Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, gives us the truth about the border battle, the assignment of Pentagon funds and the solutions needed to remedy the crisis at our southern border. There is a real sense that, if we don't act quickly, the situation on our borders will get much worse.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.
And as you know, Sean and I never promote the stock market or investing in it, but I'm sure you've all seen the great GDP numbers, the awesome economy that Donald Trump is giving us.
And we want you to benefit from it as well.
So now we've discovered Dr. Richard Smith, his incredible financial software tools.
They're trusted by thousands.
It tracks over $20 billion of investments.
And if you're planning for your retirement, you have any money at all invested in the stock market, you need to go to Hannity.com forward slash retirement right now.
Check it out.
Hannity.com, retirement.
All right, glad you're with us and happy Wednesday, 800-941 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
Well, before we get into, there is so much news on the deep state, everything we told you now happening, coming true on a level that is faster and deeper, maybe than anybody thought.
And I know a lot of you have been saying, when, when?
Well, it's now happening and unfolding.
I'll explain in a second here.
So you have Democrats.
This is how stupid they are.
This is, I mean, if you want to go back to the age of the dinosaur, I mean, think about it.
You can't build a skyscraper anymore in New York in five years with glass and steel.
Oh, great.
That's going to be so great for the steel industry and the glass industry in America.
So great for American manufacturers that have now opened up mothballed steel plants in Pittsburgh and in Alabama, even.
Really, just so stupid.
We now are energy independent for the first time in 75 years.
Great things are happening.
Americans, virtually, we now have full employment.
1.7 million more jobs available than people on unemployment.
That is a great thing.
That means American workers, well, it gives them negotiating power.
It means they can negotiate better benefits.
They can get better salaries.
They can get more vacation days.
They can get whatever they want to ask or negotiate with their employers.
You have literally job fairs happening in prisons in Pennsylvania because they don't have enough workers.
Because unlike New York, Pennsylvania is smart enough to delve into the natural gas industry and it is creating high-paying career jobs for so many people in Pennsylvania.
Well, now, but not if not if the new Green Deal goes into effect.
That's all out the window because say goodbye to the lifeblood of our economy.
You know, think about it.
Being energy independent for the first time in 75 years, all the countries that we would depend on for the energy in this country that hate us, we don't need them anymore, ever.
We can use, we're now a net exporter of energy, which means, well, it's more safe, more secure for our allies, Western Europeans and others, even sending it off to China and Asia, Australia, New Zealand, whoever needs it.
Once we master the delivery systems and we're able to get this at the right price, by the way, the hostile regime, the hostile actor, Vladimir Putin, and his hostile regime, go right down to their knees because that is the heart of their entire economy.
Once we can compete, forget it, and every American's going to benefit.
We're not living yet, thank God, in a place like Venezuela where they have natural resources, but the government steals it from the people.
In this case, the people that would benefit the most are American workers.
You're talking about a massive class-wide, I mean, it doesn't matter.
If you're poor, middle class, lower-middle class, upper middle class, or if you're horribly rich, it doesn't matter.
Everybody will benefit and their standard of living will rise and rise dramatically.
We've seen pockets of this get created in places like North Dakota in the Balkans when we had the oil boom back a few years ago.
They were training truck drivers, paying them around 80 grand a year to start, all the overtime they can handle.
Now, if you're in a dead-end job that's paying you $30,000, $40,000, $45,000, $50,000 a year, not a lot of chance for advancement, you're doubling your salary immediately.
And then also having opportunities, hopefully, to work your way up into better paying jobs within the energy sector.
That's where every American, that's where that could be the single biggest gold rush wealth creation source this country's ever seen.
Anyway, so congressional Democrats, well, the geniuses that they are, the same that want to give everything away for free, whether you're willing or unwilling to work, the same geniuses that want to get rid of all oil and gas in 10 years, the same people that will get rid of the combustion engine and cows because of flatulence and get rid of airplanes, and they'll build rail systems and they'll put up electric charging stations all over the country.
Gee, can't wait to drive that little charging system car that they're going to create for us.
But anyway, you're now planning to introduce legislation that would ban the sale of all fossil fuel powered cars currently on the road.
Oh, you're going to buy ours?
You got to pay us back?
You know, cars are pretty expensive these days.
98% of all vehicles are fossil fuel powered.
They required, what, that they be replaced by electric cars within the next 21 years?
That's what the Democrats are introducing.
They're putting out a mandate for zero-emission vehicles that will make up all new car sales by 2040.
Sponsored by the Democrats running for three of the Democrats running for president.
And they'll introduce the legislation.
Zero emissions vehicles and only zero emissions vehicles can be sold by 2040.
Okay.
When I get a lung full of air this moment, it's 30% more carbon in it than when I was born, Oregon Senator Merkley said, one of the bill's sponsors, and co-sponsored by Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders.
This is insane.
But it's not one part.
These are the presidential candidates.
It's not just Ocasio-Cortez.
That's a myth.
She's just kind of leading the way.
You know, things are so, I'll give you an example.
Thanks to the Trump Economic Book.
Look at New Jersey, which is losing population because of their burdensome regulation and taxation.
Well, New Jersey's income tax collections, well, they came roaring back in April, even shocking state leaders now cracking over a debate over how the state should spend the extra cash.
Of course, they want to spend it.
In New York, they're down like $2.03 billion in monies because of what?
Nobody wants to live in New York anymore.
They tax, they tax, they tax, as the governor said, and then people leave because they don't want to pay the high taxes.
And I'm all in favor of people leaving high-tax states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
I'm all go look, go get better weather in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Carolinas.
I don't care where you go.
Well, you're going to make more money.
You'll have more property.
You'll get a bigger house for less money.
And if you can do your job from that location, all the better.
And you'll start saving money, have a better lifestyle.
Just don't bring your stupid liberal ideas with you.
And don't vote for the same people that put in place policies that made you leave your own state.
That's always the danger.
New economic report shows.
Well, anyway, so they have that economic boom going.
Pew Research reports the Trump boom has produced similar results all over the country in terms of record revenues soaring into states.
And they're saying tax revenue rose in all but five states in the third quarter of 2018, lifting the number of states in which collections had fully recovered from the Great Recession to a record high 41.
Put that down as another Trump record.
State tax revenue turned a corner in late 2017 after the weakest years of growth outside of a recession in at least the last 30 years.
Well, Obama Biden gave us the worst recovery in 40 years, so why would we think otherwise?
We are showing Yahoo Finance actually had a piece about everyone's afraid of a trade war.
First of all, the president doesn't want a trade war.
I don't know why people haven't figured it out yet.
If he doesn't seem like he means it, they're not going to negotiate.
Words don't mean a thing.
Once you start putting the tariffs on these countries and they start to see the impact, they usually come back to the table pretty quickly.
And Chinese officials released figures yesterday on their country's economic performance last month.
Anyway, they showed weak data again on retail sales and industrial output.
Stoking fears their slowdown has now continued.
But if you look at it from a better point of view, you know, their industry rose 5.4%, but they've had double-digit for a long time.
We're well positioned to win this so-called trade war with China.
New York Post had a great piece on this today.
So the president raised fees, $200 billion in Chinese imports to 25%.
China strikes back with its own new tariffs on U.S. products, but they've already been putting slapping tariffs on our companies anyway.
And, you know, it does hurt.
Beijing's new tariffs, you know, hurt the Dow.
That's temporary, I'm sure.
And as the president said, we always win on these trade wars.
I know, it's all good news, but they never hear about it.
And now they want to come in and get rid of everything that works.
I mean, talking about the lifeblood of every economy, oil and gas, fossil fuels.
Now, I got to give the president credit because all during the Mueller witch hunt, all during the entire time, the president never once invoked executive privilege.
He could have.
The president handed over 1.45 million documents.
The president encouraged every single person, including White House counsel Don McGahn, which is, I can't even believe that happened, but it did 30 hours before Mueller.
And apparently he has a James Comey complex himself by the looks of it.
But putting that aside, the White House issued a long-delayed response to the House Democrats sweeping investigations into the abuse of power.
Now the president's fighting back.
Now they're saying no.
This is the fourth time an investigation has occurred.
You have a nine-month FBI investigation, and even Paige and Strzok said there's no there there and they had nothing before Mueller was appointed.
Then after that, we had the House Intel Committee.
No conspiring in collusion, nothing with Russia.
Then a bipartisan Senate committee.
Same thing.
Now the Mueller report.
Same thing.
And it's gone on almost since the beginning of the Trump presidency.
So the White House and the president, enough is enough.
No more do-over investigations.
We've done it.
We've done it again.
We've done it again and we've done it again.
