Gregg Jarrett takes the healm of 'Hannity' while Sean is in Texas with President Trump visiting the border. However, good news for 'Hannity' listeners, Sean calls in to describe his first-hand account of the border situation and to discuss just why it's so important we strive to protect the border. Listen as Sean is the key guest on 'Hannity.' The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You 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.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
My friends at MyPillow, my buddy Mike Lindell, told me he was coming out with a brand new product.
It's called the New Mattress Topper.
So I got the new mattress topper immediately and I've been sleeping on it now for a couple of months.
It's the best thing you've ever felt in your life.
Now, you literally have MyPillow foam for support.
It's a transitional foam that helps relieve pressure points and it's ultra-soft, patented temperature regulating cover.
And I got to tell you, it has a 10-year warranty, a cover that's washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA, backed by the 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee.
Once you try this new mattress topper, you put it right over your mattress, you will never sleep better.
And right now, you, my radio listeners, are going to save 30% off when you go to mypillow.com and use the promo code TOPPER.
And by the way, Mike will also give you two standard MyPillows absolutely free.
All right, so try mypillow.com promo code TOPPER.
Promo code TOPPER for this great deal and the best night's sleep you ever had.
And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity today over the course of the next three hours.
Why?
Because Sean is down in McCallum, Texas with President Donald Trump.
Trump is there meeting with U.S. Border Patrol agents.
He's participating in a roundtable on immigration and border security.
He's visiting the Rio Grande River and receiving an in-person briefing on border security efforts.
And Sean will be sitting down with the president for an exclusive one-on-one interview with President Trump.
And as soon as Sean finishes that interview, he'll be calling in here to his own show.
And Sean and I will be talking about what the president said, what the president intends to do next.
And be sure to tune in on the Fox News channel at 9 o'clock Eastern Time on Hannity because the entire one-on-one interview with President Trump conducted by Sean Hannity will air in its entirety tonight on the Hannity Show on Fox News channel.
That's 9 o'clock Eastern Time.
So lots to talk about here.
Let's begin with what the president has done and what he may do next.
He met on Capitol Hill yesterday with Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate, other congressional leaders, and he offered to sign all of the bills they propose to reopen the partial government shutdown in exchange for their consideration of funding, and the president didn't demand a specific amount, but he'd like to have $5 billion.
But consideration of some funding of a barrier.
And as you know, the president the other night in his Oval Office address, he was even willing to say, all right, it doesn't need to be a wall.
It doesn't need to be concrete.
How about a metal or steel barrier, an olive branch that the president extended to his critics and political opponents on Capitol Hill, the Democrats who control the House, Nancy Pelosi, their Speaker.
And Pelosi said yesterday, along with Schumer, no, not going to do it.
So the only offer so far by Nancy Pelosi vis-a-vis the wall is $1.
That's literally what's on the table.
She jokingly said, I'll give you a dollar, Mr. President, and that's where she stands.
The president is willing to compromise, is offered various options, and Democrats say, absolutely not, we're not going to do it.
So the Democrats are to blame squarely for the shutdown, partial shutdown, of the federal government.
So what does the president do next?
Here is what the president should do.
He should, as his predecessors before him, exercise the right to declare a national emergency and then direct under a specific federal statute the construction by the military of the wall that he proposes on our southern border.
Now, can the president do that?
Of course he can do that.
First of all, the Constitution provides the president with broad executive power to wage war not against just foreign foes, but to wage war against emergencies.
In fact, if you know your history, and I'm sure you do, that was the basis upon which Franklin Roosevelt, in 1933, as soon as he took over the presidency, he assumed jurisdiction over all banks in America, and he did so because it was an emergency.
There was no specific statute or constitutional provision that says you may do that.
Instead, there are inherent powers within the Constitution that gave him that right, that power, that ability.
It's long been established that the president's principal duty, after all, is to protect the lives and the safety and the security of American citizens.
No one doubts that.
If President Trump declares that illegal entry into the United States is jeopardizing the health and security of Americans, their very lives, he may act.
So is that illegal immigration jeopardizing lives?
Look at the statistics provided by the Department of Justice.
In the last two years alone, criminal aliens have been responsible for approximately 235,000 violations of law, 4,000 homicides, 30,000 sex crimes, over 100,000 violent assaults.
In just 2018, 17,000 individuals with criminal records were apprehended at the southern border.
And it goes beyond that.
The crisis is also that of drugs.
We are experiencing an acute opioid crisis in America.
300 Americans are killed every single week from heroin, and 90% of that heroin is flooding across our southern border.
So is there a crisis?
Are lives in jeopardy?
Of course.
So beyond the inherent powers of the president to declare an emergency, the president also has specific constitutional authorities.
Look it up.
Article 2, Section 3.
The President, quote, shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, end of quote.
Since crossing the border without government permission is against the law, it's a crime, the president is empowered to take action, such as building a wall, to halt that law breaking.
And if you have any question at all about whether a barrier at the southern border, whether it be a fence or a steel barrier or a concrete wall, works, just listen to the Secretary of Homeland Security the other day.
She stood in front of telephones and microphones and television cameras and said, in places where a wall exists on our border with Mexico, 90 to 95% of illegal immigration is reduced.
So it works 90 to 95% of the time.
But beyond the inherent powers of the Constitution, there's something else.
In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, vesting specific authority in the President to decide if and when a national emergency shall be declared and permitting the president to issue an order pursuant to what he deems to be an emergency.
Congress waived its veto power over his decision to determine what constitutes an emergency.
And by the way, that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983.
The Emergency Act gives the President greater authority to take actions that he might otherwise be constrained to take.
He can, for example, redirect funds, money, on an emergency basis to meet the crisis.
So it's a two-step process.
First, the president declares a national emergency, and then he's authorized under a specific federal statute passed by Congress.
I don't want to get wonky on you, but here it is, 10 U.S.C. 2808.
I have it in front of me.
It's really simple, one page long, three paragraphs.
I'm going to read it to you.
In the event of the declaration by the president of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergency Act, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law,
may undertake military construction projects and may authorize the secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law.
In other words, it doesn't have to be a specific authorization from Congress to build a wall.
The president may direct the Secretary of Defense, start building the wall using military contractors.
And the president not only has the power to issue that order, no one can stop him.
Now, will somebody file a lawsuit?
Of course.
You know, in America, anybody, sadly, can file a lawsuit regardless of whether it's legally merited.
Senator Kamala Harris, who's surely going to be announcing very soon she's running for president of the United States, Democrat from California, has said on the record, she will sue the president to stop him from using his emergency powers.
But remember, since Congress conferred and in fact abdicated its authority to the president for handling emergencies, her lawsuit and any other one like it will be very difficult to sustain because they have no legal basis to complain.
I mean, if Congress intended to have some say in what constitutes an emergency, it failed to place any limiting language in the National Emergencies Act.
Congress gave the president unfettered power and determination.
And by the way, you know, this is a president who would be doing very much what other presidents have done.
Since the passage of the National Emergencies Act, all presidents have utilized the authority.
Bill Clinton, 17 times.
George W. Bush, 12 times.
Barack Obama, 13 times.
And in fact, there are currently 31 emergencies still in effect, dating all the way back to President Jimmy Carter's emergency declaration punishing Iran back in 1980.
And many of those, I have a list here, but almost all of these declared emergencies deal directly with foreign threats.
And the same certainly can be said of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the United States.
But, you know, you hear people in the media, who are among the dumbest people I know, who say, well, where's the crisis?
Crisis?
What crisis?
Reminds me of the Super Tramp album.
You know, that was one of my favorite albums, and young people these days go, Super Tramp?
What's Super Tramp?
One of the great albums was Crisis, what crisis?
And that's the media these days.
But they weren't complaining when Barack Obama issued a national emergency declaration to block the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in Central African Republic.
Same thing contributing to the situation in Burundi and South Sudan.
