Sean reacts to the announcement that Beto O'Rourke will be joining the 2020 Presidential Race. Plus, John Solomon, of the Hill, brings us the next breaking news story in the ongoing release transcripts, courtesy of House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins of Georgia.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 know, I think the funniest bit of news that I'm seeing of anything is the New York Times today claiming that the Mueller report will send shockwaves through Washington even if Trump is exonerated.
Is that not the biggest instance of fake fraud media spin that you can't even make that up in art school?
If, for example, you lost your job, fear not, as our great hero warrior poet Ocasio Cortez says, don't fear being automated out of work.
Automation will mean more time for creating art.
And that's pretty creative by the New York Times, that it will, quote, send shockwaves throughout Washington, even if President Trump and the rest of his campaign are exonerated and any and all charges that they colluded with Russia.
So let me get that straight.
The New York Times is saying if Trump is found innocent after now three years, because the first, the beginnings of this investigation were in July of 2016 by the same people that exonerated Hillary Clinton.
So it started then, nine months later, May of 2017, 600 and what, 65 days in the Mueller investigation now, after nine previous months.
And they're saying that if Trump's found innocent, that's actually going to be worse than if he's found guilty.
Now, you keep getting these little hints and tips and so on and so forth that the left is pretty afraid they're not getting, and this would be the extreme left media mob out there that has been pushing these conspiracy theories for two years.
Sounds like they already know that Mueller is about to lay a big fat goose egg.
I don't know.
Times goes on.
Andrew Weissman, who helped lead the cases against the former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, will be concluding his detail to the special counsel's office in the near future.
Peter Carr, the special counsel spokesman, said, Mr. Weissman's decision to leave has been closely scrutinized for clues about what it says about the apparent conclusion of the special counsel's work.
The inquiry findings seem so sure to send shockwaves through Washington, whether or not prosecutors found that Trump or any member of his inner circle worked with Russia to interfere in the election or obstruct the investigation.
I mean, it's just, it's the type of only the left-wing media mob could come up with this nonsense, the rage Trump media mob.
And it's kind of hysterical.
Anyway, it's just crazy.
Hang on, I got to send something.
Got it.
There we go.
So this is just typical of what you get from your media.
Oh, what do we get from fake news CNN?
I wonder if he's going to be in trouble for referring to Paul Bagala, another Clinton hack, slammed for referring to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner as cockroaches.
Wow.
Pretty amazing.
You know, then you have, let's say, big labor complaining that this is great for the Republicans.
This is great for the president.
And, you know, big labor complaints that Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is going to harm millions of union workers.
Yeah, but she said, don't worry.
Now, you guys that work every day hard for a living, those of you in manufacturing, those of you that work in the factories and build the cars and make this country run every day and produce the goods and services that we all use and we desperately need and want and desire.
Well, you know, don't worry about those millions of jobs because automation will come in.
Because Ocasio-Cortez says that government should control how businesses are run.
And of course, we're going to nationalize health care.
We're going to nationalize the energy industry.
And now the president of the AFL-CIO now says that Ocasio's Green New Deal will harm millions of union workers.
Well, don't worry.
They'll have more time for creating art, she's telling you.
We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work, whether it's a tax rate, whether it's distributing wealth that is created by automation.
If we approach solutions to our system and start entertaining ideas like that, then we should be excited about automation because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing and investigating in the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in.
Oh, who cares if you're automated out of a job?
Whether you work or you don't work, you know, willingly or unwillingly, we already know what you get.
We know you get guaranteed housing and guaranteed affordable housing and medical leave and vacations guaranteed and you get guaranteed healthy food and you get guaranteed Medicare for all, but you can't have your own private insurance and you get guaranteed retirement.
Everything is free, free, free.
But we're going to make it all without any oil or gas because that's out in 10 years.
And we're also going to change all the cars.
You're going to have to get a new car because it's going to be a plug-in car, not a gas combustion engine car.
And you're not going to fly in airplanes and you're not going to eat cows any longer.
I mean, look at what Comrade de Blasio said in a tweet last night.
I know meat, what do you call it?
Meat-free Mondays?
Meatless Mondays.
I know it's the right decision because the kids love it and Sean Hannity hates it.
You're not going to convince me that the kids love it.
And he's doing it for climate change.
Meatless Mondays is for climate change.
No meat in public schools in New York on Monday.
The same city that won't let you buy a big gulp.
The same city that under Nanny Bloomberg decided you can't have salt and you cannot have pepper on your restaurant table because you have to ask for it because it's not healthy.
And maybe by not seeing it, you won't use it.
You can't meatless Mondays because of climate change.
It's insane.
Do you think they're going to kill fewer cows?
Do you think it's going to have that big an impact?
Because actually, that means more cows will live.
That means they will continue their flatulence and the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I can't believe I'm even arguing this.
This is how sick this is.
This is way, way beyond anything any intelligent person would ever think of.
All of this, by the way, is rooted in the same regurgitated, repeated, false promises of every failed socialist society around.
You know, Ocasio-Cortez, new Green Deal.
No cars, no oil, no gas.
Everything's free.
Even college now, they're going to add college, preschool.
That'll all be free.
Even daycare is going to be funded.
Then you're going to be guaranteed your jobs and your vacations and your family and medical leave.
And then you're going to be guaranteed health care.
Then you're going to be a guaranteed retirement, guaranteed government-healthy food.
But we'll get rid of planes and we'll replace them with high-speed trains.
Okay, how do you get to Europe?
First question: She takes a plane from New York to DC.
She takes a plane from New York to Texas.
How are we going to get to Asia?
How are we going to get to Australia?
How fast are you going to be able to build that high-speed train?
Explain to me the route from New York to New Zealand.
Explain how we're going to build all the trains.
Are you going to build it above the water or below the water?
How much do you think that's going to cost in and of itself?
I mean, just what they're promising is $94 trillion in 10 years, and it doesn't include any of this stuff.
And how do we survive when oil and gas are the lifeblood of our society?
And what do you do if you work in an industry where the oil and gas industry?
What do you do then?
What do you do when you work in manufacturing and, yeah, you use coal to fund your plant, to fuel your plant?
You use, you know, gas and energy to heat your home and move your automobiles and your cars and everything else.
It's unbelievable.
All right.
So, yesterday, I want to get to, we have a lot of information on the deep state that we want to get to because it's important, and we're going to get it all in in the course of the program.
So, we have now the third release.
Last week, it was Bruce Orr's testimony.
Yesterday, we learned so much with Lisa Page and her testimony.
We learned that, in fact, it was Lisa Page telling us that, yeah, we didn't really know, we didn't make the decisions.
Everything was kind of set up and in the DOJ, and they were making most of the calls here.
And we knew it was improper and irregular, and we knew it broke protocol.
And we also knew that, well, yeah, she's not going to be found guilty or charged for anything because they're all Democrats working over there.
And yeah, they're going to put the fix in.
That's what we got from Lisa Page.
Pretty scary.
It's a lot.
And now we're getting Collins releasing testimony from the Russia Gate co-conspirator, their boyfriend and girlfriend, Peter Strzok.
And Collins releases this behind-door closed-door testimony, the most explosive witness in the conspiracy to hijack the FBI and use it to sabotage Trump.
Remember, Strzok was involved in writing the exoneration before interviewing Clinton and other key witnesses with James Comey, taking out the words, the legal standard gross negligence and putting in recklessness.
And then it was the DOJ we learned from Lisa Page that added, Well, you need to be able to show intent, even though intent is not in the clear statute about gross negligence in any way.
Anyway, so now that we have this, he released the transcript to the American people so they can read it themselves.
One exchange, you've got Congressman John Ratcliffe asking Strzzok if Mueller or his investigative team made an inquiry into his anti-Trump text with Lisa Page.
Page was worried Trump would become the next president.
Strzok sent comfort.
No, no, no, he's not.
We'll stop it.
Oh, well, then we get to the dossier part that comes up later.
You know, at one point, Trey Gowdy grilling struck on the text rooting against Trump, and he's a loathsome human being and all that.
And he points out that Trump had not yet become the nominee and that at the time, Strzok was heading the investigation into Clinton.
A little bit of a conflict of interest, wouldn't you say?
And Gowdy grilling struck on the Clinton server case.
Strzz admits Clinton mishandled classified information.
Just like you're admitting it's a felony.
Struck tries to explain away the insurance policy, but makes no sense at all whatsoever.
You know, he thinks it's an analogy to say, well, you know, every pollster is saying that Clinton's going to win and be elected.
And me responding, well, that may be true.
We need to be responsibly investigating all of this in the unlikely event, based on the polls, the pundits, the experts, that candidate Trump is elected.
Miss Lee Jackson Lee interrupts, well, why did you advocate for continuing the investigation?
Let me move to another question.
Did you mean you had no insurance policy to prevent Trump from becoming president?
No, it was, well, that was for after the president.
That's what this whole thing is all about.
