Sean Hannity Show - Project Veritas Updates - 12.13

Dec. 13, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:05:30

Project Veritas Updates - 12.13

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.
	All right, an unbelievable news day.
	Sit down because you're not going to believe all the news we have on the deep state.
	We've got a ton of battles over the wall a pending shutdown, more fallout as it relates to Michael, what's his name, Michael Cohn.
	But really, I want to start with something, and this is very important because this is, if this is how we are going to treat American war heroes, we don't have a justice system that is fair, that represents a constitutional republic anymore.
	These are not just words.
	If you, let me just, basically, you have now a former FBI director, James Comey, boasting how he, quote, got away with it, meaning pretty much entrapping General Michael Flynn, who was a decorated war hero, 33 years in the military serving his country,
	five years in combat on charges that he lied to FBI interrogators, even though Comey has admitted in the past, Comey has said he didn't lie to anyone, nor did he say that anyone in the FBI thought so.
	But when you get to the whole, the bottom line in this sordid case, it is beyond any comprehension that I think any of us could have what could actually really happen in the United States.
	Now, I'm going to give you all the details of this.
	So we'll start with the Wall Street Journal.
	So there's a new FBI 302 summary of the Flynn interview.
	And then deputy FBI director, by the way, fired for lying in part, Andrew McCabe and other FBI officials, quote, decided the agents would not warn General Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.
	Yeah, and they also told him that, oh, you're not going to need your lawyer.
	This is just standard stuff.
	Quote, this is something I probably wouldn't have done or wouldn't have gotten away with in a more organized administration.
	James Comey's bragging about this, boasting about this on national television.
	Quote, in the George W. Bush administration or the Obama administration, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel.
	There would be discussions and approvals on who would be there.
	And I thought it's early enough.
	Let's just send a couple of guys over.
	Now, if the, you know, let me just send a couple of guys over and then not tell him he doesn't need a lawyer that will tell him that.
	Because if the goal here was to set a legal trap, now, backtrack, remember what we've also learned a while ago now about real crimes committed that nobody seems to care about.
	And that was the illegal surveillance, the lack of minimization, the unmasking, in other words, of the identity of General Flynn, and then the leaking of raw intelligence, meaning the conversation that they should not have had as he appropriately was talking to a soon-to-be Russian counterpart.
	And yeah, policy issues came up.
	And, well, we have a different policy than the last administration.
	So whatever he didn't say that was exactly in connection with probably what they had, which I'm assuming here was a transcript illegally obtained, then, you know, there's no way anybody's ever going to have such a perfect memory, especially at that point, much later down the road.
	So you have two agents now, and James Comey's bragging.
	I wouldn't have done this in another administration.
	Well, this is right at the beginning of the Trump administration.
	And I don't think any administration's organized on day one.
	And so anyway, the two agents show up at the White House hours after McCabe's call where he's saying you don't need a lawyer.
	They reported in the 302 that General Flynn had been relaxed, jocular, clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.
	One of the agents was Peter Strzok, who's famous for his anti-Trump texts, who thought that Trump should have lost $100 million to zero.
	You know, that said he was a loathsome human being.
	Said, no, he's not going to win.
	Said he had an insurance policy, part of a media leak strategy.
	Anyway, the FBI agents had seen the transcripts of Flynn's conversation because he was illegally unmasked by Obama administration officials.
	The 302 says that rather than flag this and ask Flynn for an explanation, the agents decided before the meeting that if Flynn said he didn't remember something that they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used to try to refresh his recollection.
	And if Flynn would not conform to what they said, they would not confront him or talk him through it.
	Now, Flynn's lawyers are requesting probation and community service.
	This case needs to be thrown out if we have any sense of real justice, you know, and protections, Fourth Amendment protections, constitutional protections.
	And McCabe and Strzok, by the way, have both been fired for misconduct.
	And this behavior reeks of entrapment.
	When are these people going to be held responsible?
	Everyone talks about we got to hold everybody responsible, only if you're a Republican, apparently.
	Now, it gets even more interesting because I've long believed that when the facts behind Mueller's decision to prosecute Flynn become publicly known, that this investigation of Mueller becomes a house of cards.
	And, you know, if you could just take the hysteria of the media out of, we got Trump.
	We got him.
	We got him on collusion.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	We don't have collusion.
	No evidence of collusion.
	Three years of investigating, still no evidence of collusion.
	And because they started this way before even the election took place.
	So that, oh, I think we got a campaign finance violation.
	Well, most smart, intelligent lawyers don't think you have that either.
	But at the end of the day here, you know, the Federalists had a great piece up today, the federal judge overseeing Flynn's sentencing, dropping a huge bombshell.
	Now, this has to do with the revelations that following an order entered late yesterday, the presiding judge in this case is a guy by the name of Judge Emmett Sullivan.
	What's fascinating about him is, remember what they did to Senator Ted Stevens, lost his seat over this whole thing, but he was the judge that found out all the exculpatory evidence in that particular case.
	I don't remember all the details of it at this point, but there was a grave miscarriage of justice there.
	And this is the judge that insisted on finding it.
	Now, Judge Emmett Sullivan is directing the special counsel's office to file with the court any 302s, any memorandum relevant to Flynn's interview.
	Now, while Flynn's sentencing memorandum laid out a case for a low-level sentence of one year probation, if you look at footnote 23, this was all in the Federalists today, a bomb revealing basically that the agent's 302 summary of his interview is dated August 22nd, 2017.
	Now, that date is a striking detail because that puts the 302 report nearly seven months after the Flynn interview.
	Then, when you add to the facts that we already know, it takes on an even greater significance because first text messages between Strzok and Paige indicate that Strzok wrote his notes from the Flynn interview shortly after he questioned General Flynn on January 24th, you know, just days after Trump took the oath of office.
	It's 2017.
	So specifically on February 14th, 2017, a month later, Strzok texted Paige also, is Andy good with the F-302?
	And Paige responded, launch on 302, given Strzzok's role in questioning Flynn, the date three weeks from the interview, the notation F-302 has to be Flynn 302.