If you ask the average American, do you think Burundi and South Sudan and the Central African Republic constitute U.S. national emergencies?
The average person would say, are you kidding me?
Burundi and South Sudan and the Central African Republic are not a national emergency to the United States.
And yet no one complained when Barack Obama declared them national emergencies.
But here we have, as I outlined, a serious life or death crisis at our border.
And I gave you the statistics a moment ago.
And you still have members of the media saying, well, it's not really a crisis.
I want to play this cut here of commentary of individuals saying this is not a crisis and other individuals explaining how they're wrong.
This is Cut 18.
Take a listen.
But the big scam of the whole address was that there's a crisis.
There's not a crisis.
911 Lucy Address Marine Hill West Broad Street on his own being in a red car.
What is the overdosing on?
I think Harold, her neighbor, and her sister both overdosed on heroin.
The victim appeared to have been executed and left in the street.
We were able to identify a group of MS-13 gang members who we believe are responsible.
The suspect in a series of brutal crimes is a gang member and illegal immigrant who's been deported four times.
Tommy Vladimir Alvarado Ventura is accused of stabbing two women and sexually assaulting a two-year-old girl.
We saw from Trump today, the typical lying, the nonsense, the spinning of crises out of whole cloth.
MS-13 gang members were rounded up this morning, charged in three murders.
16-year-old Kayla Cuevas and her 15-year-old best friend, Nisa Mickens, brutally beaten to death.
Miguel Alvarez Flores and Diego Hernandez Rivera both face aggravated kidnapping and murder charges for allegedly killing a teenage girl during a satanic ritual last month in Texas.
America's overdose crisis is worse than ever before because of the synthetic opioid fentanyl.
It is deadlier than heroin.
Overdose deaths have almost doubled from this time last year.
Synthetic opioid fentanyl is causing carnage like America has never seen.
Overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50.
Let's start out with this idea of crisis.
The president used that word several times in the speech.
Just because you say it's a crisis, George, doesn't necessarily make it one.
Suffolk County Police announcing the arrest of 17 gang members after a series of violent incidents, including the massacre of four young men.
If heroin's the epidemic, fentanyl's the plague.
And the plague is here.
The process, by the way, feels like a colossal waste of time so he can deliver on a chant he began three years ago at some of his rallies.
It's all about nothing.
I'm Greg Jarrett on the Sean Hannity Show.
We'll be right back.
Hey, if you're one of 34 million Americans that smokes, you know what a hassle it can be.
For me, I'm out playing golf and I come back smelling like cigars.
It's the smell on your hands and your breath, your clothes.
But now thanks to Juul, you don't have to worry about it anymore.
Juul is a vaporizer.
It does contain nicotine for a satisfying transition.
Now, when I found Juul, it was a complete game changer in my life.
I don't smoke any cigars any longer.
And Juul was designed by smokers for smokers to be an alternative to whatever it is you're smoking.
So if you're one of 34 million adults who do smoke cigars, cigarettes, pipe, whatever, well, there is an alternative to all of them.
Now, to discover the smoking alternative, that's like nothing you've ever tried.
Just visit juul.com slash switchamerica.
That's ju l.com slash switchamerica.
Now, warning, this product does contain nicotine, and nicotine is addictive.
And Sean Hannity is, as we speak, down at the border near McCallan, Texas, in the Rio Grande, and he is with President Donald Trump, and he'll be interviewing President Trump, one-on-one, sit-down interview.
And as soon as he finishes it, he'll be calling into this program to talk to us about what the president said and what he intends to do next.
Will he declare a national emergency and direct the military to begin construction of a wall in areas where it is needed?
And the president has requested funding from Congress.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer refuse to budge.
And that interview, by the way, will be played live, well, live to tape, in its entirety tonight at 9 o'clock on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
So you'll want to be sure to tune in then to see all of the interview.
But Sean's going to call in over the next couple of hours and give us an update on what the president said.
And I'd like to put the question to you, and I would hope that you would give me a call and tell me what you think.
The number by the one, by the way, is 800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
We'll be getting to your calls in just a moment.
We have quite a few standing by.
But the question is this.
Should the president declare a national emergency and order the Secretary of Defense, as authorized by law, to begin construction of a border wall in places where it is needed?
The president has absolute authority to do this.
Other presidents have declared national emergencies for a whole lot less.
And when you think of what's at stake here, criminal aliens in the last couple of years have committed 235 violations of the law, including 4,000 homicides, 30,000 sex crimes, over 100,000 violent assaults, and 90% of the heroin that floods across our southern border, killing 300 Americans every single week.
Does that not constitute an emergency, a crisis?
It does.
That's my opinion.
What are your thoughts?
Let's go to our phone lines.
Drew stands by in Daytona Beach.
Drew, what do you think?
Greg, my question is, assuming that the president does declare a national emergency, he's going to have to use military funding to construct the wall.
Would it be possible for Kevin McCarthy to add in that dollar figure, whatever it is, into the continuing resolution and still get that funding back again for the military, basically, to kind of sweep this all together in one neat little pile?
Well, he could, but Pelosi would stop him from doing so.
And since she's now the Speaker of the House and controls the majority in the House, that's probably unlikely.
But the President doesn't need that.
Look, there is a budget for the military construction projects of $100 billion.
So you're only asking for $5 billion to be diverted from existing military construction projects to wall funding.
So that would seem to be the logical choice.
And again, the president is authorized not just by the National Emergencies Act, but by the statute that I recited earlier, which is 10 U.S.C. 2808.
Specifically, Congress passed a law saying you can do this.
And plus, on top of that, how could the Democrats possibly complain because they passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, empowering the Homeland Security Department to build a physical barrier enhancement along the border?
And, you know, Democrats have long fought for a barrier that separates Mexico from the United States.
I want to play you a clip of what many prominent Democrats once said about building a wall and what they now say an absolute hypocritical flip-flop.
Here it is.
I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.
And you voted for an America where we build bridges, not walls.
People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.
To so many Americans, we do not want the wall to be a symbol of America, much preferring the Statue of Liberty be that symbol.
Those who enter our country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law.
And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we cannot allow people to pour into the U.S. undetected, undocumented, and unchecked.
If there are disruptions in these countries, if there's conflict, if there's bad governance, if there's war, if there's poverty, in this new world that we live in, we can't isolate ourselves.
We can't hide behind a wall.
All of us agree that we need to have comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform.
That can only begin strong border control.
We must have that.
We must control our borders.
A wall is an immorality.
It's not who we are as a nation.
So how do you explain that?
I'll tell you how I explain it.
Hypocrisy born of stupidity is endemic on Capitol Hill.
These are people who opposed, who are opposing the wall, who once supported the wall, and they're only opposing it now because Donald Trump wants it.
And they don't want to give anything Donald Trump wants because they hate him.
It's as simple as that.
They hate him as a person.
They hate his policies.
They hate what he stands for.
Their unabashed scorn and visceral hatred of the president is reflected in their decision-making now, opposing the wall that they have long fought in favor of.
They have advocated for a barrier, and now they're against it only because Trump is in favor of it.
And there's no other way of looking at it.
That is the plain, unadulterated truth.
Let's go to our next caller.
Max joins us from Utah.
Max?
Hello.
I think the Democrats are opposing this wall because they're waiting for donations from across the border.
The drug cartels will pay handsomely to stop the wall.
You know, you could fund the wall if you just used all of the seized assets of El Chapo.
There is a better way, and that's what I called about.
He can build the wall.
He can make the Mexicans pay for it with already existing funds that he has at his disposal.
Which funds are those?
Okay, everybody in the world, nobody pays taxes to the federal government except for U.S. citizens and people that hold a green card.
So it's called legal aliens.
The illegal aliens, when they pay taxes, they do so with unverified Social Security numbers with unverified names.
