fund from our money, and they went ahead and paid off women to accuse them supposedly of sexually harassing them.
	And I don't know who these women are.
	Was it someone's cousin?
	Was it their sister?
	I mean, we have no way to trace how much hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars of our money.
	And we don't know who they were.
	We don't know what happened, but we knew that with Mr. Kavanaugh.
	We know it was Mr. Trump, President Trump.
	I'd like a little, you know, a little openness about.
	This is what I know.
	And this was printed.
	This goes back a year now.
	And I remember first seeing it in the New York Post.
	You know, like Democratic control House members, they want to impeach President Trump for non-disclosure agreement payments or whatever.
	You know, a lot of times they're made just to make things go away and it's cheaper.
	Other times it's true and accurate and they pay a lot of money.
	But the difference here is, and I think you're raising a point.
	I think we have a right to know because I think there's going to be a lot of explaining to do, Republicans and Democrats, if they're spending millions of our tax dollars to silence women who accuse them of everything from sexual harassment to worse.
	And that would include a whole lot of Democrats who stand accused.
	Now, say what you will, the president's issues, believe them or not, were 12 years ago.
	And the president, which we know, would use his own money.
	But not the case of Congress.
	You know, we had a Congresswoman who testified that current members of Congress are known sexual harassers and that $15 million of taxpayer money has been paid to hush accusers.
	Okay.
	And Representative Jackie Speyer told, you know, a news outlet that millions have been doled out.
	And even CNN reported, according to Congressional Office of Compliance, there were 268 settlements.
	Okay.
	We're footing the bill for that.
	Now, if you want to pay somebody off and have your own non-disclosure agreement, have at it, but don't make me pay for it.
	I'm not paying for it.
	At least we should have the knowledge of what went on, right?
	Yeah, I think the hashto hash, was it hashtag me to or the bring back the girls?
	That's all going to be fake and it's all going to be for naught if they don't really push it here.
	I mean, they really need to go after these people, whether they're Republicans.
	I'll bring this up tonight.
	You're raising a good point.
	All right.
	Thank you so much for the call.
	800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
	All right.
	Former SDNY Southern District New York prosecutor, John Sale, will join us.
	We'll get his analysis on this whole campaign finance non-issue, but we'll get his take on it straight ahead as we continue.
	Coming up next, our final news roundup, an information overload hour.
	If it is proven that the president directed or coordinated with Cohen to commit these felonies, are those impeachable offenses?
	Well, they would be impeachable offenses.
	Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question, but certainly they'd be impeachable offenses.
	This president, in my estimation, has done everything possible to certainly be eligible for impeachment.
	And so I really do think that it should be started.
	I think what this totality of today's filings show, that the House is going to have little choice the way this is going other than to start impeachment proceedings.
	This is a man who came in and said, I'm bigger than the House.
	I'm bigger than checks and balances.
	I'm bigger than the judicial community.
	I'm bigger than the free press.
	And he's going to pay for that the rest of his life.
	When immigrants procure their citizenship by fraud, we strip them of their citizenship.
	When a president procures his presidency by fraud, should we consider doing the same?
	That can be a criminal case if they can prove willfulness there.
	I also think it has potentially grounds for impeachment.
	I think the American people would support impeachment.
	Donald Trump will be, must be impeached.
	He's got to know his future looks like it's behind bars.
	Donald Trump is a criminal enterprise.
	It certainly looks like they are the kind of offenses that would call for impeachment hearings.
	You have this memorable phrase of individual number one.
	You know, it's going to go down, I think, in the history books along with some of those memorable Watergate phrases.
	Do you agree with Congressman Adam Schiff, who's going to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, that President Trump could be indicted and possibly face jail time after he leaves office?
	Yes.
	These are felonies that we're talking about.
	As it relates to impeachment, Anderson, the Constitution could not be any clearer.
