Jay Sekulow fills in for the vacationing Sean and breaks down last night's 2nd debate for the Democrats. More confusion abounds as the largest field in the history of political primaries gathers to decide who can take on President Trump. Short answer, there are a lot of struggles and political infighting.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.
Someone's giving him a day off, which is a good thing.
So it gives us a chance to talk with you.
We'll be taking your calls as well.
You know how to do that.
1-800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
Jordan Seculo is hosting with me as well.
I want to start by getting right to the top of the discussion point.
And what is that discussion point?
Well, that is there was a debate yesterday.
Now, the first debate, phase one debate, I said to our radio audience, I said, here is my takeaway from the first debate, the Wednesday night debate.
I said, this was my takeaway.
And that's what I said.
I paused because there wasn't much to say.
The second night, however, I would say was a bit more active.
Here is the thematic for the Democratic Party last night's debate.
This is what they are running against that they'll be running for.
This is the positions they're going to be advocating.
This is their theme.
Vote for me.
It will be free.
Or it will be free if you vote for me.
Because between universal health care, which by the way, about 200 million people are not going to be so happy about that, and free college tuition for everyone, and some plans, by the way, including billionaires.
I mean, how about that one?
Or Bernie Sanders acknowledging that, in fact, there's going to be an increase on taxes, of taxes on the middle class.
Very popular move, by the way.
That's going to go over really well.
That's the thematic upon which the Democrats are running for election.
Plus that the economy is not doing so well.
And I'm trying to figure out who are they talking to on that one.
They say, well, you know, the stock market's doing great if you're an elite in the stock market.
You mean like you work for a union and your pension funds invested in stocks or you're a teacher or a fireman or a business leader and you're guess what?
Your retirement plans are vested in stocks, in mutual funds, including the unions.
And if the stock market goes up, everybody's doing better.
But they ignore that.
Why do they ignore it?
Because they've got this narrative out there.
They're going to try to convince the American people that things are not great when, in fact, the economy is doing very well.
Now, the takeaway last night clearly was Kamala Harris attack on Joe Biden.
There was no question, Jordan, about that.
Absolutely.
And Joe Biden, even today, as we speak on the broadcast, is still trying to play cleanup.
And I don't think doing a very good job because it's the day after your first debate as a presidential candidate.
And he's been one before.
But this time around, when you're the leading candidate, which is the first time Joe Biden's ever been the number one candidate and anytime he's run for president, and the next day you're having to tell people in South Carolina that you're not a racist and that you won't be a racist president, not a good day after the debate.
No, and he's having an answer to that right now.
So I think, look, he's got a, he's clearly the frontrunner.
He's clearly going to be the attack point for the other candidates.
Kamala Harris, I think, had the best.
Actually, I think Donald Trump had the best night of the two nights because if this is what they're putting forward as policies, this is not going to work.
I mean, this idea that we're going to increase taxes on the middle class, that's what Bernie Sanders said.
I'm going to increase taxes on the middle class.
Yes.
Why?
Because that's the only way I can pay for universal health care, which, by the way, 200 million people or 185 million people losing their private health care insurance.
And by the way, what does that also do to the industry?
The healthcare industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of people.
But they're not thinking about any of that because it's like these little talking points that they somehow think if we can do this, it's a positive.
There was another issue that did not come up in two nights worth of debate.
Four or five hours worth of debates.
Not one mention of our ally.
And when they talked about the Middle East, not one mention of Israel.
Not one.
No, I texted one of our producers for our broadcast.
I said, you know, I just realized this has been, it was towards the end of last night's debate.
So I painfully watched four hours of these NBC, MSNBC debates.
And after these four hours, I realized not a single candidate mention of Israel.
I said, I just don't think there's been one or a question about Israel.
And that's bizarre because Israel is our number one ally.
The Trump administration and President Trump recognized Jerusalem for the first time as Israel's capital.
You could have asked about that.
Was that a good decision?
That's a pretty good debate question to those Democrats.
But instead, I think what happened was by leaving Israel out, MSNBC reporters specifically, the Rachel Maddows of the World, the Chuck Todds, were protecting Democrat candidates like Kamala Harris, who speak at APAC and do some pro-Israel events because it's such a divisive issue.
Supporting Israel is now a very divisive issue inside the mainstream Democrat Party.
No, I think that's exactly correct.
So why bring up a question that's going to point out the distinct difference between the president of the United States and our country's support for the state of Israel and the president's leadership on that compared with let's not even bring it up because we're going to have to take positions that are not going to be very favorable to the state of Israel.
So that's the politic that's going on in all of this.
But you also have to understand something, that the move to the left here is pretty extreme.
I mean, you have to understand that the nature of what we're dealing with is an extreme move.
In other words, this is not, for instance, I'll give you a perfect example.
Bernie Sanders.
What Bernie Sanders said four years ago when he was running for president sounded very radical, very different.
Now, it's very mainstream.
In fact, everybody up there pretty much agrees with Bernie Sanders.
They all don't like coming out and saying they're a socialist like Bernie Sanders does.
But policy-wise, that's precisely and exactly where they are.
So you got to ask yourself the question here.
And this is, I think, the fundamental question.
What is the party standing for?
What is the party of FDR standing for?
What is the party of John Kennedy standing for?
John Kennedy wanted decreased taxes, capital gains tax reform.
Not this group.
They were talking about 70% taxes on the most wealthy.
That's how they would say it, or even more.
Then you got to ask yourself, how do they define most wealthy?
Is most wealthy, if you make $100,000 a year?
Let's say you're a neurosurgeon in a major city, New York, Atlanta, and you make $1 million a year.
So you're going to pay 70% of your salary in federal income taxes.
So you now make $300,000 a year.
Now you've got to pay state income taxes.
That's another 6%.
So now you're making $240,000 a year and you're operating as a neurosurgeon on people's spines or brains.
And you've got school debt that you got to pay off as well.
But of course, under the new plan, there won't be any school debt to pay off because it's going to all be free.
But none of these universities are going to survive.
And by the way, you know what else is not going to survive?
This reform of health care?
The hospitals.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, it was Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Camilla Harris, all three have acknowledged during these debates over the last two nights.
All three have said that they would abolish private insurance, so no private insurance, when there is a government option.
So it's not even a government option.
The government would do a full takeover of healthcare, Medicare for all, whatever you want to call it, and then Medicaid as well.
And there would be no private insurance available to anyone.
I think the exception was plastic surgery one of them came up with.
Yeah.
So hospital administrators have been asked about this since this whole idea started.
And only really Camilla Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders who have fully endorsed this abolishment of private insurance.
Hospital administrators get asked, so what would happen to your hospitals if you were just getting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements?
Quick, easy answer.
We will all close.
Well, it's already, I mean, that is just the fact.
We will not be able to operate.
We will all close.
You know what they're going to say is, well, we're going to reimburse you more for Medicaid and Medicare because we're going to be taxing you, taxing all of us so much more.
So that's how this gets so out of control.
To keep hospitals open, they're going to have to raise our taxes.
Here's what the story is.
It's a story.
They're painting a narrative.
They're trying to make it sound like this is going to be some kind of utopia.
They actually are arguing that Kamala Harris said yesterday, and I think she won the debate, by the way.
She actually said, though, the economy is not working for working class families.
Yet we have the lowest unemployment within the African-American community, lowest unemployment in the Hispanic community.
That's because there's the lowest unemployment in our history.
And these were all Americans we're talking about.
And it's the lowest unemployment because guess what?
Unemployment's low.
That's not, you know, so you can get out there and be beto oric and ask a question, be ask a question about taxes.
Respond in Spanish, except you didn't answer the question that was asked.
And you realize a lot of it is political theater.
We got a lot to talk about on this broadcast today, and we're thrilled to be with you.
I'm Jay Seculo.
I'm chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
I'm also President Trump's one of his lawyers.
Jordan Seculo is the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice and also works for the president as well as one of the lawyers.
And you can get information about us at aclj.org.
That's aclj.org or also at Twitter.