Now, they can't, because they can't verify it, all this funding that is paid by these people working here in the United States goes into an account called a donation account, okay, because they can't verify it.
And we're talking who controls that account.
Oh, the Federal Reserve.
And since their incarnation, the Federal Reserve has never been audited.
You can ask Ron Paul about this.
He went on and on about how they knew that audit the Federal Reserve to be where our money actually goes.
You know, I like the idea.
Maybe we need to get Ron Paul on the telephone next.
Let's go to our next caller, Richard, joins us from New Jersey.
Richard, how are you?
Hey, how are you doing today?
Thank you for having me on.
I think I have a little kind of unique perspective on things.
First of all, I'm a government contractor who's out of work, so I can speak about that.
But the awesome thing that is something that happened to me just this morning.
Wait a minute.
Are you out of work because you were furloughed or out of work because for other reasons?
For furlough.
Yeah, I'm part of the government furlough.
Okay.
Friday was my last day.
I was able to work.
Do you support the president's position nonetheless?
Yeah, absolutely.
Why?
Well, just as an example, this morning I was taking my daughter to school and was passed by two police vehicles screaming by and found out just earlier today that a young man had overdosed fatally just this morning a few blocks from my home.
And statistically speaking, probably, what, 25, 30, 40% of the drugs, there's a chance that the drugs that he took actually came across the Mexican border.
Yeah, it depends on the drugs.
I mean, as we indicated before, the vast majority of the heroin in the United States is coming across our southern border, meth, cocaine.
I mean, who knows?
But point well taken, Richard, in New Jersey.
Richard, thanks very much.
Appreciate that.
Let's go to Rob in Pennsylvania.
Rob, you're on the air.
Greg.
You know, just as desperately as we need a border wall as we need dams and levees and seawalls as infrastructure to keep out things that are dangerous coming in and control the flow.
But you were citing some U.S. code, and there are laws that are never, ever enforced, and I don't understand why.
And you will be familiar with Title VIII, 1324 of U.S. Code, which makes it a crime to encourage or help people to get here illegally, and also makes it a crime, a felony, as a matter of fact, to harbor them, house them, or transport them.
Those laws just aren't enforced.
Existing federal law, there is no Ninth Circuit that's going to overturn existing federal law.
I don't think it's never enforced.
You can't harbor one.
You can't house them.
You can't transport them.
And you can't aid them to get here.
You're absolutely right.
I am well familiar with that specific statute in the criminal codes.
And it makes it a crime to harbor or shield anyone who is here illegally.
And the punishment is up to five years behind bars.
And if somebody is killed as a consequence of your enabling and harboring and shielding an illegal alien who commits that crime, the punishment is life behind bars.
So, you know, you think about the sheriff in San Francisco, the mayor in San Francisco, who were harboring and shielding the illegal alien who came here and murdered a young woman on the pier in San Francisco.
Why weren't they criminally prosecuted?
Back then, I argued vociferously that they should have been.
But at the time, it was the Obama Department of Justice.
They took no action.
I encouraged Jeff Sessions to take action.
He suggested generally he might, and the feckless incompetence Sessions never did.
We need to start enforcing the laws on the books.
We're going to pause, take a quick break.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean Hannity.
He has an interview with President Trump.
He is going to be calling in very shortly to tell us what the president said.
You can watch the entire interview tonight on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm filling in for Sean.
I'm Greg Jarrett, by the way, the Fox News channel, a legal analyst, former lawyer, author of the number one New York Times best-selling book, The Russia Hoax.
And we'll be talking about that at the top of this next hour in a few minutes.
But I'm here because Sean is down at the border.
He is with President Trump as he meets with border security agents getting a briefing on illegal immigration and border security.
As soon as Sean finishes his one-on-one interview with the president, he'll be calling in to this program.
So stay tuned for that.
He'll give us an update on what the president said.
And tonight at 9 o'clock Eastern on the Fox News channel on Hannity, you can watch the entire interview with President Trump.
In the meantime, we're taking your telephone calls.
Got a couple of minutes left.
Want to go to Bill in Pennsylvania.
Bill, you're a police officer, as I understand.
And God bless you and thank you for your service as a law enforcement official.
Appreciate it.
Thanks, Greg.
How are you today?
I'm well.
I just, you know, I wanted to lead off by saying even in Pennsylvania here, we're affected by a lot of the illegal aliens, mostly here working on the farm.
But the reason I'm not a police officer anymore is because I was injured by one who was attempting to get away from me and, you know, wrecked my fleece cruiser.
And he was never deported even after he was caught.
Unbelievable.
Which was very frustrating.
Unbelievable.
I did have a question just as a teaching moment.
I am newer into politics, but did Nancy and Chuck and all of them use the border funding in the past as a way to get elected to their position?
Sure.
Yeah, I mean that wasn't never built in the first place.
Well, you know, some of it was built.
Some of the fence was built.
But yeah, I mean, you know, there is nothing that happens on Capitol Hill, especially among people like Chuck.
I'd walk a mile for a camera shoomer.
And Nancy, we've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it, Pelosi.
There's nothing that they do that doesn't directly extend to their own benefit, and that is their perpetuation of power on Capitol Hill, which is sad and pathetic and tragic, but that's the truth of the matter.
Bill from Pennsylvania, thanks very much.
Sean Hannity will be calling in to give us an update on his conversation with the president down at the border.
Stay tuned for that.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean on the Sean Hannity Show.
Stay with us.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean today, who's down in McCallan, Texas, near the border, Rio Grande River, where the president has been getting a briefing from border security on illegal immigration and how to stop the illegal crossings into the United States and all of the crimes that come with it,
not to mention the American deaths by virtue of the illegal drug traffic across our border, mostly heroin, which is claiming 300 lives of Americans a week.
Those are facts.
Those are statistics.
You can find them from the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies.
But to those who say, crisis, what crisis?
There isn't an emergency.
This doesn't have anything to do with national security and the safety and security of Americans.
Tell that to the family of Officer Ronald Singh, gunned down by an illegal immigrant just after Christmas Day.
His five-month-old son will never know his father, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is life and death.
Or tell that to the family of Pierce Corcoran.
A few days later, December 29th, he was killed by a suspected illegal immigrant driving without a license, without insurance on the wrong side of the road.
Pierce was only 22 years old.
Tell that to his family.
There is a crisis.
And a few minutes ago, the president was standing in front of television cameras briefly and said, This is common sense.
As the Secretary of Homeland Security said the other day, the wall works 90 to 95 percent of the time in places where we have it.
It prevents illegals from coming across our border with drugs and with crime.
And so, you know, all of the people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, who have long advocated for a barrier on our southern border, now don't want it because Trump wants it.
And that is nothing but petty partisan politics.
And haven't we had enough of that in the United States?
And the president repeated just minutes ago that if Pelosi and Schumer and other Democrats will not come to the table and offer some kind of a compromise,
and he has offered several options over the last 20 days of the federal shutdown, then the president said he would invoke a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act authorized by Congress and then employ another specific statute that I've been talking about,
10 U.S.C. 2808, that says the military can use their existing funds to start construction of a different project not authorized by Congress.
That's the law.
It's plain and simple.
Let me get the opinion of a terrific lawyer in America, Civil Liberties Attorney David Sean, who joins us now to discuss this important aspect of American life right now: a partial government shutdown, furloughed workers, because Democrats refused to come to the table to offer some sort of a compromise.
So David, you know, I've laid out in the last hour the very specifics of the National Emergencies Act.
And I also explained 10 U.S.C. 2808 emergency powers that specifically include constructing any unauthorized construction project by the military at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, who is directed by the President of the United States.
So the President, do you agree, David, does have a legal basis for taking unilateral action?
Yes, I do.
And I think, frankly, they've done their homework to make the case to the American public for it, for the exercise of those powers.
Putting aside the complete chaos created by this shutdown, they have the statistics now that they've marshaled about the numbers trying to come across the border and the threat that that poses to national security.
