Sean Hannity Show - Best of Hannity: Welcome 2019!

Jan. 1, 2019 - Sean Hannity Show

01:46:35

Best of Hannity: Welcome 2019!

Sean welcomes in 2019 with this “Best of Hannity” episode complete with a visit from Bii O’reilly. Plus, a very powerful opening monologue from Sean! The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.
	The best of Sean Hannity is on now.
	This president has brought a criminal enterprise into the White House.
	Look, I understand.
	The Democrats have important debates to have about who their candidate should be.
	They have to win.
	Yeah.
	They have to win.
	I will shut down the government.
	Okay, fair enough.
	And I am proud.
	And I'll keep this brief.
	I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck.
	Holding them accountable.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	Freedom is back in style.
	Welcome to the revolution.
	We're burning down the mashing bullets at the moon, baby.
	This is how we rule.
	Sean Hannity, bring you the new Sean Hannity show.
	More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	We're waiting.
	Hopefully, want to see what happens with the judge in the Flynn sentencing case.
	There was a 3 p.m. deadline Eastern Time.
	It's now 3.06 Eastern that the special counsel needed to hand over all the relevant 302 information as it relates, interview information as it relates to General Flynn.
	I went through all of this in great specificity and detail yesterday.
	I still cannot believe that this has happened in our country.
	The judge in this case, a guy by the name of Emmett Sullivan.
	And he was the one that presided over the appeal and overturn in the Ted Stevens corruption case.
	Ted Stevens, if you don't remember, convicted on eight counts when he was a senator, also running for reelection, lost his reelection, but every one of those, in every one of those charges, it was overthrown.
	And this judge got so mad and so angry.
	New York Times described it this way.
	Emmett Sullivan 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 had, quote, never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen by the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the Stevens case.
	They write he did a lacerating, Judge Sullivan's lacerating 14-minute speech focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in the case, virtually guaranteeing reverberations beyond the dismissal of the verdict in the case of Senator Stevens.
	And by the way, Stevens lost his whole career over it, so he was not guilty.
	And this is what I keep saying.
	Andrew Weissman has this history.
	We've talked to author of the book, License to Lie, Sidney Powell, many times.
	It's a must-read book when you think that it can't happen in America.
	It can't happen in America.
	And the history of tampering with FBI 302s.
	And I thought the Federalists made a very strong case that I really make sense that, well, there had to be an earlier 302 because both Strzok and Page allude to it in their text messages.
	And Comey alluded to reading it before he was fired in May.
	But yet the official one on the record, well, that would be the 302 from August.
	But Flynn was interviewed the first week of the Trump presidency on January 24th.
	So, I mean, this is going to be fascinating.
	I don't know why.
	I can see this judge, maybe I'm wrong, throwing the whole thing out, the plea, everything, and saying it's over based on misconduct.
	And I wonder if he will do what he did the last time.
	Last time he ordered literally a special investigation into the prosecutors, which is almost unheard of.
	And, you know, he talked about, he actually named, the judge named a federal district court by Bill Clinton.
	Anyway, he talked about the troubling tendency he had among prosecutors to stretch the boundaries of ethics restrictions, concealing evidence to win cases.
	You know, it is a danger that you see with prosecutors that it becomes a game of winning and losing to them instead of what's right and what's wrong and what's just and what's not just.
	You know, that we throw around the term prosecutorial discretion all the time, but it really does mean something because I do think if that's your job day in and day out, maybe you become cynical because you are dealing with a lot of bad people and you think everybody's lying and you think everybody's corrupt, but sometimes there are good people that get caught up in bad situations that they're not guilty of.
	And wanting to weed them out and find the truth ought to be the goal, not about winning and not about losing.
	What's interesting, Kimberly Strassel had a great piece out noting on this all today about Judge Emmett Sullivan demanding that Robert Mueller produce these key documents to justify his indictment of General Flynn.
	Now, the problem here, too, is you got to remember, none of the FBI agents thought that General Flynn had lied, including Strzok, including McCabe, and including Comey.
	And the bizarre part of this is the statement that Comey had made.
	Let's go back and play the statement that we have.
	This is James Comey admitting, well, I wouldn't have tried to pull off this interview in the Bush administration or the Obama administration, but I saw an opening and I took it.
	But so that before the agents actually went in, there was a call with Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, and he's telling General Flynn, oh, you don't need a lawyer.
	And they're going in in a relaxed manner to see, well, what's General Flynn's mood?
	The problem is they already had illegal surveillance on masking in this particular case and raw intelligence.
	They had basically a printout of the conversation that General Flynn had with his soon-to-be Russian counterpart.
	And anything that he said that maybe didn't match perfectly, meaning his recollection with what was on the transcript, they were going to nail him for lying to the FBI.
	But the question is, will that never happen?
	Anyway, here's what Comey said, which I think should blow everybody away.
	You look at this White House now, and it's hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the SIROM.
	How did that happen?
	I sent them.
	Something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration, in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration.
	The protocol, two men that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for over the last two years.
	And in both of those administrations, there was process.
	And so 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 and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
	And I thought it's early enough.
	Let's just send a couple guys over.
	I mean, he's bragging about it, bragging about it not being the standard order of doing things because there's, quote, this is a chaotic White House.
	Well, they had only been in office four days.
	It's breathtaking in terms of the magnitude of arrogance.
	And, you know, this is a higher calling.
	Really?
	James Comey, bragging about setting up a three-star general, 33 years of service to his country, after you had your deputy call over and say, nah, you don't need a lawyer.
	I can't imagine.
	Now, the special counsel did submit the documents about Flynn's January 2017 interview with the FBI.
	It's going to be interesting.
	Were there other 302s?
	This information is just coming out.
	As it gets out, we'll get it to you.
	But anyway, back to the Kimberly Strassel column today about Judge Emmett Sullivan, who's demanded, and it's now turned over.
	We now have confirmation.
	They did submit the documents to the judge.
	And, you know, they have to now justify their indictment of General Michael Flynn.
	I've got to believe that this judge is seeing parallels between Flynn's case and the FBI's corrupt attempt to railroad Ted Stevens 10 years ago.
	And it's not merely because Judge Sullivan presided over both Stevens and Flynn's cases.
	It turns out that the same Justice Department official who played a critical role in the Stevens case now presides over the highly dubious prosecution of General Flynn because that person is none other than Robert Mueller.
	You know, we keep getting back to the same group of people.
	You know, we keep getting back to who.
	By the way, if we can print that out, I see it's now currently available, Linda.
	Thank you.
	You still have Rod Rosenstein and Comey and McCabe and Robert Mueller.
	They're all in this little, they're always touching base throughout the entirety of their careers.
	And it makes you wonder.
	And I was the one that was always warning why did Robert Mueller, who, by the way, James Comey was hoping would get appointed special counsel, which is why he leaked information that may be a legal problem for him in the end too, but leaked it to the professor to the New York Times for the purpose of getting a special counsel.
	But the sad thing is, is Comey's after Trump on the fourth day of his administration.
	Because if you're going to treat him and his administration differently than you treated past administrations and you're going to break all protocols to do it, you know, you're going to sign off on a FISA application, one that you have to say, according to Rod Rosenstein, to the best of your knowledge, is true.
	And James Comey signed the first FISA warrant application in October of 2016 based on we now know the phony Clinton bought and paid for Russian lie dossier.
	And then in January, before he became president, when he was president-elect, Donald Trump meets with all of these guys, Clapper, Comey, et cetera.
	Comey pulls him aside and says, just so you know, there's this dossier out there.
	It's unproven and it's salacious.
	Well, that's not what they were telling the FISA court back in October, you know, or when they were just about to renew it.
	Probably right around that time, they weren't telling the FISA court that it wasn't verified either.
	And they never told the FISA court who paid for it.
	None of this is standard operating procedure.
	The fact that he's so arrogantly bragging about the fact I sent my agents over.
	They're too chaotic.
	Let's take advantage.
	We'll tell Flynn not to get a lawyer and then we'll charge him with perjury.
	It blows my mind.
	Anyway, so Kimberly Strassel writes, Emmett Sullivan got a wake-up call in 2008 while overseeing the trial of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
	Judge Sullivan ultimately assigned a lawyer to investigate the Justice Department misconduct.
	The investigator's report found the prosecutors had engaged in deliberate, repeated ethical violations, withholding key evidence from the defense.
	It also excoriated the FBI for failing to write up 302s for omitting key facts from those it did write.
	The head of the FBI at the time was Robert Mueller.
	And Judge Sullivan since has made it his practice to begin every case with a Brady order, which reminds prosecutors of their constitutional obligation to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence.
	And on December 12, 2017, days after being assigned the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan issued that order instructing Mueller's team to turn over any evidence in its possession that is favorable to the defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment.
	And had any other judge drawn that case, we likely would never have seen the details of the FBI's behavior.
	So it's clear something has this judge on high alert here.
	And he's seeing the obvious parallels, I think, and Kimberly Strassel clearly agrees in her piece to the Stevens case because the media was predicting a quick ruling in the Flynn case.
	Now Judge Sullivan, with his new orders, is demanding to see for himself the McCabe memo and the Flynn 302 and ordering the special counsel to hand over today the other documents.