	Impeachment is the appropriate remedy for bribery, for treason, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
	It speaks for itself if the president orchestrated and ordered Michael Cohen to break the law, to act in a criminal manner, and did so knowingly, as Jerry Nadler, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said, that would be an impeachable offense, potentially.
	Again, if knowledge was there.
	All right, dudes, round up information overload.
	And yeah, that is your left-wing media and their overreaction and their stupidity and their ignorance all on full display here.
	You know, it's amazing that collectively they were waiting for these sentencing recommendations on Cohn and Manafort and the end of the cooperation deal that Manafort had with the special counsel, thinking that there's a smoking gun.
	So on Russia, but of course, there was nothing.
	For Michael Cohn, we're talking about taxi medallions, financial issues, tax issues, loan applications.
	And for Manafort, pretty much the same thing, nothing to do with Russian collusion.
	So first that raises the question, why might we even be here, right?
	Then on the Michael Cohn, then they found nothing on Russia.
	And then like, we got to get something.
	Well, Michael Cohn said that he did this at the direction of the president.
	Problem with Michael is that's not the only version of that story that he's given.
	He said actually that he did it on his own without any input for the president.
	When the president found out, he paid him back.
	So that turns into a whole different thing.
	I go back to Levin's piece earlier that I mentioned that he put up on Facebook.
	When you look at actual campaign rules and the wording and the context, they don't include non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature as campaign contributions.
	In other words, it's normal human behavior that was never intended ever, nor is it mentioned, to be regulated or reported.
	So the Southern District of New York, which I have a lot of respect for, in this case, I believe is way off course.
	And whatever private payments might have been made in any amount by anybody, they're private payments involving private matters.
	And to underscore, there's no reporting requirement because they're not campaign payments made with or without campaign funds.
	So the inclusion of this and their desire to only believe the version of events that fits their narrative doesn't really work in a court of law.
	And as a practical matter, how do you get to pick and choose which version of somebody's story that you want?
	He's not a cooperating witness in this particular case.
	But, you know, this is what the left wing does.
	This is what they've been now calling for for two years.
	And as for impeachment, I mean, there's nothing dumber that I've heard in my life.
	A non-disclosure agreement is a non-disclosure agreement involving private matters that people agree to.
	They don't have to agree to it, but they choose to agree to it.
	And unrelated to anything that ever had to do with his office or obtaining his office.
	And how, you know, how we get to this point is just showing you how desperate and political things have become in this atmosphere of Destroy Trump.
	Anyway, John Sale is a former federal prosecutor.
	He served in the Southern District of New York as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor as well.
	And Sale has particular understanding of the Southern District of New York, probably the most prestigious, I guess, in the country.
	Is that a fair statement, John Sale?
	I think it is, even though I've been in other U.S. Attorney's offices.
	I think it is.
	I think it's, but I mean, the cases that have, and you worked with Andy, I think, on the blind shake case, didn't you?
	You worked with Rudy over the years as well.
	Well, I worked with Rudy over the years.
	The judge in the blind chic case was my good friend Michael Muckeze.
	Brian, I mean, the names that come out of here are who's who in terms of legal minds and political powerhouse people.
	And the Southern District of New York are taken on some of the biggest, hardest cases, especially with terrorism and other issues.
	What is your reaction to all of this?
	Do you think there's any validity to this campaign finance argument?
	Well, I think that that's a pretty easy one.
	For starters, when Michael Cohn first entered his plea, he pled to, as you pointed out before, he pled to matters involving his own misdeeds, false tax returns, false applications to loans, having nothing in the world to do with the president.
	And they threw in a couple of so-called campaign violations, and he gratuitously added, oh, and it was directed by, obviously he was referring to the president.
	And then his lawyer went on TV and tried to sell his cooperation to the special counsel, which is a kind of a bizarre way to do it.
	So now he's changed his story for about the eighth time.
	But I'll tell you, Sean, something that really is unusual.
	And as I said, I'm proud of my former office.
	But usually when two prosecutors' offices take different positions, they don't do it publicly.