I also think, you know, there is another issue, it seems to me at least, that the president is dealing in this case with a foreign power, that is, you know, Mexico, the president certainly has the authority unilaterally to act in matters of foreign affairs.
I think this also is another justification for him to act if that's what it takes.
But it shouldn't come to that.
Again, Congress has to relearn how to work by consensus.
It hasn't happened this entire administration.
And so it only becomes about ego and about who's going to own a problem rather than fixing a problem.
And we see it with issue after issue after issue.
You know, I'm glad you brought that up because I have in front of me the list of the 31 existing national emergencies beginning with Jimmy Carter, then on to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama.
And I don't see any, frankly, that don't deal with foreign threats.
But, you know, what's interesting is a lot of these foreign threats in which national emergencies are declared, most Americans wouldn't consider to be foreign threats or national emergencies.
Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Cuba.
You know, most Americans say, wait a minute, where's the national emergency there?
Nicaragua, El Salvador.
I mean, Burundi?
Really?
It's a national emergency?
I mean, I said that to the other day to my wife, and she said, really?
You've got to be kidding me.
That's not exactly our back door.
No, that was a Barack Obama national emergency blocking property of certain persons contributing to the situation in Burundi, November 23rd, 2015.
So, you know, it's completely erroneous and specious for people to say, oh, you know, Mexico's not a national emergency.
Yeah, it is.
Can you imagine if Congress would marshal forces with the president to come up with the optimal security fence wall, whatever the answer is.
The president's not locked into concrete versus steel versus something else.
They paint them that way in the media.
If they could just come to a consensus with the best experts about what kind of barrier would be the best that would serve the American people the best, that's how government should function.
The folks on the other side of the president all say, not all, mostly say they believe there is a national security threat involved here and that border security has to be enhanced.
So we're really shutting down the government because they don't like the president's idea on how that is best to be enhanced.
It's just an absolute absurdity.
$5 billion, you know the money that they waste.
Take away $20 million from the Mueller investigation for starters.
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
Speaking of which, I want to get your reaction to something else.
And before I do that, let me just tell our listeners that Sean's going to be calling in.
He is doing an interview with President Trump down at the border.
That interview will air in its entirety tonight on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
Tune in then.
But stay tuned here because Sean will be calling in, and he'll tell us what the president had to say, give us a preview of the entire interview tonight on the Fox News channel.
But the other news that's broken over the course of the last hour is news that Michael Cohen, president's one-time now-disgraced personal attorney, will apparently be testifying before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on February 7th.
Now, of course, Democrats control that committee now.
Elijah Cummings is the chairman of the committee.
And in a statement, Cohen said he accepted the invitation from Cummings, quote, in furtherance of my commitment to cooperate and provide the American people with answers.
I look forward to the privilege of being afforded a platform, blah, blah, blah, blah, Michael Cohen, who is an admitted, prodigious liar and a considerable confessed criminal.
So, you know, I don't believe anything Michael Cohen ever says.
You know, once a liar, always a liar.
And, you know, who's to say he won't be lying in front of the committee?
What do you think?
Yeah, I have a couple of thoughts about it.
One is, I think that Michael Cohen, if he's going to speak publicly, ought to get his playbook straight on what his motivation is.
Because we heard originally, you know, he'd take a bullet for the president.
Then he's had enough of this.
His family comes first.
Everything he does from now on is for himself and his family.
Now, all of a sudden, it's for the American people and the good of the American people.
So, first off, I think he has to get his motivation straight.
We're going to speak about it publicly.
But secondly, can you imagine how the Democrats would scream bloody murder if when the Republicans had the House, a House committee had subpoenaed to testify an ongoing witness in the Mueller investigation?
They would have said obstruction.
They would have said complete interference with the Mueller investigation.
They would have screamed bloody murder.
And now, Cohen is still trying to earn himself points by cooperating with Mueller.
In fact, they said they had to check with Mueller to make sure nothing he said would interfere directly with the investigation.
All these folks are working together.
That's the collusion to steal a word.
And it's just the hypocrisy once again raises its horrible head.
You know, Cohen's the kind of guy, if you put a statement in front of him that said, I am Kerry Grant, aka Archibald Leach, signed Michael Cohen.
He would sign that happily if there was some benefit to him, right?
I mean, this is the kind of narcissistic, self-absorbed, you know, sociopathic liar that Michael Cohen's record demonstrates.
And so, I mean, what do you really get out of listening to this guy in front of the oversight committee?
I just don't know.
Just grandstanding, just showboating.
Same thing that goes on with all of these so-called investigations, whether it's by the Mueller team or by the Democrats in the House, unfortunately.
It's a public show.
You know, interesting, I don't mean to switch subjects too much on you, but I noticed something today that completely epitomizes this.
There was, you know, Attorney General nominee Barr was on the Hill meeting with Democratic senators today.
So Feinstein, for example, said that she's interested in knowing what was the genesis of the memo that Attorney General to be Barr wrote about the Mueller investigation.
So then someone said, Well, did you ask him when you met with him?
She said, No, I didn't ask him that when I met with him.
I want to ask him that in public.
Do you want the information or do you just want a grandstand?
It's just unbelievable.
Oh, my God.
You know, Diane Feinstein, I don't know how she thinks with that brain of hers.
I really don't.
You know, and it's one of the problems by having a non-lawyer on the Judiciary Committee.
But, you know, there she is for.
The lawyers, the lawyers do a bad enough job.
You're right.
I don't know if you can distinguish among them.
They really do.
They're awful.
It's unbelievable.
All right.
Listen, can I hold you over?
Because I want to talk to you about the imminent departure of Rod Rosenstein.
I wrote a column about it on FoxNews.com.
And I'd love to get your reaction to Rod Rosenstein's departure and what will happen next with soon-to-be Attorney General William Barr.
David Schoen's with us.
Our telephone number, by the way, is 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 1-800-941-7326.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
Sean will be calling in very shortly with his interview of President Donald Trump down at the border in McAllen, Texas.
It'll hear in its entirety tonight on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
In the meantime, let's talk for a moment about Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, who will thankfully leave the Department of Injustice.
And so we may get a reprieve and hope of reform at the DOJ.
David Schoen's with us, Civil Liberties Attorney.
David, what do you think?
I think your article today is phenomenal and says it all.
You hit on every problem, almost every problem.
I don't know if everybody knows all the problems that have arisen with Rod Rosenstein in this position.
It's called Grand Jarrett.
Why Rosenstein's departure will help restore the rule of law at the Justice Department today on Fox.com.
Everybody's got to read that.
That says it all.
Listen, the guy's been a disaster.
He shouldn't have been in the position in the first place.
He's a very mediocre sort of person who I think was it was just a mistake to appoint him.
But since then, as you point out in your article, I mean, the guy has never seen a conflict of interest that he didn't love, it would seem.
He, you know, as you point out, he's a fact witness for the Mueller investigation.
He wrote the memo justifying Comey's departure, but then he fell all over himself to indulge Comey by appointing Mueller.
He's got no business in this position.
He's leaving now.
You know, I read a piece the other day.
Nobody seems to know whether he's got control of the Mueller investigation or Whitaker does.
Whitaker has the authority to have control over it.
We should have seen some affirmative steps by him to rein in the misconduct by those investigators.
I think we will with Bill Barr in there.
I got about 40 seconds left, but what's your opinion of Bill Barr?
I think he's the man for the job right now.
You know, this is who the president picked after careful consideration.
It's the role now of the legislators to consent to that after asking them the questions they want to ask.
I saw this Senator Klubeshar said she thinks it's being rushed.
This is being rushed.
We have a Department of Justice in complete chaos.
You need a man with a person with experience to take the helm now and write the ship.
The great David Sean, Civil Liberties Attorney, and he's going to stay with us for the next segment to talk a bit more about Rod Rosenstein.