Because remember, they exonerate Hillary, same guy that interviewed her, Peter Strzok, same guy that interviewed Manafort.
I'm sorry, that interviewed General Flynn.
The same guy then begins in July of 2016, the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion.
But as his girlfriend said, he was brought in there for the very purpose of finding Russia collusion.
But nine months later, just before the appointment of Mueller, they found nothing.
Just like Nunes' committee found nothing.
Just like Senator Burr's committee found nothing related to collusion.
Just like anybody you've heard indicted, nothing from the Trump campaign.
Process crimes having nothing to do with Russia at all or the president or the campaign.
Biggest abuse of power.
And now we're getting the information.
You know, there are more than 34 million American smokers.
Now, I bet that finding a satisfying alternative to cigarettes is at the top of your list if you're a smoker.
Look, I've been there before.
But after many years of smoking, I finally made the switch to Juul.
There's no more worrying about the way my clothes smell, worrying about what people are going to say with Juul.
Everything is so much easier.
Now, Juul is a vaporizer that contains nicotine for a satisfying transition.
When I found Juul, it was a complete game changer.
Now, Juul was designed by smokers for smokers to be an alternative to cigarettes.
From its simple-to-use interface to its clean technology, well, Juul has no cigarette ash, odor, or mess.
So if you're one of the 34 million adults who smoke, know that there is an alternative to cigarettes.
Now, to discover the smoking alternative, that's nothing like you've tried, visit juul.com/slash switchamerica.
That's juul.com slash switchamerica.
And warning, this product does contain nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show, looks like we have some breaking news.
Linda, are you watching this in Tel Aviv?
I'm pulling it up right now.
I'm sorry, my computers are working really slowly.
Yeah, as of right now, this is real military.
There are rockets fired at Tel Aviv.
So, rocket sirens in Tel Aviv.
Now, if you remember when we went on two trips to Israel, the second trip, well, the first trip, we were in Tel Aviv also, but that was during the last conflict, during the last war.
Yeah, the first one we did was during the conflict.
And then we went down into the tunnels that were built by Hamas using Israeli cement and Israeli electricity.
And what they were doing is these tunnels were so huge.
What was it?
60 feet underground.
It was incredible.
Incredibly sophisticated, elaborate.
Ironically, money that was given and cement that was given and electricity that was given by Israel to build schools and hospitals for kids on the other side of this conflict.
And they use it to build these long, elaborate tunnels.
There were numerous ones.
We went in one of the deeper ones, and then they would come out, kill Israelis, get back in the tunnel, and go back home.
Well, One of the first things that happened, I think the first time we landed, and that was on the trip in the war, the first thing we heard was a siren go off.
When siren goes off, that means a missile's in the air.
And then they have their missile system, which, you know, thank God takes them out of the air if it's going to hit a populated area.
What is it?
Patriot system.
What's their system called?
The Iron Dome.
The Iron Dome.
And so now, the second time we went there, we actually were trying to paint a picture of just how small Israel is.
It's about the size of New Jersey, the tiniest country in the region, surrounded by enemies, you know, hence 486773 and the conflicts that existed at the time.
So when you go, we flew in a helicopter from the Mediterranean right up the coast.
What's, you know, literally bordering, and you're in the new city, the old city, what was it, 15 minutes?
It's like very New York.
It's so tiny.
It's so tiny.
And then, of course, we took you on the tour of that.
But the amount of room to defend Israel is almost non-existent.
All right, quick break, right back.
We got more to the deep state news.
Hannity watch straight ahead.
It looks like the rockets, we have two rocket sirens in Tel Aviv.
Looks like they were fired from Gaza.
Am I reading that right?
We don't know for sure.
Initial reports say two sirens and that loud explosions were heard.
Iron Dome reportedly intercepted one of the rockets.
The other one landed in an open area.
This is what's amazing about the Iron Dome.
We land in, we finally get landed in Israel at the airport, and we immediately had to hit the road and, you know, long trip.
So taking El Al, great airline.
And so we're there.
The first thing we do is we go and we see the Iron Dome.
And what their amazing technology is, and America helped develop this, is they can ascertain while the rocket being fired is in the air, before the Iron Dome makes the decision whether to take it out of the air, whether that missile that's being fired is going to land in a populated area, or if it's an unpopulated area, they're very expensive.
They decide just let it land and let it blow up.
We were during the wartime.
I lost the picture.
I don't remember why I lost it, but I got a picture of literally, you know, I had my camera out for some reason.
I hear an explosion, took a picture, and there was like the beginnings of a mushroom cloud, obviously small comparatively to a really big one.
And then we went to a border city of Gaza called Sard.
Did I say that right?
Sterot.
Sterot.
All right.
And a kibbutz, as we call it, in a neighborhood, in other words.
And so we're there.
We go to eat that day.
Forgot where we ended up staying that night.
You know, the whole big group of us.
The night before, that town had been hit with a rocket.
And, you know, all the shrapnel, I mean, it's BBs, it's glass, it's everything sharp that you can think of to maximize, you know, death, maximize damage to an individual if they were in the area.
And I remember taking the pictures of that.
Sterot is fascinating in its own right because it's so close.
It's a border city.
And over the course of 10 years, they've had over 10,000 rockets fired into their community.
And I remember asking parents, why don't you leave?
Why don't you move more inland?
And they're like, we're not leaving our home.
This is where we live.
What if I told you to leave your home?
And even the kids, their playgrounds are indoors.
Yeah, well, it actually wasn't just indoors.
It was the JNF underground playgrounds.
We literally went underground.
They're bunkers.
Yeah, you're literally indoor playgrounds.
They're playing in bunkers.
Like you'd have whatever, you know, all the different things you'd have in a playground.
They've had down there, but they couldn't play outside because of the close proximity.
As soon as the siren goes off, no kid would be able to get to safety in time.
And they live that nightmare every day.
And everyone gave me the same answer.
Why don't you think about moving inland?
This is my home.
I live here.
I grew up here.
I'm not doing that.
I'm not giving up.
Anyway, so the two rockets of Tel Aviv.
Tel Aviv is one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen.
I will say that, right on the Mediterranean.
Just beautiful.
It was gorgeous.
We stayed at some hotel one night.
I know we weren't there long.
It was one of these four-hour nap things, and then you go.
And I remember just, it was at night, and I looked out, and there was a beautiful pool underneath.
And then, you know, I woke up in the morning and I just saw the water.
I was like, wow, this is spectacular.
That's when we wanted a little bit more time there.
Anyway, so we're going to watch the monitor very closely.
But, you know, not unusual.
They have an election coming up there.
You just got to hope and pray.
I've never seen anything like the way they treat prime ministers in Israel.
I just never seen anything like it.
You know, for like a box of cigars and maybe a bottle of champagne as a gift, which is just normal in the course of doing, you know, being gracious to somebody.
I can say that I've been to the prime minister's residence in Israel.
It's not the White House.
You know what it really looks like the equivalent of?
Like a three-bedroom apartment in New York, except you have a lot of walls and a lot of guards.
It was unbelievable.
And it is not a lavish lifestyle in any way.
They don't even have a plane.
They have to charter from El Al when the prime minister comes to the U.S.
It's not like they're not spending money that way.
All right, back to this whole thing.
Now that, so we had Bruce Orr's testimony released last week.
We had now Lisa Page's testimony.
Now today out, we have Peter Strzz's testimony out.
I mean, his explanation, trying to explain away his insurance policy is just laughable.
I mean, it's so bad.
And, you know, on the Clinton Department of Justice striking a deal that blocked the FBI access to the Clinton Foundation emails or private servers.
This is an interesting exchange.
So there was a mix of emails on the server.
And Strzok answered, sure, that's correct.
Yes.
What do you mean by mix?
All these categories you just described.
Question, there was a variety of things in that server, including those categories of things that I described.
That was the answer.
Question.
So the Clinton Foundation was on the server.
Answer, I believe, on one of the servers, if not others.
Question, were you given access to those emails as part of the investigation?
We were not.
We did not have access.
My recollection is that access to those emails were based on consent that were negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton, which goes to what Lisa Page was saying.
They ran it right through Loretta Lynch's office.
Now, on top of the fact that Page and Strzz wanted Clinton to win anyway, they loathed Donald Trump.
So now this whole issue of, well, even James Baker, the chief counsel, general counsel of the FBI under Comey, said she should have been indicted for violating the Espionage Act with the server in the mom and pop bathroom closet.
And he thought the case was a slam dunk.
It was Comey going before Loretta Lynch.
Well, this investigation into Clinton, it's not an investigation.
It's a matter.
Then you add another factor as it relates to Loretta Lynch.
Loretta Lynch is running, according to Lisa Page, making every decision.
This is all now, all cover-up Clinton now goes straight into the Attorney General Loretta Lynch's office, whose boss is Barack Obama.
Now it raises questions, how much of all of this was he involved in?