	They've since been handed over.
	Special counsel says defendants' cooperation military service justify a sentence at the low end of the guideline range.
	Anyway, judges have the ability to reject plea deals.
	They can require a prosecutor to make a case at a trial.
	Criminal justice system isn't only about holding defendants accountable.
	Trials also provide oversight of investigators and their tactics.
	Judges are not obliged to follow prosecutors' sentencing recommendations.
	You know, no one knows what Judge Sullivan is going to do here, but his reputation is no nonsense, straight shooter, advocate for government transparency.
	And my gut is telling me that this is not going to break the way Mueller thinks it's going to break.
	So we'll see.
	800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
	I actually have a copy of it.
	I'm going to read through it in this break and I'll report back to you when we get back.
	Hey, listen, I have now eight Liberty safes.
	I have a really big one.
	I have a medium-sized one.
	I have a number of small fingerprint handgun safes.
	Invest in Liberty Safe today.
	You won't regret it, LibertySafe.com.
	Bringing jobs back to America and getting America back to work.
	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 Jewel.
	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-ljuul.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 all right.
	So I'm reading this submission by the special counsel in the Flynn case, and you know, they're going out of their way to say that Michael Flynn, the circumstances, liar, liar, liar.
	I mean, they mentioned though, chose to make false statements, chose to lie about the topic with the incoming vice president.
	That is all true.
	Nobody in this is mentioning that I have seen yet the illegal surveillance, not minimization, unmasking, and leaking of raw intelligence, or the fact that they had the transcript, which gave them the confidence to know that he was lying, which very well was illegal by the Obama administration.
	That has yet to be addressed.
	I hope Judge Sullivan in this case actually does that.
	And then, you know, the defendant repeated the false statements to members of the presidential transition team.
	I'm having a hard time believing that General Flynn lied as much as probably didn't remember the conversation.
	I don't know because I have so many conversations with so many different people on any one given day.
	Do you really remember the details of those conversations?
	I don't, you might remember the highlights, but you might get something that was even important wrong, which would be understandable to me.
	And that's one of the big points that I have: where is any discretion?
	Then they go on to say the interview was voluntary.
	Well, they did tell him not to have a lawyer and lacked any type of coercion.
	When arranging the interview, McCabe asked the defendant if he'd be willing to speak with two FBI agents.
	The defendant agreed.
	They agreed to conduct the interview at the defendant's office.
	Now, again, we just heard from James Comey bragging about how I wouldn't have gotten away with this at any other administration.
	As the interviewing agents noted, the defendant was relaxed and jocular during the interview because he trusted him because he didn't know that he was being set up in a perjury trap here.
	And it gives the circumstances of the defendant's interview do not lessen the seriousness of the defense.
	Now, by the defendant submitting multiple aspects of the interview, does it lessen the seriousness of the offense?
	How did they get this information on Flynn?
	You have to start there because if it was attained illegally, therein lies a huge problem that nobody seems to want to bring up.
	You know, a sitting national security advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired lieutenant general, knows he should not lie to federal agents.
	He did not need to be warned it was a crime to lie to federal agents.
	Well, he should have been warned that it was important and that maybe He needed a lawyer here because they were setting him up for a situation by purposely bypassing the White House counsel and by saying, well, he agreed to meet with the FBI, but you have the FBI director admitting on tape that, well, I wouldn't have tried this with any other administration.
	I just tried it because there was chaos in the first week of the Trump administration.
	Anyway, so I'll give you the redacted portions of what we can glean from it when we get back, but this has now been submitted.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	When we come back, more of the best of The Sean Hannity Show.
	Stay tuned.
	You are listening to the best of The Sean Hannity Show.
	Hannity uncovers the real truth about the politics of D.C. He's your watchdog on Big Brother.
	Every day, Hannity is on right now.
	When something is classified, you put a marking on that paragraph.
	Right.
	And there were three that bore C in parens, which means that's confidential classified information.
	So a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a first lady, wouldn't a reasonable person know that that was a classified marking?
	As a secretary of state.
	Yeah, a reasonable person.
	That's all I'm asking.
	Yeah, before this investigation, I probably would have said yes.
	I'm not so sure.
	I don't find it incredible.
	Director Comey, come on.
	I mean, I've only been here a few years and I understand the importance of those markings.
	So you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be?
	That's your sworn testimony, did I?
	No, no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be, but it's an interesting question as to whether she, this question about sophistication came up earlier, whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in parens means.
	So you're saying this former Secretary of State is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking?
	No, it's not that's a huge statement.
	No, I'm saying you asked me, did I assume that someone would know?
	Probably before this investigation, I would have.
	I'm not so sure of that answer any longer.
	I think it's possible, possible, that she didn't understand what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.
	Oh, now, if you put that next to, by the way, glad you're with us 24 now till the top of the hour.
	Remember, Hillary didn't know what the C meant on the pill.
	I don't know what the, you know, it's pretty ridiculous.
	I actually have that tape.
	Let me just do that in light of the special counsel now releasing their statement, the government's reply to the defendant's memorandum and aid in sentencing.
	This is really in response to Judge Sullivan's request for the 302s.
	But let's go back to Hillary and the issue of not understanding the C classification, which I'm telling you she understood.
	With respect to classification, on classified documents, there is what's called a header.
	It says this material is top secret, secret, or confidential.
	There were no headers on the thousands of emails that I sent or received.
	There just weren't, and the FBI has not in any way contradicted that.
	There were a couple of emails with a tiny C in a parentheses, which did not have a header saying that means confidential in this circumstance, and which the director of the FBI has said, and the State Department has said those couple of emails were improperly marked, even with that.
	So, yes, I take classification seriously, and I think the record shows that I have.
	Authorities say that c stood for confidential.
	There was no header, that the document that the little c appeared in was marked confidential, which is the lowest form of classification.
	What you're saying is deeper in the email, of course.
	Absolutely, and that's what the director said.
	Oh I, I had no idea the c met classification.
	Now, when you look at the special counsel's document keeping that in mind, It says, a sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General, 33-year veteran of the Armed Forces, knows he should not lie to federal agents.
	He doesn't need to be warned it's a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth.
	The defendant undoubtedly was aware, in light of his many years working with the FBI, that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences.
	He, unlike, and they mention Vanderswan and Papadopoulos, was a senior national security official with extensive federal government experience, had led an intelligence agency, had worked with the FBI, and was steeped in the importance of accurate information to decision-making in areas of national security.
	Now, remember one other fact here.
	Remember, Obama recommended to Donald Trump that he not take on General Flynn.
	So they targeted him.
	That might explain the illegal surveillance without minimization, unmasking, and leaking of raw intelligence that put the general in this position in the first place, that if they have a printed copy of the actual phone call that they got and obtained illegally, unless they got a warrant that we didn't know about, that I haven't heard about, that would have all been obtained illegally.
	Nobody's talking about that that is the foundational material for what they had on General Flynn.
	Then it goes on in this Mueller response today that finally the interviewing agents did not deserve any indication of deception and had the impression at the time the defendant was not lying or didn't think he was lying.
	See, struck 302 at four.
	Members of the presidential transition team were likewise misled by the defendant's false denials.
	Those misimpressions do not change the fact as the defendant has admitted and sworn testimony to this district court.
	Well, because that was the plea deal.
	Doesn't mean he really believes he's lying.
	Means it was the plea deal that he took, probably because he couldn't afford any more lawyers and was selling his house, and probably because behind closed doors, they were threatening to go after his son, who he was in business with.
	They're not mentioning those little details.
	Anyway, that it doesn't defend the fact that he was indeed lying, knowingly made false statements to the FBI agents in a national security investigation.
	All right, so it goes on from there.
	Now, those false statements were material, they go on to say.
	Now, here's what's pretty interesting here.
	If you go back to the 302s, and this is now, I'm going into the weeds because, you know, what's fascinating is it didn't go through the White House, but they put the attachments that the judges requested here.
	And it says what follows are notes I typed shortly after my conversation with Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, while I have quoted directly in a few places.
	This represents the substance of our conversation.
	And it goes on to say that on Tuesday, they don't mention that they didn't go through the White House or that he was told by McCabe not to have an attorney present.
	On Tuesday, 124, 2017.
	Well, by the way, this is the January 24th, 2017.
	These are the notes that I assume Strzok had put together first.
	General Flynn called via secure line from my redacted to my block, blacked out.
	After talking briefly about the security briefing provided to White House staff, I told Lieutenant General Flynn that I had a sensitive matter to discuss.
	I explained that in light of the significant media coverage, public discussion about his recent contacts with Russian representatives, that Director Comey and I felt that we needed to have, this must have been written by McCabe, who's also gone for lying, who Strzz is also gone for his bias.
	And, oh, James Comey, all the people involved in this, they're all gone.
	I felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down with the general and hear from him the details of those conversations.
	Lieutenant General Flynn asked if I was referring to the contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
	I indicated that I was.
	Then General Flynn explained that he had been trying to build relationships with the Russians and that he had calls in which he exchanged condolences.
	He then stated that I probably knew what was said.
	I guess he's saying that, meaning he assuming now that they might have taped him at that point.