And we're waiting for Sean to call in his interview one-on-one with President Trump down at the southern border.
We'll be right back.
Hannity is back on the radio right now.
And in fact, Sean will be on the radio in just a few moments, we hope.
As soon as he finishes his interview with President Donald Trump down at the border in McAllen, Texas, where the president is being debriefed by security officials there, Sean will join us and tell us what the president told him in a one-on-one interview that you can watch in its entirety tonight on Hannity on the Fox News channel, 9 o'clock Eastern Time.
In the meantime, we've been talking about the imminent departure of Rod Rosenstein, and I wrote a column.
You can look at it on FoxNews.com, the opinion section.
It's entitled Why Rosenstein's Departure Will Help Restore the Rule of Law at the Justice Department.
And let me just read one part of it here, which really synthesizes the role Rosenstein has played over the last two years.
He has been the de facto attorney general.
Rosenstein engineered and presided over signal abuses at the Department of Justice, transforming the rule of law into the rule of lawlessness.
He championed abusive double standards of enforcement and ignored wrongdoing in his own department and the FBI.
Justice took a backseat to petty partisanship.
More egregiously, Rosenstein was an active participant in one of the dirtiest tricks perpetrated in modern politics: the targeting of the president without legal cause or evidence.
David Schoen rejoins us now, Civil Liberties Attorney.
And I appreciate your reading my column and mentioning it, David.
You know, Rosenstein has so much to answer for.
And one of the things that really sort of chafes at me is that he has consistently resisted requests by Congress to question him about his actions.
Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure really why he's been given the choice so many times and why the Republicans missed some great opportunities.
He had some very aggressive committee chairs.
Devin Nunez did a great job in many ways.
A lot of these guys, Good Lat, but I think they left the job unfinished, unfortunately.
Brian Rosenstein got away with a lot of it.
I'm waiting to see now, though, when Elijah Cummings will call him before his committee and we'll hear from Rosenstein how he all of a sudden was forced out, more obstruction, something like that.
I hope that's not going to be what happens.
I hope he'll just, you know, ride off into the sunset because this has been a disastrous reign at the Justice Department.
It started when, you know, Mr. Sessions felt he had to recuse himself.
And from that point forward, the emblem of the Justice Department has been the Mueller investigation, and it's gotten off track so badly.
Everybody, most people in this country want to see us get back on track with policy, stop the Mueller investigation, move forward with moving the country forward toward greatness, the economy, get back on track where the president had it headed.
You know, Rosenstein is the one who brought us this national nightmare of Robert Mueller and his team of partisans and their investigation into Trump-Russian collusion without any evidence, without probable cause, in violation of the regulations.
It was, you know, it was Rosenstein who volunteered to write the memo to Trump, citing all of the reasons that Comey should be fired for usurping the power of the Attorney General, violating the FBI and DOJ rules.
So the president adopts Rosenstein's recommendation and he sacks Comey.
And Rosenstein's memo becomes public.
And then suddenly Rosenstein is upset and angry that Democrats are blaming him.
So he does an about face, seeks retribution.
He proposes to secretly record the president in an attempt to gain damaging information about him.
He solicits, allegedly, others to wear wires, recruiting cabinet members to depose the president under the 25th Amendment.
And, you know, there are three top FBI officials, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, James Baker, who all have confirmed in their testimony to Congress that these were serious and deliberate efforts by Rod Rosenstein to remove President Trump.
I mean, it's just outrageous, isn't it?
I think it's unprecedented, but I think the best way maybe to get a snapshot of, again, the hypocrisy would be just take a second, close your eyes, and imagine that President Obama were president still, and you just heard a story about senior officials in the Justice Department and FBI trying to set him up, record private conversations with him, and paint him as if he were a lunatic.
Can you imagine the public outcry?
But here, because there's a sense in the media of get Donald Trump no matter what, the media becomes cheerleaders for this kind of outrageous misconduct rather than saying these people have no business at the FBI, no business in the Justice Department.
And you're right.
So much of that, everything in your article is right, by the way, about Rosenstein today, and every word of it should be read by everybody.
But one of the factors is, you've just talked about it a bit, Rosenstein was responsible for, once Session stepped aside, for getting us this horror show of the special counsel.
He was triggered under 600.1 of the regulations.
He had options.
And had he read one paragraph further to 600.2, he could have simply had an informal investigation without appointing a special counsel and seeing that there's no basis for this.
All of this business we hear about, oh, but Mueller's gotten so many convictions.
Not convictions for what we were told this investigation was for.
Most of them are subsidiary crimes because Mueller felt people lied to him, turned the screws to them, and they pled guilty to it.
It's like Alice in Wonderland, all of this business.
And Rod Rosenstein's in the heart of it.
So the point is that you were making is Rosenstein has a conflict.
If you're going to appoint the special counsel under 600.1, it's because in this case, he found there to be a conflict of interest for the Justice Department.
Well, not only do you have a great part of Mueller's team made up of Justice Department people, you have Rod Rosenstein overseeing that investigation, still at the Justice Department, but he's a fellow who is a fact witness.
He signed a FISA warrant in this case.
It's just, it's outrageous.
And again, every other watchdog in any other administration would be absolutely enraged by this.
And instead, anything that they think helps bring down the president is a good thing and consistent with the rule of law somehow.
You know, in my book, The Russia Hoax, I cite a myriad of law professors and legal experts who were all in unison aghast that Rod Rosenstein never recused himself.
And I point out in my column, think of it this way.
Rosenstein was interviewed as a, as you point out, a fact witness in the special counsel probe.
He was interviewed by the special counsel.
So what if Rosenstein was lying?
Well, only Rosenstein would be authorized to decide whether to prosecute himself for lying, which is exactly why the Code of Professional Responsibility, not to mention the DOJ regulations, say you can't be a prosecutor and a witness all rolled into one.
You're exactly right.
You're exactly right.
And it's really highlighted, by the way, in this setting, because under the regulations, Rosenstein has the specific authority to determine the scope of any investigation.
And he can call off any avenue that the special counsel intends to go in.
That's expressly written into the regulations and 600.9.
I don't need to go through the specific regulations, but that's his authority.
And so you're right.
He's, you know, actor, judge, executioner, and deciser over who they're going to investigate, when they're going to investigate it, and when Mueller's tactics are appropriate or not appropriate.
I mean, you know, if this was on an ethics exam for the bar, you know, I mean, any idiot could have answered it correctly.
And yet, yet Rosenstein has violated all of this with impunity.
It's really quite amazing.
And the other thing is, you know, the illegitimate nature of the appointment of the special counsel.
This case was a counterintelligence probe.
The special counsel regulations allows for a special counsel in a criminal investigation, not a counterintelligence probe.
And not only that, you must state evidence of a suspected crime.
There is none that was named or identified in the authorization order, which was clearly defective.
And yet it has gone on for a year and a half.
Last word on this, David.
Yeah, I'll tell you the crime.
The crime is stealing my tax dollars for the Butler investigation.
I mean, we still don't know what their budget has been.
We'll find out one day.
It literally is in the double digits of millions of dollars, and we're how far into it now.
I mean, it's just going to be two years coming up.
It's just, it's got to end.
The country wants to get back on track with policy.
Yeah, that's the real crime right there.
And yet it goes on and on and on.
David Sean, Civil Liberties Attorney, always great talking to you.
You're such a wealth of knowledge, and we always appreciate your sharing it with us.
David Shon, thanks very much.
Thank you very much.
All right, when we come back, love to hear from you about either this subject or the president's visit down at the southern border.
Sean Hannity is with him.
One-on-one exclusive interview.
When Sean finishes, he will be calling in with an update.
So talk to us about the government shutdown, border security, the building of a wall, or talk to us about the Mueller investigation.
And Rosenstein, our number is 800-941-Sean.
That's 1-800-941-7326.