And Strzzok testifying that the FBI's ability to search these emails was constrained by consent agreement.
We had a significant filter team that was put in place to work through the various items of various consent agreements.
And those could be, and this is not an exclusive list, limits of domains and dates and ranges of people.
That's not an exclusive list.
And then he detailed the editing process of gross negligence.
Gross negligence was the legal standard.
And remember, Lisa Page mentions, oh, they needed to also have a standard not written into the law, which was intent.
And then they changed the words gross negligence to extreme carelessness.
At any point did the words gross negligence appear in the director's statement?
This is Strzok.
Yes, my recollection is that it did.
Question.
And when were those changed at some point?
And those were changed at some point.
They were.
Question.
And what were they changed to?
I believe extreme carelessness is the phrase that was used instead.
Question.
Do you recall the discussion surrounding that change or why it was deemed necessary and who was involved?
Answer.
I remember generally a discussion about the topic amongst many other topics.
My recollection is attorneys brought it up, and these, of course, were DOJ attorneys.
And the discussion, as I recall it, was kind of getting into the nitty-gritty of how gross negligence is defined as a term of art in a legal statute and whether or not that should be used.
But it was the OGC.
It was the legal folks, director, the director people who had kind of the legal experience turning that around.
Question, did you make that change or did someone else do it?
I believe it was done from my computer because I had the biggest office.
And so my recollection is several of us sat down, made the first cut, taking eight, nine, ten people's comments and putting it all into the first revision or revision.
And then I'm sure you've seen from production, there are about 80 billion subsequent revisions by a similar number of people.
They took it out.
That again brings it right to the office of the Attorney General.
And before her sin, you know, let me just stay with this for a second.
You know, Paige, you know, Paige Strzz says that admitted Mueller never asked him about anything about the texting, about protecting the country, about Strzzok's explanation of the insurance policy.
Mueller hired this guy for the very purpose, if you listen to Lisa Page, to go after Russia collusion.
Wiener laptop is first mentioned in connection with an email.
They didn't even bring up the whole thing about the acid washing and deleting of 33,000 emails.
And, you know, what you learn here is, and also Lisa Page brought the CIA Director Brennan into this.
Now, that's new also.
So now you got Brennan involved.
Now you see that they're claiming that it was all run by the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, who met on the tarmac with Clinton just to talk about grandkids for 45 minutes, just happens to be just a few days before the decision is going to be made about indicting her white, his wife.
And then she's making all the decisions running the FBI, which is not normal protocol.
As a matter of fact, so out of the ordinary that, you know, Lisa Page is saying, yeah, that hardly ever, maybe never happened before.
It struck Ratcliffe on August 8th, 2016, in response to a text message from Page making inquiries Trump could win.
No, no, no, we'll stop him.
Struck.
Is that correct?
You wrote that?
Yes.
Did the special counsel, anyone with the special counsel, investigative team, make any inquiry as to whether or not what is reflected in that text impacted your actions, your decisions, the manner in which you collected evidence, either as part of the Russian investigation or during your involvement with the special counsel team?
No.
Wow.
You know, unbelievable.
It really is unbelievable.
By the way, we now know that it looks like the Clinton email scandal may not be over after all.
There is some hope.
I'm telling you, there's a lot that's going to be happening.
Now, the first of several former administration officials of Obama and former aides to Clinton are set to be deposed Thursday after a judge ruled in January that they must answer questions under oath about the 2012 Benghazi terror attack and the Clinton email scandal.
Judge Joyce Landberth ordered the discovery after a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, seeking to uncover whether Benghazi and that scandal was one of the reasons for keeping Mrs. Clinton's email secret.
Anyway, they announced Wednesday that Justin Cooper, a former Clinton Foundation advisor, played a role in setting up and administering the unauthorized private email server.
We'll answer questions under oath in person on Thursday.
Well, that would be today.
Well, no, that would be today.
Thank you.
Eight other depositions of former Obama officials.
So we'll find out that keep your eye on that.
I'm telling you, there's stuff happening.
You've been waiting.
You've been frustrated.
You've given up at times, but it's all happening because they can't hide this anymore.
Oh, and then we got Andrew Weissman is leaving.
Why he was ever hired is beyond my comprehension.
You know, all these people that, you know, swear, well, he's a Marine, he's a man of integrity.
Well, we'll find out very quickly.
Why would anyone be a special counsel and only hire Democratic donors?
Why would you hire, if you're investigating, you know, Trump, why would you hire Hillary Clinton's lawyer, Jeannie Ray, in the Clinton Foundation?
If you're investigating collusion and you find out that Clinton bought a dossier full of Russian lies that were disseminated to the American public before the election, why wasn't that part of the investigation also?
If you find out that, in fact, everybody in the FBI and DOJ were warned it's unverified and that there was a disdain, as Bruce Orse said, Christopher Steele was biased and desperate to defeat Trump.
So Hillary Clinton funnels money to the law firm, hires Fusion GPS, hires Christopher Steele, creates a dossier.
Its own author doesn't stand by it.
And everybody in August of 2016 is warned, she bought and paid for it, and it's hers and it's political and it's unverified and the guy that wrote it hates Trump.
And then in October, they still used it.
That means, and they didn't tell the court that Hillary paid for it.
They didn't verify it, even though they signed it.
You know, remember, James Comey signed that first FISA in October 2016, but in January of 2017, when he went to Trump Tower and told him about the dossier, said it was salacious, but it's unverified.
Well, he was telling the FISA court, again, Grassley Graham memo, bulk of the information in the application that it was verified.
He testified to that, put a signature on it.
So that's where we are.
This is unbelievable.
All right, well, more on this.
So we're just, this is now the beginning.
There will be a beautiful downpour, cascading information and criminal referrals coming next.
All right, glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of this program.
All right, a lot going on today.
And we have two missiles that have been fired at Tel Aviv.
One was picked up by the Iron Dome.
One exploded, but in a non-populated area.
Those are reports now.
I would expect a strong, fierce response from Israel because that's what they do.
You don't get to fire rockets into Israel and Israel not hit back.
And unfortunately, this has been their history and why this country, as small as it is, our number one ally in the region, the only democracy in the region, has been under fire since the 48-piece partition plan that was supposed to end all conflicts.
And remember, Ben-Gurion offered his hand of friendly neighborliness at the time, and the next day, Israel's attacked.
And the 67 war, in the 73 war, Israel surrounded, you know, and rocket attacks are not new.
We had been to Starot, which is in Israel, and one next to Gaza, it's 10,000 rockets in 10 years.
And we had one fired the night before we arrived there, looking at the shrapnel in a neighborhood, a kibbutz, in that town.
Went to the police station, and literally were taking pictures of all the rockets that have been recovered over the many years.
Just a small sampling, and how much bigger and more powerful they've gotten over the years.
Just sad when you have kids that cannot play outside because they have to play in an underground playground because you don't have enough time from the time the sirens go off to the time that rocket is about to hit.
And that is the existence every single day.
Imagine any town in America.
Anyway, we continue our Hannity Watch on the deep state.
A lot happening today.
So last week it was Bruce Orr's testimony, thanks to Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia releasing all of it.
Then yesterday it was Lisa Page, and today it was Peter Strzok.
And I've been going through my analysis of all of this, and we found a lot.
And we bring in John Solomon, who's been on this from the beginning.
And David Schoen is back with us.
And we appreciate both of you joining us.
John, you've been reading it all day.
I've been reading it all day, and I found my things.
What did you find?
What stood out to you?
You know, I think at the end of the day, the purely political nature of the origins of this case and the oddities of how this case began.
Every counterintelligence case I've ever covered in my life before the two involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were always done in the field by the experts closest to the case.
If it was a Russia case, it was done in Russia.
If it was an English case, it was done in London.
Here, both of these cases get sucked into headquarters away from the rank and file members who do their job without partisanship, and it's put into the hands of these extraordinarily political leaders of the FBI, and they're taking all sorts of actions that violate the manual and the normal daily way in which investigations are conducted.
I just broke a story a second ago.
It just went up a few seconds ago, Sean, but I think it's really significant.
For the first time, we can say affirmatively: the FBI not only knew that the person who was giving the evidence to them, Christopher Steele, was political, biased, paid by Hillary Clinton, leaking to the media, lying.
Those are all the things that we focus most of the FBI abuses on so far.
We can say before the FISA warrant, the very first FISA warrant was issued, that the FBI had positive evidence of innocence on behalf of George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
Evidence of innocence that they didn't.
But they had exculpatory evidence of Papadopoulos and Page before the first FISA warrant.
Absolutely.
They had an informant who met with both of them, who captured them saying there was no collusion.
There was no meeting in Moscow with the two senior Russian officials.
There was no effort to hack Clinton emails.
In fact, Papadopoulos says in the conversation, he would have thought Trump engaging in hacking would be treason, and no one in this campaign would ever commit treason.
These are just positive statements of innocence unwittingly given to an undercover FBI informant, and they are kept from the court.