	I reiterated that in light of everything that he has been said about these contacts, the important thing now for us is to hear directly from him about what he said and how he felt about the conversations.
	Now, if the general at this point is thinking they have the conversation, why would he lie?
	Just stop right there because he's saying here, he stated, I probably knew what was said.
	He's saying that I'm guessing you surveilled this.
	I'm guessing you already know.
	Then the question is: if he thinks they know, he's not going to purposely lie because he would know what the ramifications of that are would be.
	Lieutenant General Flynn questioned, you know, so much information that had been made public, asked if we thought it had been leaked.
	I replied that we were quite concerned about what we perceived as significant leaks.
	Well, the only leaks that could have come would have been from those people that, in fact, surveilled, unmasked, and leaked raw intelligence.
	I explained to General Flynn my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly, quietly, discreetly as possible.
	He agreed, offered to meet the agents today.
	We had some discussion about timing, ultimately agreed to conduct the interview at his office in the White House at 14:30.
	But of course, they never went through the general counsel, which would be the proper procedure because James Comey was taking advantage of the quote chaos of the new administration and not following the normal procedures and protocols.
	So disgraceful.
	Now, a lot of this in attachment B is redacted.
	You just get a lot of blackout here.
	And this is the August's official 302, and a lot of it's blacked out.
	And the question is, why is it in August?
	And where is because the first one doesn't actually give, you know, I'm looking at the A attachment here that the special counsel has included.
	And these are just the shortly just memories shortly written after he met with Flynn and the lead up to it.
	What are you saying in my ear?
	We're going to put this up on Henny.com for our folks, too.
	So then they go into Peter Strzok, was interviewed and is blah, blah, blah, blah, participating, special counsel, FBI special agent.
	The purpose of the interview, collects certain information regarding Strzzok's involvement and various aspects of what was the special counsel investigation.
	FBI counterintelligence, Strzok had involvement, several blah, blah, blah, blah investigations.
	It's hard because now all of this is redacted.
	At the bottom, on January 24th, McCabe told Strzok to interview Flynn.
	McCabe called Flynn at 12:30.
	Flynn agreed to be interviewed that day at 2:30.
	McCabe may have documented the conversation.
	Comey was going to tell Yates right before the interview, but she called him first for another reason before he had a chance to call.
	When he told her the FBI was interviewing Flynn, she was not happy.
	Strzok and the FBI and his partner got access to the White House with the assistance of an FBI White House detail.
	Flynn met him about 2:15 earlier than agreed.
	Flynn was alone, relaxed and jocular.
	He wanted to give them a little tour of the area around his office.
	During their walk through the West Wing, President Trump and some of the movers were discussing where to place some artwork, walk between Strzok, but nobody paid attention to the agents.
	Flynn did not introduce them to anyone.
	Before the interview, McCabe redacted and others decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie to the FBI in an interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.
	So they told him not to have a lawyer and they didn't tell him that this was a real interview.
	Wow.
	That's how you treat a 33-year vet.
	And they already had a transcript in all likelihood.
	Flynn was unguarded, clearly saw the FBI as allies.
	So you can be friends with the FBI, want to help them.
	But if you say something that they didn't even believe was a lie, but they had the transcript because it was illegally surveilled, unmasked, and leaked raw intelligence, you're screwed.
	This is the United States of America.
	You wouldn't know it, would you?
	Talked about various subjects, hotels where they stayed during the campaign, the president's knack for interior design, talked about the long hours of the job, complained about the politics surrounding it, but Flynn always seemed to work his way to the subject of terrorism.
	Flynn was so talkative and had so much time for them that Strzok wondered if the National Security Advisor did not have more important things to do than have such a relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them.
	Wow.
	It was decided before the interview, agents redacted, redacted, would use the exact words that Flynn used.
	That means they had the transcript, such as to try and refresh his recollection.
	If Flynn would still not confirm what he said, they would not confront him or talk him through it.
	Strzz conducted the interview, was primarily responsible for taking notes and writing the Flynn 302.
	Throughout the interview, Flynn had a very sure demeanor, did not give any indicators of deception.
	He did not parse his words or hesitate in any answers.
	He only had once, which they documented in the 302 struck, and both had the impression at the time that he was not lying.
	They didn't think he was lying.
	Flynn struck Strzok as bright, but not profoundly sophisticated.
	The agents left Flynn in a collegial positive way.
	There was no discussion of follow-up.
	Strzz returned to FBI headquarters, briefed McCabe on the interview.
	McCabe briefed Comey.
	Strzok was aware, blah, blah, blah, redacted later about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn.
	Shortly after the interview, Yates briefed the White House staff on the Flynn calls.
	It was a setup.
	Now the question is this.
	Is Judge Sullivan going to see this, the actions of McCabe, no lawyer, not tell him that this is a real investigation, using the having the transcript and it totally being a perjury trap for this guy, because it was.
	Interesting that Mueller had wiped Strzzk and Page's iPhones clean after he had to get rid of them quietly.
	This is how we treat 33-year vets.
	Wow.
	And they want to just, this is their justification.
	Quick break.
	Right back.
	We'll continue.
	Hannity is on, Sean Hannity.
	Always honoring our servicemen and service women and standing up for liberty every day.
	Hannity.
	When we come back,
	we're going to have great analysis from the legal side.
	Andy McCarthy, Greg Jarrett are going to weigh in on the special counsel now, weighing in on the Flynn case in Judge Sullivan's courtroom.
	This is going to be amazing how this plays out.
	Also later, Joe Concha, Media Bias, Bill O'Reilly, Media Bias, all coming up on this Friday edition Sean Hannity show.
	Hey, there's still a lot more ahead on the best of the Sean Hannity Show.
	Stay tuned for more right after news on this station.
	This president has brought a criminal enterprise into the White House.
	Look, I understand.
	And the Democrats have important debates to have about who their candidate should be.
	They have to win.
	Yeah.
	They have to win.
	I will shut down the government.
	Okay, fair enough.
	And I am proud.
	And I'll tell you what.
	I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck.
	Holding them accountable.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	Freedom is back in style.
	Welcome to the revolution.
	We're burning down the mashing bullets at the moon, baby.
	This is how we rule.
	Sean Hannity, bringing you the new Sean Hannity show.
	More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show hour two, write down our toll-free telephone number.
	It's 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	If you are just joining us, we now know that, in fact, Robert Mueller has responded in the case of Judge Sullivan and the request for the 302s, and it's been handed over and stands by the case that they made that, in fact, General Flynn had lied, et cetera, et cetera.
	But there are certain glaring discoveries both in this and that we now know.
	Number one is that they had a full transcript of the conversation.
	Nobody has ever discussed the surveillance, the unmasking, the leaking of raw intelligence from the Obama administration that they had the entire transcript, or the unbelievable discovery that, in fact, Andrew McCabe said, oh, yeah, we want to talk to you, but you don't need a lawyer or anything.
	Or the admission by James Comey almost bragging that they set up General Flynn by, you know, him, I wouldn't have pulled this in the Bush or the Obama administration's.
	It's the first week of the Trump administration.
	Here's what he said.
	You look at this White House now, and it's hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the sit room.
	I sent them.
	Something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration, in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration.
	The protocol, two men that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for over the last two years.
	And in both those administrations, there was process.
	And so 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 and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
	And I thought it's early enough.
	Let's just send a couple guys over.
	Wow.
	What an admission.
	And they didn't warn General Flynn that it would be a crime to lie to the FBI.
	Well, he should have known that.
	I guess Hillary should have known that a C on an email meant classified.
	I mean, the double standard always comes into play, doesn't it?
	Andy McCarthy is here, Fox News contributor, columnist National Review, former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, author of the number one bestseller of the Russia hoax.
	Andy, let me start with you.
	I am very disturbed at what is clearly to me a perjury trap for General Flynn because they had the transcript.
	Nobody's ever talked about how that was obtained, why there was no minimization, why there was an unmasking, why there was leaking of raw intelligence.
	So that's the predicate of all this that nobody discusses in Mueller's submission to the judge, Judge Sullivan, today.
	That bothers me.
	Telling me he doesn't need a lawyer, that bothers me.
	You know, purposely going in casually and making it conversational, not reminding him.
	I mean, all of it to me sounds like a setup.
	Sean, look, I think this stinks.
	I mean, it's fair enough to say that Flynn should not have lied to the agents.
	He admitted in court that he lied to them about a couple of things regarding this.
	But did he just admit to it as a plea deal because he had to sell his house?
	He had no money.
	Did he admit to it because he was being told behind the scenes that, well, we're going to have to investigate you and your son's business if you don't sign this?
	And he just says, okay, I'll just take the deal.
	Maybe he took the deal because it was in his best interest and family's best interest to do it, not believing he really lied.
	I don't think so, Sean, because his claim in court was that he got hoodwinked into lying.
	Neither he nor his lawyers are saying that he told the truth.
	He was asked, did you ask the Russians through Kisliak not to escalate the tensions after the Obama, you know, due to the Obama sanctions?
	He denied that he had said that, but he obviously did say it because it's on the tape.
	And he denied that the Russian ambassador had told him that they decided not to escalate out of Flynn's request.
	So he's not saying that he told the truth about those things.