	And it seems like Paige's position as a special counsel to McCabe seems extremely likely that what we're talking about here is these text messages concern the February 2017, 302 summary of the Flynn interview, not the August one of 2017.
	So the interview happens, his 302 is filed.
	They talk about it on text messages, but yet we have an August 22nd, 2017, that wouldn't make any sense.
	That would mean that something changed.
	Something changed dramatically.
	And now we know from the sentencing memorandum that the special counsel's office has tendered a 302 interview summary dated the 22nd.
	We can deduce that there was an earlier 302 form existing from James Comey's testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee.
	Because during that questioning, Trey Gowdy asked whether Comey recalled being asked whether the agents who interviewed Comey thought he lied during an earlier House hearing.
	Comey countered, I recall saying the agents observed no indication of deception or physical manifestations or shiftiness, that sort of thing.
	Then the exchange followed.
	Gowdy said, well, who would you have gotten that from if you were not present?
	And Comey says from someone at the FBI who either spoke to, I don't think I spoke to the interviewing agents, but got the report from the interviewing agents.
	So Gowdy says, all right, so you would have read the 302 or had a conversation with someone who read the 302.
	This is where Comey, oh, I don't remember for sure, but I think I may have done both.
	That is read the 302 and then talk to the investigators directly.
	I just don't remember conveniently.
	Now, President Trump fired Comey on May 9th, 2017.
	So the 302 of Flynn interview had to have been read before the August that they're now pointing to as the 302.
	Now, the timing of the rewrite.
	Now, you understand here: if you change a 302, you're changing it for the benefit of a narrative that you're using to now implicate somebody in a crime.
	This is an American war hero.
	So Comey had to have read it long before he was fired.
	So that would be the February date that we're talking about.
	And the timing of the rewrite, this is the August 302 again on Flynn.
	Now, shortly after Peter Strzok was removed from the special counsel's team after his anti-Trump text messages came to light, raises the possibility that Mueller wanted to scrub the evidence of Strzzok's taint.
	Having a second agent involved in questioning the Flynn draft, a new 302 summary would eliminate attacks premised on Strzzok's bias against the president.
	But was that the only reason the FBI had a 302?
	Were there any differences in the versions?
	Now go back to February.
	Graham and Grassley requested the DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to conduct a comprehensive review of the misconduct in the Russia investigation and specifically asked Horowitz to answer these questions about Flynn and the interview and the 302s.
	Did FBI agents document their interview with General Flynn in one or more 302s?
	And what were the FBI agents' conclusions?
	Lieutenant Flynn's truthfulness, you know, was it reflected directly in the 302s?
	Were the 302s edited?
	And if so, by whom?
	At whose direction?
	How many drafts were there?
	Are there material differences between the final draft and the initial draft?
	Well, now Sullivan, the judge, wants to see the documents and ordered Mueller by Friday afternoon to file the docket forthwith citing memorandum in FD 302.
	And Sullivan ordered the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to Flynn's interview.
	It all assumes the special counsel's office still has copies of them.
	And based on other things, they don't.
	All right, quick break, right back.
	We'll continue straight ahead.
	It's the Sean Hannity show.
	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's going to 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.
	All right, so we got Comey now bragging about, well, I couldn't do this in another administration.
	Now the issue of when was the original 302 written, that would be the report by Peter Strzok about General Flynn in the interview.
	Why was there a second one in August of 2017?
	What administration would have been organized?
	All of this ought to scare the living daylights out of you because, you know, when District Court Judge Sullivan discovered, if he discovers the FBI tampered with their 302 interview witness summaries in a bid to set up Michael Flynn,
	and when he now knows that General Flynn, this whole admission by Comey that we just sent him over because we thought there was chaos over there in the first couple of days of the administration, and hey, we were just acting.
	Meanwhile, they had already surveilled, unmasked, and had intelligence on General Flynn, and we're not going to give up our hand here.
	Now, the last time Sullivan discovered Justice Department misconduct was in the Alaska case of Senator Ted Stevens.
	He not only dismissed the guilty verdict, Sullivan then appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the DOJ prosecutors that railroaded him.
	Now, if Judge Sullivan, and it seems like he's going to be true to form here, now, what did Robert Mueller, what involvement might he have had in this?
	That's what I want to know because the date of the August 302 is suspicious to me because that means this is right after he was discovered by Mueller very quietly, never told anybody, struck in Pager out when he was told by the Inspector General about these text messages between the two of them and that they had a political bias.
	Now, in 2008, Sullivan, you know, Stevens was found guilty on eight felony counts brought by the U.S. government.
	Then he lost his election in Alaska.
	And when the sentencing came down in 2009, the case was dismissed because of DOJ corruption.
	But that was too late for Senator Stevens, wasn't it?
	Because he lost his reelection a few months earlier.
	You know, if this happened to a 33-year veteran, how could anybody in this country ever expect equal justice, equal application of our laws, and look straight in the mirror and suggest that we're really not a banana republic instead of a constitutional republic as we should be?
	All right, 25 now to the top of the hour.
	Just to give a summation here, too many details to get into.
	James Comey bragging basically about setting up Michael Flynn by sending over FBI agents, you know, in the early days of the Trump administration.
	Well, I probably wouldn't have done this, wouldn't have gotten away with it in a more organized administration.
	This is days after, literally the first week of the presidency of Donald Trump.
	No administration is going to be that organized.
	In the Bush administration, the Obama administration, that the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel.
	There would be discussions and approvals on who would be there.
	And I thought, well, it's early enough.
	Send a couple of guys over.
	But we're going to tell them, hey, you know, you don't need a lawyer for this.
	It's not a big deal.
	Now I'm looking at all of this.
	And what is really amazing is the presiding judge Emmett Sullivan here.
	It's going to be fascinating to watch this unfold because what's happening in this sentencing memorandum that they methodically laid out with this footnote that was dropped that the agent's 302 summary of his interview was dated August 22nd, 2017.
	The only problem with that is that that is contradicted by a couple of things.
	One is the struck page text messages where they're clearly talking about the Flynn 302.