If the court knew this, the chances of the FISA warrant being issued would be much, much less likely.
Well, we know that McCabe had said, the deputy FBI director, no dossier, there would be no FISA.
So we knew that existed.
And so I want to go back into this.
So they had the exculpatory evidence.
Now, Bruce Orr, we learned last week that he had said that he told everybody that Steele had a hatred and was invested in Trump losing, and that it was paid for by Hillary, also the DNC, the money she was controlling, and also by a Russian oligarch.
And now we also know that Steele was being paid by the FBI.
Interesting, all for the same material.
And that Hillary paid for it, and it was unverified.
And then we know that when questioned under oath, Steele was asked about his own dossier, and he couldn't stand by it.
So anybody that says they verified it, that would be impossible to verify something that the author of can't verify.
That's right.
I think that the majority of the people.
And now you're saying go over the exculpatory evidence again.
So up to this point, everything that we've talked about from an exculpatory standpoint involves Steele's credibility, who he is paid from, the fact that the dossier wasn't yet verified, it was being used, that he expressed to Bruce Orr that he would do anything to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, that there were other sources of Democrats feeding the FBI, clearly politically tainted Democratic motive allegations against Trump.
We've never been able to say before for certainty that the FBI would have intercepted evidence of innocence, meaning the people they were looking at, the George Papadopouloses and the Carter Pages, that those people were making statements, not knowing they were meeting with an informant, thinking they were meeting with everyday people, where they were saying, no, I didn't meet in Russia with those two Russian intelligence agents.
I would never get that level.
That didn't happen.
No, we didn't change the Ukraine platform at the GOP convention for Vladimir Putin.
We did it for other reasons.
No, none of us did anything to work with the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's email.
In fact, we would find it reprehensible if any American tried to work with the Russians to do the hacking.
Those sort of statements undercut the entire reason they opened the investigation.
And they do this before they get the FISA warrant.
It's really remarkable.
September and August of 16, these statements are made by the key witnesses that they're targeting to an informer of the FBI.
Wow.
Unbelievable.
David Shon, before I get to this, you just got back from Israel, and you see that two missiles have been fired at Tel Aviv.
I'm sure there'll be a pretty swift and strong response.
It's amazing what people don't know about the security threats of this country that I know you and I love so much, but I am confident that the Prime Minister has now brought his war cabinet together prepared.
Yes, he has.
And I just left Tel Aviv this morning, and I actually drove right by where these rockets had hit.
Yes, he's convened the security cabinet.
But let me say this.
Not only do you and I love Israel, but having just come back from Israel and spent the week in conferences about legal challenges Israel's facing, I have to tell you that you are absolutely loved in Israel.
Everybody knows you.
Everybody knows of your great love for the state of Israel and your support all on principle, all on the facts.
Well, the facts are the facts.
They're surrounded by people that have been trying to destroy them.
They're openly stated their desire to wipe Israel off the map.
And it's unbelievable to me, especially in light of Congresswoman Omar's virulent anti-Semitism and the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and these crazy Nazi nutjobs that say they're on the right and they are not and they're just lunatics.
It's a little scary right now seeing this Congresswoman saying things that are just unbelievable.
Yeah, I'm of the school, quite frankly, and I don't hesitate to say this, and I'm only speaking for myself, I'm of the school that the greatest threat right now, anti-Semitism in this country, comes from this so-called progressive left, which in my view is anything other than progressive.
But I'm talking specifically about Omar Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez.
Remember, they are all advocates, formal advocates of BDS, which is anti-Semitic and only singles out the state of Israel for a boycott when Israel is a leader in all of the fields that so-called progressives should care about, anything from the environment to gay rights, etc.
So it's pure and simple anti-Semitism by any stretch of the imagination.
And for them to try to turn people on the defensive and say they're being attacked because they're Muslim is nonsense.
If anybody said what they're saying, they'd be called out for being anti-Semitic and sanctioned.
But, you know, back to your point, I just want to cover one thing that you were discussing with John.
What John's article really points out is two conceptually different things.
One, there's this exculpatory evidence, huge body of evidence that shows underlying facts were withheld and not true that would show, tend to negate even what the claim is.
But the other is impeachment evidence.
There's specific evidence that now destroys the credibility of Steele and anyone who was involved in this because they didn't disclose all the facts.
And all of this violates the express rules of the FISA court.
This is a story of the decade at least.
Well, I agree.
And I think what John's saying here today, you're right.
We had circumstances.
It wasn't even circumstantial.
You couldn't verify.
Now, here's an interesting question about James Comey.
And I'll start with you, David, because you're the lawyer.
So James Comey signs the first FISA agreement.
Rod Rosenstein says you're putting your full faith credibility.
The Newness memo, the Grassley-Graham memos, both said the bulk of that original FISA application.
Again, John breaking news today that the exculpatory evidence withheld.
What was the dossier?
They never verified it.
They never told the FISA court judges she paid for it.
They never said that they didn't verify it.
McCabe had said without the dossier, there's no warrant.
Now, that's James Comey signs that in October 2016.
In January, he goes to Trump Tower, talks to President-elect Trump about a dossier that is salacious and unverified.
So if he's saying that in January, but signed off as it being true, did he commit a willful fraud on a FISA court?
And did he commit a conspiracy?
Was he involved in a conspiracy to deny an American citizen his constitutional rights?
And was he involved in a conspiracy to alter an election by getting the information vis-a-vis the Trump campaign through Carter Page's emails?
I think the facts absolutely support that and nothing less.
And the next step, of course, was his decision to leak documents to his friend for that specific purpose to get the special counsel appointed, et cetera.
But also to affect the election.
And Rod Rosenstein is all over that too.
But, you know, John mentioned earlier there was no showing of treason, that sort of thing.
On the opposite side of things, what we know now from Strzok's testimony is Comey was specifically considering, and other department officials are considering, Espionage Act charges against Hillary, and that was shut down too.
One of the biggest things, of course, we get from Strzok's testimony, which the Washington Post is trying to put a spin on today, but the examiner reports more clearly, is that a deal was struck on, no pun intended, a deal was struck to avoid any investigation of the Clinton Foundation emails.
Filters were put up so the DOJ didn't look into them.
I mean, this is outrageous that there were these kinds of private agreements going on.
And by the way, the lawyer for Hillary Clinton during that investigation was Jeannie Ree, who is now part of the Mueller team.
This is incestuous.
There are a lot of lawyers out there that could have been chosen for that Mueller team.
It's not coincidental.
All right.
Respond to that, John Solomon.
Well, he's right on the money on everything and very insightful analysis on all this.
You know, there's a lot of signs of what the future holds for this investigation.
Today, Andrew Weissman stepped down, so Mueller's top deputy is now gone.
He's been obviously an object of a lot of criticism for his past conduct in cases.
The Mueller investigation is winding down.
It will wind down without a finding of Russian collusion.
When that happens, what should wind up is an intensive investigation of how the FBI had two systems of justice, one for Hillary Clinton, one where Loretta lynches people, say we're not going to prosecute her under the law, even if that's what the standard is.
Don't do it.
One where they allow people to have immunity and destroy evidence without any consequence.
And another one where a Republican for which there's an absence of evidence is put through a two-year investigation that from the beginning, all the signs indicated there was innocence, not guilt, and that there was a political, dirty trick going on.
So what's happening on that front today?
I just saw something move across the wires here a few seconds ago.
Lindsey Graham is now officially calling for a special prosecutor to look at a dual system of justice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Did the Justice Department treat these two presidential candidates entirely different?
I think the body of evidence we have in the public, the answer already is yes.
But if we get a special prosecutor, there can be consequences.
Devin Nunes' criminal referrals are coming, John Solomon, with this new evidence.
And now we're getting all of these, we're getting just the beginning of a cascade of information with so much more to come.
Right.
How many people do you think are going to be in legal trouble?
30 seconds for each of you.
Well, I can tell you right now that the House Republicans I've talked to have prepared referrals on nine people is what they've been working on over the last week.
So at least nine people are going to be sent over on top of those already referred, like Glenn Simpson and people like that.
And your thoughts on that, David Show.
Look, I'm a skeptic.
You know, I know they'll be referred.
I hope there's action taken.
We've seen too much inaction, even on the referrals made already under the most recent Attorneys General.
But I hope Andrew Weissman isn't going to escape by stepping down now.
I don't know how with a straight face he spoke to Manafort sentencing about the harm from keeping things from the American public.
That's the hallmark of his career, keeping exculpatory facts from the American public and lying and cheating.
And when the judge said democracy only works when the American people have the facts, she should have been looking at Andrew Weissman.
Well said.
All right, we'll take a break, continue more on the other side, news roundup, and more.
This case is about the widening corruption of elite college admissions through the steady application of wealth combined with fraud.
There can be no separate college admission system for the wealthy.
And I'll add that there will not be a separate criminal justice system either.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of hardworking, talented students strive for admission to elite schools.