	His position in court is that he didn't tell the truth.
	But what they haven't established is why he was questioned in the first place.
	It has seemed to me from the very beginning here that there was no predicate to have an investigation of Flynn.
	There was nothing wrong with Flynn having had those conversations with Kislyak.
	It was stupid for him to lie about them, but there was nothing wrong with having them in the first place.
	And my sense of what happened here is that they intimidated Flynn into thinking that the Logan Act, which is a moribund... By the way, 1799 law that has been exercised twice, well, not successfully.
	Yeah, and I think what happened was they made Flynn think that he was in real jeopardy if he had had these conversations and discussed these matters with the Russian ambassador because of the Logan Act.
	The Logan Act.
	And that Flynn panicked and lied about them.
	But that doesn't mean they should have been investigating him in the first place.
	And they shouldn't have told him he shouldn't have a lawyer.
	I mean, you don't get to advise somebody like that.
	They shouldn't have told him that, but at the same time, you know, he was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he knows you shouldn't lie to FBI agents.
	I mean, come on.
	Is there any chance he didn't recollect it?
	I mean, there's no benefit of the doubt at all here that maybe he didn't have a full recollection.
	Sean, he could have gone to trial if that was where he was coming from.
	No, but maybe he didn't have the money.
	He had to sell his house.
	You can always say at the end of a false statement, somebody gets convicted of false statements that it was a failure of recollection.
	He had the ability to litigate that.
	I mean, it can't be both that, you know, it can't be both that if he tells them the truth, he should get credit for that.
	But if he doesn't tell them the truth, I just, I mean, you know, he lied.
	If there was no underlying crime or real ⁇ wait, if there's no underlying crime.
	He's not claiming.
	Sean, he's not claiming now that.
	No, I'm asking you, though.
	You're saying that he might have thought of it.
	I don't believe he lied.
	I believe he lied.
	No, I understand that.
	But if there was no underlying crime, in other words, the Logan Act wouldn't have been applicable, and there was nothing wrong with him speaking to his future counterpart, actually sounds intelligent to me.
	And then Comey is threading the needle doing things he wouldn't do in the Bush or Obama administration, and McCain's telling him not to have a lawyer, and the agents go in with a strategy that is described in the 302 to make them seem like they're their buddies and blah, blah, blah.
	It just seems like a setup to me.
	It's a perjury trap.
	I completely agree.
	It's a perjury trap.
	All right, Greg.
	Well, there are a lot of reasons somebody pleads to a process crime that I regard as, you know, in the scheme of things, a fairly minor thing, especially if prosecutors have caused you to go broke.
	You've had to sell your home, and they're threatening to prosecute your son on a different matter.
	So that changes the equation dramatically.
	But I look at this 302, and what I see here is that the FBI agents, Peter Strzok, and they blank out the other one.
	We know it's Joe Pienka, which Rosenstein continues to hide, question mark.
	They say that they had the impression at the time that the defendant was interviewed that he was not lying and they did not think he was lying.
	Now, that is the most important part of the 15 pages of documents that we have.
	We are now seeing it in the 302.
	And so my question would be, if I were the judge on Tuesday, Emmett Sullivan, I would say, why did you prosecute this man for lying when the agents who interviewed him determined he wasn't?
	And I would love to hear the answer to that.
	So that's what jumps out at me the most.
	Andy, you want to respond to that?
	Yeah, I guess the only thing that you can say about it on the lying front is Whether somebody tells the truth to agents or not is not something that hinges on whether the agents correctly predict or judge that the person who they're talking to seems to be telling the truth or at least trying to tell you.
	But they're the only witnesses.
	They're the only witnesses.
	Greg, you're leaving out the third witness who's the most important witness, which is the person himself.
	And if the person himself, if I lie to you, Greg, and you think I'm telling you the truth, and then two months later I say, I pulled one over on Greg, the fact is I pulled one over on you regardless of whether you thought at the time that I was telling you the truth.
	Andy, let me ask a serious question.
	I mean, is there any chance he decided to plead to a lesser crime of lying, which means he has to say that he lied to get his kid off or to get further, you know, he can't afford the lawyers anymore and all that?
	I mean, you say anything to take your deal, no?
	Anything is possible, but the point is he says he lied and his lawyers are saying he lied.
	And it doesn't make any sense to me that you would take a position in court that I have been pressured by the FBI.
	I've been hoodwinked by the FBI in the United States.
	Okay, let me ask you a question.
	Why wouldn't you, Sean, why wouldn't you just say I didn't lie?
	Why would you go into the case?
	Listen, I agree with the FBI.
	I agree with you, but again, under these circumstances, are you at all concerned, A, how this was obtained, meaning they had the transcript?
	I think it's outrageous how it was obtained.
	Are you concerned at the FBI's tactics here?
	And that means Comey and McCabe basically throwing all normal processes out the window to get to this guy when they would never do it in another administration this way.
	Correct.
	I think that they had no basis to interview him.
	I think if you're interviewing a guy for intelligence purposes, you play the tape for him, and then you ask him, what did this mean?
	What did that mean?
	And if you're doing it by the book, you call the White House counsel and you say, I want to interview the National Security Commission.
	You see, because what you're describing is an honest way to handle this, Andy.
	That's correct.
	But they didn't do it that way.
	That's why I think it's a perjury trap.
	But is that what we're going to do?
	But my problem is a perjury trap for a 33-year vet, five years of combat, is just, it doesn't just rub me the wrong way.
	It makes me sick to my stomach.
	I'm not saying it's right.
	But to have a perjury trap, there's usually perjury involved.
	And the argument with a perjury trap is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, not that the guy didn't commit the false statements.
	Greg.
	Well, in the 302 document, it talks about how Flynn was unguarded and he was not sophisticated.
	Those are exact words from the 302 document.
	So it also, in McCabe's memo, that's attachment A, McCabe admits that he's pushing Flynn not to have a lawyer.
	You know, he's telling him, you know, if we bring anybody else to the room, we've got to go through the Department of Justice.
	And so that is pushing Flynn to go solo.
	And the 302 makes it clear that they decided ahead of time not to tell him about the transcript.
	So they're setting him up.
	It's a perjury trap, as Andy just said.
	But I want to respond to one other thing.
	People plead guilty to lesser crimes all the time, even though they may not have committed those crimes.
	And I think that's what happened here.
	And again, this 302, the interviewing FBI agents.
	If they do plead guilty to something they didn't do, a lesser crime, doesn't that mean when they go before the judge, they can't say, well, I'm doing this.
	I didn't really lie, but I'm doing this because this is my plea deal.
	But the lawyers can make the argument that it appears he was set up, that they didn't, they pushed him not to have a lawyer.
	They didn't tell him about the transcript.
	That's all in the 302.
	Stay right there.
	Andy McCarthy and Greg Jarrett are with us, 800-941-Sean.
	Three hours a day is all we ask on the Sean Hannity Show.
	So please join us, but just don't be late.
	Sean Hannity is on.
	All right, as we continue the legal side of this Mueller filing today, knowing this Judge Sullivan's history, Greg Jarrett, I suspect he's not happy with these tactics at all.
	I don't know how he's going to respond.
	Any prediction?
	Well, I don't think he's going to be very happy.
	Let's forget about the fact that there was no basis to even interview Flynn.
	But the McCabe memo is really incendiary in front of a judge, that McCabe pushed Flynn not to have a lawyer, and they deliberately conspired to deceive Flynn that they had a transcript in which he had been illegally unmasked.
	But finally, I come back to what I said before.
	This is the first time we've seen in print from the FBI that the two agents who interviewed Flynn concluded he was not lying.
	And I think that would be a red flag to any judge.
	Wait a minute, I've got a defendant here.
	I wonder if the judge will look at the fact that they had the full transcript and ask, well, why was he surveilled?
	Why was minimization not practiced and put in place as is normal?
	Why was he unmasked?
	Well, the surveillance always happens when you're having a conversation with a Russian, whether it be a diplomat or a man.
	Okay, but they're supposed to minimize and they're not supposed to unmask or leak the raw transcript of it.
	All right, last word, Andy McCarthy.
	Well, I think, you know, the judge is going to be, I would think, upset about the whole way that this went forward.
	But it seems to me, Sean, that the big issue here is that Mueller has asked for what the judge is going to impose anyway, which is the minimum sentence, which is probably probation.
	General Flynn's going to get no time.
	But my point is that General Flynn is going to get no time because of this heroic service of 30 years to the country.
	And yet the story is not going to be a good idea.
	But you don't like the tactics, though, Andy.
	I mean, you would not have handled it this way by a long shot.
	You don't like it.
	No, I don't like it.
	And I don't like that the way this is going to play out is that it's going to look like Flynn got no time because of the great cooperation he provided to the investigation.
	In the meantime, much of anything.
	All right, guys.
	Thank you very much.
	When we come back, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Concha, all coming up.
	More of the best of the Sean Hannity Show coming up.
	The Sean Hannity Show, a thermonuclear MMA assault on fake news.
	Hannity's on right now.
	One thing that we do have to, you know, we sometimes lose perspective on this.
	And the largest perspective is a case has been built this week that the president was not legitimately elected.