You can follow me at Twitter, follow Jordan at Twitter, and we've got Instagram.
We encourage you to do that.
Of course, you need to be following Sean Hannity, and that's easy at Sean Hannity.
There's another takeaway I want to get to.
We're going to get into a lot of things.
We're going to talk about some of the news of the week here coming up.
I want to talk about this for a moment.
We'll talk more about the debates, obviously, because there's a lot to talk about.
But we had quite a week at the American Center for Law and Justice.
It started with more documents in lawsuits we filed against the government called Freedom of Information Act litigation involving unmasking, unmasking of Americans.
Who was responsible for the executive order 1233, the one that increased intelligence sharing from three agencies to 17?
Why did they try to get it in in the last few days of the administration?
In other words, for eight years, the Obama administration operated with limited sharing of what's called raw signal intelligence.
And yet in the waning days, hours of the Obama administration, they changed the rule for everybody and increased it to 17 agencies.
We now got the emails that show the urgency of why they were doing this.
And it all fits in to the investigation of the president, crossfire hurricane, the phony FISA warrants.
Then you have the situation with the unmasking.
Then, of course, the fake dossier.
All of it's putting together now like a puzzle.
And we're starting to get all of this information.
So we've got a lot that we're going to want to talk to you about that as well.
So a lot of topics to hit.
But that was just day one, by the way, of our FOIA litigation.
The second one was, and we'll get more into this as well later.
In fact, John Solomon's going to join us from the Hill, was unmasking of, we unmasked something.
Unmasked Samantha Powers' emails.
She was the UN ambassador who did more unmaskings than just about anybody, which go figure that out.
We're going to talk about that because the urgency she has in the waning days of their administration doesn't sound like Jordan very quickly here.
Got less than a minute.
Doesn't sound like a smooth transition of government.
Absolutely not.
It sounds like a takedown of the next administration, an attempted takedown.
And that's what we saw, an attempted coup.
They wanted to start the process.
How do we start the process?
We unmask.
We get this info out there.
We get FISA warrants.
And eventually, as Clapper says, we get a special counsel.
And that's what they got.
And then they got their report.
No collusion, no obstruction.
All right, we're taking a break.
This is Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity today.
You can talk to us, 1-800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
We encourage you to do that.
You can also follow us at Jay Seculo at Jordan Seculo and aclj.org.
We're taking a break.
Back with more in just a moment.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean.
We're taking your calls, of course, at 800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
I am the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
You can find out about the ACLJ at aclj.org.
Jordan Seculo is also with me.
He is the executive director, also lawyer for the president as well.
Both of us serve in that capacity.
By the way, that little tune you just heard was actually my band, the Jay Seculo Band, which has a Facebook page.
So if you go to Facebook page and just go Jay Seculo Band, there it is in living color.
All right.
So we've got a lot to talk about.
We're talking about the debates.
We're talking about information that we obtained in our Freedom of Information Act litigation against the deep state, which is coming now out in full.
I think it's fair to say we are going to have a full analysis in the next two months of exactly what was going on with the previous administration and what they were trying to do against the president.
But I want to report on something very quickly here.
It's not getting a lot of attention, and it should.
Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, caves to U.S. House of Representatives and to the Senate.
Why?
Because the Republicans have been demanding a critical humanitarian aid act for the border, which she's been blocking.
Yeah, I mean, this is after months of the U.S. House controlled by the Democrats denying that there's a humanitarian crisis on the southern border.
Then everyone acknowledges, including the New York Times, yes, there's a crisis, but they can't get any legislation through.
This is not about building the wall.
This is just humanitarian aid.
They were blocking humanitarian aid because it wasn't exactly how they wanted it.
So Mitch McConnell said in the U.S. Senate, we're moving forward with the package on our own, $4.6 billion in humanitarian aid.
The vote was 84 to 8.
So Nancy Pelosi's house could not come up with, they tried to do their own package.
They couldn't vote on one.
They could not come together as Democrats and pass a partisan version of this.
So she broke with the leadership, split down the middle.
Top three leaders went with Pelosi, next three leaders went with the left and voted against this, but it did pass the House of Representatives.
It is the first time Nancy Pelosi has caved to Mitch McConnell, and it's because that humanitarian crisis is real, and she is just as responsible as any other politician as Speaker of the House.
But realize what was taking place here.
The Republicans were trying to get this through because of the humanitarian crisis at the border.
And it was Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats that were blocking it because they were trying to get other things added to it.
That's really what this was.
And her caucus split, including her leadership that also split and said, you know what?
We're not going to do that and ended up voting on it and it's passed.
And that now will get the aid necessary for what is a serious crisis on our border.
But we've got to get border security in place and we've got to do it.
And it was never addressed in the debate last night.
They never addressed it.
Never addressed the border issue, really, at all.
I mean, it didn't address what Pelosi did.
No, of course not.
Why?
Well, you know why.
All right, we're taking a break.
We'll take your calls when we come back.
This is Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity, back with more in just a moment.
Hey, everybody, it's Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
I am the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, one of President Trump's lawyers as well.
And we were talking about a lot of issues.
He had the great debate.
It took place over two days.
First day, a snoozer without a question.
The second day, as I said, the theme was clear of the debate yesterday, and that is vote for me because it will be free, or it will be free if you vote for me.
We'll get more into that coming up, but I want to talk about this series of lawsuits that we filed at the American Center for Law and Justice.
You can follow us, by the way, get information at aclj.org.
Jordan, we initiated a lawsuit against the NSA because of concerns about unmasking, concerns of changes in intelligence sharing.
And we got Trevor after going to court, and we had to go to court for this.
Yeah, this was a FOIA lawsuit against, because they ignored.
I mean, you're going against the NSA.
This is the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
This is, again, just to remind you, this is the people like Clapper.
So James Clapper, who you see, and Brandon, these guys.
And when you file a lawsuit against the NSA, what do they first do?
Now we're not giving you anything.
So it takes time.
But over time, we're starting to really uncover how we got to the situation where there was crossfire hurricane, how we got to the point where the FBI opened up a counterintelligence investigation and started spying on the Trump campaign.
Everything was being put into the works by President Obama's, including his cabinet members and their attorneys, were putting in the pieces just before they left office.
In fact, in one of the emails we uncovered, and we'll explain what it was about, it says we've got to get it done before January 20th.
Why is that important?
We have to get this done before President Trump becomes President Trump and takes the oath.
All right, we're going to be joined.
We are being joined by our good friend John Solomon, Executive Vice President over at The Hill.
He's broken a couple of these stories also in the studios with us, is our American Center for Law and Justice senior military analyst, Colonel Wes Smith.
John, let me go to you first.
You saw the documents.
You know the lawsuit.
You've written about it.
What's your biggest takeaway?
Well, I think there's a couple.
One is that that sense of pressure, that sense of urgency as Donald Trump is coming into office to get that change in the intelligence sharing methods going.
And this is something that had been discussed for years before, and the Obama administration never felt it imperative.
And then it seems suddenly imperative as the Russian narrative story is bubbling through the media and Barack Obama is out going out the door.
It really is remarkable to see that sort of pressure.
The only other time I remember seeing this sort of expression, oppression, is where you saw Pete Stroke and the FBI team trying to pressure to get the steel dossier approved as evidence and get that FISA warrant done before the election.
The similarities in language, the similarities in urgency are so remarkable that you have to wonder whether this was an intelligence change designed to help national security or an intelligence change designed to help some political imperative.
And I think time will tell us that it will, I think we'll learn as this goes on, it was a political imperative, not an intelligence imperative.
You know, what's so ironic about all of this is, as Jordan said, we had to go to federal court to get this information.
We are getting it.
It's starting, as John just said, it puts into play this whole issue of crossfire hurricane, the sharing of national intelligence.
But understand this.
I want our audience to understand this.
For eight years, the Obama administration operated under an executive order that allowed three agencies to have access to what's called raw signal intelligence.
And then in the last days of the administration, of the Obama administration, as President Trump is on his way to being sworn in, days away, they make this big change.