As every parent knows, these students work harder and harder every year in a system that appears to grow more and more competitive every year.
And that system is a zero-sum game.
For every student admitted through fraud, an honest, genuinely talented student was rejected.
The parents charged today, despite already being able to give their children every legitimate advantage in the college admissions game, instead chose to corrupt and illegally manipulate the system for their benefit.
We're not talking about donating a building so that a school's more likely to take your son or daughter.
We're talking about deception and fraud, fake test scores, fake athletic credentials, fake photographs, bribed college officials.
All right, there it is, the ongoing scandal, the biggest ever in the Department of Justice history.
Now we're hearing it may go as high as 800 clients this guy had, and that would be a system that is rigged to get kids SAT scores that they could never achieve, or even get them scholarships for sports that they never even played, which would be fraudulent.
It's pretty unbelievable the depth of all of this.
20 years in jail these parents face.
And you know what's remarkable to me?
By the way, we're joined by Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin.
What's remarkable to me is, you know, you would think the standardized tests are the most heavily proctored tests.
That was issue one of my mind.
But there apparently were special centers where they had their in, I guess, because they bought their way in and the proctors would help or do give the answers after the test, et cetera, et cetera.
You know, as it relates to any, if anyone is involved in any serious sport that would rise to the collegiate level, and I know from my own experience, is that you will have a record that goes back for, you know, since you were probably preteens in terms of where you played, how you played, where you were ranked, et cetera.
So to me, Jonathan, it's like there's no due diligence going on in any of these cases.
There's no due diligence.
And to me, I think it's a little I'd like to really know how long this has been going on because I don't think this is something that just started.
And if that's the case, there's no telling how deep this could reach.
Definitely potentially in the politicians that are active right now, not just actors.
And that's what I'd like to see is for the DOJ to redeem themselves a little bit in this circumstance where they don't play fast and loose with politicians or people that are from the deep state.
I'd like to see anybody that was accountable for this, anybody that was involved in this to be brought before the DOJ.
And having been an FBI agent, this is the type of case that people long for because of the – I know people are going to say this isn't a mob or this isn't murder.
But what this is, is it's total disregard for any type of system.
And people that will do something like this and go this far in this much bribery and be involved in this knowingly, they're willing to do probably just about, I mean, there's a whole other host of moral things that codes that they're going to violate in life.
So bad people do bad things.
They just got caught at this one.
And I'd like to see the DOJ go full bore on this.
What do you think, Danielle?
I'm in full agreement.
This is a perfect storm of privilege, of wealth, of arrogance and fraud.
And I would like to say to all the hardworking parents and students out there that this is one for the good guys.
I think it's disgusting.
And to the point of the prosecutor in Boston, this is a zero-sum game.
So these kids who were not qualified to go to these schools, some of them Ivy League schools, they kicked off or kicked out.
There's one student for each of those kids that didn't get to go in.
And I think this is disgusting.
And I want the book to be thrown at these parents.
You know, it's so funny.
I'm going to ask Linda to put on her microphone because we went over this and over this yesterday.
And, you know, one of the things that we kept bringing up and the attorney there, the U.S. attorney, made the case as he was discussing this.
We're not talking about a parent buying an expensive building in the school.
Well, if you buy a building and your kid gets in that way, how is that any different?
It really isn't.
Or if, you know, we have what's called legacy admissions in a lot of these schools that have been around a long time and kids will get in because legacy doesn't mean just that the parents went there or the grandparents went there and then the parents went there.
It also is associated with some money.
And Linda, go ahead, jump in.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, I just, listen, hi, everybody.
Hi, Danielle.
Hi, Jonathan.
Hi.
How's it going?
So, you know, thanks for inviting me.
Do we have to waste all that time?
Go.
Oh, my God.
20 seconds.
Basin sounds terrible.
So my whole thing was I just think this is a whole bunch of hoopla and I don't really care about it because, you know, this is life.
You know, movers and shakers make moves and shake things up and they do what they want and they pay to get there.
And I'm not saying that this isn't important.
I'm just saying that there's a whole lot of uproar about this one incident and there's been plenty of incidents like this.
I mean, to me, getting your kids private tutors and, you know, paying for piano lessons and, you know, this lesson and that lesson and, you know, doing things for them that other kids wouldn't be able to do.
I mean, you're paying for it.
In this case, they lied.
I'm not saying it's not wrong.
I'm just saying it's not the only thing that's wrong.
Let's slow down.
I'll go back to the example of football.
We were talking a lot about Clemson in Alabama yesterday.
They're going to have great football programs and it enriches the school experience for every other kid.
Never enriched my experience.
Okay.
So let's say football or basketball or baseball, whatever it happens to be, the sport that draws the biggest crowds.
All the students have to be there.
They want to be there.
They're having the time of their lives.
So this other talent that these athletes have enriches the school also, you know, as they go out to try and win championships and bring prestige to the school.
Now, maybe some of the athletes, okay, the academic standards are a little lower, but they're bringing and offering the school something that nobody else, a talent that other kids can't bring that benefits the school immensely.
Now, as a result, it also brings in massive amounts of money because they're almost like pro athletes in football.
I mean, in basketball, many of the, although many of them won't make it to the pros, but I think college football is more exciting than the NFL.
But school is for education.
It's not for football.
It's not for basketball.
It's not for playing the violin, unless you're at Juilliard.
All right, excuse me.
It's not just about the ABCs.
It's also about personal enrichment.
And so if you have school spirit, school bonding, et cetera, the school makes money, but part of that money is used to take kids who maybe academically wouldn't have made it through the admissions process.
And yeah, some of that money is spent to tutor the kids so they'll get up to that level.
And then some of the money is used to build out new facilities.
And some of the money is used to build more athletic facilities for everybody that benefits everyone.
So in that sense, it's enriching everybody.
I mean, there's been a lot of talk about maybe, you know, really high-level athletes in college should get paid with some kind, but then that opens up a Pandora's box for a different day.
But I think that, you know, if you leave Clemson or Alabama and you won national championships in those years, you will forever talk about it.
Everybody I know that has graduated from any college, they always think their college is the best college, the best experience, best time in their life.
And they all want to go back to the football games.
They all want to go back to the basketball games.
They all want to, you know, sort of like they want to experience that again.
That's ridiculous.
That's not what school is for.
School is for education.
When I went to school, I learned.
I didn't care about the basketball and the football.
It's nice.
You don't even know what a field goal is.
Nor do I care.
How many points do you get for a field goal?
Jonathan, I have no idea.
How many points do you get for a touchdown?
I have no idea.
You don't.
How many points do you get for a touchdown?
But you know what I do know?
How many people do you think?
You know what I do know?
I know how to balance my checkbook.
I know history.
How many points do you get for a touchdown?
I was a straight A student.
How many points do you get for a touchdown?
Stop, Ethan.
I have no idea.
You really don't?
No.
By the way, this is the only person in America.
You know, what you're not understanding is what's, look, I didn't have the college experience that all of my friends and colleagues have had because I didn't have any money to pay for college.
Now, I did go to college.
I went to Adelphi a year, went to NYU a year, went to college in Rhode Island for a year, but I had to keep dropping out because I was working full-time.
Like you, I wouldn't have had time to go see a football game if there was one.
And I ended up, you know, not finishing.
That's why they always write, Sean Hannity, college dropout.
Well, I didn't have any money to go back to college.
So, and then I got into radio and my whole life changed.
But, you know, Jonathan, don't you agree with me that kids, musical talent, theater talent, kids that field hockey, soccer, or whatever, lacrosse, there are kids in Long Island and La Crosse in like eighth and ninth grade.
They make verbal commitments to schools at that age.
It's unbelievable.
You know, first of all, I don't know what happened to you guys when you went to Vietnam.
You came back.
Now you sound like an old couple that's arguing.
I don't know what happened to all the fights there.
But the thing is about when it comes to this, you know, and I understand where, Landa, where you're coming from when you're saying that, you know, this doesn't make any sense like it's that big.
But here's the thing.
We've gotten into a point in this country where we hold certain people to standards, and then we hold other people not to those standards.
Lucy, it's with the Clintons versus somebody who took pictures of a submarine, a sailor who took pictures of the job.
He goes to jail, the Clintons don't.
Well, when it comes to school, and it comes to these things, these things are so egregious that if a kid was caught cheating on their SAT, they would never get in any of these schools.
Their career would be ruined forever.
I totally agree with you.
My opinion is just that we're blowing this one thing up and out of proportion with all of the other things that are happening concurrently.
And that's what I said yesterday.
Okay, why is it okay?
The assistant attorney said it's not like buying a building in the hopes that your kids are going to get in.
Now, I'm just guessing.
If you bought a building, you'd probably have a better chance of getting in.
Is that wrong?
Yes.
Yeah, I agree too.
I agree that I think that was a stupid statement on his part.
So wrong.
I thought it was.
All right.
What about the legacy kids?