And they issued a long-delayed response to the House Democrats, you know, new requests for more information.
You know, Gerald Nadler.
They can't let it go.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone arguing Nadler's inquiry is an improper assertion of congressional authority intended to harass a political opponent rather than drive legislation.
And he called on Nadler to cancel the investigation altogether.
They're not going to cancel it.
They can't let it go.
They're so obsessed.
The Democrats in the House are going to have a marathon public reading of the 448-page Mueller report.
Oh, gee, that's fascinating C-SPAN watching.
I can't wait.
Maybe they'll do it during a 9 o'clock hour, so I'm guaranteed to have every viewer that might otherwise watch C-SPAN.
I mean, this is now a group of people that are unhinged and obsessed with something that they're never going to find because it never happened.
And just like in every other case, it's only selective moral outrage.
If they cared about women and the mistreatment of women like they said they did when they believed in the Kavanaugh case, then all the iBelievers would be screaming and yelling about the lieutenant governor of Virginia.
They're not.
Their silence is deafening.
If they cared about collusion with a foreign nation, they'd be listening to what Ukraine is now telling us and has actual evidence of DNC working with Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign to influence the election.
Nobody says a word.
Silence deafening.
Same with obstruction.
Oh, well, Trump obstructed.
But they don't care about deletions of subpoenaed emails and bleach bit and hammers and devices and SIM cards.
It's all selective political, phony, moral outrage.
It's not real.
Hey guys, it's Linda from the Hannity Show here.
And as you know, Sean and I never promote the stock market or investing in it, but I'm sure you've all seen the great GDP numbers, the awesome economy that Donald Trump is giving us.
And we want you to benefit from it as well.
So now we've discovered Dr. Richard Smith, his incredible financial software tools.
They're trusted by thousands.
It tracks over $20 billion of investments.
And if you're planning for your retirement, you have any money at all invested in the stock market, you need to go to Hannity.com forward slash retirement right now.
Check it out.
Hannity.com, retirement.
And as we continue, Sean Hannity Show.
So Joe DeGenova, friend of this program, great guy, married to Victoria Tunsing, another good friend.
He's the one that first told me, no, Barr's the real deal.
Meaning he felt he was a real straight shooter, law and order guy.
I did not know a whole lot about William Barr, the new Attorney General.
In an interview Tuesday night on Fox with Laura Ingram, he said that Durham is further along in his investigation than the public knows.
Now, it's been reported that Durham's been working on this for weeks, if not months already.
It's only been announced recently, which makes me suspect, especially because he's getting into the whole IG FISA issue as part of his job, that perhaps the inspector general, if he's not finished, he's close to finished, and most certainly has briefed the attorney general now as to FISA abuse.
That's a slam dunk, by the way.
That's not going to be a hard one to figure out.
So DeGenova says that Durham has already used a grand jury in Connecticut.
They've already gotten documents.
He's already talked to Intel people from the intelligence agencies.
And his effort is operating alongside the FISA abuse investigation, which I speculated on yesterday.
Just made sense to me.
It might even be that it could be that Horowitz is done.
It's often the case.
He'll hand in a document.
Nobody knows it's handed in because the Attorney General will take the time to read it and do it right.
And one thing that Horowitz has not done in the two investigations has leaked a thing to anybody.
And he's got 600 people in that office.
All right, we'll take a quick break.
We'll come back 800-941-Sean.
I'll give you the other news on this on the other side.
What's up, everybody?
Linda from the Sean Hannity show here to talk about your money.
Retirement, your money, it's like your health, right?
You know, you don't think about it until you don't have it.
And a lot of people are making really bad mistakes, especially with their retirement.
They're not retiring with enough money.
You know what?
It's just wrong.
But have no fear.
Meet one of the most incredible financial minds in America, Dr. Richard Smith.
And Richard's extraordinary tools are trusted by thousands of Americans.
It tracks over $20 billion in the stock market.
And his tools can help you reset your retirement.
You're going to be hearing a lot from Sean and me about Richard.
And literally, we have never endorsed any financial software tool until now.
Why?
Because we've never seen anything like this before.
So see it for yourself.
Go to Hannity.com retirement.
That's Hannity.com forward slash retirement and check it out.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
So DeGenova's great in saying that, wow, a lot's already going on and that a grand jury has already been impaneled by the new prosecutor, John Durham.
If all that's true, it's unbelievable.
Anyway, that's what, and I've never known DeGenova to be wrong.
Let me put it that way.
And she, you know, Durham has already, he said, used a grand jury in Connecticut.
They've already gotten documents.
He's already talked to the intelligence people.
And he is operating alongside the Inspector General.
That would be Michael Horowitz, who we expect that we're going to get this report on FISA abuse very shortly.
DeGenova is saying that Horowitz has already determined at least three FISA extensions against Carter Page in the Trump campaign were illegally obtained and is on the brink of finding the first was completely illegal.
People are going to go to jail here.
People are going to be indicted in this.
It's going to be interesting to watch your fraudulent lying conspiracy media.
What are they going to do then?
Maybe they'll give back their Pulitzer Prizes.
The New York Times and Washington Post.
Now, Horowitz can recommend that people be prosecuted.
And by the way, that would be James Comey.
John Brennan probably have the most to fear.
This is now the big leagues.
This is where Brennan probably needs five lawyers.
You notice they're the most outspoken.
Comey needs five lawyers, said Joe DeGenova.
He also said Brennan will probably see prison time.
Wow.
Guy with the biggest mouth.
One of the biggest liars, too.
You want to know why Adam Schiff, the cowardly ship, won't come on this program?
Because they know this is coming too.
All of these people that have lied for over two years to the American people that have been, they were weaving conspiracy web after conspiracy web, creating a hoax, lying the whole time.
It's pretty unbelievable.
Now, I talked a little bit about this last night.
This is getting more interesting than I thought in this sense.
You know, if you look at Durham's background, he's a pretty fascinating guy.
He's a career U.S. attorney.
His career is specialized in uncovering corruption at the highest levels of our federal government.
In the 2000s, Durham was appointed to investigate the FBI's Boston field office.
That resulted in the conviction of an FBI special agent as well as another law enforcement official connected to the gangster Whitey Bulger.
In 2009, Durham was appointed to investigate abuses in the CIA over his decades-long career.
Guy is pretty fearless and courageous.
He successfully prosecuted dozens of governmental officials, gang members, drug traffickers.
He's been praised by people on both sides of the aisle for his steady, cautious pursuit of truth and justice.
And now he's focused in on the abuse of power, the corruption, the biggest in the history of the country.
The abuse of the powerful tools of intelligence turned on the American people, weaponized against the American people.
And then, of course, weaponized against one political campaign.
And Durham, now, if he is collaborating with Michael Horowitz, Horowitz, he's got to be close to done if it's not done already.
But he's been doing this for weeks, possibly even months.
Now, you got to know that all of these people are getting nervous.
People like Comey and people like McCabe and people like, you know, Baker, although he wanted to indict Hillary, the poor guy, he should have just stuck to his guns.
All the bad actors, the Strzz, the Pages, Loretta Lynch.
And it's, you know, how far deep into the Obama White House does this go?
How close are we going to get to Clapper and Brennan and all of this?
One of the more fascinating things is you got everybody in the deep state turning on each other.
You know, this is getting entertaining because it's like a circular firing squad at this point.
Page and Strzz are blaming Loretta Lynch for rigging Hillary's investigation.
Then you got people like Bruce Orr.
Well, he's blaming everybody in the upper echelon of the DOJ and the FBI for ignoring his warnings about Christopher Steele.
That Christopher Steele was political.
That Christopher Steele had an agenda.
That Christopher Steele was paid for by Hillary Clinton.
That Christopher Steele wanted Trump out.
That nobody had verified it.
That was in August of 2016.
Then, because of the great investigative reporting of John Solomon in the last couple of weeks, well, we know Ukraine was working with the Hillary, the DNC people to collude and influence the election for Hillary.
We're all the collusion people on TV now.
They only want bludgeon Trump.
They don't care about collusion, nor do they care about obstruction.
They've never talked about Hillary's obstruction, the deletion of subpoenaed emails and bleach pit and hammers and SIM cards.
They don't talk about it.
It's like they don't talk about, they'll talk about Kavanaugh's high school years, but they won't talk about the lieutenant governor of Virginia.
Accused of violent rape, violent sexual assault, two credible women.
You haven't watched those interviews, just Google them.
Gail King did phenomenal interviews.
Both women told people at the exact time when it happened.
Haven't heard one I believe her.
But anyway, as we now know, that there was tons of warnings that were ignored about Christopher Steele.