Colonel Wes Smith, as I said, is senior military analyst with us at the American Center for Law and Justice, retired Colonel of the United States Army.
Colonel Smith, you handled intelligence.
What is raw signal intelligence, first of all?
Yeah, raw signal intelligence is our electronic intercepts that have not been analyzed.
They've not been filtered.
They've not been redacted.
It contains critically important information as well as extraneous material.
You know, the executive order they use for this is not new.
It goes back to President Reagan's.
This is Executive Order 12333.
Right.
He signed it in 1981, and the intent was to get the U.S. intelligence agencies to extend their power and to mandate that other federal agencies comply with requests by the CIA for information.
It's been amended by several presidents since then, but the amendment.
Did anybody ever amend it like this where it would go to all of these agencies at one time?
Well, that's the thing.
They really took the amendment.
It was signed in 2008 by George W. Bush.
It was in post-9-11.
We were in the worst part of the war on terror.
And so George Bush signed an amendment that said raw intelligence could be shared with the other agencies if signed off on by the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Defense.
On a need-to-know basis.
It was.
It was not.
Not across the board.
No, no.
The 9-11 Commission had faulted them for not sharing information and being too turf-conscious.
But this amendment was not to be a broad, unconditional, overarching dictate to feed raw data to all the agencies.
But that is what's important here.
That's what it became.
Yeah, it was supposed to be on a case-by-case basis.
And just like a person had to have a need-to-know, the Intel agencies had to have a need to know too.
So you realize Samantha Power, who is a U.N. ambassador for the United States and her staff under her name, if you believe her, are unmasked.
Someone has been unmasked by a U.N. ambassador.
John Solomon of the Hill.
Samantha Power said she didn't do this.
She did a couple of them, but she didn't do 300.
She didn't do hundreds.
That was her answer.
Yeah, well, that should trouble us right out of the bat because if she's telling the truth, it means there is such a looseness in the protection of Americans' privacy in this system that Barack Obama loosened up that people could be using other officials' names and that official would not even know that their name was being invoked.
And that would give us grave concern.
I think when you look at the second set of documents that you got released, the EEC.
I knew you were going to get to that one.
There's your favorites.
Go ahead.
Yeah, it is a favorite.
Well, listen, the first one's far more important because American privacy is greatly at risk the more raw intelligence gets shared further and further from its need-to-know source.
But let's set up the second one because that was another lawsuit.
So this involves the unmasking of Americans.
And John, as you've now written extensively, and you've been writing about this for a long time, we, of course, now have gotten the information involving Samantha Powers and others.
Talk about that for a moment.
Well, there is this time throughout the 2016 election.
First, we reported in March of 17, there was this remarkable explosion of unmasking going on in the Obama administration.
Names that the intelligence professionals deemed were not intelligence worthy, don't need to be released.
Americans' names protect their privacy, more important than their intelligence value.
And all of a sudden, the Obama administration is unmasking those names despite the intelligence professionals' assessment.
350% growth in the two years leading up to the 2016 election.
Large, large explosion.
And we now learn that one of the biggest requesters of unmasking during the 2016 election was Samantha Power, the U.N. ambassador, who doesn't have a job that deals much with intelligence.
It's not an intelligence agency.
It's a policy agency.
And she can't explain why she did it, right?
She says most of those, I don't think, are mine.
They might have been my staff.
That process concerns a lot of the professionals.
Let's stop on that for a moment.
I mean, the idea that Samantha Powers, Colonel Smith, said, I don't think that was me.
It was probably people on my staff, and they were unmasking Americans.
Let's let everybody know what that actually means when you say unmasking Americans.
A lot of Americans will be caught up incidentally whenever they're doing electronic surveillance.
The FISA Act has strict protections that when an American citizen is incidentally caught up in electronic eavesdropping or surveillance, their names are never to be released except on a case-by-case basis.
And again, if it's a part of national security interest.
All right.
So here's what's important.
I'm going to go back to John in a second, but Jordan, I think it's important to point out here.
This information did not just fall out of the sky.
Understand that.
The American Center for Law and Justice, our organization, had to go to federal court to obtain this information.
Right, not a source.
This was not information provided by a source to a journalist like John would usually have.
We had to file, this was a separate FOIA.
So we talked about one already that went to, again, the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence.
This was a FOIA to the State Department and the National Security Advisor, the NSA, and the National Security Agency.
So this was a separate FOIA.
We had to fight years, years to get this information.
And now that we have it and we're starting to put the pieces together, reporters like John are putting these pieces together after they've been reporting on it for years as well.
You're starting to see how we got to the point where Bob Mueller's team was even assembled.
So let's talk about this, John, because you have done incredible reporting on this.
Now that we have this information, and there's more that we're going through, I told you we're behind.
There's hundreds, thousands, not hundreds, there's thousands of pages we're going through.
What is the picture you're starting to see here?
Well, first off, your legal work is so essential to transparency.
And so thank you as a journalist who values that transparency, what you guys were able to accomplish.
It's expensive and long to fight these FOIA battles.
I know that firsthand.
And so a big thanks to you guys for making this possible.
What we see in the Samantha Power emails is something very similar to what we saw in the Pete Stroke, Lisa Page text messages.
Those were the two FBI officials leading the Russia collusion case at the FBI.
And we learn they're taking a lot of actions that defy normal expectations.
They're using evidence that isn't vetted to support a FISA.
And so people are wondering, why would they take these risks?
Why aren't they following the normal procedures of the FBI in investigating Donald Trump?
And then we find out they had all these text messages where they hated Donald Trump and all of his supporters too, the Semelli Walmart shoppers, they would call them.
So now let's take Samantha Power.
She's the unmasker in chief in the Obama administration.
And because of your lawsuit and because of the documents released under it, we see a UN ambassador who uses her official government email account to repeatedly lambast the president, to call him uneducated on history, to suggest that politics as we know it is going to become irrational if he wins.
There's an email coming in from a friend that calls the president morally repugnant.
She doesn't say, hey, this is not the place to have that conversation on government email.
And then from that sentiment becomes action.
You see in the final 70, 80 days of Samantha Power's tenure as UN ambassador, she is conspiring to use the wheels of government to try to thwart the Trump transition, to give speeches, to give media interviews, to help reporters break, quote unquote, break Russia collusion stories that turned out to be false.
And they're clearly trying to drive a negative story designed to hamper Donald Trump as he's coming in to inherit the presidency.
Not what government was designed to do.
It's not supposed to be political.
There's supposed to be a peaceful transition to power.
But within these emails, you can see a very overt effort by Power and her colleagues at the State Department to hamper, hurt, and smear President Trump before he takes office.
I called it sheer political panic.
They were in political panic.
They were desperate.
They said it, by the way.
If you look at the emails, they talk about we only have 70 days left.
We're still reeling from this here.
We've got little time to get our agenda through.
Let's pitch something to 60 minutes.
Our allies are freaking out around the world.
This is on their government emails, by the way, back and forth.
So, John, we just got about a minute and a half left here, but I think it's important.
I want to get to you and I want to get to Wes quickly on this.
I think we're just now starting to put it.
What's happened is we've been getting this information, but now context is starting to happen.
We're starting to see the whole pattern starting with Crossfire Hurricane.
I think that's right.
And I think we're going to learn a lot more troubling things before we're done with that transparency.
You see an entire government machination being used for a political punishment process against Donald Trump in the form of investigations, speeches, anything they can do to thwart Donald Trump during the election and then even after he's won and during the transition.
That should trouble us all.
All right, Wes, let me ask you this.
We've caught them.
We're getting the information.
What they did put, you said put sources and methods at risk.
Absolutely.
When you take raw data and you share it across 16 agencies with all the bureaucrats in each agency, it lends itself to the risk of leaks and of espionage.
And also, it puts people and methods, sources and methods, unnecessarily at risk because you have all of these eyes on these secrets that really involve national security.
They're supposed to be held extremely close.
Well, we are holding them accountable.