	And more importantly, remember, James Comey was fired in May of 2017.
	Okay, but in an interview with Trey Gowdy, the problem is he's talking about, yeah, I probably saw that 302.
	Now, that's where it gets fascinating.
	Now, the New York Times reported at the time that when this judge, Emmett Sullivan, threw out the Ted Stevens conviction, ethics convictions, he was furious.
	And he took an extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether government lawyers ran Stevens' case, the ones that did, should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.
	That's how angry he was.
	The New York Times described him as speaking in a slow, deliberate manner that failed to conceal his anger, saying that in the 25 years he's been on the bench, he'd never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen by the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the Stevens case.
	I know people, what do the people carry?
	He's one senator from Alaska, right?
	Oh, well, just one person.
	If there is corruption in the Justice Department and you're weaponizing and criminalizing, as Alan Dershowitz always says, political differences, you are losing your country.
	That's why, as the New York Times said, that he gave a lacerating, their words, 14-minute speech focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in that case, virtually the guaranteed reverberations beyond the morning's dismissal of the verdict that helped it ended Stevens' career.
	How does he get his good name back?
	How does he get his career back?
	Now, the judge who was named to the federal district court by Bill Clinton delivered a broad warning about what he said was a troubling tendency that he has observed among prosecutors to stretch the boundaries of ethics restrictions to conceal evidence to win cases.
	And he named a prominent Washington lawyer to investigate six career Justice Department prosecutors, including the chief deputy of the public integrity section, an elite unit charged with dealing with official corruption to see if they would face criminal charges.
	Now, as the Federalist points out today and notes rightly, and we have had on this program, Sidney Powell wrote the great book, License to Lie about this kind of corruption.
	Andrew Weissman, Mueller's pit bull, has a history of tampering with FBI 302s.
	And in the Enron prosecution, which he was involved in, Weissman destroyed some of the original FBI 302 witness statements that the court wanted to see.
	And that's why I have been from day one so critical of the appointment of Weissman.
	You know, we heard a lot about Jeannie Ray weighing in on the whole Michael Cohn issue.
	Jeannie Ray was a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation.
	Do we not see a conflict in all of this?
	I am telling you, there is so much wrong with this, and getting to the bottom of it is going to take a commitment to unpeel every single layer of this onion.
	I just am stunned that it's even possible that, in fact, James Comey would be out there bragging.
	Eventually something is, there's going to be a moment where the damn breaks in all of this.
	By the way, just to give you a update, Mark Chairman told Martha McCallum on Fox that three Clinton Foundation whistleblowers with thousands of pages of evidence documenting explosive allegations, they're going to be testifying this week.
	And I'm telling you, there's a lot of stuff going on there.
	Now we also found out from the Daily Caller that Christopher Steele, yeah, the one that used the, oh, because campaign finance violations are so important, the Hillary Clinton and DNC money that was funneled through a law firm as a legal expense that hired the op research firm that hired the foreign national that paid money to his Russian sources to make up lies about Donald Trump and then used it, those Russian lies to influence the election in 2016.
	Now we're discovering, Daily Caller report, that the infamous dossier to strobe Talbot, a longtime Clinton insider, former State Department official, court documents released yesterday show that Steele had shared the information with Talbot because of the latter's position on the State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board.
	And Talbot's link to the dossier has not been previously reported.
	And his brother-in-law, another Clinton insider, compiled an anti-Trump dossier of his own during the campaign.
	Oh, so we have everybody all one big family fest going on here on every level.
	Oh, I'm loving this.
	The president cancels the annual White House Christmas party for the media.
	And I know people say, why?
	Why should he bother?
	Let them have their Christmas party in the media over at the DNC headquarters.
	That's where it belongs.
	And, you know, I don't think the DNC will let them call it a Christmas party.
	Maybe they'll call it a winter solstice party.
	But anyway, it's, I know it just, because they're all going to say, I wouldn't go anyway.
	I wouldn't want to go.
	Why are we going to pretend that they're not biased when they are?
	It is.
	And I think other people have actually gotten invitations, but I thought that was funny.
	You know that their heads are exploding pretty much everywhere.
	Now, one other thing on Christopher Steele, because this is a pretty, Washington Times had a great piece about this, when he told the London courtroom that he was hired to gather evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC could use to challenge the 2016 presidential election results.
	Now, they point out that his scenario is contained in a sealed August 2nd declaration in a defamation lawsuit brought by three Russian bankers in London.
	And the Russian bankers, well, their American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel suit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer.
	Steele testified that the law firm Perkins Cooey wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence that he unearthed on the Trump campaigns conspiring with Moscow on election interference.
	In an answer to these interrogatories, Steele wrote, quote, Fusion's immediate client was law firm Perkins Cooey.
	See how, by the way, they're funneling money that's supposed to be legally how they do that?
	The very thing that liberals are so up in arms about, Trump might have violated campaign finance.
	He spit on the sidewalk, whatever they can say.
	Anyway, so that was, it engaged Fusion, Perkins Cooey, to obtain information needed for the law firm to provide legal advice onto the potential impact of Russian involvement and the validity of the outcome of the 2016 election.
	Well, maybe they were seeing numbers that they're not admitting to that they thought they'd lose.
	That's why they have an insurance policy and a media leak strategy with their friends that let them off the hook for the crimes they committed and the obstruction of justice that occurred.
	And then, of course, using that phony Russian dossier as a means of spying on the Trump campaign to cheat, just like they did with Bernie Sanders.
	And then, when that didn't work, just spread the lies, Russian lies paid for by Hillary to the American people.
	Hopefully, that'll influence the election.
	Anyway, based on that advice, parties like the DNC and her presidential campaign could consider steps that would be legally entitled to take challenge the validity of the outcome of the election.
	Democrats never filed a challenge.
	Steele's answer, though, suggests that was an option inside the Clinton camp, which funded Steele through the law firm, through the op research group.
	I know it gets confusing.
	We also have the Justice Department.
	This is interesting.
	Big headline: destroying Strzok and Page iPhones after Mueller's office decided they weren't relevant.