	They'll sit down, sometimes with the Department of Justice being the referee, and then they take a uniform position.
	So here you see the special counsel saying that he was helpful somewhat, and you have the Southern District blasting him in a sentencing memo.
	But to get back to your question, I mean, first of all, it's only Michael Cohn who is saying he was authorized by individual number one, which I think it's disingenuous to say individual number one because we all know who he's referring to.
	But I don't concede that that happened because of his credibility.
	But if it did happen, and just for the sake of argument, it's a specific intent crime.
	So they would have to prove that individual number one knew it was against the law, which they can't prove.
	And it's also an offense which is rarely prosecuted criminally and is usually dealt with by a fine.
	So, you know, is that impeachable?
	Well, spitting on the sidewalk is impeachable if a Congress votes it is.
	But of course it's not an impeachable offense in fairness.
	And I'm not, I don't join the bandwagon.
	I watch a TV show regularly, Sean, and I'm a big fan.
	But I don't necessarily agree that Mueller's office is on a witch hunt, but I just think they're wrong.
	And I think the fairness, you frequently talk about the investigation is tainted.
	I think you don't have to go there to just look at what are they doing regarding the president.
	And I'm not here to defend the president, but what they're doing regarding the president is unfair, the special counsel's office.
	These redacted pleadings to me are appalling that they're filed publicly.
	And I called four different, very seasoned federal judges in different parts of the country.
	And I asked every one of them, have you ever in your 20-some-odd years sitting on the bench seen anything like that?
	And every single one of them said no.
	And here's my problem.
	X, or whichever one we're talking about, in public, they file a document that says he provided very valuable information regarding, and then it's all blank.
	So what does that lead to?
	Speculation about, is it X, is it Y. I'm not going to mention their names because I'm going to then contribute to the problem of destroying their reputations.
	That information should be filed under seal so that nobody's speculating and nobody is in their imagination creating evidence about the president, about the president's family.
	And the only thing it tells me is that this investigation is probably not coming to a close.
	And I think it should.
	And I think there, as I have said before, if a special counsel does a very thorough investigation and it does not incriminate the president, they have not failed.
	If the evidence shows it does, then that's one thing.
	But we have not seen any evidence to incriminate the president.
	And everyone is on some of the other networks.
	Everyone is speculating.
	And that's all it is.
	Unless they are able to get away from the current.
	Well, here's some of my problems.
	Let me tell you where my main criticisms are, is I think we've lost any sense of equal application of our laws, equal justice of our laws under our laws.
	I can compartmentalize and break down each individual case for you, but there are a whole lot of people I have listed that have been caught lying to either Congress or to the FBI, and nothing has happened to them.
	I'm worried about a double standard.
	I'm worried about in the Michael Flynn case, the abuse of surveillance.
	They ended up unmasking him and leaking raw intelligence against him, which is against the law.
	He wasn't doing anything nefarious except talking to a future counterpart.
	Nobody in the FBI thought Michael Flynn had lied when they did the interview with him, but yet he signed on to that because he's bankrupt.
	And I would suspect they probably said, well, we're going to go after your son.
	And he probably dove on his sword.
	I think it's a pretty good educated guess.
	We know they were writing an exoneration of Hillary in May where they had written in the legal standard, gross negligence, and changed it, shifted it to extreme carelessness.
	That was in early May of 2016.
	Comey said that he wasn't writing it before he interviewed her.
	That was a lie.
	And Peter Strzok and James Comey were writing that.
	And then it ends up that I felt like they gave her a pass.
	I think that it's a clear violation of having top secret classified information on an outside server the way she did.
	And their original assessment was that as many as six foreign intelligence agencies hacked into it.
	And then we have, of course, the beginning of the Russians investigations.
	Comey said Friday, leased a page before that they had nothing after nine months of looking at it.
	So why after nine months did they start with a special counsel that James Comey helped precipitate?