But as Jordan said, I want him to reiterate it.
It takes going to federal court and fighting it out to get these documents.
You don't just get to file the FOIA and they respond, okay, here you go with all the documents from the NSA.
I mean, even other government agencies that are less secretive always basically force you to go to court.
You know, we've had situations where the FBI told us we had no documents that were related to your search.
And the DOJ sent us documents with FBI people on them.
And so the FBI went back and said, oh, wait, wait, wait.
We actually did find documents.
Sorry about that.
So they will push back and then they'll test you.
They'll say, like John said, do they have the resources to go to court?
Are they willing to spend the money to take the NSA to court to get documents?
They're going to take years before we're going to give them anything.
But ultimately, they do have to give you the documents.
And these judges have gotten really upset and angry with these agents.
And then we rely on people like John Solomon, who do great reporting over at The Hill.
And John, thanks for your work on this.
Oh, my pleasure.
Thanks for being with us.
All right, folks, we're taking a break.
It's Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
You can talk to us at 800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
Follow me at Jay Seculo.
Follow Jordan as well at Jordan Seculo.
We're going to have a lot more to talk about coming up.
We got to get into this debate.
Night one, not so much of a debate.
Night two, you get it for free debate.
We're going to talk about that.
We're going to take a break.
We'll take more of your calls when we come back.
More with the Sean Hannity show in just a moment.
Give a little bit.
Give a little bit of your love to you.
Give a little bit, by the way.
Great tune.
That's a great, great song that our band, Jay Seculo Band, covered.
Give a little bit.
Well, they want you to give a lot more than a little bit.
You're talking about tax rates at 70%.
Health insurance for all.
Not just for all, I might say, Jordan, a little more than all.
No, so Savannah Guthrie, she asked all 10 Democrat candidates last night to hold up their hands if they would provide free health care to illegal immigrants.
All 10 candidates.
So that includes all the major candidates.
Raise their hands.
And the New York Post had a great front page today.
Who wants to lose the election?
And it has them all holding up their hands.
I mean, this is unbelievable.
Health care for free for illegal immigrants.
Why do we do health care for people in France?
We're giving it out.
Universal health care for everybody.
That's what we're going to do.
All right, Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
We take your calls when we come back.
Follow us at Jay Seculo at Jordan Seculo.
Got a lot more ahead.
We're having a blast.
Hey, everybody, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show again.
Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
I'm the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
Jordan's our executive director of the ACLJ.
Both of us are lawyers, also for the President of the United States.
We've got a lot to talk about.
The great debate.
I said day one was just kind of a, you know, not much to it.
In fact, I said on my broadcast, here was my commentary on what happened during the first debate.
Pause, hesitation, nothing said.
Why?
Because nothing really was said.
Now, last night, I would say, was a bit different.
The theme of it, if you vote for me, you're going to get it for free.
So if you want it for free, vote for me.
That was kind of the theme.
But there was a real clash between Kamala Harris, Senator Harris, and former Vice President Joe Biden.
The issue was on race.
Take a listen to this exchange.
I'm going to now direct this at Vice President Biden.
I do not believe you are a racist.
And I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.
But I also believe, and it is personal, and I was actually very, it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.
And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.
And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools.
And she was bussed to school every day.
And that little girl was me.
Mischaracterized my position across the board.
I did not praise racist.
That is not true.
Number one, number two, if we want to have this campaign litigated on who supports civil rights, whether I did or not, I'm happy to do that.
I was a public defender.
I didn't become a prosecutor.
I came out and I left a good law firm to become a public defender when in fact when in fact when in fact my city was in flames because of the assassination of Dr. King.
The fact is that in terms of busing, the busing, I never, you would have been able to go to school the same exact way because it was a local decision made by your city council.
That's fine.
That's one of the things I argued for, that we should not be, we should be breaking down these lines.
Vice President Biden, do you agree today, do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then?
Do you agree?
I did not oppose busing in America.
What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education.
That's what I opposed.
Well, there was a failure of states to integrate public schools in America.
I was part of the second class to integrate Berkeley, California public schools almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education.
Because your city council made that decision.
It was a very important thing.
So that's where the federal government must step in.
That's why we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.
That's why we need to pass the Equality Act.
That's why we need to pass the ERA.
Because there are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.
I want you to realize what you just heard.
That was a debate.
The Democratic debate, sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, debating busing and race between Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Biden, arguing with each other.
I think Kamala Harris won the day on that debate, by the way, clearly against Vice President Biden.
I thought it was a, I don't know if it'll be a fatal knockout punch, but it was a big punch.
But they were debating this, and Joe Biden could not get himself to say what Kamala Harris wanted him to say.
And she was that young girl.
And I thought that was a brilliant line, by the way.
No matter what position you want to, you can argue the merits of these positions.
But the delivery of that line at the timing of that line as a litigator, someone that goes to the Supreme Court and argues cases around the country in other cases, that was a well-delivered, well-crafted line.
Jordan, I think politically, though, it shows what's going on inside the Democratic Party and also shows the history of the Democratic Party.
It was a racist party.
All his friends that he keeps talking about that Corey Booker was upset about and that Kamala Harris was upset about, they weren't Republicans.
They were Democrats who were these Southern Democrats that he would work across the aisle with and he was proud to do it, even though they were nasty guys.
But ultimately, we wish Fritz Hollins was still around.
He said that at the South Carolina Democratic event, Fritz Hollins, who was, again, a leading advocate for segregation until very late in his career, until very late in his career.
Most of them had a come to Jesus moment, if you will, but very late in their careers.
Joe Biden is reeling from this today.
His supporters are questioning whether he's got the goods to get past this.
This is a vice president who served with the first black president of the United States, and he is being, you know, she's saying, I'm not calling you a racist, but you supported racist policies.
Yeah.
So I've got our director of policy at the American Center for Law and Justice.
We're an international public interest law firm.
We're involved in a lot of issues.
Our director of policy is Professor Harry Hutchinson, who's a law professor specializing in law and economics, religious liberty, civil rights, understands that.
So Professor Hutchinson, let me start with you on this one.
I listened to that dialogue.
I think Kamala Harris clearly won the day.
But what?
It speaks to a larger issue, I think.
Well, it does.
And I think Jordan touched on it.
But first, let me say that when Democrats bicker, President Trump wins.
I think that's important.
Secondly, it's important not to forget the history of the Democratic Party in the United States.
And so if you look back to President Woodrow Wilson, what did he do?
What is his singular accomplishment?
He re-segregated the Civil Service Commission in the United States.
So essentially, he took the position that African Americans as government workers should indeed be second-class citizens.
In addition to all of that, of course, he strongly supported eugenics.
He strongly supported getting rid of the unfit.
And a lot of his ideas were based simply and unmistakably on one thing and one thing only, race and racial segregation.
So what we are witnessing in this debate between Kamala Harris and Joe Biden is the relitigation of Democratic history, their support for racist policies, their support for eugenics, their support for segregation.
And it is a clear and unmistakable record of subordination and suppression.
This is a history that is not discussed, but it is in fact the historical truth of what was going on.
So when Kamala Harris went after Joe Biden on this, Jordan, she had the right to do it because the history was there and Joe Biden participated in it.
Not only did he participate in it.
You know, he basically was arguing.
So everybody understands what Joe Biden was arguing?
States' rights.
If a Republican says that, it's, you know, a national disaster.
If Joe Biden says it, it's his defenses.
And by the way, this is the other fallacy of his defense as someone that does litigate cases.
His argument that this is a local school board decision and Kamala Harris school was allowed to be integrated because the local school board did it is ignoring the fact that it took federal court orders in most states that were having this segregation issue to actually put this into play.
In other words, to have the schools integrated.
Congress wouldn't do it.
John Wides did not Democratic Congress didn't do it.
And he praises his friends that he says, well, see, I was able to work across the aisle with racists.
That is not a good message in 2019.
It won't be in 2020.
This idea that I could work across the aisle with my fellow Democrat racists, because as Harry just said, he was supporting legislation that was putting in those differences, there's a difference between black and white and treating civil servants differently based on their race.