	This is more new information today.
	Sounds like a Thursday afternoon document dump, but we'll put that aside.
	Anyway, I would think this raises eyebrows.
	Once again, it seems like Democrats get away with destroying anything they want.
	But those concerned about all this misconduct, the Justice Department revealing today in the Inspector General report that investigators wiped clean the iPhones that were used by Trump-hating FBI officials Strzok and Page after the so-called records office or officer in Mueller's office decided there was nothing relevant in a newly recovered batch of text messages that had never been made public.
	Hmm.
	So they saw the proof that these lovebirds hated Trump, had an agenda, quietly fired him.
	Let's get rid of these phones.
	Let's clean them up.
	Apparently, they sent them back to the manufacturer to make super sure they were clean.
	Maybe they had never discussed bleach pit with Hillary Clinton.
	Anyway, the Hill points out that the Inspector General's report partially redacted.
	I read it all today, detailing how the office was able to recover these lost text messages between Strzz and Page.
	These are the ones, many of which were released, but not all of them by a long stretch.
	But now Strzzok turned over his iPhone to the DOJ once he was pulled from Mueller's team.
	Strzz's phone was reset to factory settings, reissued to another agent, meaning that it didn't have any data related to Strzok's use on the device.
	A records officer with the special counsel's office told the Inspector General that Strzok's phone was reviewed for text after it was returned, and it was determined to contain no substantive text messages.
	And then, as it relates to Paige's iPhone, she got from the Mueller team.
	It wasn't located until September of 2018.
	Now, it hadn't been reissued like Strzzok's phone, but it too had been reset to factory settings.
	Quote, they call a routine practice within the department.
	It had no data related to Paige's use of the device.
	But unlike Strzok's phone, Paige's device was not reviewed by the special counsel's records officer for possible records that would have been kept.
	And the FBI accepts the fact that not all text between Page and Strzz were collected by the FBI's text collection tool, but appreciates and agrees with the Inspector General's conclusion and explanation that the content of the text messages exchanged between the two did not appear to factor in their collection, blah, blah, blah.
	And it goes on from there.
	Imagine if you did this.
	I did this.
	Forget it.
	Look what they're doing.
	Loan applications, taxi medallions, taxes, 2007.
	Ukraine, not Russia.
	It just goes on and on.
	But no evidence of collusion.
	Really?
	You know, you're going to get everyone else for spitting on the sidewalk.
	We have a lot to get to.
	We'll actually have a debate later in the program, some headlines as it relates to the borders.
	DHS says that substantial wall construction will be completed by October 2019.
	There's a quote in conservative review of Nancy Pelosi.
	You know, now she's saying, well, no wall funding, even if it means the government's closed forever, something to that effect.
	If she wants to take on the responsibility, that'll be look, we're going to have to make a decision here.
	Everybody needs to know there's never a government shutdown, ever.
	There's never, it's 70% of essential services keep going.
	That means the military.
	That means we're going to fund the government.
	We're going to make sure that everyone gets their social security checks.
	Nobody's going to, no security issues are going to be impacted.
	And our troops will be working on Christmas Day and so on and so forth.
	I'm not afraid of a government shutdown.
	And I don't want people to lose their jobs.
	But in every past case, rightly so, people that are unfairly impacted because of impasses like this, they get their money that they deserve.
	It's not their fault that it's a political battle.
	But if we're not going to fight for the security of the country, what else are we going to fight for?
	And the president, by the way, and the Pentagon have said, hey, they're ready to help build the wall regardless, which I think is probably the best way to go anyway.
	You get the whole $25 million billion that would be needed to build it.
	And if you actually look at the amount of money we're paying every year, it costs we, you, the taxpayers, a fortune when it comes to border security.
	You know, we've gone over this.
	Education.
	When you look at state, local, federal spending, you know, we're talking about $44 billion a year.
	State expenditures, $1.7 billion, you know, federal educational expenditures, $17 for medical expenditures, 13 for law enforcement expenditures.
	Building the wall is going to save us money, a lot of it in the long term.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Hour two, Sean Hannity show.
	Write down our toll-free number.
	It's 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, a ton of breaking news on the deep state.
	We now know the Justice Department literally destroyed the tax that were on Struck and Page's iPhones when they were given those phones, courtesy of the special counsel's office.
	Fascinating how quickly they can get rid of them, clean them up, send them back to the manufacturer, wipe clean.
	And it's beyond frustrating.
	We have Christopher Steele saying that he was hired to help Hillary challenge the 2016 election results.
	It's an August 2nd declaration with the funneled money through Perkins Cooey and then hiring Fusion GPS, which hires former MI6 agent, foreign agent Steele, that uses Russian contacts that, of course, full of lies, but it becomes the basis of a FISA warrant.
	They don't tell the judge, FISA judges that Hillary paid for it.
	That information is disseminated.
	The Russian lies are told to the American people.
	It spreads like wildfire.
	Russian lies to influence an election.
	And I think our big bombshell that has come out today are these comments by former FBI director at James Comey because he's basically boasting about setting up General Flynn back in the first week of the Trump administration.
	I mean, frankly, he says, well, this is something I probably wouldn't have done or wouldn't have gotten away with in a more organized administration.
	It was week one.
	Wasn't organized about any administration week one.
	But in the Bush administration or the Obama administration, that the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official.
	Ha, you'd have to work through the White House counsel, and there would be discussions and approvals on who would be there.
	And I thought, it's early enough.
	Let's just send a couple of guys over.
	Now, this is after a few other events happened.
	One is that we now know Deputy FBI Director McCabe told Flynn, no, no, no, you don't need a lawyer for this.
	Okay, but it becomes the basis of an admission of lying to the FBI.
	And remember the information they had a transcript obtained illegally because it had to do with surveillance with no minimization of an American citizen.
	And then, of course, unmasking of General Flynn and leaking the raw intelligence because they got a transcript of the whole thing.
	They're bragging about setting up a 33-year veteran here.
	And, you know, now the judge in this case, this is going to be fascinating.