	If you look at the Russia stuff and the campaign finance stuff and the fact that 40,000 votes going the other way over three states, we now don't know.
	And that's why this is important.
	It's not the campaign finance.
	It's not did they have a meeting in Trump Tower with some Russians.
	It's was he legitimately elected?
	And that's where, that's what we're all going to have to swear at the end of this.
	I think legally, we already now know that the president has committed a felony in order to obtain the office of the presidency.
	He will likely not be charged with that.
	And in part, he's not going to be charged because even if he could be, forget about the DOJ policy, Michael Cohen decided not to fully cooperate with the Southern District of New York.
	So he's not a witness available to them right now.
	Here is this extraordinary story of a woman who came to this country as an immigrant, as a model, as now the First Lady of the United States.
	And, you know, you would think in her rare public appearances, you know, that some terrible wrong has been done to her in this country.
	I've always been surprised by that air of grievance that she carries very publicly with her.
	The first lady is echoing exactly what the president says.
	And it's they're crying.
	The president has cried fake because he doesn't like the truth that's being reported.
	And now the first lady, who at one point used to see it clearer, we thought, than she is now.
	But what means means you'd have to say, how do you do, individual one?
	It would be interesting to go.
	I would definitely go.
	And if you've got a picture up, I mean, let's say he gets impeached.
	It's almost like you have a picture with Nixon.
	It's kind of like a collector's eye.
	It's a collectible, yes.
	Here's the thing, though.
	I mean, just making fun.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Shauna is our number.
	How they've evolved from Trump and Russia in collusion into a campaign finance, whatever crime that the president committed.
	It's not a crime.
	If you look at the statute, the rules, and the law itself, it doesn't include a non-disclosure agreement.
	The law actually matters in these things.
	And with just such passionate abandon and stupidity, they just report things with a level of hysteria and ignorance that it takes your breath away every day.
	It is not what they are saying that it is, so many in the media.
	As a matter of fact, that goes for any other contract, payment arrangement, anything of a private nature.
	It's not listed as a campaign finance violation.
	In the course of normal behavior, now think about this.
	Normal behavior that everybody has, as a matter of law, it was never designed or meant or intended or insisted on or regulated to be reported.
	So all the private payments that you have in the world, it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter the amount.
	They're private involving private matters.
	As for impeachment, NDAs involving private matters occurring before he was even a candidate are completely unrelated to his office, cannot legally trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
	You don't believe me, ask Alan Dershowitz or any number of smart attorneys out there that we've been talking to.
	All right, Bill O'Reilly is with us to weigh in on the media aspect of all this.
	He has a brand new book out, part of his killing series called Killing the SS, a fascinating book.
	I've read it cover to cover, and now I know why you've been so high on the New York Times list, number one, for many, many weeks.
	You're still battling it out with Michelle Obama, though, I see, for one and two.
	I appreciate you reading a book, Sean.
	I know how busy you are.
	No, I love reading.
	I'm a great success, and it is a good piece of history for people who are interested in that.
	You know, the media is interesting, and it all comes down to one thing: they don't really care about the truth anymore.
	And that's been going on, I would say, for the last five, six years, but really accelerated after Donald Trump was elected president.
	When I say they don't care about the truth, when I went to journalism school at Boston University, which was right after Watergate, there was a fervor to become a reporter.
	And the goal that was stated in my classes was: your job is to find the truth and state it honestly.
	That's your job as a reporter, no matter where you work.
	And that was fine.
	I wanted to do that.
	And that's why I spent all the money to go to BU and get a degree.
	Now that's changed.
	And it's changed for two reasons.
	Number one, Donald Trump is not a standard issue politician, and the establishment in Washington hates him.
	Because if he's successful, that opens the door for other non-traditional politicians to achieve power.
	So the Washington establishment, the people who make their money off government, want to destroy him.
	The second thing is that the media chieftains are almost 100% left-wingers stemming from the Vietnam War.
	They are in the position of power now.
	And they despise Trump because he's not a liberal.
	And you see this.
	And the third thing is that they market to an ideological audience.
	So MSNBC makes its money on liberal people.
	All right.
	And to be fair, Fox News makes its money on conservative people.
	So that's where their programming goes.
	But lost in all of this is the individual search for truth.
	So Donald Trump, every single day of his life, has to face accusations.
	Both you and I have to face them as well.
	And you know how debilitating they are psychologically and emotionally.
	And the tactic is break him.
	And if we can't break him emotionally, then we'll make it so that he can't win re-election.
	That is the media tactic.
	It doesn't matter what's true.
	It's the allegation du jour.
	I've been saying they now want to use this.
	This is a death by, a worst case scenario, death by a thousand cut strategy.
	I would slightly disagree on your analysis about Fox.
	I am a conservative talk show host, but there are plenty other opinions on Fox throughout the day strongly that are strongly on the other side.
	Absolutely.
	But I don't see any of that diversity on these other channels.
	Look, you know, this is an important question.
	Ask me what I do for a living, and I will say I am a talk show host.
	Now, part of being a talk show host, Bill, is that there are days I report news straight up and down.
	If it's a war, if it's a hurricane, if it's some type of violent protest, I'm right down the middle, throwing to reporters, asking objective questions.
	Other times, we do investigative reporting.
	I think we did a pretty good job vetting Obama when very few would, exposing the deep state when others ignored these important issues, this abuse of power.
	I give very strong opinion.
	That's part of being a talk show host.
	Sometimes we talk about sports.
	Sometimes we do pop culture.
	But at the end of the day, I would describe what I do as the entire newspaper.
	But these other shows and these other venues, they all claim that they're journalists.
	They should be doing what you're doing.
	I've known you for 23 years now.
	So when people ask me about you, and occasionally they do.
	They ask me about you all the time.
	And they're like, what's O'Reilly like?
	Yeah, you get the same on me, I get on you.
	Hannity is a commentator.
	That does not mean he can't report.
	It does not mean he's not able to give you information.
	It means that his job is to assemble honest information and then comment on it.
	That's what you do on radio and television.
	Now, the fact that you have been tremendously successful speaks for itself.
	As far as the Fox News channel is concerned, both you and I were there in the beginning of it.
	And the reason that Fox News dominates is because it was the only network in television history that gave conservatives a break, that did not disparage them and dismiss them as some kind of lunatic fringe.
	And conservative, traditional Americans and a good number of liberals admired that philosophy and watched the channel.
	So what I'm trying to say is that each news organization has a mandate to bring in viewers.
	It used to be get as many viewers as you can.
	But now, in the left-wing precincts, particularly, it's we're going to destroy Donald Trump.
	And anybody who wants to see that happen is our viewership.
	So you go out and find stuff that's going to destroy Donald Trump.
	When 90% of the network news coverage is negative, you know the fix is in.
	He doesn't do anything well.
	He's not doing anything that benefits people.
	Bill, have you ever seen any of these networks talk about the dramatic turnaround in the economy or foreign policy success or the difference?
	Jerusalem is now the capital of Israel.
	Others had promised, never had the courage to do it.
	We can talk about North Korea, new trade deals, Mexico, Canada.
	I mean, there was a story a few months ago where he allocated billions of dollars to clean up the Pacific Ocean.
	It's not even our fault.
	There's a big, big plastic slick, and the United States has taken a lead to clean the ocean up.
	Did that get anything?
	Nope.
	They didn't know.
	It's got nothing.
	For the first time in 75 years, Bill O'Reilly, America is energy independent and one of the world's largest exporters of energy.
	75 years.
	That happened under him.
	Look, Americans know the fix is in.
	That's why Donald Trump's approval rating, as it stands today, is about 48%, the same as Barack Obama's was at the same time in his term.
	So Americans understand.
	I'm worried about Trump himself.
	I'm worried about the human being.
	I mean, how much can you take?
	Because you know the toll it's taken on you.
	I know the toll it's taken on me to be hated and attacked every single day.
	Maybe I've got a missing switch, Bill, but I don't give a flying rip about what these people think about.
	You say that.
	I know sometimes you're sitting there going, What the hell am I doing this for?
	Throats out.
	Well, you know, I train MMA five days a week, so you know, you know, it's part of my nature.
	You know, I will say this, and I spent time this week with Melania.
	And look, I would be dishonest if I say at times it doesn't drag on you a little.
	Look, I'm a Christian.
	I try not to do that.
	I don't want to build my life around hatred.
	But I feel sorry for Donald Trump, the man, okay, because I know that he's a proud man, that he'd like to be treated fairly as every human being in this country would, and that he is just beaten to a pulp.
	But let me say this every day, and it's just disgusting.
	I've never met, and I've interviewed Melania, and I've interviewed the president, and I've known the president like you've had for two decades.
	And I will tell you that he has an ability to absorb all of this and not let it get to him.
	The media may claim they're getting to him, not from what I have seen.
	Not doubtful.
	Look, I'm sure it does some days, and he gets mad some days.
	We all do.
	He's doubtful.
	This guy, you know, is frustrated that the things that he does well, and I do believe he'll make a deal with China and Europe that will help us, us, meaning the entire United States.
	But it's ignored.
	Stay right there.
	Bill O'Reilly with us.
	By the way, it's a great Christmas gift.
	I read it cover to cover.
	I couldn't put it down.
	It's called Killing the SS.