	And then we get into the issue of the Russian dossier and lying to FISA courts.
	For Jim Comey to say they never vetted or verified anything in that document that he signed that would spy on an American citizen, a Trump campaign official.
	If we really care about Russian influence, I think we would dig into that matter as deeply as any matters involving Trump.
	I think the Uranium One deal is even more problematic because we ended up handing over 20% of America's uranium.
	While we had a spy inside of Putin's network in America, we knew they wanted a foothold in the uranium industry.
	Our spy was telling our top FBI official at the time, Robert Mueller, that there was blackmail, bribery, extortion, and kickbacks going on.
	It still happened, and the people involved kicked back $145 million of the Clinton Foundation.
	So if we cared about Russian influence, we would be also covering those stories, and they're not.
	In the particular cases I'm mentioning here, I feel like I have real evidence and corroboration where they have none as it relates to Trump.
	So the double standard is glaring to me.
	Well, Sean, you lay out a very plausible case, and I think there should be an investigation of all of that.
	And I give all of the people you're referring to the presumption of innocence.
	Oh, hang on one second.
	Why don't we pick it up there?
	I want to give you a full chance to respond.
	More with John Sale, 800-941, Sean.
	And as we continue with John Sale, former federal prosecutor, served in the Southern District of New York and also served as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor.
	All right.
	I gave you this whole litany of where I believe the double standard is, and you were saying.
	I was saying before, you ought to go to the break, that you lay out a very plausible case, and I think it should all be investigated by a legitimate, appropriate investigator, probably the Department of Justice.
	I mean, I don't, I think there's too many special counsels around having been part of a special prosecution of Watergate.
	You know, I think we all came away thinking that there's a problem.
	You have to do it right, but there's really no accountability.
	That's the danger with a special counsel.
	But switching to the president, I think that should be investigated, and I think every person you mentioned should get the presumption of innocence.
	But where is that presumption of innocence for the president?
	I mean, and what do you think?
	But how can we justify all of this time?
	Two years worth of investigative work with no evidence, and then they're going after people, you know, with 35 years of serving their country track records of lying to the FBI.
	By the way, doesn't that render, doesn't that take away motivation for those of us that love the FBI from ever wanting to talk to them if that's the result?
	Well, I think we should respect the FBI.
	I think most of us, I know, I know you do, and because I have an active law practice in Miami, and I deal with the FBI all the time, and most of them are one of the best professionals.
	But, Sean, it's not the FBI.
	I mean, it's just what's going on possibly with a few individuals.
	But again, I don't want to prejudge them, but I would say other people who are prejudging the president and making outrageous statements based upon nothing.
	And that's based upon redactions.
	That's the double standard.
	I got to run.
	John Sale, I'm just way behind.
	Thank you, my friend.
	800-941-Sean.
	Toll-free telephone number.
	There's a voice of sanity in this.
	Finally.
	Quick break.
	Right back.
	We'll continue.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	Toll-free telephone numbers, 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	I can't tell you everything I'm doing tomorrow until I get on the air tomorrow, but I'm doing something very cool.
	And, you know, at this time of year, especially, knowing all of you in this audience, your great love, your passion, your understanding of the sacrifice of so many others for us.
	One group we've really gotten to know in recent years is Troops Direct.
	They're an organization that gets needed supplies, tools to deploy troops.
	And I'm not saying this.
	We work with a lot of military charities, but they get the supplies to the troops that they need and the tools they need when they're sent overseas so they're not underprepared.
	And it's donations from we, the people, the American people, that keep this nonprofit organization going all year long.
	And, you know, look, we go about our daily lives.
	We don't stop every minute, every second of every day, and think about what sacrifice goes on behind the scenes and on the front lines for us.
	But at this time of year, we think about giving and we think about all that we have.
	And one of the great blessings we have are so many men and women that want to serve us and keep us free so that we can live in peace are our brave men and women.
	And they sacrifice a lot to do it.
	Their families sacrifice a lot to let them do it.