	This is the same judge that I've been telling you about, Emmett Sullivan, who literally unloaded on horrible tactics of the DOJ in the Ted Stevens case.
	All right, joining us now, we have two Freedom Caucus members.
	They have been in the forefront of fighting on a lot of these issues and whether or not there's going to be a government shutdown.
	We'll get to that too.
	Louie Gomert of Texas and Representative Jody Heiss of Virginia.
	Guys, welcome to the program.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Hey, Sean, great to be with you.
	You know, I love talking to you, Sean.
	And I'm glad you brought up Ted Stevens case because it's another reminder that that was while Mueller was FBI director and the one that actually, the FBI agent that was a whistleblower in that case, got run out of the FBI on Mueller's watch.
	And the one that actually hid exculpatory evidence and basically framed Ted Stevens, that agent went on to do well and continue to move on to bigger and better things.
	That's the way Mueller ran things, and now he's in charge of this.
	It is an outrage.
	It is outrageous.
	And let me tell you, you know, for all of my professional career as I've been a prosecutor, I've been court appointed on defense case in federal court and state court and been a judge and chief justice.
	But every other law enforcement agency in the country now videotapes.
	They audiotape.
	You know, you go into an interview room, there is a camera there so that there is no question about what's said.
	The FBI has been able to get away with all of this modernization of communication because they were so straight and we could trust them.
	And when they did an interview, they didn't need an audio or videotape because they were going to make a note of what was said and we could trust that.
	The trouble with that is now we have caught so many of the top FBI people under the Obama administration and now under Trump administration of lying that I think it's time.
	And I hope that Judge Sullivan will help initiate this by having a ruling.
	I'm afraid he's not going to do it, but a ruling that sends a message to the FBI.
	Come on into the modern age.
	You start audiotaping because your notes that you try to manipulate and maybe even change after the fact to manipulate are not good enough to go after somebody for lying.
	Let me get Jody in on this.
	I look at this and I am flabbergasted at the statements of Jim Comey, former FBI, and the actions of Comey and the actions of McCabe.
	And knowing this judge's background, Sullivan's background in the Ted Stevens case, I could see him vacating the whole thing and maybe doing what he did the last time.
	And that would be appointing a special prosecutor to look into the prosecutors, as I've always been saying.
	Yeah, I think you're spot on, Sean.
	I mean, here, you know, these people were so focused on getting Trump that they were willing to set up a three-star general.
	And, I mean, that is appalling.
	And as you mentioned earlier, we're talking about the first week of this administration.
	There's four things with this that really are disturbing to me.
	It's before the interview with Flynn, during the interview, and then afterwards, they didn't follow procedure in even setting up the interviews with Flynn.
	It's just kind of casually listening, a couple of agents over here and talk with him.
	Then the meeting itself, Flynn is not even aware that it's a formal interview.
	It doesn't appear.
	At least that's what's being alleged.
	In fact, he gave a tour of the White House after the interview.
	It was just a casual meeting as far as he was concerned.
	Listen, guys, I got to tell you something.
	If they treat little old Sean Hannity like this, maybe I expect it.
	You know, this is an American hero.
	A three-star general, absolutely.
	This is a guy.
	We're setting up a guy that served his country for 33 years.
	What the hell is going on here?
	They didn't even report the details of this until seven months after the interview.
	I mean, how do you have an interview like this with the FBI?
	And then they did not even turn in what the interview consisted of until August.
	Well, but there's a problem with, well, hang on.
	And I'll tell you, this is a great piece that was put out by the Federalists today.
	But Comey, in the latest interview with Trey Gowdy, said, oh, yeah, I think I probably did look at that 302, but he was gone in May of 2017.
	And then the struck page memos refer to a 302 with an F in front of it, which probably means Flynn.
	And so they're caught red-handed.
	That means that it was either destroyed or altered to me.
	One or the other.
	Pick your poison.
	Louie.
	Well, it sure looks like it was altered or maybe redone and they got rid of evidence that was there.
	But under the law, the case of Brady, you have to disclose exculpatory evidence.
	And there are all kinds of exculpatory things here that it appears not only did they not disclose it to the defense, but they actually hid it, much like they did in some other matters we dealt with.
	But let me tell you, though, whether it's Sean Hannity or a decorated hero, of course, you're my hero too, Sean.
	But they don't.
	I'm not, you know what?
	Louie, let's be blunt here.
	I'm not General Flynn.
	Wait, hang on.
	They made this guy sell his freaking house.
	This is ridiculous.
	If you are a target, they have to give you your rights.
	And clearly, General Flynn was a target.
	They were coming after him.
	They're required to read him the rights.
	And when you're a target, read the rights.
	They didn't do that.
	They were setting him up.
	And I don't know what Judge Selden will rule.
	I know what I would rule.
	This is such an outrage.
	Well, and Louie, if I can add to that, I mean, you're exactly right.
	He was not even allowed to have an attorney in this interview.
	And the double standard is glaring.
	When they interviewed Hillary Clinton, she had, what, nine attorneys in there with her when she was interviewed by the FBI.
	But here, she was not even allowed to have anyone.
	Yeah, she had witnesses with her, too.
	You don't ever allow a witness to be in with another witness's testimony.
	They did that with Hillary.
	Well, I'm going to tell you something here.
	It's now beginning to come together.
	There have been rumors of this.
	I have heard for well over a year, year and a half.
	John Solomon has heard them.
	Greg Jarrett has heard them.
	Sarah Carter has heard them.
	You know, we've discussed it, but this seems to now be the smoking gun here that we now have.
	And what do you both make of the special counsel that they hired Struck and Page?
	Find out that these two are politically, you know, the ones that exonerated Hillary.
	He was writing the exoneration before he ever interviewed her.
	Then he races to the Russia investigation.
	He's the one saying, well, $100 million is zero.
	Hillary should win.
	And so Mueller gets rid of them quietly.
	Then these phones are wipe clean.
	How conveniently.
	Yeah, and you know the answer.
	Mueller wanted people that were going to treat the Trump administration and anybody that was close to him very unfairly.