And so re-segregating a federal department, that is the Joe Biden, that is who the Democrats think they should have up debating Donald Trump or even running for president of the United States.
I mean, I think a lot of those candidates, you can debate school busing all you want.
But Kamala Harris had this story, which was, what about all the other little girls like me who didn't get this because of you, Joe Biden?
All right.
And your friends that you love to praise and talk about so much.
So Harry, let me ask you this.
Move away from that one.
We go to the everything's free line, which is, you know, education, health care.
What they're talking about doing on health care, getting away with, doing away with private insurance, you had a, this is a real statistic, folks.
This is the real amount.
What are we talking about?
How many people are affected?
So 200 million Americans would lose their private health care insurance if the Democratic proposals were indeed passed.
So Medicare for all, based on the approach taken by Biden and Kamala Harris, would do away with private insurance.
And this would then include 20 million senior citizens who would be kicked off their Medicare Advantage plans if the Democrats took office and they took both houses of Congress.
So this is a very, very important debate.
No American should go to sleep on what the Democrats are calling for.
You know, I'm just thinking about this, Harry.
I mean, you're talking about basically 200 million people impacted by this.
So we're talking real numbers.
You're talking about impacting an entire industry.
I mean, the healthcare industry is a huge industry.
It's 20% of our economy.
But the health insurance industry is a big part of that as well.
And they're just acting as if we're just going to wave a wand, our magic wand, and everything's going to change.
But there are real consequences to all of this.
Absolutely.
And one of the consequences would be the shutdown of most hospitals in the United States because they could not survive on the basis of Medicaid and other government programs for revenues.
And so all of those individuals would do what?
They would lose their jobs.
Individuals who work in private insurance companies would lose their jobs.
That is 300,000 Americans.
And yet at the same time, the Democrats are proposing free health care for illegals.
So guess what?
You lose your health care as an American citizen, but we will provide health care for the world.
This makes no sense.
I mean, that is a really important point, what Professor Hutchinson just said.
I mean, just think about this for a moment.
We are going to get away from, for 200 million people, we're going to say basically your private insurance is gone.
Out the door.
We're done with it.
But don't worry.
We're going to replace it with government insurance.
And also don't worry because we're now going to make sure that not that someone that has an emergency that's here illegally goes to a hospital if they're having a heart attack.
Does the hospital serve them?
Of course.
Required to under federal law.
But no, no, no.
They're talking about actually having them get insurance.
So they'll get the same, the illegal, the person that's in the United States illegally will have the same insurance that you have.
That's what they're proposing.
The person in the United States illegally will have the same insurance that you have.
Jordan has a, there's a really good anecdote on this in the front page of the New York Post.
The New York Post put the question forward.
It says all major Democrat candidates raise their hands in favor of free health care for illegal immigrants.
This is on the cover of the New York Post today.
And the real headline in bold, who wants to lose the election?
And it has them all holding up their hands.
And I think it's absolutely right.
President Trump actually tweeted out and said, and this is while he's overseas, that's the end of the race right there.
Because if it's any of those candidates, and maybe it won't be, but if it's any of those candidates raising their hands, I think you lose the election based off that alone.
That one, you didn't even talk.
All you had to do was raise your hand to Savannah Guthrie's question, and you probably lost the election to President Trump and the next four years of the presidency.
All right.
We're going to be back with, we're taking a break in a moment here.
Let me encourage you to follow the work of our work at the American Center for Law and Justice.
You could do that at aclj.org.
If you want to talk to us, it's 800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
Of course, follow Sean at Twitter at Sean Hannity.
You can follow me at Jay Seculo.
You can follow Jordan at Jordan Seculo.
And if you want to read a lot of what Professor Hutchinson's rights posted also on our website at theaclj at aclj.org.
So I'd encourage you to go there.
We're going to take a break.
We're going to come back in a moment.
More of the Sean Hannity Show.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
It's Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
Let me give you my summary of the debate.
So I told you the first night, not much to it.
Second night, I gave you this theme.
Vote for me, it will be free, or it will be free if you vote for me.
What am I talking about?
Well, free college, free health care.
By the way, free health care to illegal immigrants.
Free debt relief.
Including, by the way, if you're a successful business person and had college debt, and let's say you're a billionaire hedge fund manager under Bernie Sanders' plan, you get free college debt relief as well.
So it's everything for free, except there's going to be an increase in your taxes.
How much so?
Well, let's say you're in the middle class in the United States of America.
Bernie Sanders says you're going to have a tax increase as well.
And he says, well, how else are we going to pay for this?
So it's not free.
That's the point here, Jordan.
It's not free.
Nothing is free.
You will be paying many more taxes, and it's not just taxing the rich.
It's taxing the middle class.
We're going to get into this further.
But this is about taxing middle-class Americans, not taxing the 1%.
It's about taxing the working class.
Professor Hutchinson, we're going to get into this.
Harry Hutchinson is our director of policy at the ACLJ.
We come back from the break, but I want to give you a short one here.
They're talking about a significant tax increase to the American people.
Absolutely.
And when pressed, they absolutely admit it.
And so you have Mr. Yang, who is pushing $1,000 per month per American.
Guess what?
When forced to explain it, that would require a value-added tax.
So every time you get a check from the government, you essentially have to send half of it back potentially to the government, and you would destroy and crater the American economy.
Yeah, I forgot about his $3,000 to everybody in the country.
He didn't wear a tie, though, Jordan said.
He didn't wear a tie.
You get $1,000 a month, but you're taxed at 70%.
So he's down to like 500 bucks, maybe.
And then you have to pay a VAT tax when you buy something.
Actually, $300, less than the VATS tax.
All right.
We're taking a break.
We're going to come back.
This is Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
A lot more ahead.
We'll be back with more in just a minute.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity program.
It's Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
I've got Harry Hutchinson, our director of policy.
We're going to be joined by Fan Bennett, our Director of Government Affairs.
You can follow our work at the American Center for Law and Justice at aclj.org.
That's aclj.org.
Of course, you can follow me at Twitter at Jay Seculo.
Jordan at Jordan Seculo.
Jordan's got a brand new book coming out, by the way.
And Sean is kind enough to be on the cover.
It's called The Next Red Wave: How Conservatives Can Beat Leftist Aggression, Rhino Betrayal, and Deep State Subversion.
He's more aggressive than his old man.
I'll tell you that.
There you go.
And Sean said the next wave is a must-read for anyone who cares about America.
It's coming out.
When's it coming out?
September 24th.
You can go check it out on Amazon now.
You can pre-order it now.
But if you want to see the cover, it's there.
It's got afford by you.
So there you go.
A couple number one New York Times bestsellers.
And I thank Sean again for lending his name and his support and endorsement of the book.
All right.
So we're talking about the debates because how do you not?
The first night you could easily not.
The second night, not so much.
You want to talk about what happened last night.
But as I said, it's this whole, you know, if you vote for me, it's going to be free.
We've talked about health care.
We've talked about debt relief.
We've talked about free college.
But let's talk about taxes as part of this.
Stan Bennett's joining us.
He's our director of governmental affairs.
Before I play the first sound, Than on the debate on taxes from Senator Sanders, I wanted to get your reaction.
You've been working on Capitol Hill for a long, long time.
What is your sense of the takeaways from the last, let's say, the last two debates, but more specifically last night, but the last two.
What's your takeaway?
Well, I'd say, Jay, when you go into one of these debates, a couple of things that you want to keep in mind is you want to try to have a memorable moment of the night, but you also need to remember to speak to the voters that you're trying to get.
And I have to tell you, especially last night, both nights, but especially last night, I thought the candidates on stage forgot that because, Jay, they spent so much time talking down the economy, talking how the economy was not working for everyday Americans, talking about how their plan to make everything free would really increase opportunity in America.
But, Jay, they forgot one thing, and it was a CBS poll, not exactly a conservative outlet, a CBS poll that said 71% of Americans think that the economy is working good for them.