Christopher Steele, for a long time, was paid for by the FBI, being paid by the FBI and by the DNC and by Russian oligarchs and being paid by Hillary Clinton.
Good gig, I guess, if you can get it.
But John Solomon broke the story that in October 2016, about 10 days before they ever signed the first FISA application, that would be James Comey, Super Patriot, Mr. Integrity.
Anyway, that it was revealed that Steele met with State Department officials, which is a breach of protocol for an informant if it was unauthorized, was sent to an FBI counterintelligence supervisor.
Anyway, multiple sources confirming we now know that the recipient of the State Department email was Special Agent Stephen Laycock, the FBI's section chief for Eurasia counterintelligence.
And now also, by the way, one of the Bureau's top executives as the assistant director for the intelligence for intelligence under Chris Ray.
And the email to Laycock from this Assistant Secretary of State, Kathleen Kavalek, arrived eight days before the FBI swore to the FISA court that it had no derogatory information on Steele and his anti-Trump dossier to secure the secret surveillance warrant.
Remember, McCabe said no dossier, no warrant.
And now they're all turning on each other.
You know, they used that phony, unverified political document of Hillary for all of this.
And what great irony that it was Hillary's phony, bought, and paid for Russian dossier.
I'm telling you, you have a panic now going on among all of these people.
Huge dispute breaking out as to whether Brennan, Comey, pushed Steele and the dossier.
I think the answer we already know is yes.
High-level dispute, which government officials pushed the unverified Steele dossier amid this effort to surveil the Trump campaign.
Well, we now know that the dossier was unverifiable, so it couldn't serve as the bulk of information legally as it relates to a FISA application, but they did it anyway.
And the same characters were all involved in rigging the investigation into Hillary to help her survive and prevent her from being indicted for clear violations of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793.
Anyway, so now that it's emerged that the Attorney General William Barr appointed this new U.S. Attorney Durham to examine the origins of the investigation, determine if the FBI and DOJ's actions were lawful and appropriate.
Now sources are telling Fox News that a late 2016 email chain indicated James Comey told the Bureau's subordinates that then CIA Director John Brennan insisted the dossier be included in the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, known as the ICA.
And now we're told that that's one of the five buckets we've been telling you about.
Remember, the FISA application itself, that's going to reveal that the unverified, bought, and paid for Clinton dossier served as the bulk of information.
We want the 302s declassified.
That is the internal communications, for example, that took place between, say, Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele and others.
Then we have the Gang of Aid information.
That's where the FBI pretty much admitted in many instances that, yeah, their own internal investigation show they screwed up.
Then we have what we call the fourth bucket, a series of these emails that apparently are clearly damning in December of 2016.
That literally the FBI had every warning about what all of this was and did it anyway.
Then, of course, we have evidence of exculpatory statements that we expect are going to come out in all of this.
You know, if you, you know, Fox News was told that the email chain, it's not yet public, referred to the dossier as the crown material.
It's not clear why that apparent code was used, but anyway, Trey Gowdy on my show the other night said that Comey had a better argument than Brennan based on what he's seen.
And he said, whoever is looking into this, tell them to look in the emails from December 2016 involving Brennan and Comey.
That's getting more interesting.
And then he brings Clapper into this.
Former Brennan, along with the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, are the ones who opposed Comey's recommendation that the Steele dossier be included in the intelligence report.
They opposed it because the dossier was in no way used to develop the ICA.
Anyway, the State Department's red flag on Steele went over to the FBI and they still use the phony dossier, the political dossier.
So that means that would have been a premeditated conspiracy to commit fraud on the FISA court.
Oh, and by the way, we also found out that the hiring of the 18 Democrats apparently was put in the hands of Mueller's pit bull, Andrew Weissman, the guy that was at Hillary's victory party, the guy that tens of thousands of Enron accounting jobs were lost because of him.
He lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court.
The same guy that put four Merrill executives in jail for a year, but they were overturned too in the Fifth Circuit.
The same Weissman that licensed to lie, Sidney Powell writes about in her book.
Now Comey and Brennan are turning on each other as to who pushed the phony dossier.
That's going to be interesting to find out by the end of this, too.
You have a dispute over whether Brennan Comey pushed the Steele dossier.
Well, if you want the truth, it was probably all of them.
How did it get in Harry Reid's hands?
We always believed that it was probably Brennan.
You know, there are a lot of questions here that we're going to be able to, you know, get to at the bottom of all this.
How did the media get all of this so wrong?
How did they, why did they openly lie to everybody?
Then we've got the president rightly saying, we're not going to have a do-over on this anymore.
No more do-overs.
We've had four investigations.
They're not going to cooperate.
And who's going to pay the legal bills for all these people they want to bring back a fourth, fifth, and sixth time?
All these deep state bureaucrats are scared out of their minds right now because they all know what they did.
There's eight great questions in Breitbart.
Was a false crime deliberately reported to the FBI?
Yes.
Were Obama administration officials involved in passing dossier charges of questionable political origin to the FBI or bolstering Steele's credibility to the Bureau?
Yes.
I want to know what Obama Biden knew and Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Brennan and Clapper.
How involved are these people?
Did Comey withhold in the first FISA application the key information raising questions about who paid for the dossier utilized as evidence in the applications?
Same people that were involved in exonerating Hillary, but they did find top secret classified information that she said didn't exist on that server in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom closet.
And who leaked the classified briefing about the dossier contents to fake news CNN or Michael Izikoff to use him as a second source when in fact it was the same source, Christopher Steele?
Why were Obama and Trump briefed on the dossier in the first place given the questionable document?
Why did Comey say in Put his signature on the document in October 16 saying that it's verified and true with bulk of information in the application to spy on Page and the Trump campaign, and then go to Trump Tower months later in January of 17 when Trump was president-elect and say, Well, it's unverified and salacious.
You know, what role did the Loretta Lynch play in all of this?
It's a matter as it relates to Hillary.
It's just a matter.
It's not an investigation.
And was the dossier utilized in the Obama-era Intel assessment?
And by the way, how many Americans were illegally spied on?
How many Americans were illegally unmasked?
Because we know there was a 350% increase in all of this in the year 2016.
What did they know and when did they know it?
You know, was the Trump Tower meeting a setup considering the people that went in met with Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson both before and after the meeting?
And how did the media, 99.9%, get it wrong?
Unbelievable.
We could have lost the country over this.
We don't get it right, we will lose the country.
All right, we're going to come back.
Investigative reporter John Solomon has more breaking news.
All right, glad you're with us.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza, big hour coming up.
John Solomon at the bottom of this half hour.
At the top of the next hour, Bill O'Reilly checks in on all of these things.
In the meantime, we now have a situation where we do believe that, in fact, if Joe DeGenovo, who's always been a great source and knows a lot, that in fact the brand new prosecutor, John Durham, has already been using a grand jury to grill witnesses and that has been impaneled in Connecticut.
And his effort is operating alongside FISA abuse investigative, the inspector general, that would be Michael Horowitz, his look into FISA.
And DeGenova is saying Horowitz has already determined that three FISA extensions against, well, Carter Page and hence the Trump campaign were illegally obtained and on the brink of finding the first FISA warrant was completely illegal.
We also have now discovered, which I think is blockbuster, that there have been two separate occasions where we now know the FBI was warned directly about the dossier.
That Bruce Orrin closed door testimony said that he told everybody in the upper echelon of the Department of Justice and the FBI that in fact Steele hated Trump, had a political agenda, Hillary paid for it, and that it was not verified.
Now, remember, James Comey signed the first FISA application, but 10 days prior to that, we found out that, oh, Christopher Steele met with this woman that works at the State Department, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Kathleen Kavalek.
And by the way, she went and warned the FBI also about the dossier and about Christopher Steele having a deadline and that being Election Day.
And Steele was trying to disseminate this information any way he possibly could and that it was not verified.
And then we found out, too, that multiple sources confirming to John Solomon that the State Department email that was sent to the FBI, that was Special Agent Stephen Laylock.
He's the FBI Section Chief for Eurasia Counterintelligence, now one of the top executives as the assistant director of intelligence under Christopher Wray.
And the email from Laylock to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State arrived eight days before the FBI filed and signed and signed as true the first FISA application.
It says on the top of a FISA application, you know, verified.
Now we also know that the dossier is unverifiable because Christopher Steele in an interrogatory in Great Britain couldn't stand by his own dossier saying, I have no idea if any of it's true.
They never told the FISA court in the application directly that Hillary Clinton bought and paid for this information.
It was unverifiable, but they did it anyway because not only did they spy on Carter Page, it gave them a direct link into all things Trump world, including the Trump campaign, then the Trump transition team, and then the Trump presidency.