	He knew Weissman's record, and you've talked about this more than anybody, Sean.
	Weissman destroyed thousands and thousands of lives in a case that wasn't even a crime, knocked down 9-0.
	And Mueller knew that.
	He doesn't care as long as he could destroy these lives.
	This is a really serious problem.
	Well, I think I'm one of the few people that said, why would he ever hire a guy that lost tens of thousands of jobs lost in the Enron investigation?
	He has been cited and excoriated on the issue of exculpatory evidence.
	Reed licensed to lie.
	I mean, it's chock full of information about Mueller's pit bull.
	Just like Jeannie Ray is at the Michael Cohn sentencing.
	She worked for the Clinton Foundation.
	I think I'm the only one that have been saying, can we not find one Republican here?
	Oh, Mueller is a Republican.
	I don't think so.
	And, you know, all of these guys are best buddies together.
	And I don't know what to think if this is how our top officials now have acted.
	I don't even know if there's any hope, Jody Heist.
	I really don't.
	Well, Sean, I'll just say I'm thrilled that finally, at least there's a glimmer of hope that Judge Sullivan is going to hold Mueller accountable.
	This has been long overdue, and it appears that at least we have the possibility, the potential of that taking place.
	Well, Mueller got away with destroying Ted Stevens' life.
	I'm hoping that Sullivan won't let him get away with destroying the Mueller living.
	I don't think it was Mueller in the Ted Stevens case, was it?
	He was the FBI director.
	Well, he wasn't the pro.
	Was he involved in the prosecution?
	Because they went after six specific people, the DOJ.
	The whistleblower to be fired and the one that engaged in the setup, the fraud, she went on to do great things from there.
	And I mean, better jobs, rather.
	But it also brings back to mind the meeting where Rosenstein is sitting there and most of the media, not you, but most of the media, was he kidding when he said he'd wear a wire?
	Was he not kidding?
	That was not the point of that.
	The point of that is that you had high DOJ officials sitting around conspiring to take down a duly elected president.
	Unbelievable.
	Whether he was kidding or not.
	All right, stay there.
	I got to take a break.
	More with Jody Heist, Louis Gomer.
	Then we'll get our legal experts in, Greg, Jarrett, David Schoen on the same issues.
	All right, rolling along, Sean Hannity show, Congressman Louis Gomer, Texas, Representative Jody Heist.
	I think I said Virginia earlier.
	I apologize.
	It is Georgia.
	You should have corrected me, Congressman.
	You should have just told Hannity you're an idiot.
	That's okay.
	I can deal with that.
	I wouldn't dare.
	Louis tells me that all the time.
	All right, so we have a possibility.
	The president said, you're either going to fund the border wall if the government, and I'll own it, the government shuts down.
	Now, there's a myth.
	There's no such thing as a real government shutdown.
	And by the way, I'll even speak out for those people that do get a furlough.
	I want them to get their back pay.
	They shouldn't be victims in all of this.
	But national security is what's at stake here, Louis.
	And even if the Defense Department, which said that they will fund this and get this done, I'm cool with that too.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	And if you go back to last spring, the president made clear that, you know, this people coming across our southern border illegally has become a national emergency.
	And especially with this invasion caravan, it is a national emergency.
	And, you know, we lost just over 50,000 precious lives in all those years of Vietnam.
	In one year, we lost over 70,000 people to drug overdoses, mainly from Mexico.
	So it is a national emergency.
	And in a national emergency, he can use the military.
	Well, it's a national security issue within the standing of the Defense Department.
	Real quick, we only have about 20 seconds for Jody.
	Yeah, Sean, exactly right.
	It is a national security issue.
	What amazes me how anyone, anyone, even the Democrats, could not be in favor of securing our borders.
	And it has been proven over and over and over: a wall helps protect our borders.
	And it's time for us to deliver what we promised to the American people.
	And let's get the wall built.
	Hopefully, we'll be able to get that done this next week.
	All right, guys.
	Thank you both.
	Jody Heist, Georgia.
	Merry Christmas, Louie.
	Louis Gomert, our good friend from Texas.
	We'll take a quick break.
	The legal side, Greg Jarrett, David Schona coming up when we get back next.
	We also look, there's a lot of news about the wall that we're going to get to.
	There is this debate over whether or not the Defense Department can fund it.
	Now, if we have drug trafficking, human trafficking, and terrorists crossing the borders, tell me how that doesn't fit under the banner of national security and the Defense Department to keep the American people safe.
	To me, it does, especially in light of, well, we now know that suspected terrorists, some 15 of them, have been apprehended recently.
	That's only the ones we know about, on top of all the other crimes that have been committed, not by all.
	Matter of fact, not even the vast majority, but we have a right to protect our borders.
	This is a moment that we may not get back.
	Do it now.
	Fight for something.
	That's what the American people need and want.
	I had a question for you.
	So let's just say my boyfriend was a dreamer, but he's registered to vote.
	He just needs his ID, right?
	Uh-huh.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	So long as he's registered.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Can I just ask you a question?
	I went back and we went and grabbed his driver's license.
	He's just, he's saying something about how some people are questioning whether it's legal since he's not a citizen, but he was able to register.
	If he had the ID, that's probably me.
	If he's registered, it doesn't matter that he's not a citizen.
	No.
	No.
	If he registered, he had the, honey, it might not be that he's registered.
	If he's giving you all this trouble, it may not be that he's registered.
	No, he is registered.
	He's got it with him.
	We ran home and grabbed his driver's license because he's a DACA recipient, so he was able to get a driver's license.
	He's saying he saw some mess on the internet saying that it's not legal for him to vote since he's not a citizen.
	Someone said on the internet, I don't know.
	Pay attention to that.
	Yeah, no.
	We have dreamers voting, right?
	If he had the voter registration card, he's registered to vote.
	Right.
	He has the ID.
	Driver's license.
	Okay.
	Texas ID.
	Right.
	Bring it up here.
	That's his ID.
	Show it to the and then he can vote.
	Okay.
	Oh, Damn, I just had a question because my so let's see.