And Jay, here are the two numbers that really stuck out to me: 60% of Democrats, so in other words, the primary voters that those candidates are trying to get think that the economy is working good for them, and 66% of independents.
So, Jay, you run down these economic plans that were thrown out there.
Basically, they were telling two-thirds of their primary electorate, even though you think the economy is working good for you, we're going to turn it on its head and we're going to change it.
Jay, I don't think that's a winning strategy.
But remember, it's all going to be free.
Except for this.
Let me play Senator Sanders about taxes on the middle class.
Take a listen, number five.
Senator Sanders, I'll give you 10 seconds just to answer the very direct question: Will you raise taxes for the middle class in the Sanders administration?
People who have health care on the Medicare for will have no premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out-of-pocket expenses.
Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.
So, Professor Hutchinson, now I'm a tax lawyer by training as well.
First job out of law school was chief counsel of the IRS in their office.
A tax increase, you don't hear many people willingly say that.
A tax increase on the middle class.
So, someone's making $70,000 a year.
Their taxes are going to go up, but their insurance is going to go down.
First of all, most people, it's an employer-sponsored insurance, so that's number one.
You increase taxes, less profits, less amount of money can be spent on benefits.
But they're acknowledging without question here that taxes on the middle class are going up.
Absolutely.
And so, this, in real economic terms, constitutes a huge tax increase, which could help crater the economy.
And one of the things that I have to give Senator Sanders credit for is the fact that he doesn't understand basic economics.
He doesn't understand incentives.
And so while he wants to raise taxes, he also forgets that according to the New York Times, the economy is poised to hit a record on July the 1st, 2019, because on that date, the United States will have experienced the longest economic expansion on record with record lows in African-American unemployment, record lows in Hispanic unemployment, and the economy is doing very, very well.
Not only does Sanders want to destroy health care, apparently he also wants to destroy the economy.
So that's what we're talking about, middle-class tax increases.
That's what we're talking about there.
But then we talk about the free stuff.
So let's talk about the mayor, healthcare.
So Mayor Pete, not just free health care for U.S. citizens.
How about free health care for illegal immigrants?
And again, you know, they did the raising the hand, but he talked about it last night.
This is byte 12.
Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.
Mayor Bridgeman, why?
Because our country is healthier when everybody is healthier.
And remember, we're talking about something people are given a chance to buy into in the same way that there are undocumented immigrants in my community who pay.
They pay sales taxes.
They pay property taxes directly or indirectly.
This is not about a handout.
This is an insurance program.
And we do ourselves no favors by having 11 million undocumented people in our country be unable to access health care.
But of course, the real problem is we shouldn't have 11 million undocumented people with no pathway to citizenship.
It makes no sense.
And the American people.
The American people agree on what to do.
All right.
So comprehensive immigration reform conflated with free health care for people that are here illegally because our country is healthier if everybody in our country is healthier.
Except let me tell you two things on this that's really important.
Number one, you understand if someone has an emergency and they're here illegally, they're not an undocumented alien in the United States, illegally here, and they're having chest pains and they go to a hospital, guess what they're going to get?
Medical care because that's a federal law and it's right.
I get it.
That's the right thing to do.
But to say we're going to now have health insurance, pay for it by, by the way, us, all of us paying for that, because it's the right thing to do.
Because this is what he said, Mayor Pete.
This is ridiculous.
You know, this is so ridiculous when I'm about to repeat what he said.
Because people that are here illegally are paying property taxes directly or indirectly.
Well, let me ask you what an indirect property tax is.
And let me also ask, if you are here illegally, how do you own real estate in the United States of America?
And so how do you own the property and how do you pay for it indirectly?
If you do, you're violating a lot of other laws.
Oh, yeah.
So you're not just, you didn't just enter the country illegally.
You probably have an illegal Social Security number, which again, illegal identity theft, identity, all these different things.
I think this gets to the heart of the whole immigration problem, though.
You know, he tries to say, but the real problem is the 11 million here and no pathway.
But you will never get all of us to agree on the right and the left.
We will never be able to come to an agreement.
I'll go to Than in Washington on this, our government affairs director.
We'll never be able to agree, Than, if they throw in front of us and say, well, first, before we talk about immigration reform or border security, we've got to get free health care to all these illegal immigrants before we even talk about it.
Free health care insurance.
I mean, I think my health care insurance understand.
And that's why you'll coverage anyway.
It would just keep us in the same stalemate.
Nothing better for those here illegally.
Nothing better for the people in the shadows.
Nothing, no changes whatsoever.
Yeah, no addressing the people who are in the humanitarian crisis at the border either.
And Jordan, I know you addressed that progress that was made yesterday earlier in the broadcast.
But look, think about it, Jordan, through this political lens.
Think about this political sales pitch to a voter like me, who, by the way, is a voter that these nominees are going to need to win a general election, especially across the Rust Belt.
But here's the sales pitch: it's really three parts.
The first part, you know, we have a family of five.
My wife and I have three children.
And they are going to say, we want to take away your private insurance.
We have terrific private insurance through the ACLJ.
That's their first failed sales pitch.
We want to take that away from you.
Jordan, on top of that, the second thing they want to do is they want to force us into a government-run health insurance program.
I'm sure that will work out great if you look at the historical record of those programs.
But then, on top of it, Jordan, the cherry on top is that we're going to get hit by the taxes to pay for the health insurance for illegals.
So it's called the America last policy.
If you ask me, the Americans are treated last.
We get in the back of the line, and it's a triple whammy.
Good luck, Jordan, taking that across the Rust Belt and winning an election when the economy is this strong.
You know, I'm still on the property taxes indirectly.
Okay, I'm trying to figure what I think.
He caught himself and realized he said something stupid.
Well, but he's running for president of the United States.
So, Professor Hutchinson, I don't know what an indirect property tax, how you pay a property tax indirectly, unless you're really committing fraud on like a false identity.
But this whole system of free everything does not work.
It does not work, and it doesn't work for the American people, particularly middle and working-class people.
What essentially the Democrats are pushing are fantasies.
They are pushing an economic fantasy.
Free everything.
They're veering sharply to the left.
And it's very likely that if elected, all of these fantasies will come crashing down on the American people.
So I think Fan is correct.
This is not an American first strategy.
It is ideology-first.
And often it is economic illiteracy that they are pushing.
Imagine we have presidential candidates on the Democratic Party.
What are they pushing now?
Essentially, reparations for all.
You feel hurt today.
Well, the federal government will provide you with reparations.
These are fantasies that make no sense at all, particularly while the economy is humming along.
While record numbers of African Americans and Hispanics are fully employed, here they come with their bad ideas and they want to destroy this economy.
Why?
In part because they suffer from the Trump derangement syndrome.
I'm still on the property taxes indirectly.
I mean, just think about this for a moment.
He actually said on a debate stage as a presidential candidate, and now maybe a first-year presidential candidate, the Mayor Pete, that they pay property taxes directly or indirectly.
Well, no.
And what does that have to do with health insurance for all that we're all paying for?
It doesn't.
But that doesn't seem to matter because logic and law seems to not really apply to this entire operation.
By the way, if you want to get the read the kind of analysis we're talking about, for instance, from Professor Hutchison, just go over to aclj.org, aclj.org.
That is the website of the American Center for Law and Justice.
A great way to stay connected.
Well, Mayor Pete wasn't the only one talking about free insurance.
We got Vice President Biden, number 13.
Listen to this.
So you said that it would be covered under your plan, which is different than Obamacare.
Yes, but here.
Can you explain that change?
Yes.
You cannot let, as the mayor said, you cannot let people who are sick, no matter where they come from, no matter what their status, go uncovered.
You can't do that.
It's just going to be taken care of, period.
You have to.
It's a humane thing to do.
But here's the deal.
The deal is that he's right about three things.
Number one, they, in fact, contribute to the well-being of the country, but they also, for example, they've increased the lifespan of Social Security because they have a job, they're paying a Social Security tax.
That's what they're doing, is increase the lifespan.