It's pretty unbelievable.
Anyway, joining us now is former Speaker of the House, Newt Kingrich, by the way.
He has written a brand new novel.
How's that going, by the way?
Very, very well.
And the name of the book is called Collusion.
Yeah, it's called Collusion.
Collusion Opened at number five, and it's about real collusion between the Russians and Antifa in an effort to poison the U.S. Senate.
So it's a very exciting novel.
We're very excited about how well it's doing.
But I just want to comment on everything you just walked through.
At some point, as a historian, people are going to start realizing that this could be one of the greatest backfires in history.
That everything the left did to go after Trump and failed now sets the stage for discovering just how corrupt and just how sick the system was.
And as these things just inexorably keep working, we're going to learn stuff that's going to make most Americans realize this was a really serious effort to undermine the United States by a group of people who didn't care how corrupt they were or how much they were breaking the law.
You know, it's really sad because when you think, Mr. Speaker, the 99% in the media, the mob as we call them, and it's now boy, you are the first to identify, they wake up every morning with how can I hate Trump even more today, and this rage that is now a psychosis, almost a mass psychosis, but it's 99.9% of the media.
They've been lying.
They've been spinning conspiracy theories, a hoax on the American people for well over two years.
But so too has everybody else involved in this.
And that is the entire Democratic Party establishment has been doing this.
And it really makes me nervous for my country that it really happened that Hillary, we know she had top secret classified information on the private server in a bathroom closet.
We know that it was likely hacked into by foreign governments.
We know that the exoneration was written before the investigation.
We have Strzok and Page both saying that it was rigged, that the fix was in, and Loretta Lynch was calling all the shots.
Not only was she meeting Bill Clinton on a tarmac talking about grandchildren just before the decision for 45 minutes and telling Comey it's a matter, not an investigation.
But then it gets worse than that.
Then we have, of all things, considering we've talked so much about Russia, a phony Russian, what the New York Times is now suggesting is a disinformation document paid for by Hillary, used in four FISA warrant applications, never telling the FISA court judges that Hillary paid for it, that it was unverified.
They never told the FISA court judges any of the details.
We know Andrew McCabe said no dirty Russian dossier paid for by Hillary.
There wouldn't have been a FISA warrant.
And then they used it to bludgeon a president and try and unseat a duly elected president because they thought the smelly Walmart voters should have gone 100 million to zero with Hillary over Trump, the same Hillary that they saved from being indicted.
That all happened, Mr. Speaker, in the United States of America.
You're a historian.
I'm not.
Is there anything on this scale or magnitude you can think of?
No, there isn't.
And I just read an amazing new book by Katz, who's the editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, called Shadow Strike, which is about the Israelis taking out the North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria.
And it's fascinating from the standpoint of Hillary Clinton for this reason.
One of the key breakthroughs was that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, went into a hotel room, got the laptop of the Syrian head of the Atomic Energy Commission in Syria, and were able to download his entire laptop and discovered that he had put pictures in his laptop of this nuclear facility, including a picture of a North Korean scientist at the facility.
And so when people say, well, what does it really matter?
Well, this guy broke every single classification rule that they had, exposed himself, created the situation where the Israelis had the knowledge to go to the Americans and say, look at the pictures.
This is real.
And then they took out the entire facility, which, by the way, ISIS would have occupied seven years later if the Israelis hadn't done it.
So you think about Hillary Clinton's server.
You think about how often she violated the most basic rules of secrecy in the U.S. government.
You think about people who've gone to jail for 1% of what she did.
And it begins to give you a sense of how sick it was.
I mean, I see it as sort of a triangle.
You have the news media that is sick because they hate Trump.
You have an elite bureaucracy, which is sick because it hates Trump and it thinks it can get away with anything.
And you have the kings of the Democratic Party who are sick.
And you see that triangle working.
And what's happening to it now, of course, and the great danger they faced when Trump won, is with people as courageous as Attorney General Barr, we're starting to learn what really happened.
And I guarantee you, it is all going to get worse.
Mr. Speaker, we know that there are five specific buckets.
John Solomon and I talk about them often on this program.
And, you know, we know that eventually we're going to get the FISA applications that Devin Nunes and the House Intel Committee and Grassley and Graham say the bulk of the applications were the dirty Russian dossier.
Even the New York Times suggesting it probably was Russian disinformation in the end.
Irony is upon all ironies, right?
We're going to get the 302 communications between the likes of Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele.
We're going to get the gang of ape material where apparently the FBI privately acknowledged they messed up royally.
We're going to get a series of emails that Trey Gowdy and Lindsey Graham and others have been shouting about that literally will show that the FBI in a series of emails knew exactly what was going on and did it anyway.
And apparently bucket five is exculpatory evidence was held back and exculpatory statements were held back and they move forward anyway.
And again, to first stop Trump, first rig a general election, why not?
It worked against Bernie in the primary, then to undermine and unseat a duly elected president.
It is exactly what we've been saying for two years it is.
Now with the evidence all forthcoming.
No, that's right.
And of course, what causes a real crisis in this is, let's say you're a reporter, and for two solid years, you've been saying things that are false.
Well, now, can you really admit that your entire professional life for the last two years has been a lie?
Or do you have to find a new lie to cover up the old lies to keep moving forward?
And that's why the system is just going to, you know, we're going to go into a real period of extraordinary catharsis where people are going to be confronted with making decisions that will be historic and that will shape America's understanding of itself for the next 30 or 40 or 50 years.
You know, I think if we don't get it right, Mr. Speaker, I mean, this is the stuff of a banana republic.
This is how civilizations now cave when you have a few at the top abusing power.
You know, and we're not even touching what we know also happened, a 350% increase in surveillance and on masking in 2016 alone.
Why would the U.N. ambassador, Samantha Powers, have 300 separate unmasking requests?
What is that all about?
That would mean the powerful tools of intelligence were turned on the American people.
That's a scary scenario because we have the premier law enforcement agency in the world known as the FBI, and that is the 99%.
We have the premier intelligence agencies in the world, too.
That's the 99%, but the 1% with all that power literally tried to basically create a coup in this country.
Right.
Let me just slow you down on the example you used.
So when is the Senate, which is still controlled by the Republicans, when is the Senate going to call in Samantha Powers and ask her to explain what she was doing?
I mean, to the best of my knowledge, we have no under-oath on the record explanation of why she would have made these extraordinary requests.
It doesn't make sense.
You're right.
All right.
Stay right there.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, Fox News contributors.
New book, Collusion, is out, a novel ripped from today's headlines.
We have John Solomon.
We're breaking news coming up.
And Bill O'Reilly and the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security will get a border update today, busy news day.
And as we continue, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, with us, his brand new book is out.
It's called Collusion, ripped right out of the headlines.
And it's up on Hannity.com, Amazon.com, bookstores everywhere.
As I see all of these developments, what I see are a lot of people that are likely now facing a criminal indictment.
What do you see?
Well, I think if the system does its job, and again, I firmly believe this goes back to the Clintons.
I think it goes up to the Attorney General.
It may well go as far as the President and the Vice President.
I mean, Biden running for president is going to have to answer a heck of a lot of questions about what he knew and when he knew it and whether he's being cut out and by whom.
And I just think this thing is very likely to lead sometime late this year to an amazing range of indictments that will really be serious and criminal and very, very different than what we saw with Mueller.
I think this is not going to be about perjury or were you confused or whatever.
This is going to be about people who did things knowingly that were illegal.
Well, I mean, it's pretty obvious that there was a premeditated, because everybody was warned, conspiracy to commit fraud on a FISA court to spy on an opposition party candidate.
It seems like a few powerful people purposely exonerated the favored presidential candidate of a crime that everyone else would be indicted for.
And then, of course, the obstruction with the bleach bit, the hammers, and the subpoenaed emails destroyed.
Well, and I have to raise the question also, if in fact it's true, as everybody seems to now think, that it was the Clinton campaign that initially paid steel, I mean, what does it mean if an American presidential campaign hires a secret agent from Great Britain outside the U.S. to write a document designed to lie about an American presidential candidate?
I mean, it's ironic, and this is what I tried to say earlier on.
We're now seeing the mirror image of what they attacked Trump for, except now it turns out to be real.
I mean, just think about how weird this is.
You're right.
I want to remind people, by the way.
Yeah, are you doing any more book signings real quick?
No, actually, I'm in California at Barnes and Noble, I think, on Saturday night.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We appreciate it.
All right, John Solomon, breaking news.
Bill O'Reilly, coming up.