What about the kids whose mommy and daddy went there?
Wrong.
And donated a lot of money.
All wrong.
You should get in on your own merit.
It should be based on merit only.
How is it possible?
How many, we looked it up yesterday.
What is Harvard's endowment?
$37 billion.
$37 billion.
Wow.
And that's incredible.
This becomes a hedge fund for D.C. and for the rich and for the elite in this country that they, you know, that they continue to have their kids there, that the college continues to have funds.
And this is a system that only benefits them.
And I don't want to sound like Danielle talking here when I'm talking about the rich versus the poor, but if there is any type of privilege in this country, it is of the elite rich and how they can do these things.
I will add one thing to this, and it's something I thought about last night.
I was talking to a friend of mine, and I think that it made a lot of sense, which is now we have these people, right?
So there are a bunch of liberals donating and paying for all of these criminal things and making up fake dossiers for their children so that they can get into schools that they don't actually belong in in the first place.
And then we're churning.
I'm just fake dossiers.
You mean Photoshop?
I was just being funny.
Get it?
Like a dossier.
Okay, moving on.
So anyways, I hope someone enjoyed this on our little thing here.
But all that to say, now we have all of these kids who can't add one plus one.
And now we have the next generation of liberals that are going to be the liberal elite.
They're going to become congressmen and women because they went to these Ivy League schools where they didn't deserve to be.
They never learned anything because they paid their way through.
Well, you don't even want a talented athlete to get they become a part of the swamp.
This is how we get our deep state.
So you have a kid that has a different talent than another kid.
You have to go to the bathroom.
Why don't we hold this over through the spring?
Why do we have to say that all live the same lives?
No.
You know, listen, I believe every human being is born with talent.
Some people were born with natural athletic ability.
Others work hard to become good at what they do.
And so if you have a football team where all these kids are phenomenal athletes, they bring this to the school.
The school recognizes in part that it brings a whole new extra experience to the school to enrich people in ways outside of academics.
Everybody loves sports, except for you.
You're the only person in the world that doesn't know how many points are in a touchdown.
Hey, listen, I have some tips.
All right, wrapping up this half hour with Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin.
All right, final thoughts, 15 seconds each, Jonathan.
Well, I think, you know, when we look at things like this, we just have to remember the moral compass and the things that are going on in this country.
When we talk about the deep state and we see things at this level, chances are that they're involved.
And I think the DOJ should look into stuff like this and go after these people.
All right.
Danielle, you get the last word.
You know, I just want to believe that America is a meritocracy and that getting into college is a meritocracy.
And honestly, whether you're buying a building or you're a legacy entrant or your parents are spending $1.2 million to get you into Yale, some of it might be legal, some of it might be illegal, but ultimately, I think it's all wrong.
And people should get in on audio.
And Linda, you want to eliminate all sports in school and just give out calculators and, you know, compensate.
That's right.
I want to run the field with calculators.
Calculators, what do you call that?
What are those things they used to put in their pocket?
I'm forgetting.
Pocket protector?
Pocket protector.
I'm going to wear one every day just to irritate you.
Oh, my gosh.
All right.
When we come back, the other news of the day, news roundup, information overload, and your calls, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
All right, news roundup, information overload, and your calls, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, Bozo Rourke announcing in a, I guess it was a YouTube video that he put out, social media video.
He's running for president.
Bozo running for president because this is him endorsing the Green New Deal.
Climate change could lead to extinction.
Based on previous predictions, we would be already extinct by now.
And they've been wrong about everything.
First, it was, oh, the next ice age is coming.
Then it was global cooling, then global warming.
Then it's just plain old climate change because if the climate changes, which it has historically, it has to do with man and man's desire for profit and capitalism.
Here's what he says.
Question is on the Green New Deal.
And by extension, if you don't mind, I'll take the spirit of the question.
We face catastrophe and crisis on this planet, even if we were to stop emitting carbon today, right now, at this moment.
We know that the storms that we saw in Texas, Harvey, which dumped the landfall record amount of rain on the United States of America, as long as we've been keeping records to claim the lives of too many of our fellow Americans, flooded people literally out of their homes and businesses.
Storms like Harvey are only going to become more frequent and more severe and more devastating, and ultimately they'll compromise the ability to live in a city like Houston, Texas.
This is your 2020 cast of characters that want to be the next president.
Unbelievable.
And that's what we got as a country.
This is what we're dealing with now as a country.
A radical, extreme, left-wing Democratic socialist party.
Casio-Cortez accusing the Wells Fargo CEO of the financing of caging of children.
I'm like, what is this woman talking about?
Where does this all come from?
Who makes this stuff up?
I mean, it's mind-numbing where this comes from.
Don't fear, by the way, being automated out of work.
Automation will mean more time for creating art.
70% tax rate for individuals, marginal tax rate, top marginal rate, 90% top marginal tax rate for corporations.
Well, even the socialist utopias she talks about, they right now have a lower corporate tax rate than we do.
Why?
Because it's smart.
It's the only way you're going to get businesses to invest money in your country or they're going to leave.
Just like businesses are leaving New York and New Jersey and California.
Did you hear about the killers in California?
You know, of course, Gavin Newsom thinks it's terrible to have the death penalty and he signed an executive order halting the death penalty in the state.
That means that means a reprieve for 737 death row inmates.
And, you know, there's a Washington Examiner went over 10 of them.
10 who are now going to benefit from Gavin Newsom's compassion.
Lonnie David Franklin Jr., known as the Grimm Sleeper, convicted in 2016, killing nine women, one teenage girl between 85 and 2007.
They believe he's the one behind at least 25 separate murders.
Became known as the Grim Sleeper because of the span of time between 1988, 2002, where it appeared he wasn't involved in any more murders.
And according to the L.A. Times, Franklin sought out women who were prostitutes or suffered from drug addiction.
He'd murder them, leave their naked bodies in garbage cans, or abandon them on the road.
Laura Moore, who wasn't named in the criminal complaint against Franklin, claims she survived a gunshot from Franklin after he picked her up at a bus stop.
Yeah, that's one of the guys.
Then you have Rodney Alcala, known as the dating game killer, because of his 1978 appearance in the dating game, convicted of killing seven women and girls, five of the victims in California, two in New York, confessed to killing more women, and investigators believe he could have been responsible for more than 100 murders, according to the Fresno B. Wow.
Then you have Carrie Steiner, convicted of killing four women within a span of five months near Yosemite National Park in 99.
Handyman, Cedar Lodge, strangled guests, sexually assaulted them, killed their 15-year-old daughter.
And it goes on from there.
Then we have, you know, one well-known Scott Peterson.
Remember, reportedly, reported his wife was missing Christmas Eve, 2002.
Police examined 10,000 tips.
You know, they looked up sex offenders and potential suspects, but Peterson was ultimately arrested after the California Attorney General announced that Lacey and Connor's bodies were found days earlier in the San Francisco Bay Shore area.
And it goes, well, Richard Allen Davis confessed to the killing of Polly Kloss.
I knew this poor guy, the father of Polly Kloss, has lived his whole life in pain.
I mean, all these families live in pain after all of this.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
We're going to have a lot on the deep state tonight, especially as it relates to Collins releasing this testimony from Peter Strzok earlier today, like we were talking about.
You know, when Gowdy was grilling Strzok on the text that was rooting against Trump, he points out that Trump had not even become the nominee and that at that time, Strzok was the one heading the investigation into then candidate Clinton.
Well, that goes into Lisa Page's testimony released yesterday.
In other words, that the DOJ had the fix-in and controlled everything from the get-go, and they had no intention of ever doing a real investigation into Hillary.
And then Gowdy grilling Strzok on the Clinton server case, and Strzok admits that Clinton mishandled classified information.
Well, that means that she committed a felony, and he's admitting it himself.
But of course, that was the favored candidate.
You know, Strzok tries to explain away his insurance policy, you know, by saying, well, there's a tremendous amount read into this that is absolutely inaccurate.
The point I was making is it is unlikely that you will die before you're 40, but you still act in a way that addresses that possibility.
That's like an analogy to somebody saying, hey, look, every pollster and Talking Head thinks that Clinton's going to be elected.
And my responding, well, that might be true, but nevertheless, we need to possibly and responsibly investigate this in the unlikely event based on the polls and the pundits and the experts that candidate Trump selected.
And then Jackson Lee steps in.
Let me quickly, why did you advocate for continuing the investigation?
Excuse me.
Let me move to another question.
Did you mean that you had an insurance policy to prevent Trump from being president?
And it just goes on and on from there.
All of this hit, you know, and before her stint, by the way, with Fusion GPS, Nellie Yore, we found out today, works for the Obama CIA.
That was in the Epoch Times.
You know, you look at it is strzok admitting Mueller never asked him about whether or not he was biased against Trump, according to the text messages that even Mueller.
And that Strzzok and Page text about protecting the country, admitting that Mueller never asked about what he meant by that text.