They would do the same thing in terms of reducing the overall cost of health care by them being able to be treated and not wait till they're in extremis.
Okay, so here's the whole problem.
Number one, he's conflating uncovered with given health care in the event you need medical care in an emergency situation or in a situation where someone's sick.
You get that in the United States of America.
We do that.
What you don't do, what we don't do in the United States, is say, you're here in the United States of America illegally, and because you've come here illegally, here's your reward.
Free health care or universal health coverage.
That's not the way it works.
Now, I am the grandson of a Russian immigrant to the United States of America.
That's my grandparent.
I'm only the second generation of the United States, born in the United States.
Jordan, my son, is only the third.
So I understand immigration.
I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes, by the way, real border security.
They're not talking about comprehensive immigration reform.
That's not what's on the table here.
But then they would never raise this issue in the United States Congress if it was not a presidential election year.
They would never be saying we're going to put forward, have they put forward a bill in a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, put forward a bill for illegal immigrants to the United States, or illegal aliens in the United States getting universal health care or getting any kind of medical coverage.
It wasn't that long ago, Jay, before the Democrat Party held every chamber of government for two solid years and you didn't see this happen.
Look, I would put it to you this way.
Actually, the current president, President Trump, did propose a legislative proposal to address comprehensive immigration reform that included many things that people on both sides of the aisle in Washington, D.C. said they wanted.
It went nowhere because Democrats in the Congress were not willing to do it.
Jay, when it comes to the former vice president, though, I mean, we asked at the beginning of this campaign how far Joe Biden would have to run away from his record.
Jay, he has spent the entire campaign running away from his record.
You would think that his lane would be to run on record and experience.
No, but he has been running so far to the left and away from his record in order to try to appease the base.
I think he made a mistake there, honestly.
He plagiarized again.
I mean, that's all he's doing now is he's plagiarizing other people's, and he gets in trouble for that all the time.
He did it with his Green New Deal, did it with his first presidential campaign.
He just did it to Mayor Pete because his initial policy didn't have this in it.
Exactly right.
All right, Jay Seculo and Jordan Secular in for Sean Hannity.
We're going to be right back with more of the Sean Hannity Show in just a moment.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
I'm the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
You can find out about our work at aclj.org.
Also counsel of the president.
You could also follow us on Twitter at Jay Seculo at Jordan Seculo.
You know, I just thought about this when we heard the open.
One of the candidates saying that, hey, it's not right that the CEO of McDonald's makes 2,100 times more than the guy that's frying the french fries.
Why is that exactly not right?
Why would that not be right?
Why would the guy that's running a multi-billion dollar corporation make more than the guy who's frying the french fries at the local McDonald's in your neighborhood?
I would think you'd want your CEO to making 2,100 times the amount that the guy that's making the french fries makes.
Actually sounds a little low to me.
So that's number one on my economy's not working for Americans.
Let's talk about that for a moment because Kamala Harris, who I think won the debate yesterday, said this.
This is number 11 about the economy not working for Americans.
Take a listen.
Working families need support and need to be lifted up.
And frankly, this economy is not working for working people.
For too long, the rules have been written in the favor of the people who have the most and not in favor of the people who work the most, which is why I am proposing that we change the tax code so for every family that is making less than $100,000 a year, they will receive a tax credit that they can collect at $500 a month, which will make all the difference between those families being able to get through the end of the month with dignity and with support or not.
And on day one, I will repeal that tax bill that benefits the top 1% in the biggest corporations of America.
That's great, but guess what?
She doesn't have the constitutional authority to do to repeal a law of the United States of America.
So she can't, that takes an act of Congress.
So just the little Constitution 101 for Senator Harris.
By the way, the other thing is she's going to give you a tax credit if you make $100,000 while Bernie Sanders is increasing your taxes on $100,000, Jordan.
I think that's a I'd show that, you know, I think the socialist label is starting to make a lot of sense.
Yeah, and the economy is so horrible.
We've added 471,000 just manufacturing jobs.
African American unemployment, lowest ever recorded.
Hispanic American unemployment, lowest ever recorded.
You look at, again, the idea, you know, Joe Biden loves this thing.
He got three Pinocchios for the Washington Post, and he yet said it again last night that half of America, half of America is living in poverty.
And the Washington Post is saying, no, Joe, wrong, Joe.
And yet he, of course, they repeat this.
And they think that people are not going to be able to look around, see the cranes, see the building, see the cars being sold, see the restaurants filled, see the storefronts coming back, see the towns and cities.
How about manufacturing coming back to the United States?
The fact that there are 400,000, almost 500,000 new manufacturing jobs only under President Trump's first two years.
And they say that we're half of the country is living in poverty.
I still think my favorite, though, is a question asked to Beto O'Rourke that he responds to in Spanish, except his answer that he gave in Spanish didn't respond to the question that was asked in English.
So there you have it.
In a minute, I'm going to play a little bite about, oh, we have that one?
Let me play a little bit of, just for fun, let's play a little bit of the former congressman's response.
This economy has got to work for everyone.
And right now we know that it isn't.
And it's going to take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.
Necesitamos include this economía.
But we have a cere eso.
Necesitamos incuir cada persona en nuestro democracia.
Cada votar, cada votar.
Nowhere in there, and I don't hear Beto in there.
Yeah, by the way, I took French in high school for like three years and not very fluent, to say the least.
But I have friends and colleagues that speak Spanish fluently.
And nowhere in there is the tax rate will be, which was the question.
He talks about the economy.
This is what they're doing.
And did you see the look on Corey Booker's face when he did that?
I thought that was almost, that was almost that summed up the entire situation.
So before I get to the socialist issue, which I'm going to get to in a moment because for me, they're becoming the party of socialists.
I'm going to go to Fan Bennett, our Director of Governmental Affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice, which you can get information at aclj.org.
Encourage you to get there.
We've got a lot of information posted there.
Yeah, I think, you know, at ACLJ.org, you've talked a lot about our policy pieces, but we have breaking news pieces too.
So we've got long-form pieces.
We also, we break news, like with what happened with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
We'll talk about it in a minute, but changing their minds and ultimately adopting a humanitarian relief package got missed with the Democrat debate.
And of course, the fair and honest moderators like Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd didn't bring that up at all, like they didn't bring up Israel at all, mentioned at all during the debate.
They didn't mention Nancy Felosic Having, but we had that write up, full analysis up at ACLJ.org last night.
So it's not just a place for long-form policy.
ACLJ.org is a place where we break news as well.
Yeah.
And also you can follow Jordan Seculo on Twitter.
You can follow me at Twitter as well at Jay Seculi.
Let me go with Fan Benner, Director of Governmental Affairs.
I look at this entire debate and this entire process that we've gone through.
And what's striking to me right now is the fact that none of these policies that they're arguing about in the debates would they ever put forward on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Well, no, of course not.
They're just running as fast and as far to the left as they can to try to win the nomination.
And look, for the former vice president, Jay, I actually think it's getting a little bit confusing because if you go down the list of things that he's changed his position on, and you're talking about a 30-year record, I mean, the Hyde Amendment, the business issue, the Iraq war, partnering and segregationists, on and on you could go.
I think he's gotten a little confused.
But Jay, I really do think there would have been room somewhere in this process for someone to run in a moderate economic lane.
Now, I know the base of the party, the energy of the party is all running to the left, but especially on economics.
I mean, think about this.
The voters inside the Democrat Party are trying to tell their candidates that even though they don't like President Trump necessarily, Jay, they do like his economic policies.
And especially if you go past these states where these economic policies are working the best and the states that the Democrats have to flip back to win the White House.
If you had a candidate running in a moderate economic lane in a field of 20 candidates, I'll bet you anything that candidate would be in the top three.
But you don't have one right now.
Well, you don't.
But here's the thing.
I want to play John Hickenlooper's comment because I think they don't want to all admit they're running on socialist platforms or socialist policies.
Bernie Sanders admits it.
And what seemed so bizarre just four years ago when Bernie Sanders ran is now mainstream.