Is that you guys didn't put a big red red pen warning, you know, warning FISA court, this guy was under contract to Fusion GPS, which was under contract to Perkins-Cooey, which was campaign counsel to Hillary Clinton, right?
And instead, it is in a pretty extensive footnote.
You didn't identify the U.S. entities.
So my question is, why didn't you identify it in A, explicitly who the U.S. entities were, the U.S. political campaign, the other U.S. entities?
And number two, why was it in a footnote rather than written in big red magic marker in block letters across every page of the thing?
The information set forth in that gigantic footnote was consistent with the type of information and the way we would phrase things to basically effectively be the red light on top of a document, like, hey, court, pay attention to this.
There are issues here.
We think you need to know about these things.
My view was, and we have a, and I'm well aware of this, the Department Attorneys have the highest duty of candor to the FISA court that exists in law.
It's an ex-party proceeding, and we have the obligation to tell the court every material fact with respect to the application.
And so I wanted to make sure that that was done.
I thought that this was sufficient to put the court on notice, and I don't know what else to say.
All right, that testimony you heard was at the Brookings Institute, this guy, Benjamin Witts, who's well connected, and I think a big supporter of the deep state from what I've read of the stuff he puts on Twitter.
Anyway, trying to explain why it is that he didn't highlight enough as it relates to the FISA court, the U.S. entities involved with the steel dossier, such as Fusion GPS and Perkins Cooey and Hillary Clinton.
A lot of questions we don't get answers to.
John Solomon joins us now.
You have all these sources confirming that the State Department email was, in fact, Special Agent Stephen Laycock is his name, then the FBI's section chief, I think, for Eurasia and counterintelligence, and now one of the Bureau's top executives as the assistant director for intelligence under the FBI Director Ray.
What's going on?
Yeah, man, it's an important new name that's emerged in the last 24 hours.
So multiple sources confirm to me that Special Agent Laycock, now the Director of Intelligence, so an assistant director very high up in the top echelon of the FBI, back in 2016, was the agent who first received the notification from the State Department that Steele had gone rogue, that Steele had gone to the State Department outside of his FBI chain of command and pitched a briefing on everything he was finding on Donald Trump.
And it's important to note the date, October 11th.
It's less than a month before the election, and it's 10 days before the FBI goes and gets the first FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
So 10 days before the FISA, the FBI has a notification that Steele is sitting over at the State Department.
Every senior executive, former FBI executive I found, I ran this by in the last day, said, if you got this notification, you don't even know what he told the State Department.
If you just find out Steele's suddenly at the State Department talking about Russia and Trump, what would you do?
And they all say we would have tapped the brakes.
We would have stopped our dealing with him.
We would have done a reevaluation of him.
We would have gone to the State Department and said, what specifically was he telling you and why was he there?
And if they had done that, here's what the FBI would have found.
Steele was admitting he had an election day deadline to get his information out.
Steele admitted he worked for an organization recently hacked, a la the Democratic National Committee.
Steele acknowledged he was talking to the Washington Post and New York Times.
A la, he was leaking.
And fourth, some of the information he told the State Department about his narrative of Donald Trump-Russia collusion, now disproven, was demonstrably false.
My favorite anecdote in the notes from the State Department were he told the State Department, and I'm sure he told the Justice Department at some point, this whole hacking enterprise that the Russians had built, their emigrees who were doing the work were being funded out of the Russian consulate in Miami.
And the State Department noticed right away, that can't be true.
There is no Russian consulate in Miami.
So a really major fact point just stood out.
If in 45 minutes the State Department could come to this assessment of the politics, the deadline, the motive, and the erroneous information, you have to wonder why the FBI with all of its counterintelligence powers could not do the same.
We're now watching with the appointment that has been made and now new information about Durham, the prosecutor in this case.
Everybody is freaked out.
We see Joe DeGenova, a good friend of the program, and ours is he's suggesting John Durham is already using a grand jury to grill Russia hoax witnesses.
We have new documents showing that Mueller, in fact, put Weissman, of all people, in charge of hiring all of Mueller's investigators, which would explain a lot because he was at Hillary's victory party.
And that's the same Andrew Weissman who in Sidney Powell's book, she describes him withholding exculpatory evidence.
He's the one that lost tens of thousands of jobs at Enron Accounting.
He's the one that lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court.
He's the one that put four Merrill executives in jail for a year.
That was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
Now we find out that he was the most powerful person in the whole Mueller investigation, which adds so much more credibility and weight to the fact that they still found nothing.
Yeah, listen, every day we're getting visibility into issues that we were denied visibility for a long time.
I think in light of all we've learned in the last couple of days, and If we can tell your audience, members of Congress who spent two and a half years investigating Russia and FISA abuses were never given these documents at the State Department.
They weren't told of the FBI recipient, Stephen Laycock.
So there's a roadmap now for Congress and the Inspector General at the Justice Department to interview new witnesses, get new fact information.
Why was it so easy for the State Department to figure out that Steele was lying and leaking and political, and the FBI have a hard time trying to describe that to the court or not providing it to the court in advance of the FISA warrant?
That's a very important new lead where people can go.
But there's something the president can do right now.
There's a bucket of documents.
I think we've called it Bucket Four, you and I and Devin Nunez and others.
It's a series of emails that I'm told show that the FBI was debating and had concerns about Steele's credibility before the FISA.
Those should become public now.
We should no longer have to hide behind all of this classification and secrecy.
The investigation is over.
The American people should find out what were those concerns and did the FBI adequately disclose them to the court.
I think we're going to find out that they did not and that many important facts were kept from the court, including exculpatory information against the targets of their FISA warrant.
There's something the president can do, his administration can do, the Attorney General could do right now that would give us the sort of visibility to advance this investigation and the public's knowledge.
And it's a good time for that to happen.
Well, it would be.
Now, let's go to the other buckets as well, because one would be the FISA applications themselves.
A second would be the 302s, Bruce Orr, Christopher Steele.
Those would be particularly important.
Bucket number three is the Gang of Eight material.
Wouldn't that include some of Bucket four, or is that separate and apart where the FBI is acknowledging mistakes that they made throughout this whole process?
Yeah, so the Gang of Eight materials are a posthumous, if I could use that word, but post-FISA review of what was right and wrong.
The email chain is a contemporaneous discussion ongoing between officials.
It may have reached as high as James Comey, people tell me, about the credibility and concerns.
And it may raise the possibility that DOJ was concerned about using Steele.
So it's a contemporaneous document.
It's not part of that bucket.
The fifth bucket is also extremely important.
There is a document or series of documents, I believe they're called exculpatory statements, that list all of the intercepts and information that the FBI possessed from things like informants and others, maybe people wearing wires at various times, in which people like Papadopoulos and Carter Page, who are the focus of this alleged collusion scandal, now cleared, of course, and things they were saying to undercovers and being intercepted without their knowledge that really weighed towards the evidence of innocence,
that the idea the FBI went into this investigation, the predicate of collusion, was in fact false.
Knowing how much the FBI had of that, plus the concerns about Steele's credibility, would really give us a sense of how bad the FBI's conduct was before the court and whether the things that were talked at that panel that you started the segment with were really true.
Is that a defensible place to be?
A footnote is a good place to tell the court that the total production of this allegation was from the rival campaign of Donald Trump.
It was never that clear, and I doubt that the courts ever saw it that clearly.
So I think we have a great opportunity with these buckets to get this information out, not hardly.
But there's actually five buckets, though, because we have the Pfizer, we have the 302s, we have the Gang of Eight.
You just explained the fourth bucket, the series of emails the FBI had going back and forth that lays out a lot of this.
What's the first thing?
Bucket five are those exculpatory statements, a summary of all the things that was exculpatory that the FBI had that they didn't weigh into the equation of continuing the investigation.
So that's the fifth bucket.
I mean, that's pretty damning.
And a lot of that is even emerging in sort of obscure ways like with Strzok and Page and their closed-door testimonies suggesting and saying that Loretta Lynch was making all the decisions.
And yeah, the investigation into Hillary was rigged.
Yeah, you have to look at the Hillary investigation and the Trump investigation as forever being linked.
The motives, the people, the tensions, the unusual behavior of the FBI are similar in both places.
And I think that that's an important part we have to keep in mind as we review this evidence.
Both cases have to be looked through the lens that both.
The FBI acted very oddly and differently in both cases.
And I think that that's an important part of the equation.
Yeah, a very important part.
All right, quick break.
More with John Solomon, investigative reporter, executive director of The Hill with more breaking news even today.
You know, and the media, do you think they've learned a single thing, anything from this experience of perpetuating lies, propaganda, misinformation?