	My boyfriend's out in the car.
	Yeah.
	And he's just really nervous because he's a DACA recipient.
	He was able to register, though.
	Well, no, he is in the system, but he knows that, like, I don't know, there's like an issue with DACA people voting.
	Got a lot of them.
	Okay.
	We have tons of DACA voters.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We'll do.
	He just needs his ID, right?
	That's it.
	All right.
	And it doesn't matter that he's the same.
	Okay.
	I'm not sure to vote.
	And my girlfriend is too.
	She has her license, but she's like a docker recipient.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, like, she'll be good.
	She'll be good.
	Just bring her ID.
	She definitely has her ID.
	But she doesn't have no, I don't think she has been fully positive as a citizen yet, but like she does have her ID.
	But she's in the process of getting it, right?
	Yeah, like she's not a citizen yet, but you know, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, they're still good.
	Oh, we don't check that.
	Okay, then I think she'll check.
	I'll just bring her then.
	Just bring her.
	Yeah, so it actually says how you can.
	Actually, okay, cool.
	Because also, her mom and her aunt, she also has the ID, too.
	Just how they have the ID.
	So in the city of Texas, there's no discrimination against that.
	We don't actually verify.
	Stop.
	I'm going to make a statement.
	Yeah.
	Not telling you who to vote for.
	Okay.
	America is in a dark age right here.
	I agree.
	Is it one that you like recommend?
	I'm going to say that, but don't come telling me he told me.
	No, but the thing is, right now, the Democrats has a better network for you, Anthony.
	But think about how the country is quickly rich, and the country's going to go that way without that way.
	I hope it's going to change soon.
	Well, your vote's going to change.
	If you don't vote right, then it's going that way too.
	Yeah.
	It's a tug of war.
	All right.
	I'll be right back.
	Thank you, though.
	I'm not like super informed on the candidates.
	Yeah.
	It's kind of hard to like.
	And I'm going to vote Democrat, though, because of Trump and stuff.
	But that's what I'd be in.
	I voted.
	I vote Democrat.
	But I ain't supposed to take it.
	Okay, your name's James.
	Yes, sir.
	How you doing?
	My name's James.
	Nice to meet you.
	Good to see you.
	Did you know that it was unlawful to give your advice on who to vote for?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	You do know that's illegal, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I can't give him no advice.
	You're talking about that lady I was talking to.
	No, the young man that came in here earlier.
	Yeah.
	But I told him I couldn't tell him nothing.
	You told him that?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Did you tell that young man, though, that you voted Democratic all the way?
	And you didn't say that?
	No.
	Oh, you didn't say that?
	No, I ain't calling him.
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	He was telling me.
	He was telling me that he votes, he didn't want to vote for Trump.
	He was telling me that.
	Yeah.
	And I said, well, if you don't just vote any way you want to, you know?
	Yeah.
	I said, you vote all Democrat if you don't want to vote for Trump.
	I did say that.
	Oh, that's called electioneering.
	That's illegal.
	But, you know, what difference does it make?
	All right, 23 now until the top of the hour.
	And before that, you heard a Texas voting official telling a Project Veritas undercover reporter that, oh, non-citizens can vote.
	And then another poll worker admitting, We don't check for that.
	We don't check for citizenship.
	Oh, yeah, it's fine.
	Don't worry.
	We have loads of people like that.
	Bring them in.
	Don't worry about it.
	Nonsense.
	It's fine.
	Now, if we go back and look at this election, I don't think there's any doubt that the undercover work done by Project Veritas had an impact on this election as they got undercover video of a Tennessee Senate candidate, former governor.
	At one point, the polls were very tight in Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, until that Project Veritas tape came out exposing him as being a phony.
	Then we had Claire McCaskill being exposed as being a phony and Heidi Heitkamp being exposed as being a phony and Andrew Gillum and Kristen Sinema of all those races.
	I think they had a major impact on the outcome because it made massive, huge news.
	And there's been, I guess, some ramifications for James O'Keefe.
	These are the newest developments that he has.
	Mr. O'Keefe, Project Veritas, how are you, sir?
	Founder.
	Hey, Sean, great to be with you again.
	Thank you for having me.
	Well, I do believe this had a big impact in a lot of these states because we played it nationally, and I did notice a lot of local pickup, which means the people in these individual states, I mean, you exposed a lot of people to a lot of phoniness, and they were all contrived, but yet you got them all on tape.
	I think you got everybody, you know, wondering what just hit them.
	Yep.
	Sean, this was a campaign across the country.
	We had a lot of recruits that we had worked with and hired over the last two years, some of whom, by the way, came to us from your radio show.
	I was on there two years ago saying, come apply to work for Project Veritas as an undercover journalist.
	By the way, if I was young, I would want to do this.
	This would be fun for me.
	I would really enjoy undercover work like this.
	Well, it takes a certain type of person.
	You have to be curious and enterprising and have initiative and have a little acting skill and political skill, but you have to have a sense for justice.
	You really have to believe that there are wrongs like voter fraud that the media will not report on.
	And some people, Sean, come construction workers, school teachers, nurses, just normal everyday heroes that decide to do something about it.
	And Sean, in this election, McClaire McCaskill, Gillum, we had exposed, I mean, the difference between how they projected themselves in public versus who they were in private.
	These election officials you just played on the air, they're all telling people who to vote for in Georgia, which is a misdemeanor.
	And in Texas, they're saying, DACA, illegals vote all the time, is what they told us.
	So it was an extraordinary election season, and I think people are waking up to see the power of video, just how powerful the truth, just showing people who they are.
	What is the fallout band?
	Because there's always fallout and aftermath for Project Veritas after stuff like this.
	And I did read that there were some people looking to bring legal action against you, which, by the way, is just a means, I think, of trying to stop you from doing the work you're doing.
	Sean, I mean, going back to the two years ago to the videos you did on Creamer where they were inciting violence at Trump rallies, that guy, Creamer, is suing us for bogus things for intrusion and trespass and tortious interference.
	They're coming after us.