	His killing series, by the way, is the best-selling, if I'm not wrong, Bill, series ever in history.
	And the latest book I learned a lot about.
	And I talk a lot about evil and how it's hard for good people to recognize evil exists.
	But the search for some of these war criminals post-World War II, you're going to learn a lot.
	It's based on history and a lot of research that I had not known about before.
	It's called Killing the SS.
	We'll link it to Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
	Quick break, right back.
	More with Bill O'Reilly on the other side.
	The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
	Hang on for Sean's conservative solutions.
	All right, as we continue, Bill O'Reilly is our guest.
	His book, Killing the SS, part of the killing series that he's so well known for.
	All right, so we have only a minute left.
	So what is an O'Reilly Christmas like?
	Traditional Christmas.
	We go to Mass.
	The urchins get far more presents than I ever imagined I would ever get in my entire life.
	Yeah.
	We got a little stockings.
	We got the terror dog, Holly.
	She gets gifts.
	And then dad pays the bills, you know?
	Is there anything that you want in your life?
	Because my family hates me because there's nothing they can buy me because I don't want anything.
	You know, I'm like you.
	I'm not a real materialistic kind of guy.
	You and I have been very fortunate in our lives to come from working class parents and now be able to access anything we really want.
	And so for me, I give away a lot of money around Christmas time to people who don't have a lot because I remember those days.
	And that's what Christmas means to me, just giving to others.
	It really is better.
	I mean, it's cliched, but it really is true.
	I much prefer to give people things.
	I mean, it makes me happier.
	It does, right?
	It makes it more happy than for me to get something.
	How many shirts do I have to have, you know?
	I got three.
	I mean, I just rotate them every other day.
	I know.
	All right.
	Bill O'Reilly, killing the SS.
	Merry Christmas to you.
	Have a great new year.
	And thanks for coming up.
	I really appreciate it.
	Merry Christmas to everybody listening right now.
	And Hannity's a good guy.
	I want everybody to know.
	No, don't say something like that.
	That's not, you're ruining my reputation.
	You're ruining the show.
	You're killing me.
	So I'm going to be next, Killing Hannity.
	He's going to be the next version of the Killing Series.
	Bill O'Reilly, 800-941-Sean is our number.
	You are listening to the best of the Sean Hannity Show.
	Don't forget, catch the Sean Hannity Show weekdays right here on this station.
	And stay tuned for more right after the latest news.
	The best of Sean Hannity is on now.
	This is how we rule.
	This president has brought a criminal enterprise into the White House.
	Look, I understand.
	Democrats have important debates to have about who their candidate should be.
	They have to win.
	Yeah.
	They have to win.
	I will shut down the government.
	Okay, absolutely.
	And I am proud, and I'll tell you what brief.
	I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck.
	Holding them accountable.
	Sean gets the answers no one else does.
	Freedom is back in style.
	Welcome to the revolution.
	We burning down the mashing bullets at the moon, baby.
	This is how we rule the world.
	Sean Hannity's new Sean Hannity show.
	More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
	Coming up next, our final news roundup and 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 is 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.
	He may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.
	Are you in a position to consider discussing impeachment in Congress?
	I think we have to be.
	When the evidence becomes so clear that you very likely have a criminal sitting in the Oval Office, what is the Congress left to do at that point?
	I think we're past the point where everyone should be afraid to let the word slip across their mouth because if this scenario doesn't call for the consideration of impeachment, if not flat-out impeachment and removal, I'm not exactly sure what the founding fathers had in mind.
	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, that is your corrupt news media.
	Impeachment, you've got to ask, for what?
	What are they going to impeach him on?
	Where's the Russia collusion that they all talked about?
	I understand that it doesn't matter.
	It's just the more shrill, the more angry, the more bizarre this whole thing gets.
	None of this is based on law.
	None of this is based on facts.
	And it's time for a little bit of simple analysis and truth here.
	And not the least of which is none of what they're saying points to any crime in any way, shape, matter, or form, as many lawyers have been saying.
	Anyway, Joe Concha of the Hill is with us to just take an analysis of all this.
	Joe, how are you?
	Welcome back.
	Dude's Roundup Information Overload.
	Outstanding.
	You know, almost after listening to that montage, do you get the feeling that perhaps many in our political media are rooting for impeachment?
	Rooting.
	It's the same people that have been doing this for two years, but now they feel for some reason, I think we got him on a campaign finance violation.
	If he knew, now there's a couple of problems.
	One is Michael Cohen has given variations on that story.
	So now the question is, but then it comes down to an issue that deals with the law.
	And the law has to be, was there an intent?
	To reach that threshold is an enormous burden to begin with.
	And number two, I don't think they can reach it.
	Right.
	And even if it is reached on some level, I still would argue that, again, this was not the campaign finance investigation.
	It was the Russian investigation.
	And all we heard for two years was that the president colluded, or at least his campaign officials colluded with the Russian government in order to affect the 2016 election.
	Now that that's been, at least for now, taken out of the equation, because it would have been leaked, right?
	At some point, everybody leaks in this town.
	We would have heard about some sort of connection.
	Since that goalpost has been moved, it suddenly seems like, and the reason why I asked you the question, do you think they're rooting for impeachment, is because, boy, half of it's hatred animus towards the president.
	Half is because it's great for business, for clicks, for ratings.
	If you have an impeachment going on, you remember 1998, boy, everybody's ratings went through the roof.
	So I think it's a combination of those things.
	But in the end, do these reach the high that I heard during your clips, high crimes and misdemeanors.
	Do these so-called high crimes and misdemeanors?
	I'm going to go over this slowly again because, number one, they can't indict a sitting president.
	That's been the DOJ policy since 1973.
	And number two, you know, as good as the Southern District of New York is, and some of the best lawyers and well-known legal figures in the country have come out of there, this is not what they do.
	They rarely handle any campaign finance case.
	And when you listen to the left-wing media regurgitating what people are implying here and things that they're literally cherry-picking out of these reports about sentencing recommendations, that's never been put together.
	This is all speculation on everybody's part.
	But if you look at the law and campaign finance rules and the context, they do not mention ever non-disclosure agreements or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature as campaign contributions.
	Now, understand what I'm saying here.
	The actual rules in the law state the context.
	They don't include issues involving NDAs, other contracts, payments, arrangements.
	Uh, things that are of a private nature, etc.
	As campaign contributions, in other words, in the nor in the normal everyday.
	Not running for president life in in august of 2015 would Donald Trump would it be so far?
	Is it normal human behavior for people that these things happen in day-to-day life, either for personal reasons fam, familial reasons or business reasons?
	Are these decisions made every day?
	The answer is yes, and those private payments can be made in any manner, any amount.
	They're private payments involving private matters.
	Now, you know, Levin wrote this up the other night and I thought he had it down perfectly and there's no reporting requirement.
	So the fact that they were included in these charges in the in the Cone case um, we know that there are people that are just pulling out of this only the Michael Cohn's comments that they agree with and ignoring past comments which contradict it.
	And as for impeachment well, non-disclosure agreements, those are private matters occurring before the president was even a candidate, completely unrelated to the office.
	That cannot legally legitimately trigger the constitution's impeachment clause.
	As a matter of fact, they could not be more irrelevant in terms of ever having an opportunity of reaching that threshold.
	Now, the history of high crimes misdemeanors, that language makes it crystal clear that the office and the president's duties are not affected in any conceivable way by these earlier private contracts, and it doesn't matter how loud or shrill they get, it's a simple matter of law.
	At this point anyway, Joe Concha's back of you there.
	I kind of look at it more from the public perception right.
	In other words, if i'm sitting at home and i'm watching all this unfold and I watch Democrats pursue impeachment and I see the media, as we mentioned before, this is something that they want, half because of animus towards the president, half because it's great for business, and i'm sitting at home and i'm thinking boy, is this really a reason even if I believe all this to remove a president from office?
	And I get impeachment doesn't remove you.
	You still need two-thirds of the Senate to vote on that.
	But is this reasons for impeaching?
	And then I go back to 1998 and I was kind of young at the time but I followed this stuff pretty closely and with Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, when he purchased him, perjured himself under oath, Republicans overplayed their hands by pursuing impeachment and they did impeach him.
	Obviously he wasn't removed.
	And I look at this one poll, number Sean, and it sticks with me every time I talk about this post.
	Impeachment bill Clinton's approval rating was 73 percent because people said no, this is not why we sent you to Washington, but to pursue this sort of thing.
	We want you to help solve problems and advance our lives and do things that we can feel and impact us and make this country better.
	And i'm telling you Democrats, taking back the House here, 40 seats in the House and Nancy Pelosi becomes House speaker and if this is going to be the focus, it will boomerang on them.
	I can guarantee you, because i've seen this movie before Sean, i've seen the same movie and i've been a part of it.
	I had a great conversation with Lindsey Graham about this and and we were both saying it's like they never learned a thing from that era.
	Um, and here's the more interesting thing, and i'm i'm making the case that what we're beginning to see is a shrillness of the radical left and all of their real Deep-seated.
	Everything that they tried to hide from the American people during the election is now coming out, the radicalism.
	And this is going to not, this is not going to wear well with the American people.