I'm Greg Jarrett, sitting in today for Sean Hannity.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
I have the pleasure of sitting in for Sean today because he's down at the border with President Trump and just concluded an interview exclusively.
You can see tonight in its entirety on Hannity.
But right now, Sean joins us on the phone.
Sean, good afternoon.
Hey, Greg, first, thanks for jumping in.
Sure.
I do like this role reversal because I'm always interviewing you, so it's about time you get to throw me.
So we're in McCallum, Texas.
You know, just some background.
I've been down to the border at least, I think, 13, 14 times now.
And, you know, when I talk to these agents that are there, especially, this is where the Rio Grande section is in McCallum, Texas.
And I could walk across where we were into Mexico, and I'd be there in less than two minutes, minute and a half, depending how fast I was walking.
And after talking to all of the border patrol guys, the ICE guys, all the law enforcement guys, they are explaining in detail, you know, all of the drugs that are being confiscated.
You know, the list of countries where people are coming from, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, the many, all over the world, and they're crossing at the Rio Grande.
And we talked a lot about the human toll of all of this and the president's plans is things now continue to be stymied by obstructionist Democrats that have changed their position from 2006 to 13, that he would go ahead and declare a national emergency.
And as you have written quite eloquently, and Mark Levin and some other smart legal scholars, that is going to probably be the means by which he does this.
It's sad that we're politicizing something that is so important when 90% of America's heroin is coming from that southern border where I literally just like five minutes ago.
And we know now fentanyl is coming in in greater and greater numbers.
We know Americans are dying at around 300 per week because of the drugs coming into the country.
And, you know, Collisley, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, everybody in the media with their little talking point that there's a manufactured crisis.
Well, tell that to police officer Singh's parents or tell that to this guy, Pierce Porcorin, the 22-year-old in Knoxville that was killed by an illegal immigrant.
Or tell that to any of the families 300 away that lose a loved one because of heroin epidemic, the heroin abuse and epidemic in the country.
The president was adamant that he's going to stay strong and he's going to find any way he can to get the job done.
And there's no backtracking on his side.
I also had a chance to interview Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Cornyn.
They are united, they said in the Senate last night I interviewed Kevin McCarthy.
They seem united in the House.
I don't see a split.
I see full support for the president.
President is basically saying this is a life and death issue for the American people, and he takes his job seriously to protect and defend the homeland.
Well, I'll quote you from a few days ago, and you've said it more times than once.
4,000 homicides, 30,000 sex crimes, over 100,000 violent assaults, all from illegals crossing our border to the South.
And that's just in the past two years alone.
So it is utterly absurd when you hear members of the media as well as Democrats who say, crisis, what crisis?
How could they compare?
The last time I was down here, it was in the exact same spot.
I sat through a security briefing with Rick Perry of Texas, and 642,000 crimes were committed against Texans alone in a seven-year period.
And yes, that includes some murders, homicides, rape, violent crimes.
Not all of them, but some.
And I'll be the first to say that I would guess with 98% of the people that want to cross that border see the liberty and freedom that we have, and they want a better life for themselves and their families.
But it's the 2% criminal element, car federals, the drug dealers, human traffickers.
Those are the people that we have open borders are hurting the country.
Sean Hannity, calling on the Sports Illustrated football phone.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean, who called in just a few minutes ago, close to the Mexican border, where he interviewed President Trump.
You can watch that interview of the president exclusive interview tonight at 9 o'clock on Hannity on the Fox News channel, 9 o'clock Eastern Time.
Sean's sit-down interview with President Donald Trump.
The president is down there to see firsthand the situation and to talk with border security agents to determine the risks that Americans are facing without a wall.
And of course, the president has long promised to build a wall that walls work.
The Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristen Nielsen two days ago stood in front of television cameras and said, where the wall exists, it drops illegal immigration by 90 to 95 percent.
And so I'm looking forward to watching Sean's interview with the president to hear whether or not the president decides to act unilaterally, given the fact that Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, are refusing to fund the wall.
And of course, a partial government shutdown has ensued as a consequence.
Joining us now to talk about this is Jessica Vaughan, who is Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Also with us, Jeffrey Lord, former associate political director in the Reagan administration, a columnist, author of the book, What America Needs: The Case for Trump.
So, Jessica, let me start with you because you know the facts, the stats.
Talk to us about the problem of illegal immigration and specifically whether there is a crisis and whether walls work.
Sure.
Glad to be with you.
Illegal immigration has been a festering problem for decades now, but it is a crisis now for a couple of reasons.
Illegal immigration is a problem because, first of all, it displaces Americans from job opportunities.
It depresses the wages of Americans who are in the same industries as people coming here illegally.
It represents a national security threat because if people are coming in illegally, we don't know who they are or why they're here.
And it also is a public safety problem because for the same reason, many of the people who are coming here are not coming here just to work, but they're coming here to join gangs or traffic drugs or be involved in other criminal activity.
And of course, this is a fiscal issue as well because when people settle here illegally and are working in lower paid jobs, they are qualifying for welfare programs and their kids are going to school here.
And so they represent, and then they're not paying taxes, I should add, or at least not enough to cover their services.
And so this represents a tax burden for Americans to support illegal immigrants who are not self-sufficient.
And research shows that each illegal alien is a net fiscal loss of over $82,000 over their lifetime.
So this is a problem.
It's a crisis now because of policy problems that we have, loopholes and court-imposed policies that are enticing people to come to the border with a child because they know that they will be released into the country simply by claiming a fear of return.
So people are turning over their life savings and the promise of future earnings to smugglers and traveling all through Mexico because they know that they can get away with it, that they will get into the country, released, and not have any consequences.
This is dangerous.
This is enriching criminal organizations and causing problems in the communities that have to absorb them.
So it is a legitimate crisis.
All right.
So you've named some important things that we should all consider.
Displacing Americans from jobs, depressing wages, national security threat, safety problem, vis-a-vis crimes, a tax burden.
And of course, as the president pointed out in his speech, coming with all that is the humanitarian crisis that exists.
So Jeffrey Lord, when you hear members of the media over the last 48 hours since the president delivered his Oval Office address say, crisis, what crisis?
How do you react to that?
Well, the first way I react is the hypocrisy of it all.
Whether it's the media, I mean, you can't get into these media institutions.
You've been in them and you work in one, and I was at CNN.
You know, they have, effectively, walls to keep people from going into the upper floors.
They have security guards there.
They have gates, et cetera.
When I began my career in Washington working in the House and Senate, you could walk and drive anywhere on Capitol Hill.
Now, and I was there the other day and drove by, you couldn't get close because they've erected these low concrete walls all around the U.S. Capitol building.
They've blocked up all the streets with walls and these iron ramps that pop up from below ground.
Well, why are they doing that?
They're doing it because they work and they keep the Capitol and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all of their colleagues safe.
So the notion that this is, and the media, of course, is not going to cover that.
And, you know, the media pushes an agenda, Greg.
And I'll give you one quick contrast.
We all remember the Time magazine cover from last year that had President Trump, it was Photoshop, had President Trump towering over this two-year-old Honduran girl who was sobbing, whose picture was taken at the border.
And they tried to make you believe that she had been separated from her mother, which was not true.
The mother just put her down right at her side so she could be searched appropriately by Border Patrol agent.
Sure.
Where is the Time magazine cover right now about Ronald Singh, the California police officer who was shot to death?
It doesn't exist because they've got too many to fit on a cover.
Too many victims.
Yes, that's right.
And they're not going to do it because they are pushing an agenda.
Yeah.
You know, I want to set up our next discussion by playing a montage of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi claiming that experts don't want a wall.
We don't need a wall.
Take a listen to this.
The experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem.
The question is not about do we need to protect our borders.
Of course we do.
Is it effective to build a wall, even if it costs 10 cents?
Is it an answer?
My name is Brandon Jedd.