	Anyway, joining us now is Aaron Nierbaum, who's with us, founder executive director, and Jake Jones is with us.
	Guys, how are you?
	Good to talk to you again.
	What's going on?
	Hi, Sean.
	Good afternoon.
	How are you?
	You know, the only thing I don't understand is why, for example, we're deploying people without needed helmets, body armor, carriers, and some fundamental things that the government should be providing.
	We now had a big increase in our military budget.
	Why are they still without some basics?
	Well, Sean, when I founded Troops Direct in 2010, that was the question I asked as well.
	And I thought our troops had everything that they needed when they were in harm's way defending our country.
	And I found that that was just not the case because of bureaucracies, red tape, the slow logistics sometimes of the military, that our troops need things immediately for their missions and to protect their lives and the lives of their brethren in a manner that's quicker sometimes than the military supply chain is.
	And I have Jake Jones, who works full-time for us, who was a recipient of our support.
	And he said, I need to be a part of this.
	And, you know, that's why we exist, is to support our troops immediately to help them get their jobs done and get them back home.
	But, Sean, I'll let Jake speak more to it.
	Jake, why don't you fill us in on all the things that you guys are doing and the things that they need?
	Well, it's really a myriad of things, Sean.
	We support anything that doesn't go boomer bang through our ITAR compliant vendors.
	So it's anything from boots to rifle scopes, laser range finders, helmets, body armor, advanced medical kits.
	And these things are in demand every day.
	I mean, I spend approximately tens of thousands of dollars monthly in the support that we provide to our service members overseas.
	And it's all done through the patriotic donations of just mom and pops from all around the United States that just want to keep America's sons and daughters secure.
	All right, so tell me, you know, so how does it work here?
	You know, you tell stories.
	I know there was a case where a generator that was powering a remote special ops outpost failed and replacement parts were on a 12-month backwater through the military supply chain.
	You were able to acquire and ship those needed parts in less than 72 hours.
	You know, that's mind-numbing bureaucracy to me.
	That's the kind of thing that drives me crazy.
	But, or when a unit was rushed to fight terrorism in the Middle East, but they didn't have the necessary communications equipment.
	I agree.
	Most of this help was needed in the Obama years.
	Are you seeing a shift and a change, though, under the Trump administration, considering they now have considerably increased the military budget?
	And General Mattis.
	You know, Sean, we are seeing an increase in the support through the new Trump administration, whether it be our ability to, with rules of engagement or engagement authorities being pushed down to the tactical level as opposed to the previous administration where it was at the general officer level.
	But yet, you know, the endless terrorist game of whack-a-mole, if you will, that's global.
	We need to have the ability to surge assets at a moment's notice.
	And that's really what we're seeing now is the fluidity of the situation for us to go out and remove terrorists from the battlefield.
	We have to be agile enough to do it.
	And the government doesn't allow them to do that because of the contracting requirements.
	So we can click and ship anything in the world, anything globally within 10 to 15 minutes if it's in stock.
	And if it's not, I'll get it in stock and get it out the door as soon as possible.
	And, you know, Sean, one thing that the public doesn't realize is that we have Americans serving right now, as this program airs, in over 130 countries around the globe, whether it's your special operations teams or it's your regular old infantry service member.
	And they need things sometimes quicker than that airplane from the military can get there.
	And that's why Troops Direct is so valuable because our service members know what they need right now to get their job done.
	And I can tell you, we've unfortunately seen casualties out there in the battle space with units that we have supplied through the years.
	But those Americans have said that without Troops Direct, less missions would be accomplished and more lives would have been lost if it wasn't for the support that we provide them.
	And as you know, Sean, we are the only ones out there that do what we do for our Americans every single day.
	You know, people forget, too, we have Americans deployed, and I know it's hard to believe in 130 different countries.
	And this is a vital role that you guys are playing.
	Look, the bottom line is I wanted to have you on, explain it to our audience, and how can they help?