No, nothing.
All right, as we continue, John Solomon is with us, investigative reporter, executive director at The Hill.
All right, so let's go to the issue of we sort of have all these deep state people now beginning to turn on each other.
And, you know, I'm not going to lie, part of this is actually pretty entertaining, but I think that this is also, in the end, it's going to be fairly revealing because, you know, you've got Lisa Page and Strzz.
They're blaming Loretta Lynch for rigging their investigation.
You got Bruce Orr blaming the DOJ and the FBI for ignoring his warning on Christopher Steele in August of 2016.
You got Comey is trashing Strzz and Page on national TV.
Rosenstein and James Comey are attacking each other's character.
McCabe is attacking anyone with a pulse.
And then even on top of that, now we've got Comey and Brennan turning on each other over who pushed the Steele dossier.
Yeah, I think that's important.
And I think there would be no reason for the CIA to push the dossier.
Its job is not to worry about domestic matters.
So that fight may be the most consequential.
Could the CIA really have been involved in this and we don't know enough about it?
I think that's one very important clue.
That fight breaking out now suggests that the CIA may have had a role.
Another thing that suggests it, if you hear what Attorney General Barr is doing with Durham, the prosecutor up in Connecticut, the CIA director is involved.
The CIA would have no reason to be involved unless it had some people or exposure in the review that we're now undergoing.
So there are hints now that the CIA may have played a larger role than the few factoids that we know.
But I want to highlight one thing that was said yesterday.
It really caught my attention.
James Baker, former general counsel, the guy who thought Hillary should have been indicted originally, the guy who says he signed off and took the rare step of reviewing the Trump FISA first and tried to make sure it was okay for the court.
He said something on CNN last night that I think is very important in the mindset of these people.
He said he fully expects that the IG will uncover that mistakes were made.
That's a big acknowledgement.
The chief lawyer of the FBI at the time, all these shenanigans went on, now saying he expects bad things to be exposed in the Inspector General Review.
That's how far this debate went.
You go back two years ago, everyone was haughty.
We did everything right.
There's going to be collusion found, no collusion, and now we're expecting mistakes to be highlighted in the FISA process.
That's a big turn of events from where we were two years ago.
Yeah, it's pretty amazing.
All right, so what do you expect coming out next?
You know, I think the most important thing is examining what Mr. Laycock did with the information.
By all my reporting, Mr. Laycock did the right thing.
This is the special agent, the section chief, who received the information from the State Department from Cavillac.
We need to know who did he give it to, and did that set off any alarms.
My reporting indicates that as soon as he got it, he gave it to the Russia team, meaning the Pete Stroke team looking at Trump.
We need to know, we need to get answers to what did people do, how did they handle it, did it raise any alerts or did they sweep it under the rug?
That's a very important part.
We have a whole new chain of documents and communications that just two weeks ago we didn't know about.
And also where the public might get some answers.
What were the motives for meeting?
Who set up the meeting?
And what was the ultimate goal of Christopher Steele coming to the State Department and dumping that large amount of information to them?
I think that's a whole nother area of inquiry that is new for us.
All right, John Solomon, investigative reporter, executive director at The Hill.
You have, I don't know if we'd be here without all your hard work over the last two years and your willingness to dig down every day and work hard.
And really, it's old-fashioned reporting, you know, using sources and shoe leather and getting to the facts.
And, you know, it's amazing the 99.9% in the media and in politics that have been so wrong and the lies they told day after day, night after night.
And yet we've been on the right course from the beginning.
And this is, as you said the other night so eloquently, this is now the second act and the curtain has now gone up.
Anyway, thanks, John Solomon.
We'll see you tonight on Hannity 9 Eastern.
Quick break, 800-941 Sean is our number, Bill O'Reilly, at the top of the next hour, and we will continue.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show.
So now you hear the term constitutional crisis.
You know, you hear this word constitutional crisis.
A little constitutional crisis.
What exactly counts as a constitutional crisis?
Are we in a constitutional crisis?
Is this a constitutional crisis?
I think it's a constitutional confrontation.
Constitutional stress test.
Constitutional showdown.
Constitutional confrontation.
Confrontational crisis.
Do you agree with Chairman Natler that the country is currently in a constitutional crisis?
Yes, it's a constitutional crisis, okay?
Constitutional crisis is no longer a hypothetical.
The country is in a constitutional crisis.
The official Trump constitutional crisis.
Folks, a constitutional crisis.
Behind door number two, you have a constitutional crisis.
Ever wonder what a constitutional crisis looks like?
The real total end of democracy.
Open your eyes.
If this is a constitutional crisis, how can Democrats not move forward with impeachment hearings?
We have the option of impeachment, and we think this is a constitutional crisis.
Start impeachment proceedings.
Why not pursue impeachment?
Why are you resisting?
Some people would argue we've been in a constitutional crisis since Donald Trump was elected president.
Constitutional crisis, manufactured crisis.
They're so tight at the hip.
The new radical, extreme, democratic, socialist, new Green Deal Party with their ever-so-loving friends in the media mob that they all use the same words.
They can't even get creative.
All right, maybe to create at least a fake line of distinction of somehow we'll bifurcate what we're saying and we'll say, you say this and I'll say that.
But they can't even do that.
They use the exact same words.
They repeat them over and over and over again.
And they just can't help themselves.
Anyway, Bill O'Reilly just calls the hardworking people that make this country great the folks.
He joins us now.
And of course, all things O'Reilly is at billo'reilly.com.
He now has a new radio gig that he's been doing, sort of like Paul Harvey.
How are you?
I'm shocked.
I'm bifurbacation.
Bifurcation.
That's your word of the day.
That is a great word of the day.
I got to stick up for President Obama.
He wasn't the worst economic guy.
You know the worst economic guy was?
The immortal Martin Van Buren.
Well, that's true.
You make a good case.
Mr. Andrew Jackson, The little magician, as they called him, Kinderhook New York, took over.
Do you like trying to show off your knowledge?
Because I'll start quoting Thomas Paine, where the guides and dictates of one's conscience irresistibly obeyed.
There'd be no need for any other lawgiver.
That being the case, not being the case, well, we have government in its best state, but a necessary evil, its worst state, an intolerable one.
Are we going to go back and forth and quote Ben Franklin, though?
Maybe.
I mean, it's very amusing to do this.
You know what is good about O'Reilly?
So I don't care if I, you don't care if I give little details about your life, do you?
No, no, Hannity.
Just look at that.
No, no.
All right.
So I've been to Bill O'Reilly's house.
Maybe I shouldn't do this in this day and age of home invasion.
Let's just say that I showed you some very impressive documentation of our nation's history.
I mean, I would even go as far as to say it's like the O'Reilly Museum.
And the only difference between me and O'Reilly is I'm a big believer in carrying a gun.
But you're probably right.
You with a gun probably wouldn't be a good thing.
Maybe that's why you don't carry it.
And there's a lot of difference between me and you, that's for sure.
But you know, the reason I do this is because, you know, I write history books, obviously, and I'll state this again, and I know I sound like an idiot doing it, but I'm the most successful nonfiction author of all time.
By the way, why would you not be proud of that?
You have every right to be proud of that.
That is a massive impression.
I'm going to walk around with a sign on me, you know, I'm a most best-selling author of all time.
But in order to do that, and I have to really know these people who I'm writing about.
And so I decided to have a hobby of collecting documents and letters that they actually wrote.
And that tells me a lot about who they actually are, which leads us to President Trump and the upcoming history book on him.
I've known him for 30 years.
I know what he's capable of.
And I was able, we just finished the book this week.
Just finished it.
Put the picture on.
Congratulations on it.
I still want to talk to him one more time.
He's running away from me, Hannity.
You might help on that, by the way.
Well, then I get 10%.
I've got to get out with me for about 15 minutes on the phone because I got a few unanswered questions.
But it's a history book.
And I think people are going to appreciate whether you like Trump or not, knowing the truth about him, because certainly the truth is not being told in this country about President Trump.
It's not.
And that is a disservice to every single American.
Well, I think it's been, it's something that we've never seen before.
Now, we've seen a lot of hatred, a lot of division, a lot of, you know, a lot of fighting going back and forth.
I mean, you can't look at some of the images of the 60s and not say they were horrible times and 50s as well for this country.
The great wisdom of our framers and founders, that, of course, they were imperfect people, but they built a system where we correct wrongs and injustices.
And they have been proven to be true, that the conscience of the American soul is such that we have this natural inclination as our founding documents that we're endowed by our creator, and we tend to, over time, get things right.
But the hatred of Donald Trump is inexplicable.
I've never seen this kind of rage bordering on psychosis.