I'm the president of the National Border Patrol Council.
I've been a border patrol agent for 21 years.
I can personally tell you from the work that I have done on the southwest border that physical barriers, that walls actually work.
The experts say you can do border security without a wall.
Is it effective to build a wall?
Even if it costs 10 cents, is it an answer?
My name is Art Del Cueto.
I am vice president with the National Border Patrol Council.
It comes down to border security.
We fully support the president and all his efforts to secure our nation's borders.
The experts say you can do border security without a wall.
Is it effective to build a wall?
Even if it costs 10 cents, is it an answer?
Once we deport these people, these people will not stay in their country.
These criminal aliens that have been released from jail that have been deported will come right back into the United States.
However, we had a physical barrier.
If we had a wall, we wouldn't be able to stop that.
We asked our congressmen to fund border security and fund the border wall.
The experts say you can do border security without a wall.
Is it effective to build a wall, even if it costs 10 cents?
All right.
You know, Nancy and Chuck think they're experts on everything, but when you actually hear from the experts who are there who have experience, they say Nancy and Chuck are full of it.
What say you, Jessica?
I've been to places where we have effective barriers, and they most definitely work.
Anyone who has been to look at the barrier systems that we have now that all of that both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi voted for at one time knows that they work.
Of course they do.
And they work for Mexico, too, because they, you know, you don't get thousands of people literally amassing by the border where there's no barrier to try to cross under cover of darkness.
It slows them down.
It drives them to places that are more difficult to cross and it deters people.
The illegal crossings in California and parts of Arizona and around El Paso and a few other places have been decreased dramatically by putting up the fencing and it makes the neighborhoods on both sides of the barriers much safer because the criminal cartels that control these areas move to other places to get people and drugs and other contraband across the border.
You know, Jeffrey, the ever oblivious and dense CNN's Jim Acosta was mocked across social media today for posting a video that he meant to downplay President Trump's claims of a border crisis, but in truth, it actually ended up supporting the president's argument that border barriers improve security.
So here's Acosta.
He's walking along this steel barrier, and I'll quote him here, but you can see the video online.
It's hilarious.
Here are some of the steel slots that the president has been talking about, Acosta said.
But as we're walking along here, we're not seeing any kind of imminent danger.
End of quote.
No, Jim, you're not seeing a danger because the wall is there.
You know, this kind of idiocy seems endemic among the media.
Greg, I have to tell you, I know Jim Acosta, and I was so astounded when I saw that that I tweeted him and just said simply, maybe that's because walls work.
Jesus.
And he's there with his, you know, his Ray-Ban shades like he's Mr. Cool.
You know, he's hoping to get on a late-night talk show once again.
I just, you know, it's a mindset.
And the president mentioned the other night two words, common sense.
And, you know, at 30,000 feet to pull back of it, this is the problem of the American left and American liberalism.
There is just no common sense there about a whole range of things.
But this is the most obvious one at the moment.
I mean, of course, walls work.
Of course, they do.
This is why they surround Jim Acosta with him when he goes into work.
So that he's safe and secure from people trying to get in there because of CNN.
I mean, it is just mind-boggling here that they can't seem to figure this out.
It's, you know, you don't know whether literally to laugh or cry.
Yeah.
Well, you know, what he needs to do is go to the many places along the border that have nothing.
Yes.
Like around Laredo and in South Texas where the president is visiting.
And then if Jim Acosta stood there long enough, there would be illegal alien adults with kids accosting him, thinking that they'd went to Border Patrol.
And then he'd figure out what's going on.
Acosta gets accosted.
Here's your natural headline.
Yeah, I mean, you know, but he wouldn't go there because, well, he's not smart enough to go there.
But second of all, he'd probably end up being a victim of a crime.
And, you know, Jim doesn't want that.
All right.
He knows it's dangerous.
Yeah, of course.
You know, it's obvious to anybody with an ounce of common sense and half a brain, which excludes necessarily Jim Acosta.
All right.
If you guys could stick around for just a moment, I want to talk to you just a bit more.
We're going to squeeze in a quick break.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
In for Sean Hannity, his exclusive interview tonight with President Trump, Down at the Border, will air on Fox News channel at 9 p.m. Eastern on Hannity, back in a flash.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean today because he is down at the border, just finished interviewing President Trump.
That full interview will air tonight on Hannity at 9 p.m. Eastern Time on the Fox News channel.
Back with us are Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Jeffrey Lord, who is a former political director in the Reagan administration, a columnist, author.
So, Jeffrey, it appears to me to be imminent that the president, in light of the refusal of Democrats to negotiate, will act unilaterally by invoking the National Securities Act and then directing the military to engage in construction of a barrier where it's needed.
Should he?
Yes, absolutely he should.
You know, and you mentioned my time in the Reagan White House.
President Reagan was faced with a strike from the air traffic controllers in August of 1981 and striking federal employees that is illegal.
And the Washington Conventional Wisdom of the Day said, well, you can't fire them because there are 16,000 of them and we'll be in trouble, et cetera.
And Reagan said, either they show up for work or I'm firing them.
They didn't show up for work.
He fired them.
The union finally went bankrupt.
The president of the union wound up selling real estate in Florida, all because Ronald Reagan stuck to his guns.
And I think President Trump is made of exactly the same stern stuff, and he is going to stick to his guns and he should.
And in fact, you wrote about it quite eloquently today in a column entitled President Donald Gandhi Reagan.
So that'll get your attention.
You can find it at spectator.org.
Final words from Jessica Vaughan.
What about that using the National Emergencies Act?
I've read it.
The president is entitled legally to use it.
And a further statute 10 U.S.C. 2808 in which he can use emergency powers to specifically authorize construction.
Yes, I think that he has the authority to do that.
And there are some authorities in immigration law as well that would enable him, for example, to deputize other federal law enforcement agents and state and local law enforcement agencies to assist at the border.
And I would prefer that this gets done through Congress.
Got to leave it there.
Thank you both.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Sean's interview tonight with President Trump will air live to tape.
He did it live about an hour ago, and it was tape recorded.
And so you'll see it in its entirety tonight at 9 Eastern on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
That's why I'm here.
Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean, because Sean's down at the border with the president, getting a security briefing down there from Border Patrol agents and others.
Some breaking news in the last few minutes.
Lindsey Graham, United States Senator from South Carolina, prominent member of the Republican Party, the Republican majority in the Senate, has issued a statement, quote, it is time for President Trump to use emergency powers to fund the construction of a border wall/slash barrier, end of quote.
And Senator Graham cited Speaker Nancy Pelosi's refusal to negotiate on funding for a barrier wall, saying the path to negotiation has now been closed by Pelosi.
And so Lindsey Graham calling for the president to use what I explained in great detail, citing the law a couple of hours ago, the president's emergency powers to order the Secretary of Defense to divert construction projects of the military to construct barriers where they are needed on our southern border.
The president has unfettered authority to do it.
He should do it.
I have been advocating for it, and Lindsey Graham has now come out in favor of that, which quite frankly probably means a lot to the president.
I think it's inexorable the president will use his emergency powers.
All right.
Let's go to our next caller, Greg from South Dakota.
And Greg, I want to thank you.
You're a farmer there, as I understand it, and you've been holding for a long time.
I appreciate your patience.
What are your thoughts?
I've been here two hours.
I'm going to take my time and get them all in.
Number one is you were my pick for Attorney General from day one, Mr. Jarrett.
Thank you.
Number two is build the wall, President Trump, because you can use the military.
They will do it faster, better, cheaper.
You're already paying them wages.
You don't have that stuck on.
You'll get more wall for your money.
Good point.
Number three.
Number three is homeland security.
Back in December when that Illinois Congressman Guterres, I believe, was chastising Secretary Nielsen.
Right.
The perfect comeback for him would have been, with all due respect, sir, I just thank God that Mary and Joseph were not Democrats.