	We have a very generous audience, especially with military matters.
	You're specifically getting them really important things so they can do their job.
	You know, uniforms, helmets, communication equipment, life support gear.
	So if somebody wants to help and you get to bypass all the bureaucracy, how can they do it?
	Go to troopsdirect.org and make a donation today.
	You know, our overhead is less than 2% here.
	And if you really say you support the troops, this is the way to do it.
	Yeah, the troops like cookies and candy, but the troops need life support systems.
	The troops need replacement uniforms because theirs are bloodied and torn.
	They need the communications that have failed while they're in the battle space.
	And we're the ones that they come to to get them that.
	So the best Christmas gift we can give our troops is the products they need so they can get back home to their families.
	And so don't.
	I'm going to make a donation.
	I don't ask my audience to do something that I myself won't do.
	And I'll gladly give to a great cause such as this.
	We'll put it up on Hannity.com, troopsdirect.org, and there's also all the information you'd ever want to check out the good work that they're doing every day.
	And Merry Christmas to you guys and Godspeed and what you're doing.
	And our thoughts and prayers are always with these men and women that so bravely sacrificed so much for us to give us the opportunities we have every day.
	Well, Sean, you've been a longtime advocate and supporter for us.
	And from the helm here at Troops Direct, I just want to say to you, thank you so much for everything that you do for our troops through your advocacy.
	Well, we appreciate it.
	And we'll put it up on Hannity.com or just remember troopsdirect.org.
	All right.
	Thanks so much for being with us.
	We appreciate it.
	Aaron, thank you.
	Jake, thanks you as well.
	800-941-Sean is on number.
	Greg is in Ohio.
	Greg, hi, how are you?
	Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hello, Sean.
	Just want to say that I've been listening to you for a long time since actually since 2008.
	And I keep hearing over and over again about this Mueller investigation.
	The way to stop it, I think, is for whoever's being investigated, whoever's been found guilty of anything that he's uncovered, should just go and have it all reversed because it's all fruit of the poisonous tree.
	None of this investigation would have started without that dossier.
	And we know the dossier is false.
	Listen, the double standard is what is amazing to me.
	It's so funny because Friday there was a, you could feel it in the air.
	They thought they had the president.
	Then they got to the inner writings of the sentencing recommendations and the Cone case and the Manafort case.
	And when you really break it down, they had nothing.
	There's nothing Russia.
	There's still nothing Russia.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	Then go to Friday's transcript of Jim Comey.
	And Jim Comey, you know, said that, oh, when I was fired, we still hadn't found anything about Russia.
	That's nine months after this whole thing began, nearly a year.
	Lisa Page had said the same thing.
	And what you then have is that dossier that Clinton bought for, that became the basis, again, unverified.
	That's the other amazing thing.
	He said, no, we never verified it, but he put his name to it.
	And that Russian lying dossier that was paid for ought to be as important to the investigation of Mueller, or we need another special counsel to really look into that separately and Uranium One separately.
	But there's real evidence and proof here.
	And the only thing they went back on is this whole issue of campaign finance, which I outlined earlier in the program today.
	And I go back, there is nothing there for them legally at all in spite of what you are hearing.
	Nothing.
	So these are pretty amazing times that we live in.
	And I'm just convinced that you're going to feel, they're going to rise up and say, we got them.
	Impeachment, impeachment.
	But they've been saying that for two years, and it's still the same people.
	You know, if you really listen, it just gets louder at times, and then it lessens.
	And look, Mueller's going to do his thing, he's going to write his report.
	Juliani will write his report, and there's not going to be any crimes.
	You can't indict a sitting president anyway.
	And the Trump administration is going to go on.
	But as you're watching all of this unfold and then the new investigations in Congress, just ask yourself: you know, how is this all for the benefit of the American people?
	Is this going to help the average American?
	Is it going to keep us safer as a country?
	Is it going to provide more opportunities for Americans?
	And the answer is going to be a resounding no.