And it throws off the system that the founding fathers put in place.
The only other president that had to face this was Abraham Lincoln.
John Adams, he was worked over pretty hard, and he passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to put newspaper editors in prison who he didn't like.
So that's what he did.
But certainly Donald Trump's situation where the media is hating him, not only the media, but his opposing party, throwing off our checks and balances.
You know, I was amused this week to see Elizabeth Warren, a senator from Massachusetts, who has absolutely no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
So you've got to question why she's even bothering.
Why are you bothering, lady?
You're not going to get it.
You can't even break 10% in your own polls.
So what's the beef here?
Why are you doing this?
So she comes out and says, well, look, I'm not going to do a town hall on Fox News because that just feeds their money for hatred machine.
But I'll go on CNN and MSNBC, and I'm going, do you live in the same country that we all live in?
MSNBC and CNN hate Donald Trump.
Do you not know that?
And apparently she doesn't know it.
But I always, as I always do on billoreilly.com, I looked a bit further into why Elizabeth Warren would say this.
All right?
She's trying to raise money.
That's why.
How many times in your career?
You're going to make a statement and immediately sends out to her mailing list, give me money.
I just attacked Fox, so give me money, send me money.
How many times in your career have you, somebody forwarded you an email using your name to raise money?
Because it happens to me all the time, and you never grant permission.
They just do it.
Adam Schiff did it to me recently.
Sure, it happens all the time on the internet.
It's easy to make it happen.
But a sitting senator doing this kind of stuff, you know, enough's enough, I think.
I think that everybody should pull back.
Look, the Democrats put up a candidate, and the candidate is better.
The people think he's better than the President Trump.
Okay, that's our system.
Let's go.
But the constant lying and the constant distortions about the country and about Mr. Trump, that doesn't serve anybody.
And as you rightly pointed out in the lead to this segment, it's coordinated at a K-Street in Washington.
The reason that these people say the same things is because they get a fax in the morning, telling them what to say, because they're not smart enough to figure out what to say.
And that's why you hear the same stuff over and over and over.
You know, I want to just say, and I think this is really important, that this division, if it continues, really, I'm now concerned about the country because you know for two years that I've put together an ensemble team and we have been digging really hard and the 99% of the media went with Russia, Russia, Russia collusion, collusion.
It never happened.
We have now four separate investigations that prove as much, including the Mueller report.
And still you have these people clinging tightly to their lies and their conspiracy theories and their hoax when a whole other narrative has emerged, which is they did rig the investigation into Hillary.
They did use a phony Russian dossier that Clinton bought and paid for.
They did premeditate a fraud and committed it against the FISA, against the FISA court with FISA applications four times.
They did spy on the Trump campaign a multitude of ways, including through Carter Page.
So all of which, Bill, makes me wonder, number one, journalism is dead, but that power is beyond hurtful.
Yeah, and they talk about a constitutional crisis.
Well, there it is.
So the founding fathers give us special power to watch politicians and others who have sway over our lives, and then we abuse the power.
That's a constitutional crisis.
Great column by Victor Davis Sanson this week saying what you just said, journalism's dead.
And I reluctantly have to agree that, you know, when I hear things reported in the New York Times or Washington Post, now I just don't believe it.
I mean, no matter what it is, I don't believe it.
And that's not good.
All right, got to take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue.
Bill O'Reilly, our guest, 800-941 Sean and the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security coming up.
It's more with Bill O'Reilly with us.
BillO'Reilly.com is his website.
You see the poll that showed 77% of Americans think that the mainstream media lies and gets it wrong regularly.
Is it now up to 77%?
77%.
They can't read.
I mean, so it's like everybody.
It's on the side of that.
Because the 23%, they don't have to read.
But then there's another side to this because then they want to destroy every conservative voice, Bill.
Every second, every minute, every hour, every day, any conservative voice is on the air.
It's being taped in the hopes that one word, phrase, sentence can be taken out of context and used to destroy and bludgeon and run out of town and run out of business.
You know, they did that to me, and I've thought about it a lot for the past couple of years.
And I know that happens, and so do your listeners, that media matters, and these people are taping everything, hoping to find something they can bring to the corporations.
But it's the corporations' fault.
You know, if American corporations are going to say, oh, we're going to give in to this blackmail and extortion.
Oh, we're not going to advertise on certain shows because we're threatened with boycotts or whatever it may be, then you're undermining our democracy.
You, the corporate entities, are doing that.
And I would like to see a watchdog group rise up and start naming those corporations, as I did in the Merry Christmas controversy about 12 years ago.
You're allowed to say Merry Christmas again?
Everybody can say it now because I, I'll take credit for this.
Went on the air and said, here are the conversations and companies that are forbidding their employees to say Merry Christmas.
But, you know, put it out there, and guess what happened?
It worked.
In five days, everybody, they couldn't say Merry Christmas loud enough.
No, listen, I will say this.
There's certain moments in everybody's career, if people are in the game as long as we have, that have profound make changes.
For example, we had the laws changed in Panama City Beach because of our coverage of spring break.
I once, you know, there was a guy that called my radio show back in Atlanta, and he said goodbye, and he said he just swallowed a bottle of pills and drank a quart of scotch or whatever, and I kept him on the phone until ultimately he gave his location, and 200 cars descended on him in five seconds.
And it turned out he had taken those pills, and it turned out the guy's life was saved.
And there's certain moments where you can really, you realize that we can use the gift that we have for good.
Absolutely.
That's why they want to take it away.
Mandatory for child abusers.
Mandatory time.
45 out of 50 states when we led that campaign.
And we almost got Kate's Law passed.
I know.
That was a shame.
Very close.
Mitch McConnell was the villain there, a Republican.
But that's going to come back.
Republicans are weak, Bill.
Don't think I'm not a Republican.
These people are pathetically weak, and they're lucky to have Trump as their backbone because without Trump, they wouldn't get anything accomplished.
They're almost just as bad as the Democrats, if not worse, because they should know better.
Well, the interesting thing about you is that once you get onto a story, you pursue the story.
So if you hadn't taken your power on radio and television and put together your SWAT team.
Well, I got to let you go because we're just out of time.
But all things Bill O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com, author of, what, 15 instant number one best-selling books in his killing series on history.
He's got a book on Trump coming out sometime in the fall.
And you can get all things O'Reilly is Daily Podcast on BillO'Reilly.com.
Thanks for being with us.
All right, John, thank you.
Bye.
We appreciate you joining us.
Quick break.
We'll come back and we'll be joined by the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
That's coming up next as we continue.
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.
The president's decision to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless.
When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.
Hundreds, hundreds of thousands of families will be ripped apart.
If you don't think it's illegal, you're not going to say it.
I think it is illegal and wrong.
Tens of thousands of American businesses will lose hardworking employees.
And the argument there, Mr. President, is Americans don't want to do the work.
We just can't find American workers to do the work.
Mr. President, that is a crock in many instances.
It's just not true.
In my view, Trump's decision to end the DACA program for some 800,000 young people is the cruelest and most ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country.
I cannot think of one single act which is uglier and more cruel.
We've got to do several things, and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.
People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.
Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx.
You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.
Eno itty, this is not a problem that the people who are coming into the country are solely responsible for.
They wouldn't be coming if we didn't put them to work.
My proposal will keep families together and it will include a path to citizenship.
The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.
If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole, it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and puts strains on an already overburdened safety net.
Immigrants aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up.
There are those in the immigrants' rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are illegally with legal status or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws.
But I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.
It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.
And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.
These are students, they're teachers, they're doctors, they're lawyers.
They're Americans in every way, but on paper.
Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.
Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship.
Do you plan to ask for more troops from the Pentagon to help you at the border?
So we've got a robust partnership with the Department of Defense.
I mean, they've been critically engaged in supporting us on surveilling the border and freeing up agents to do their primary law enforcement duties and interdict people crossing.
We've expanded that.
They helped us repel two attempts by a caravan to enter the United States by helping us fortify ports of entry.
That's been an absolutely essential partnership.
And we're going to continue to look at ways where DOD and their mission and functions can help expand our border security.
So do you think you need more troops there?
We do.
I mean, they're going to be helping us build the wall aggressively, too.
They already are engaged.
We finished the FY17-funded wall.
We're well engaged with five different projects ongoing in FY18.
And with DOD funding, we're going to be able to expand that.
I wanted to ask you about that, but there is a perception among some Trump supporters that the wall is not being built.
How do you plan to combat that if you can't get Congress to appropriate any additional money?
So normally for a federal project of this scope, from the time you get funded to starting it, it's over two years.
We've already built the FY17 funding in less than two years.