They'd have just went to the closest Planned Parenthood and aborted an inconvenience pregnancy, and our savior never would have been born.
Yeah, all right.
I'm not sure I agree with that last point, but Greg, thank you for your thoughts.
Greg from South Dakota.
All right, let's go to our next caller.
And it requires a bit of a setup here because we're transitioning now to the Robert Mueller investigation, the Mueller hoax, as I would call it.
It began as the Russia hoax and now has evolved into the Mueller hoax with the media hoax and the impeachment hoax right behind it.
I wrote a book called The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
I'm proud to say it was the number one New York Times bestseller when it was published in July.
Since then, I've updated the book for a paperback version, which will be published in four weeks on February 12th.
You can go to amazon.com.
It's already up there, the paperback version with an updated preface and epilogue, which provides you with additional new information that's taken place since the book went to print in June of this last year.
So, same title, The Russia Hoax, but it's an updated version of the hardback.
You can buy it on Amazon.com right now.
You can pre-order it.
It'll be available in bookstores nationwide on February 12th.
I heartily recommend the book, if I do say so myself, because I think it lays out better than anyone else the facts, the law, and the evidence.
So, let's go to our next caller, Rick from Chicago.
Rick, how are you?
Hello.
How are you, Greg?
I'm well.
Thank you.
Congratulations on your book and the work you're doing.
Thank you.
Now, get to the point.
I was shocked when I read James Comey's testimony.
We've been told for a long time now that Sally Yates sent the FBI agents to interview General Flynn on the idea that he violated the Logan Act.
Which is absurd, of course, as you know.
Correct.
But I was shocked to read the transcript, and I'm sure you did as well.
I did.
One of the few substantive things that Mr. Comey testified to was that, number one, Sally Yates did not send the agents.
In fact, that she called him afterwards and was upset that he had done so.
And more importantly, number two, that he came right out and said that the Logan Act had nothing to do with the reason he sent the agents, that it was part of his counterintelligence investigation suggesting that General Flynn was under investigation as part of that problem and not the Logan Act.
So we've been told about this Logan Act issue, which he debunked.
And also, I had thought that Sally Yates was some kind of had a hand in the interview, but apparently did not.
Did you see that?
Yes, I did.
I read both his December 7th testimony as well as his subsequent testimony.
Everybody can read it online.
It was published the day after each of his deposition interviews before Congress.
You know, I would say this: I don't believe anything that James Comey says.
He is completely self-serving.
And probably deep in his heart, he knows that he violated all kinds of rules and regulations, first in clearing Hillary Clinton and then launching the Trump-Russia investigation without probable cause and without any evidence.
And his conduct in the Michael Flynn debacle.
You know, they used the Logan Act as a pretext to go after Michael Flynn, to lie to Flynn, to convince him to do an interview with FBI agents who were just going to come over there and have a little chat.
No big deal, no legal jeopardy.
You don't need a lawyer.
They were setting him up.
And they used the Logan Act as a pretext.
For people who don't know the Logan Act, it prohibits American citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes.
But the Logan Act, which has never been successfully prosecuted in 200 years, has no application to Michael Flynn because he wasn't a private citizen.
He was acting in the course and scope of his position as the national security advisor for the incoming administration.
So there's no Logan Act violation, but they use that as a pretext.
And now that Comey has been exposed for erroneously and wrongfully using that, he's trying to change his story.
Oh, it's a counterintelligence investigation.
Like, what?
Why would there be a counterintelligence investigation for Michael Flynn, who's doing his job?
He's supposed to be making contact with foreign officials.
I mean, that's what all transition officials do.
So don't believe anything James Comey says.
That's my advice.
That's my opinion of James Comey.
He has zero credibility, and he is a confessed liar.
Remember, he said on television that he has lied.
So, you know, and by the way, the record proves that.
Let's go to our next caller, which is Bill from Virginia.
Hi, Bill.
Hey, Greg.
Great book listening to it now through Audible.
Fantastic.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Hey, regarding the, you know, you're welcome.
Regarding the Mueller investigation, we're doing a what when is the accountability, what's going to happen?
When is something actually going to happen and when's some accountability going to be placed?
Well, with Democrats in control of the House, people are pessimistic that justice will be served, that there will be some fairness and objectivity associated with the end of the Mueller investigation in his forthcoming report.
I actually am optimistic.
And why?
Because William Barr will surely be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States.
And I think he is a fair man who has impeccable legal credentials, an outstanding career, an agile mind, and experience as the Attorney General previously.
So I think Barr will examine the conduct of Robert Mueller and his team of partisans, examine the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated therein, and make an equitable determination as to whether any action should be taken.
Now, you know, just look at all of Mueller's prosecutions.
None of them so far have anything whatsoever to do with Trump-Russia collusion to win the election, which was the stated order authorized by Rod Rosenstein.
And so that suggests to me that in the end, there will be nothing there that will tie Donald Trump to Russian collusion.
Now, the question will be: are there other things in that report that rabid anti-Trump Democrats will try to use to impeach him?
Of course.
Whether that will be a wise political move, that's up to Nancy Pelosi and to some extent Chuck Schumer.
You know, you've got to get a majority in the House to vote for impeachment, two-thirds to convict in the Senate.
I don't think that would ever happen, but the impeachment hoax is alive and well.
So we'll wait and see what's in Mueller's report.
It'll be important to also consider simultaneously the Trump counter report being prepared by Jay Sekolo, Rudy Giuliani, and the other attorneys on Trump's team.
Because remember, Mueller is a partisan.
He's only going to be presenting the prosecutor's side.
He's a prosecutor.
And prosecutors only present one side of the story.
It is never fair.
It is never balanced.
So to accommodate that, to counter that, you need to consider the Trump report, which will also be coming out.
We're going to take a quick break.
More of your calls on the other side.
I'm Greg Jarrett, sitting in for Sean Hannity.
My paperback, The Russia Hoax, the paperback updated version of the hardback comes out one month from now.
You can order it on amazon.com.
We'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity Show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean today.
He's on his way back to New York.
But first, he was down at the border today in Texas interviewing President Trump, who was meeting with border security officials, looking firsthand at the situation there, the crisis.
And the question now becomes, given the Democrats' refusal to fund the wall, will the president act on his own, unilaterally, by invoking the National Emergencies Act and a further statute that allows him to construct the wall through and with the military, even though Congress has not authorized it.
Congress passed that law.
The president is perfectly entitled to use that law.
He's authorized and empowered and should.
And Senator Lindsey Graham, a short time ago, issued a statement saying this is what the president should do, act unilaterally, build the wall on his own.
Will there be lawsuits?
Of course.
But there's no legal basis to sustain a challenge against the president's legal, unfettered authority to act.
So you can watch Sean's interview tonight with the president.
He'll be asking him about that.
9 o'clock Eastern on the Fox News channel.
The program, of course, is called Hannity.
And I've enjoyed being with you over the last three hours.
I want to mention again my book, The Russia Hoax, will be coming out in a updated paperback version with new information, facts, evidence, and law that have come to light since the hardback was published in July.
You can order it now on Amazon.com.
It's up there.
It'll be available in bookstores nationwide beginning February 12th.
The name of the book is The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
I want to thank all of our guests today.
David Schung was with us, Jessica Vaughan, Jeffrey Lord, and all of our callers who had a lot of great points to be made and some serious questions that were posed.
You know, Mueller hired a team of anti-Trump partisans, and he launched an intensive and indiscriminate search for some proof that the president had coordinated or conspired with Russi during the election.
No evidence has emerged.
So a frustrated Robert Mueller changed tactics.
He expanded his mandate beyond its stated purpose to pursue anybody associated with Trump.
The special counsel created opportunities for crimes where none existed.
And if you want to read more about it, check out the updated paper version of the Russia hoax available on Amazon.com.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
Thanks for being with us.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