	The fact that they hid who they are, what their real agenda is, and their myopic focus on destroying a president and not solving problems.
	They are going to so overreach, and it's going to happen quickly.
	The president, with all of this noise that we have heard now for a number of weeks here about this particular issue, his approval rating is at 50%.
	His approval rating is at the exact same position that Barack Obama was at that time in his presidency.
	And he's had many successes.
	And I don't think the guy's had a day's rest or a day's peace without this kind of building anticipation to destroy him.
	They cannot accept the results of this 2016 election.
	By the time February gets here, the American people are going to see, it will be fully exposed to them and on display on almost an hourly basis how insane the leaders in the House of Representatives are.
	And it's not going to wear well with the American people.
	That's going to happen quickly.
	They have no idea what's about to happen.
	So what does that tell you about our media now?
	And I said this.
	I remember I had a conversation with Brett Baer the night after the 2016 election.
	And he said, what did we miss?
	What do you think went wrong here?
	And I said, well, I think what we learned was that the impact of the media, of pundits, of people living in ivory towers in the studios of New York and Washington opining about what they think the country is thinking and feeling and what's important to them, they didn't get it.
	They didn't go to the middle of the country to actually talk to people in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan.
	And then I remember The Hill, we did this whole compilation of major endorsements by newspapers of each candidate.
	And we found that 57 endorsements went to Hillary Clinton and just two to Donald Trump.
	You know what that got her?
	That got her a concession speech.
	In other words, people said, we don't care what you think and tell us how to vote.
	We're going to go our own way.
	We're going to do our own homework and decide on which candidate we're going to go with.
	So, yeah, all this negative coverage and every morning you see on like the morning shows, you see on CNN at night and they're hammering them.
	They're hammering them.
	You go to Media and you see, yeah, this person slammed Trump and this person ripped Trump.
	It's having no impact because people have turned it off because they're either numb to it or they don't believe the messenger, Sean.
	Got to take a quick break.
	More with Joe Concha of The Hill.
	We'll get to your calls coming up as we continue throughout this Friday edition, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	And wow, this is going to be the best year.
	I am telling you, from an entertainment perspective, watching them implode every day and go nuttier and nuttier and nuttier, it's going to be so worth the price of admission.
	I promise you.
	It will be transparent to the whole country what has happened to the Democratic Party.
	It's been radicalized.
	Okay, so you know I love Black Rifle Coffee because it's the best.
	BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Sean.
	Listen, if you want the best, the boldest, the greatest cup of coffee you've ever had, fresh, delicious roast-to-order coffee, blackriflecoffee.com slash Sean.
	They have great gift certificates, by the way.
	Blackriflecoffee.com slash Sean.
	You will love it.
	I will continue.
	Joe Concha on the other side.
	Still waiting to fly out all those libs who promised to leave if Trump were elected.
	The jet is ready.
	This is The Sean Hannity Show.
	Joe Concha, media reporter for The Hill.
	You know, I'm looking at even just the day's news, and I got, you know, an MSNBC guest.
	Trump, his goose is cooked.
	He should cop a plea and resign.
	Enjoy Behar.
	I love this one.
	Maybe Aaron Hatch needs to go to jail for supporting Trump.
	Samantha B. likening Fox viewers to Nazis.
	Most white people are racist, she hints.
	And I just, I watch it, I pay attention to it, and I've got to laugh because they don't know they're in the middle of a feeding frenzy overreach, and they've missed the whole, they've missed exactly what they've fallen into the trap that Donald Trump basically couldn't have set a bigger, better trap for them.
	You got to laugh.
	I got a yawn, right?
	I see Samantha D saying, oh, all of Fox's viewers are Nazis, and the president is a Nazi.
	You know what?
	Boy, that word's really lost its impact now, hasn't it?
	And by the way, never compare anything to Nazism or to Hitler or the Holocaust.
	I would bet that 90% of millennials don't understand what the Holocaust was, which was, it wasn't that you were Jewish and you were marched into a concentration camp and immediately killed.
	Oh, no, they actually worked you almost to death.
	And when you were no longer productive in terms of building something or just in terms of raw labor, then you were killed after you were separated from your family.
	So please, you got to stop with these comparisons because it's insulting to every person that knows somebody that went through that or has family members that they lost there.
	And that's the whole thing, the overreach.
	I mean, we might as well call that the theme of 2019.
	I'm interested to hear why you think it's going to be entertaining.
	I guess because of the whole meltdown.
	It's going to be entertaining because then they cannot control themselves.
	They cannot control themselves.
	It is going to expose themselves to be people that are off the rails with no intention of serving the American people.
	And that is bad politics in the end.
	And it's not going to serve them well.
	And the president's popularity is going to rise just like it did with Bill Clinton.
	And every day you'll see it.
	And they'll get more shrill and more angry.
	And we'll see more of it.
	All right.
	I got to run.
	Joe Concha.
	Merry Christmas, sir.
	God bless you.
	You're a great American.
	All right, 800-941-Sean.
	Toll-free telephone number.
	All right, a little Charlie Daniels, big and rich, Zach Brown Friday concert series coming up and your calls as we continue this Friday.
	You are listening to the best of the Sean Hannity Show.
	And stay tuned.
	More memorable moments, interesting guests, and a lot of fun coming up next.
	You are listening to the best of The Sean Hannity Show.
	Check out the show 24-7.
	Download it to your iPod.
	Be a Hannity Insider at Hannity.com.
	I'll let that play a little bit.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
	It's Friday and my last day before my long vacation of the year.
	And that means it's time for ours big and rich Friday concert series.
	Let's hit it.
	Where we're coming to your city.
	Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
	We'll all be in flying high than a jail on her.
	And if you want a little bang in your yin yang, come along where we flew through Cincinnati.
	We all got really happy.
	Grabbed a bowl of that skyline chili along the way.
	Then we rolled on into camp and scared the hell out of Marilyn Manson.
	Then the party started happening.
	Hey, hey.
	And in the middle of a Charleston night, we ran into Jessica White.
	And a little moonshine got us right from Snockin' Sun.
	And we're coming to your center.
	Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
	We'll all be flying higher than a jet Linux.
	And if you want a little bang in your yin-yang, come along.
	Well, we broke down in Greenville in the middle of a hayfield.
	But a butterlike truck pulled up and helped us out.
	So we did it up to Philly.
	Party down like real hillbillies.
	Propped the music mafia and rocked it out.
	And chipper walls where we go.
	When we're up in Buffalo, don't you know those Yankees drinking up the drink?
	Yeah, we're coming to your city.
	Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
	is it for me well don't all look sad at once You know, it was Christmas bonus time.
	I'm not sure we should talk about something.
	We should talk about something.
	What do you want to talk about now?
	We should talk about the fact that you have been you know working under duress for the last month.
	So, you know, people should know how hard you worked and all the stuff you've done and you know how much you've accomplished.
	I'm not being nice.
	This is factual.
	You'll know when I'm being nice.
	It'll sound weird.
	What is the duress I've been under?
	Because you've been sick and coughing and hacking all over all of us.
	But you still come in because you're a workhorse.
	And I think that American.
	This has been the worst, longest, most frustrating experience with whatever it is that's going on inside of my body with a cold and sinuses.
	Yeah, it's called you won't take a day off.
	You don't listen to anybody.
	You don't take what you're supposed to take.
	And well, I tried to take the medicine, but it annoys me and then I can't sleep.
	Well, there you go.
	No, I got to pick my poison.
	I mean, I was sure the medicine works, but I stayed up the entire night before the Milani interview.
	That day was like 48 hours and no sleep.
	And I'm like, yeah, I could have done better if I was more awake.
	Well, if only you had slept and taken a day off, like some people told me.
	Well, I used to go skiing until my son broke his leg, but I like to tell you what I did.
	I bought myself a Christmas gift.
	You want to know what it is?
	What is it?
	All right, because you know, what do I tell you when you want to buy me something?
	What do I always say?
	Don't buy me anything.
	Don't buy me anything.
	I don't want anything.
	You know that I don't want anything.
	I have, you know, my little group of shirts that Fox pays for.
	I don't even buy my own shirts.
	I don't buy my own ties.
	I don't buy my own jackets.
	I buy jeans.
	And I have how many, how long have I been wearing this one pair of shoes?
	Over two years.
	They're called Todds.
	Wear the same pair of shoes every day, right?
	Are these the ones with the hole in it?
	No, I replaced those two years ago with these, but they stand up and they're comfortable.
	So the reality is, um, I don't wear jewelry, I don't wear watches.
	There's my own personal preference because I never wanted to get caught in the trappings of stuff.
	Now, I like to give those things to people, and I like people's reaction when you give them something that they would never get for themselves.
	But like for you guys, I would love to buy you all Christmas presents, but you know what?
	The best Christmas present I can give you is money, and that you all deserve it.
	Don't you think that's a better present than me going to the store and picking out a scarf or a hat for you?
	I mean, diamonds are a girl's best friend, but do what you feel.
	Oh, you want me to buy you diamonds?
	Is that what you want instead of your Christmas?
	I would never say that.
	You don't seem like the diamond person.
	You really don't.
	Because you always brag that you get your clothes like for 12 bucks on where do you buy them?