	They're trying to use litigation as a weapon to silence us and to stop us and to send a message to everyone out there that if you expose them, then they're going to come after you too.
	They did it to David DeLeiden.
	They're doing it to me.
	I've got 12 lawsuits against me.
	I'm being deposed.
	I'm in depositions.
	By the way, we did have a victory real quick.
	We did take it all the way to the federal court in Massachusetts on the recording law, and it's declared unconstitutional.
	So we defeated them in federal court this week.
	But Sean, there's a bigger issue that these people think they can use lawsuits to stop us, and they want to try to make a lesson out of me.
	And in response, I have no choice but to make a lesson out of them.
	They have awakened a sleeping giant.
	You've got how many people listen to your show?
	20, 30 million people out there listening, okay?
	And whether it's in your car, whether it's on your iPhone, iHeartRadio, wherever.
	And you're thinking to yourself, I want to have purpose in my life and make a difference.
	I want to expose them.
	I want to do this.
	Maybe I even have access to some things that are happening.
	And I want to do something about it.
	If that's you, you should think about joining our crusade.
	You should think about signing up to be a journalist.
	Because journalism is an activity.
	Citizens now need to do it, not just the mainstream press.
	All right.
	So are you actually recruiting people now?
	I mean, or is this a job opening you're telling us about or what?
	I'm telling you that last time, one of the times I went on your program, there was a person inside a Silicon Tech.
	I'm not going to tell you which company it was.
	This person came to me.
	She is a fan of yours.
	She was a listener of yours.
	And she worked for one of these companies.
	And she wrote to me and said, the things I find this company done, I'm going to quote her.
	The things I find this company doing are so appalling.
	I feel the public has a right to know.
	Project Veritas just gave me the courage to do the right thing, even if it meant sacrificing free food and my high salary at the company.
	She now works for Project Veritas full-time, documenting what has happened, and we're going to go public with it soon.
	My point is there are people out there who feel they want to make a difference in life, who feel like they should be exposing the corruption and the fraud in our government, in our voting system, in these tech companies.
	And you can do something about it.
	Just go to projectveritas.com and send me a note, and I will recruit you.
	I will pay you a full-time salary so that you can do this.
	Because, Sean, we have to fight back.
	They've awakened a sleeping giant.
	We have an invisible army of people out there.
	I'm just going to understand.
	Look, on a legal basis, and I know you have an army of attorneys, so I'm not really, I'm sure it's expensive, and I'm sure that makes it difficult, and I'm sure it's time-consuming to sit through deposition after deposition.
	But I do believe this is important work, and you do dot every I and cross every T, and you are fully aware of what the laws are in these states, correct?
	One-party, two-party, record states.
	Like, for example, you would not have been able to do this, or it might have been questionable if you were in California, correct?
	Well, Sean, we just, and we didn't do it in Massachusetts, which is a state that you're referencing.
	But just to show you the enormous will and the sort of moral courage of our attorneys, this is a pretty historic victory for the First Amendment.
	We got the statute in Massachusetts overturned in federal court on the grounds it's unconstitutional.
	We have really good lawyers.
	I mean, this wasn't the New York Times.
	It wasn't the Washington Post that changed the law under the First Amendment.
	This was Project Veritas.
	This is the new frontier.
	You can't expect these journalists.
	By the way, 60 Minutes used to do this all the time.
	Shows did this all the time, news programs over the years have done this.
	Sean, they don't want to actually expose what's really going on these days because it contradicts their policy positions if they expose the truth.
	So they won't do it.
	But the people out there can.
	And to answer your question, we never break the law.
	We wouldn't ever dream of doing anything that broke the law.
	Some people have.
	We don't do that.
	But that doesn't mean that the people out there listening to this program, if you feel compelled to live a life of purpose to actually document and expose this stuff, you should still contact us and we will talk to you and we will try to put you to work.
	By the way, watch out for liberal infiltrators.
	They're going to try and do a jiu-jitsu move on you as my first guest.
	All right.
	James O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas.
	These new tapes are unbelievable.
	We're linking them now to Hannity.com.
	Their website has them all in full, projectveritas.com, I believe.
	These are big, big campaign issues.
	Now, if they're going to fight back by going after you and bringing you and dragging you into lawsuits, what happens from there?
	Well, Sean, I mean, we can never settle the lawsuits.
	Bob Creamer is suing us.
	He's going around to get other people to sue us.
	They're trying to make a lesson out of me to send a message to patriots.
	If you do this, if you expose them, so what I have to do is take a stand and never settle.
	I did nothing wrong.
	I was doing my job as a reporter.
	It's my First Amendment right.
	We got the Supreme Court, rather the federal court to overturn the statute in Massachusetts.
	And I just want to awaken a sleeping giant army of exposers.
	They can take down one man, but they can't take down us all.
	James Daymore gave Google a black eye.
	You can do that too.
	If you're on the inside and you see something, let's reverse George Orwell and let's make them afraid.
	Let's report on their abuses.
	That's what the future of Project Veritas is.
	It's to engage a citizen army.
	So where can people either write you, call you if they want to do this?
	Because I bet there will be people, but I would tell you.
	And this is my advice, I'd also bet people on the left are going to try and penetrate your organization.
	Well, we have a very, Sean, we have a very professional, dedicated group of employees at Project Veritas.
	We have many people that work with me who make sure that the people that come through our website, you go to projectveritas.com.
	If you're on the radio right now and you're hearing, that's me, I want to do that.
	I want to serve a purpose to expose it.
	Go to our website, Project Veritas, ProjectVeritas.com, and apply and submit a tip and tell us who you are and why you want to do this.
	And we'll put you through our system and we will find the people who are meant to do this because we have to create an army of exposers.
	They have awakened a sleeping giant.
	And again, Sean, they're going to try to make an example out of me.
	And in response, we're going to make an example out of them.
	We're going to make them know that we're watching them.
	And if you're lying, cheating, or stealing, you may become the next unwilling internet celebrity at Project Veritas.
	All right, James O'Keefe, ProjectVeritas.com.
	Thank you, sir, for being with us.
	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.

▲