	And that means that they're doing this purely out of a hatred and a power play that they have orchestrated.
	You know, public servants are supposed to serve their constituents, the people, we, the people.
	That's what was so powerful about the Pelosi, Trump, and Schumer exchange.
	It's the president's like, no, my job's to keep the American people safe.
	And they just can't deal with that reality.
	It's a big issue.
	Anyway, 800-941 Sean is on number.
	Big time AJ Houston, Texas.
	What's going on, baby?
	How are you?
	Big time, Sean Hennedy.
	What's going on?
	Oh, man.
	Hey, real quick.
	Happy Thanksgiving to you guys, all Linda.
	Everybody, everybody up there.
	Why is everybody always sucking up to Linda?
	Everybody's always sucking up to Linda.
	On a phone call earlier today, they're sucking up to Linda.
	I would not mistake true friendship and affection for sucking up.
	You know, some people just like other people.
	No, because they know that you hold the keys to the kingdom and people can get past you.
	Which kingdom is that?
	To get to me, what?
	I don't know.
	I don't have any kingdom.
	My kingdom is a you know, they just like me for my New York brashness, you know, especially people like AJ.
	You know, he's in Texas.
	There's no one like me there.
	No one talks like you there, right, AJ?
	Nobody talks like that.
	You know, it's the first of all.
	That's what we love about her.
	That is the most important.
	We love it.
	I'm glad someone appreciates it.
	Now, America, now that we see who President Trump is for, all the media ought to have egg on their face.
	This man is for the people.
	This man is for this country.
	You see what Nancy and Schumer are doing.
	They dirty rats.
	And I said it.
	And I don't care if they hear me.
	They dirty rats.
	They don't care for America.
	They don't care for our safety.
	We didn't have illegals.
	Like Trump said, we got people coming in here that's doing bad things to this country.
	And they want two million more out of 2,000 more.
	Trump is a man, and don't let nobody fool you, people.
	This man up there making deals.
	This man up there care about the country.
	And if we set back and let the left-wing media dictate what this man is doing, you're right, Sean.
	They're going to hit him like a bad habit.
	But guess what?
	They're hitting the wrong man because Trump is going to hit them back just as bad.
	And I'll bet.
	Thank God we got God.
	I mean, this is what America wanted.
	America wanted a disruptor.
	America wanted a fighter.
	And it's like there's no chance in hell that you're ever going to win a better trade deal with your European allies, China, Mexico, Canada, unless you say, I'm going to pull out of the other one and we're going to have tariffs.
	If the threat isn't real, it's empty.
	And then they're never going to respond.
	So all of that is getting done.
	Some of it already has gotten done.
	Same with NATO.
	Why do we have to pay the bulk of NATO while Angela Merkel stupidly is making multi-billion dollar deals to make Putin and Russia rich again?
	And their entire commodity is based on, you know, the hope that he doesn't turn off the spigot in a fit of rage one day.
	That's a pretty dumb idea.
	John, real quick, the Republican Party, they better know we watching them and they better grow a set like Trump got.
	We see them come on TV just running their mouths and ain't getting nothing done.
	It's a joke what they're doing.
	They better get behind him or they're going to be gone in 2020, the ones that's run as well.
	We tired of them coming on TV.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah.
	We sick of it.
	Get out there and do your job.
	What we sent you up there to do is quit bullcrapping.
	You know, good thing we ain't had a bar.
	All right, big time.
	I think if they hear that rant, they just got their marching orders.
	Do your job.
	All right.
	Big time, AJ, Houston, Texas.
	That's going to wrap things up for today.
	Hannity tonight will have the Trump beatdown on Pelosi and Chucky Schumer and the latest on immigration.
	Also, the absolute stupidity of this campaign finance impeachment hysteria that will never work, and they know it.
	Ted Cruz, Dan Bongino, Solomon, Carter, Greg Jarrett, Jesse, Jessica, all coming up tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