Mueller didn't want to know the answer, apparently.
And Strzzok giving the explanation of the text to Paige mentioning that is insurance policy again and admitting Mueller didn't ask him about the meaning behind that text.
And Strzzok was questioned about the text on impeachment.
He admits Mueller never asked him about that text.
Meadows and Strzok has Strzz clarify and admit that the investigation showed evidence that it was Russia doing the meddling, not the Trump campaign.
That also came out in testimony.
And Strzzok admitting Mueller didn't inquire if the text meant he was rooting against Trump.
Mueller didn't care about what Strzok and Page were doing.
Didn't care about their obvious bias.
Didn't care that they rigged the investigation into Hillary.
Strzok clarified that Mueller never asked him any type of question as to whether or not his political affiliation or distaste of Trump impacted his decision making.
Why?
Because everybody else he hired hated Trump also.
He admits that if he had become, if it had become public the FBI was investigating Russian interference in the Trump campaign, it could have been used against him.
And Weiner's laptop is first mentioned in connection with the Clinton email investigation.
And Strzok explains why the Clinton email investigation was made public as opposed to the special counsel investigation.
It's unbelievable.
We do have some good news.
I guess this really is coming to an end.
The pit bull Andrew Weissman, as I said earlier, is leaving.
You know, Jordan and Meadows are urging Elijah Cummings now to issue a criminal referral for Michael Cohn.
And, you know, but all of this now goes into the office of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General, of course, being Lorena Lynch.
All right, 800-94-1 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, let's go to Lisa is in West Virginia.
Lisa, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hello.
Hi, how are you?
I'm great.
How are you?
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you for calling.
Basically, my comment about this is that I feel like the fraud behind this, the college problem is just ridiculous.
It's unfair.
But I think that colleges should just openly say, if you want your kid in, this is the price.
If you want to pay us $500,000, by all means, do it.
It would solve a lot of the funding problems that colleges have.
The problem is they would go to the top 30, 40, 50 colleges in the country and probably no more.
But then that is only going to be for people that have that kind of money that can do that.
Now, listen, I'm not going to be naive here in the sense that I always tell everybody that works for me.
I'll play this little game with Linda.
What do I always say, Linda, to everybody that works for me?
Save your money.
Money equals freedom.
Right.
Tell everybody that.
And said it on the air.
Money equals freedom.
Yeah, I said it on the air.
So the point is that if you save your money, it gives you more options, say, as a parent.
If you have more money, that means you can put your kids and pay money for coaches and traveling and sports or ballet or theater or whatever your kids' area of interest is.
And I never would have thought, for example, that crew would be such a huge sport in college.
If you would have asked me when I was a kid what crew is, I had no idea.
We picked up our hockey sticks or basketball or baseball and we went to play.
That was it.
But everything has become more specialized.
Now, if you're a parent that has money, you can afford coaching.
You can afford travel.
You can afford these other things.
That's just based on the fact that you have the money to do it.
You know, and very few of these athletes can get there just on their own without some help financially from their parents.
Is it an advantage?
Of course it's an advantage.
Or kids that are able to, their parents are able to help them with school by hiring tutors so that they better understand things.
Is that an advantage that other kids don't have?
Absolutely.
It's based on what money they have.
Is it unfair?
I don't think so because how did the parents get the money?
If they're not drug dealers and they work hard and they produce goods and services that people want, need and desire and they built up extra money and they want to invest it in their children.
That is, you know, we live in a land where, you know, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
And if you pursue happiness by giving these extra things to your kids, what's wrong with that?
I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
As I tell my children, you can't tell people how to spend their money.
Doesn't mean they're doing it well, but you can't tell them how to spend their money.
If they earned it, they should be able to do that.
However, well, think about it, though.
The parents could spend it on luxurious vacations and not give their kids tutors or athletic coaching or whatever.
I'm a parent that spends, I spend my money on my kids' sports.
For one, I enjoy it.
I enjoy watching my kid play that sports.
What I like about sports is it keeps them out of trouble.
Let's be honest.
You know, if they're playing at the tournament every weekend, you know what they're not doing?
They're not hanging out with their dopey friends, drinking beer, smoking pot, and, you know, hooking up.
I don't think, I think it is a major thing as Linda seems to want to just not pay attention to this part.
It's fraud, what they did.
Again, no, no, it is.
Well, she's just a little bit more.
I never said it wasn't fraud, Lisa.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on a hot second, Lisa.
There we go.
Now she'll tell you.
I never said it wasn't fraud.
And I'm not saying that we should turn a blind eye.
I'm just saying we got to open both eyes and both ears and look at all of the inequities and all the discrepancies and all the fraud.
This is just a hot topic because some celebrities got involved.
But at the end of the day, there's a lot of other inequities.
Is the difference between hiring a tutor to coach your kids to take the SATs and get away from the people?
What about the buildings?
Well, I'm not.
Listen, I'm not going to do that.
What about the donations?
What about the legacy?
Granted.
Right.
We're not talking about any of that.
What we are, but nobody else is.
So until we decide to really talk about the giant elephant in the middle of the room, which is that college is unfair.
It's become a liberal bastion.
It's run by liberals.
Most of the people donating to are liberals.
And all they teach is liberal ideology.
Until we take our schools back and our education back, this conversation is moot.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
We're going to get to a lot of calls here, 800-941.
Sean, I'll let Linda make one more point here.
Sean, first of all.
Just one that's.
I have a series of questions before you make a comment.
You just give me a quick answer, okay?
Okay.
Okay.
How many points do you get if you get a touchdown in football?
It doesn't matter.
How many?
Do you know?
Do you know?
I do know.
You do not know.
I do.
What is it?
Six.
You know, Ethan and Jason.
No, no, no.
Let me tell you why I know this.
Let me tell you why I know this.
Because you just told me earlier in the show you didn't know.
No, no, no.
I know how much a goal, a touchdown is because, only because Alabama recently had that big game against the Clemson team.
And I went to see it with some friends, and I didn't know what was happening.
You were going to a bar.
I went to a bar.
You drink it.
I did not drink.
I may have had one cocktail.
Anyhow, all that to say, I didn't actually know what was happening.
People were very upset at that game because Clemson won and Alabama was supposed to win.
Right, right, right.
You know, I don't know.
It's a process.
You got to feed.
After you get the touchdown, do you make any other points?
Anyways, yes.
And I got very confused by that, but I know how much the touchdown is.
All right.
What do you get for a field goal?
I'm a little confused by that because I thought it was two or three, and then somebody said it was one.
Sometimes it's two.
I don't really understand it.
If you shoot a ball in the basket from the foul line, not a foul shot, just a regular shot, how many points you get?
I don't even know what the foul line is.
If you shoot a foul shot, how many points do you get?
I have no idea.
If you hit a home run, how many points do you get in baseball?
No idea.
What if you hit a grand slam?
What's a grand slam?
No clue.
If you win the championship.
I love sports themes.
If you win the championship in hockey, you're playing for something.
The Stanley Cup.
All right.
That's the sport I know.
And if you score a goal in hockey, how many points is it worth?
It's one.
Wow.
All right.
We're making progress.
That's very good.
I know hockey.
I like the cold.
You know, a little bit about hockey.
I love Lundquist.
Yeah.
What is it about everybody in Lungquist?
First of all, he's like the nicest person ever.
He donates to tons of kids' charities.
He does.
He's been with his wife forever and they have beautiful children and he's just a sweetheart.
All right.
So what's your point?
And then we'll move to calls.
So my point is, I think that we should have a separate club for football and baseball and basketball and all these other things.
And there could be a partnership between the schools and the clubs, but that it's not the driver of all things so that we can get back to the business of learning in education.
Okay, it's every Saturday afternoon.
That's when the kids.
That's a bunch of crap.
These kids practice every day.
They're in the field.
They're out there.
They practice hours a day.
That's that.
Well, that's the, but that's my point.
They are enriching the schools, these actors.
And they're not enriching their brains.
Okay, that you're wrong.
And this is what I'm telling you.
That they bring something to the school that benefits every kid at that school.
But what benefits them?
Let me finish.
School spirit, competition, you know, the hard work that goes into being a competitive athlete.
The kids, all the kids that are there for academic reasons, they love it.
It enriches the whole time.
It bonds them to the school for the rest of the school.
So apply them all some pom-pom.
Talk to anybody who's been to any real school.
You and I are the only two people that had this ridiculous experience where we worked full-time, where we went to school, and there was no time but to go to class.
I'm the better for it.
Before it go back to work.
I'm the better for it.
Okay.
I didn't drink.
I didn't rush sororities.
When I turned peace, I didn't do anything.
I was talking about their college experiences, and they just love it.
To me, I'm like, I wish I had that.
Because every person I know that went to X college, Y college, C college, all they talk about is their college years.
And oh, we're going back to the football game on November 22nd.
And they're playing.
So what did they learn?
What did they learn, Sean?
Well, they learned enough to be successful in their lives.