	I buy my clothes on Amazon and Walmart and I buy my earrings at Target.
	There you go.
	I mean, so just all right.
	Well, take your bonus money and go buy some.
	Oh, I'm going to go crazy.
	Oh, wow.
	Target better.
	Watch out.
	I know what it's going to do.
	Listen, I went shopping with you once at Target.
	You don't remember.
	What do you mean I don't remember?
	Of course I remember.
	It was because ridiculous.
	We were on the road.
	Where were we?
	I forgot.
	We were in West Palm.
	All right, West Palm, and you wanted to get something for Liam.
	Correct.
	All right.
	So you're so we go into the store.
	Who else was with us?
	It was Gomez and James.
	My buddy Gomez, my brother-in-law, sweet baby James.
	And we go in there and you're like looking at every item.
	Choo choo train.
	He likes choo-choo trains.
	He does.
	He loves Tom.
	Okay.
	So finally, and you're looking at the price and you're looking at it.
	Finally, I can't take it anymore.
	I can't handle it.
	So I.
	Okay, first of all, this is such crap because you didn't even let me begin.
	We literally went down the aisle.
	I did let you begin.
	And the three of you said, step aside.
	We know what little boys like.
	And it was like free-for-all.
	You all were reliving your three-year-old.
	I filled up the basket and I said, let's go.
	And I was like, you know, who had to lug that all the way home and on the train alone without you three strong men?
	Me.
	Oh, I'm so sorry that you had to bring the toys that we bought for your son home.
	Was he happy?
	I had to buy it a seat on Amtrak.
	Well, you and I got a family video of the three of you opening it up and seeing me.
	She was happy.
	He's very fun.
	All right.
	So anyway, that's my extent shopping.
	And you're like turning it over.
	Well, should I get this choo-choo or that choo-choo?
	This choo-choo's $3.99.
	This one's $2.
	So what it really comes down to is you're impatient and you didn't want to wait for me.
	So you bought everything.
	No, I'm like, just buy the stupid trains and let's get out of here.
	Anyway, I'm not a good shopper.
	That's why I just, I don't want to go shopping.
	Stay away from yourself.
	What did you buy for yourself, though?
	Nothing.
	Why would I buy something?
	You just said that you bought something for yourself for Christmas.
	That's how we got on this title.
	Oh, I forgot.
	So I had over the years, I always loved reading Taylor Caldwell novels.
	Loved them.
	So I got a hold of one recently that I had read Bright Flows the River.
	And I liked it.
	I finally found time to do it.
	It means, you know, putting aside like an hour at night that you actually got to focus on something else.
	And I bought, I went on Amazon and got a hardcover edition of her entire collection.
	And there's lots of them.
	So that's what I bought myself for Christmas.
	Now, see, if you were a true Christian, you would have said to me, listen, I know everybody will always ask you what to get me.
	This is what you can tell people to get me.
	And each person could have bought one book in that collection.
	Then I wouldn't have had the whole collection delivered at once like it is in my life.
	And then again, we're back to your impatience.
	Okay.
	It's not about being listen.
	I don't give you a bonus so then you can take some of the bonus money and wonder what to get the boss.
	I don't want anything.
	I already got you something.
	Oh, what?
	It's much better than a book.
	Not that there's anything wrong with books.
	Was it expensive?
	It was ridiculous.
	You're wasting your money.
	I'm going to return it.
	Okay.
	Well, you can't.
	Yes, I can.
	I can do it your own.
	Ethan, do you know what it is?
	I have no idea what you know.
	I know what I got you.
	What did you get me?
	A bunch of stuff.
	All right.
	If I have to carry this junk home tonight, I'm not going to call it.
	Hey, first of all, just apologize.
	Do not call gifts you have not even opened yet.
	Junk.
	Okay, my family hates on Christmas Day because they hand me like shirts and I like, oh, that's really nice.
	And then I hand it to Tim when everyone's not looking, or I hand it to Sweet Baby James when nobody's looking.
	I'm like, I know everybody, it's frustrating because I don't really want anything.
	I never wanted to get caught up in the trap of stuff in life.
	Does that make sense?
	And I have, you know, I drive the same car I've been driving for 15 years.
	Your clothes speak loudly of not wanting to get caught up in those sorts of things.
	Yeah, but everybody's complained about my clothing, so Fox has been buying me new shirts every day.
	Let's do a poll of our callers and ask them what they think about your non-materialistic ways.
	All right, let's do it.
	Chad, anyway, what's more important in life?
	Is it giving or receiving?
	I prefer to give gifts than receive them.
	Giving, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	And you get more joy out of the giving, right?
	When you see a little boy's eyes light up on a Christmas gift, it means the world, especially in your parents, too.
	It's the reason for the season.
	Exactly.
	Like, you know, for example, I got Linda a gift one year she never would have bought for herself, right, Linda?
	That is very true.
	And it's something you use pretty regularly.
	Every day.
	Every day.
	All right.
	It's a bicycle.
	It's hilarious.
	All right, Mike in Minnesota.
	What do you think, Mike?
	Well, I called in to talk about this border wall funding that Pelosi and Schumann allowed.
	Mike, Mike, Mike, that's not what we're talking about right now.
	We have a simple question.
	I want to talk about whether or not you think it's giving or receiving.
	The call, the call screener asked me to get right to my point.
	I know, but we just switched it up a little bit.
	Asked me what I wanted to talk about.
	And I've heard you guys over the years, you know, berate your callers if they don't ask their topic.
	So I didn't want to be in that.
	This is taking a very non-holiday turn, I got to say.
	Oh, my God.
	We want to put you in a better, happier place here.
	We're going to send you something for Christmas because what are you guys doing to the callers?
	Why would you berate the callers?
	There are customers.
	You've got to be.
	I've never berated Mike that I know of.
	All right.
	All right, Mike.
	Talk about any of these.
	What about you, Sean?
	I'm talking about.
	I am.
	Oh, man.
	Hey, that's not what you called in the talk.
	Merry Christmas.
	Wow.
	I've also heard Mark Levin say that, too, so I didn't want to be in that club.
	That's funny.
	You get the caller of the day award.
	You'd stump the host.
	I mean, that's hard to do.
	Okay, well, I'm going to try again here.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Stump you on this one.
	Well, anyways, one of the options that President Trump might have to choose would be to use the military and build that wall, declare a national security issue.
	So I was sitting there and I'm thinking, well, you know, if you take into account all of the business activity Donald Trump has done throughout his life, 40 plus years, and all of the tax money he's been responsible for contributing to government, well, that number adds up way more than $5 billion.
	And he's in a unique position to point that out to Schumer and Pelosi, but I know he wouldn't.
	So I'm kind of hoping you do.
	Well, with the Pentagon, the Pentagon said yesterday that they would support the president for national security reasons and appropriate the funds to build a wall.
	I think it's going to end up going that way.
	That's my guess.
	And because there is, look, we've got drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, some, you know, and some very bad people crossing that border.
	We've got to protect the American people.
	Well, that is what the Department of Defense is about, defending the American people.
	I don't think there'll be any legitimate court challenge.
	They have the right to appropriate that money any way they want.
	We got a significant increase in our defense budget because the president fought hard for it.
	And it's important that we have the biggest, baddest, toughest military in a world full of evil.
	So I think that's probably the way it's going to end up going eventually.
	I don't know when, though.
	Yeah, I think so too.
	But my point is that the money, the tax money that would be used to build the wall, the $5 billion, well, President Trump himself is responsible for paying that into government in the first place.
	So technically, it's his money that's for the government.
	It's at the end of the day, it's got to get done.
	And the president's right by saying we've got to take a stand here.
	And this is worth the fight.
	And Republicans need to understand this is why they were elected.
	And if they don't fight for any, if you're not going to fight over fear of a shutdown with Obama as president and then Trump as president, then that means you're unwilling to take the strong stand that's needed to be a leader.
	And you probably don't belong there.
	You know, we do have people that would lead and not bat an eyelash over such a thing.
	Appreciate it.
	Listen, Merry Christmas, Mike.
	God bless you.
	Have a great holiday.
	Our friends at Shamani, they've done it again and again and again.
	First, Genucell, the best product ever, natural peptides, plant stem cell therapy.
	And within 12 hours, bags and puffiness under your eyes, it vanishes.
	It goes away.
	It really works.
	You feel it working.
	800 Skin509 genucelle.com.
	Genucell.com, 800 Skin 509.
	Remember one more thing, Sean, that they give back to Women Aware.
	So every time you buy a gift for somebody from Shamoni or for yourself, you're giving back to women in need at Women Aware.
	So that's a really good thing to think about when you're buying Christmas gifts.
	Amen.
	GenuCell.com.
	To expose how the government wastes your money each and every day.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right,
	that's going to wrap things up for today.
	I'm done.
	I'm out unless something major, major, major happens.
	I want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas, a happy, happy new year.
	Buckle up, get ready.
	It's going to be a rocky, rocky, fun road exposing the insanity that I guarantee you is coming.
	I promise we'll make it fun.
	Have a great, happy new year.
	Have a wonderful Christmas.
	God bless you all and your families, and I'll see you on January 2nd.
	This is the best of the best.
	This is The Sean Hannity Show.
	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 download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