So that shows how aggressively we're moving out on this.
And with the expanded support of additional DOD funding, our partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, building a wall where our Board of Patrol agents on the ground say they need it, we're going to show a lot of progress this year.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
That was the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAlinen, on with Dana Perino, and he joins us now.
How are you?
Good, Sean.
How are you doing?
Good.
We were talking about, you were talking there with Dana about the issue of defense appropriations.
Now, I saw that in the bill that the Democrats did give the president, I believe, $1.35 billion in new monies.
We're not talking about the 2017 budget money that you described in that interview, but also the Department of Defense, I saw this week, allocated a little shy of $2 billion more monies that were unspent that he is now going to use towards the wall with the help of the military actually helping in the construction of this.
How much money total have you gotten from the Department of Defense?
And now Democrats, I'm sure you probably have noticed by now, their spending bill for the Defense Department would limit the Pentagon's ability to ship money after border wall transport.
Transfers have already taken place.
So they're pissed off at the president doing what past presidents have done.
Right, Sean.
I mean, we've gotten about $3.3 billion from Congress in appropriated dollars for the wall since this president has gotten into office and fought for it.
That's going to buy us over 200 miles of wall.
All those projects are underway and we're making great progress.
What the DOD money is going to allow us to do, and you mentioned the additional outlay that the Secretary of Defense just approved, that's going to more than double the total wall we can build in the next year and a half or so.
So we're extraordinarily pleased with the president's support with DOD jumping in, not only with the Army Corps of Engineer building the wall that we have appropriated dollars for, but now starting with DOD funding to increase and enhance the scope of that construction to areas where our Board of Chile agents need it.
So how many miles so far new Trump miles of wall have been constructed and how many miles of wall that we're in desperate need of repair have been fixed?
So combined, we're already up to about 50 miles.
And again, it's going to be over 200 miles with the funding we got in 17, 18, and 19 for just the Department of Homeland Security.
And with the Department of Defense's help, we're going to more than double that.
Okay.
So how many, let's say it's the fall of 2020, how many miles of new wall will Donald Trump be able to say he has built and how many miles will he be able to say he's repaired?
So he's going to be able to say that he supported the U.S. Border Patrol priorities for over 400 miles of wall by then.
And we're going to be able to take you to the border and show you exactly those areas that we now have under control that today are challenges for our Border Patrol agents because of the traffic and the difficulty in some of these areas.
So then how many miles of wall will still remain to be built to have the protection that we need?
So remember, we're starting with about 654 miles of existing wall.
And as you noted, Sean, some of our top priorities are replacing some of the older dilapidated wall that's not having a good impact today.
And we've already started that process significantly.
So the combined total, we've asked Congress for, and the president's supporting us on about almost 1,000 miles of wall on the front line.
And that's going to make a huge difference.
We're also, though, adding a second layer of wall in those areas that have just become very challenging to control because there's lots of people living on both sides of the border.
It's easy for smugglers to bring people across and try to have them disappear in a neighborhood.
So we're going to be able to control those areas better as well.
Yeah.
And I think it's really important, right?
So everything that we're reading is this has now become the worst it's ever been at the border with these migrant caravans.
You know, I give out the statistics all the time.
That's why when, you know, Democrats and those in the media mob have been out there claiming that this is a manufactured crisis, I'm like, well, if 90% of our heroin crosses that border and now fentanyl is coming across the border, and then you add to that in a two-year period, 4,000 homicides, 30,000 sexual assaults, and 100,000 violent assaults by illegal immigrant criminals in this country.
That to me is a real, clear, present danger to everybody in America.
We're losing nearly 300 people a week due to opioid addiction.
Again, 90% of the heroin from crossing that border.
I mean, to me, it should be the single greatest national security crisis priority we have.
It is, and that's how the president's treating it.
That's certainly how I'm treating it.
And the acting Secretary of Defense as well, as you saw down on the border with me on Saturday, there's no question that a notion that this is manufactured is just a political talking point.
It does not bear any connection to reality, what we're seeing on the border.
You just outlined some of the biggest challenges.
We've got 109,000 people crossing in the month of April.
70% of them are families and children, but the other 30% are single adults trying to evade capture.
And all too often, drug smugglers bringing hard narcotics into our country that's affecting our communities all over the nation.
So you're absolutely right.
It's a crisis.
It has to be the top priority.
It very clearly is the president's top priority and will remain so at the Department of Homeland Security.
So you've been on the job a short period of time.
You're in the middle of this crisis.
There's this company that says they can have the entire wall built, everything you need done by 2020.
What's the status with that company?
If I remember correctly, they were either out of Wisconsin or Michigan or somewhere like that.
So we've got a lot of great American companies that are helping us build the wall.
Seven or eight have won different contracts over different segments with the Army Corps of Engineers.
And I would absolutely invite that company and any others that have ideas on how to do this faster and cheaper to bid.
They have an office in Arizona, too.
Well, you can award it simultaneously to others, but what do you think the final cost of the wall is?
I mean, how much are we paying per mile?
So the per mile segment differs depending on the terrain.
So when we've got a build in South Texas, and you've been there with us, you see that that's a river basin, right?
You've got to be able to control the water flow, protect communities.
There are all kinds of requirements, treaties, environmental, and so forth.
That could be pretty expensive.
But then you have areas in the desert where the land is flat, where it's already federally owned, and we can build that relatively cheaply.
So the average cost per mile can range from $8 million to $15 million.
And remember, this isn't just at all.
This is roads and cameras and electro-optical technology, sensors, fiber optic sensors that tell us when someone's trying to cross.
So this is a smart wall that's providing our agents a tactical advantage against drug smugglers.
Well, I mean, obviously.
All right.
So you'd think by 2020 we'll be in a much better position.
Is it your feeling?
I believe that the message has gone out, especially to people in Mexico and Central America, that, uh-oh, this guy is serious.
He's really doing it.
The wall's really going up.
This might be our last shot.
Has that led to the increase in people attempting to enter the country illegally?
I think that's absolutely part of the dynamic and the message from smugglers.
They'll use any sort of rationale they can to convince people that now is the time to go.
And obviously, President Trump's resolve to secure the border is part of that.
The other thing is we've got 3% unemployment.
The economy is booming.
They know they could probably have opportunities here in the U.S. if they can make it.
And then, of course, what we really need is Congress to tighten the loopholes in the law that are inviting families, people to come with kids or unaccompanied children, mostly teenagers, to cross by themselves.
Why are we not allowed to just turn everyone back if they enter the country illegally, just drop them off back at the border?
Unfortunately, we've had a series of rulings by judges in the Ninth Circuit that have hampered law enforcement's ability to affect repatriations for family units.
For unaccompanied children, yeah, it's an unacceptable situation.
We've asked Congress to change it.
We've helped write provisions that would fix these loopholes and change this dynamic, and we need a lot of support for that.
Last question.
What are the other things that are necessary and needed to make that wall impenetrable?
So we're going to continue to apply cutting-edge technology for our surveillance capabilities, for our aviation capabilities, and to deliver agents to the site where a smuggler is trying to cross unlawfully.
So it's not just the wall that we need.
We absolutely need our most valuable resource, our board patrol agents, our CPP officers out there on the border, and supporting them with cutting-edge technology in addition to giving us that barrier that helps control some of the most high traffic and most vulnerable areas of the border.
Well, I want to thank you for what you're doing.
I'm sure it's not an easy job.
I know that everybody down at the border, I've been down there at least 14 times now, most recently with the president, and I've been all the way from the Rio Grande to San Diego, and I've been in the drug warehouses.
I've done it all.
And the work that is done by these brave men and women every day, it's a very difficult, hard, dangerous job.
And we appreciate all you're doing, and I hope you can get those walls built expeditiously.
And hopefully we can control our borders.
And by the way, I think the wall should have the doors in it, as the president talks about.
We want people to come to our country.
We want the opportunity to vet them.
We'd like the opportunity to know that they can take care of themselves when they get here and that they're not going to be taking jobs from American citizens that desperately need them.
At this point, we are almost at full employment, which is amazing.
Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being with us.
Thank you, Sean.
And whenever it gets challenging here in D.C., I think about those same men and women that you just commented on and the job they're doing for the American people.
Would love to have you back down on the border soon.
We'll be there soon, promise.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right, we got an amazing Hannity tonight.
Now, with the new latest developments about the special, well, prosecutor in a way, that has been appointed by the Attorney General Barr, Lindsey Graham, Ken Starr, Mark Penn, Greg Jarrett, Jason Chaffetz, Joe Concha, and the ever-brilliant Victor Davis Hansen.