It doesn't take away from their studies.
You're not going to study in school all day on Saturday.
No kid is going to do that.
All day on Saturday.
I did.
Well, I had to study.
I worked full-time when I was in school, college.
I used to take my books and sit on the bandstand and study on the drum set.
Not even kidding you.
There are so many pictures from people's weddings when I was singing at weddings of me on the drum set during every break reading a book.
Oh, my God.
Doing my homework.
Well, it's the only time you had.
That's right.
It taught me to work hard.
And the problem is.
I was tending bars.
There was a place in Long Island called Salisbury on the Green.
It's since changed names at Eisenhower Park.
And it was a wedding factory.
I do a wedding Friday night, two on Saturday and two on Sunday.
I did this.
Yeah.
And then I'd have to be to school on Monday.
And it's.
Right, but Sean, the whole point of what I'm trying to say here is that, you know, when this, this is fraud.
You know, there's a widespread fraud.
So you have the fraud of pretending like a kid did something that they didn't.
Then you have the fraud of people buying buildings.
And you have the fraud of people lying on their financial figures.
And you have the fraud of what?
What?
Let's say, let's say, let's say you buy a building, okay?
And you loved your school so much, your school experience so much, or your kids' school so much that you go out and you buy a building.
So what?
All you're doing is you are now making that school better for every single year.
Hang on a second.
For every single other kid that follows, you are enriching their experience.
Or if you build new dorms or if you build new athletic facilities or if you build new X, Y, and Z. If you want to generously, if you think that those college years are so formative and so defining in your life, or it will be in your kids' life, and you make it better, you're doing it for future generations.
You're not doing it just for that moment.
You can't build a building that fast.
I'm just going to end with this, and I'll let you talk to you, Colis.
All right.
Everybody should get into school based on their grades and their merit and how hard they work.
And that's awesome.
And nobody should be getting anything.
Nobody should go to football games on Sundays.
They should go to football games if they get their homework done.
Why do you assume that she's just flatly against all sports?
Because she listened to her.
If you didn't get your homework done by game time on Saturday, you can't go.
Here's breaking news.
Not everybody who goes to the colleges or universities are into sports.
I am telling you that, listen, and then they're going to be in the theater, you know, practicing for their next play that they'll put together.
But the bottom line is the overwhelming majority of pride in schools today is linked to their athletic programs.
And that's why it usually takes people six years to get a four-year degree because they're wasting time on this other stuff that doesn't develop.
What do you mean, wasting time?
What?
Wasting time.
I have no idea getting in shape.
Let's talk to a sports.
I think it's better and better and better.
Let's talk to a beginning.
Hey, Curtis is on our line.
He's from Tampa.
He's a former Alabama football player.
What do you say?
Hey, Curtis, how are you?
What's going on?
Roll tide.
I'm good.
I'm good.
Absolutely.
Roll tide.
I'm good.
I just have been listening.
I'm a longtime listener anyway, Sean.
So I was listening with interest of this latest with people getting paid to coach players to get scholarships and get scholarships for people where they get money back for it.
And that's just utterly ridiculous.
Maybe it's the era that I played in when I played for Coach Bryant.
You were there for Coach Bryant for Fair Bryant, huh?
Right.
You were there for basically three reasons.
You were there because, first off, like he said, your parents raised you properly, or he wouldn't have been interested in having you as a player anyway.
But secondly, you're there to get an education.
And third, you're there to be a part of a winning team.
And that means putting forth all the effort and not because somebody paid money for you to get that opportunity.
And so it was a – Listen, coaches pick players for a lot of reasons.
They pick leaders sometimes.
They pick coaches.
They want to get the best players.
They pick kids, certain kids, because of chemistry that's going to exist in the locker room.
I mean, if you have tension in the locker room, you're not going to have any good team.
There's going to be no cohesive team.
Absolutely.
And I just, I've always felt fortunate in my life.
And I came from small town, Alabama, and was the first player from my school to get a scholarship, certainly to a place like Alabama.
And what the foundation that I got there has led me to where I am in life today.
I've been in business for over 40 years and have created many, many jobs in my business over the years.
And I've done a lot of things.
I'm in the shopping center development business and have had a lot of opportunities.
I've built projects from New York to Texas to Georgia to Alabama, Florida.
I live in Florida today and have for about 40 years.
But at any rate, it's just saddening to me that to see these things get blown out of proportion the way they are and people putting forth just they're thinking that money controls everything and it doesn't.
Well, Curtis, can I ask you a question, actually, if you don't mind me jumping in?
I think it's amazing.
You know, I personally, you know, despite the rumor mill being started by Sean, I personally really like sports.
I've just never taken the time to understand all of the intricacies and this point and that point.
And this is, I just, I don't, it's not my thing.
But I'll go to the game just for the camaraderie of it.
I like the sportsmanship.
I like the team mentality.
My problem is that there's a lot of emphasis put on these extra things and not enough put onto the educational aspect of what school is supposed to be, which is for your education.
So you can get the ancillary benefits of being in these other things, and that's wonderful.
But what about the focus back on education?
And so the whole point comes back to me is that the bigger problem we're having with this fraud, whether it be that you're buying your way in for your kids or you're buying buildings and naming them after people or you're creating false identities for your children, is that now we have a school filled with people who actually don't have a clue as to what's going on.
They didn't have to work hard to get in there.
They didn't have to do anything to be there.
The focus is all wrong.
So we have a bunch of kids who didn't earn the right to be there and then we have a bunch of other kids who are there because they might be athletically talented.
And the mix of it all is nobody's learning.
That's what I'm afraid of.
Well, there are ways to deal with that.
And pretty simply, when I was in school, I mean, we had an academic counselor that he checked on who went to class and who didn't go to class.
And Coach Bryant had a pretty rigid rule.
You don't play on Saturday if you don't go to class on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, or Tuesday, Thursday, whatever the case may be.
You don't go to your classes, you don't get to play.
And it's that simple.
So nobody wanted to be deprived of the right to play.
So they went to class.
And we had people who checked regularly on that aspect of it.
But is that happening now?
I don't know.
That's the problem.
We started an organization in 1978 at Alabama.
Three teammates of mine and I called the First and Ten Club.
And a guy who's a plastic surgeon now in Gulf Shores, Alabama, and was a member of the team when I was there.
God named Galen.
He gave it the name, the First and Ten Club.
It's now when you get out of college, it's first down and 10 to go in life.
And you've got to put forth your best effort in life to do something and make something out of what you've achieved here.
Forget about how much football savvy or success you may have had.
It's a whole new thing.
And we started a thing called the First and Ten Club in 1978.
So far, I think we've sponsored like 100 and something scholarships for deserving players to go on and get master's degrees and things who aren't going to be pro players.
And I think it's really a fact where the whole community has to come together.
And the players, first and foremost, have to put the effort forth.
And if they don't, then they're not going to be around there and they're not going to end up being a success.
And I think, to me, one of the largest or biggest reasons that Alabama has had the success that it has is because of commitment, not just to football, but commitment to other things that are important in winning.
And it's not just about the game on Saturday that constitutes a win.
It's your graduation rate of the players who come in that go on and finish their schooling.
And not only that, but then they come back and give back to the program of helping the young players and people there.
And I'm not talking about economically.
I'm talking about from a standpoint of information.
And just like that First and Ten Club that we started in 1978 still exists today.
We have a career day every spring to have a keynote speaker come in and speak to them.
The first speaker we had the first year was in 1978 was a gentleman by the name of Colin Powell, the general, who his wife happens to be from Alabama.
And he volunteered when one of our people reached out to him to come in and speak to those young guys.
The second year, we had Roger Stahlbach, who was the Super Bowl-winning quarterback to the Dallas Cowboys.
Somehow, I got drafted to be the speaker the third year.
But each year, we've had people come in that these young guys can look up to to tell them, look, you're not all going to be pro players.
In fact, very few of you are.
So while you're here, you need to get an education and you need to decide what you're going to do with your future and what you're going to do with your life.
Curtis, I can't thank you enough.
You know, I love everything you just said, and I think that half the battle is getting the focus on the right stuff.
And I think that the bigger focus here with this whole issue is we need to get our eye on the ball and understand that this, what we're talking about right now, is just one element of a larger problem that we have with our next level of education in this collegiate universe.
So thanks so much, man.
We appreciate the call.
Curtis, great talking to you.
Great call today.
And all the best to you.
We really appreciate you checking in with us.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Blockbuster new damning evidence and proof of innocence, exculpatory proof the FBI withheld in the Russia probe.
We'll break it wide open and the release of the testimony of Peter Strzok following Lisa Page yesterday.
We have Jim Jordan, John Solomon, Greg Jarrett, R.E. Fleischer, Dan Bongino, Mike Huckabee, Geraldo, and Rachel Campos Duffy, and much more tonight.
Hannity, 9 Eastern, a blockbuster.
I told you it's happening on the Fox News channel.