That's part of Bernie Sanders' problem right now.
There's nothing new here.
And this is the same situation over and over again for him.
So I want to play Savannah Guthrie's question on socialism and John Hickenlooper's, this is a Democratic response because he's touching on something that is a real problem for, I think, the Democrats and for those that want to reshape capitalism in the United States of America.
Take a listen to number 12.
What are the policies or positions of your opponents that you think are veering towards socialism?
Well, I think that the bottom line is if we don't clearly define that we are not socialists, the Republicans are going to come at us every way they can and call us socialists.
And if you look at the Green New Deal, which I admire the sense of urgency and how important it is to do climate change, I'm a scientist, but we can't promise every American a government job if we want to get universal health care coverage.
I believe that health care is a right and not a privilege.
But you can't expect to eliminate private insurance for 180 million people, many of whom don't want to give it up.
There you go.
So, I mean, he said it.
Of course, Republicans are going to say it's socialism because Professor Harry Hutchinson, a professor of law and economics, also director of policy at the ACLJ, it is socialism.
Absolutely.
It's clear and unmistakable socialism.
But at times, the Democrats are confused about their own socialist impulses.
So Governor Hickenlooper was the only Democrat that spoke consistently, logically, and rationally on the entire platform.
The rest of the Democrats were confused.
So when they were confused, like Beto O'Rourke, they spoke a different language.
Biden believes that half of the Americans are in poverty.
Why?
Because they're not as rich as he is.
Kamala Harris believes the economy is not working for the American people, even though the evidence is clear that it is working for a majority of even Democratic voters.
And so what she really means is that the economy is not working for her in terms of her presidential ambitions.
That's precisely correct.
So what you've got, and this is the political reality, they are running against an economy that is roaring.
It is an economy that is growing at exponential growth, strongest we've had in my lifetime, unbelievable growth in the United States economy, and yet they are so wedded to it can't be working for everybody, even if it is working for everybody, that they changed, Jordan, the reality of what we're dealing with.
Yes, that half the people must be in poverty.
And it takes even the Washington Post, not a big fan of the Washington Post, but it takes the Washington Post and their fact checkers.
Three Pinocchios.
That means really big lie, flat out wrong for Joe Biden to be claiming that half of Americans are living in poverty.
That is such a huge statement.
Do you know how bad America would be right now if half of us were living in poverty?
Do you know what it would look like to drive down the street?
I know there's cities and towns that feel like they've been forgotten.
You know what presidential candidate right now has been talking about those towns and revitalizing them?
President Trump.
Yeah, he gets to the point.
He's the one who got the coal towns back.
Because he calls back, told the guys, you better not close the plant.
Because he calls the CEOs on the phones and tell them, what do you think you're doing shipping these jobs overseas?
We've given you economic incentives to keep them here in the United States.
And he is picking up the phone and actually doing the work to get this done.
And here's the problem that the Democrats have in this race on the economy.
The economy is great.
Breaking news alert.
The economy is doing very, very well.
The country is coming back in ways nobody could imagine.
Manufacturing coming back to the United States, this is unprecedented.
The coal industry coming back?
Yeah, they're a little afraid of the reality of running against this economy.
That's what this really is.
Imagine if following this G20, after the extended conversation with China, if this tariffs deal is worked out and there's no more tariffs with China and all of that, I mean, if that gets done before the next election, you want to talk about a 401k boom?
That's not even called a stock market boom anymore.
By the way, the other thing on that is they keep saying what the stock market only helps the elites.
Yeah.
Except, you know, if you're a member of a union and you're in the union pension plan, guess what the stock market helps?
Your pension plan.
If you're working for a company that has a pension plan and you're a line worker, guess what?
And it's invested in mutual funds, the economy goes up.
Guess what that helps?
You.
So this is, again, understand what this is.
They're rearranging the deck, rearranging the chairs, except the Titanic's not sinking.
The Titanic is not sinking because we're not the Titanic.
The country's doing great.
This is what they don't want to run against.
So what do you hear last night?
Free this, free that, free insurance.
We're going to wipe out your debt.
You'll be okay.
Life is great when you don't have to pay for anything, except you've got to pay taxes because we can't pay for all this stuff if you don't.
And I want to thank Professor Hutchinson and also Tham Bennett, our director of our government affairs office, and Professor Hutchinson, our director of our public policy office.
And let me encourage you, as Jordan said, go to aclj.org, aclj.org, breaking news, information there, long-form analysis, short-form analysis.
So great resource for you, aclj.org.
And of course, you can follow us on Twitter as well.
We encourage you to do that.
We're going to be back with more of the Sean Hannity Show in just a moment.
Hey, everybody, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity.
We'll be taking your calls at 800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
You can follow Sean on Twitter at Sean Hannity.
You can follow me at Jayseculo.
You can follow Jordan at Jordan Seculo.
And you can follow the work of the American Center for Law and Justice at aclj.org.
That's aclj.org.
We talked earlier on the broadcast about the big week on finding out what the deep state was doing.
Got a lot of great information out this week, and we're thrilled that Sean had us on the air to talk about it.
But I will tell you, it is just the beginning of what we're seeing unravel here for those that were involved in what I call the soft coup against the incoming administration.
And now, when you look at the changes in the executive orders on sharing of intelligence, when you look at the unmasking of Samantha Powers, when you look at the FISA abuse, the James Comey abuse, and all of this coming to light, including no collusion, no conspiracies, no obstruction.
All of this is now putting in a pretty clear mosaic, a pretty clear puzzle.
The pieces are falling into place.
And we're going to have a lot more of that on the weeks ahead.
But there's something else in the weeks ahead coming up, folks.
And that's going to be another debate from your friends at the Democratic National Committee.
That's right.
Just about a month away, July 30th and 31st.
You'll get another four hours of total debate coverage, this time on another.
Two days again, the two days.
Two days again.
All right.
July 30th and 31st.
So literally just a month away.
To qualify for this one, a candidate will need to either have at least 1% support in three polls.
I mean, still, this is ridiculous.
1%.
This is how you get some of these people on there.
They're spiritualists on there.
1% support in three polls or provide evidence of at least 65,000 individual donations from a minimum of 200 different donors in at least 20 states.
I mean, so again, you're going to have probably four or five people not on stage who are like former governors and spiritualists who make it on stage because Oprah used to push them out as part of the book club.
So again, but it will be a big test because here's a question.
Does Joe Biden get a lot better or does he just start sinking from this now?
And will there be attacks on Kamala Harris?
In other words, will there be a focus on her?
When I say attacks, we're talking about the Democrat, the other Democrats running.
Were they going to push on Kamala Harris?
We don't know.
We don't know.
When we come back, we'll talk more about where we think things will stand in the polls when we see the next polls.
A lot more ahead on the Sean Hannity show.
Back in a moment.
Hey, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean.
We're taking your calls at 800-941-Sean.
That's 800-941-7326.
You can follow me at Jay Seculo.
Follow Jordan at Jordan Seculo.
We're going to go right to some phone calls.
Let's grab a couple calls.
Yeah, Connie calling in from California.
Connie, thanks for joining us on the show today.
Hey, Connie, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Hey, thank you.
I love your show.
I follow you on Twitter.
I love Hannity.
I love my country.
I'm Mexican.
American.
And I just love your show.
I'm Married to Arabic.
I wanted to share or actually question.
What is going on?
I go to Mexico a lot because I live in Bakersfield, California.
So I literally drive.
And I go and I give.
And I always take clothes and stuff.
And it's not the Mexicans that are trying to cross.
Furthermore, I'm there in Tijuana and Rosarito, Fetus, and Playa de Tijuana.
So, yeah.
What's going on?
Yeah, so here's what's happening.
It's the southern border of Mexico is where the migrant trains are coming in from.
Now, the president has been very direct about this, and the Mexican government has now put in place 15,000 troops on the Mexico's southern border.
This isn't good for Mexico either.
Let me tell you.
Yes, exactly.
These are Mexican troops.
Mexican National Guard on their southern border because these are Central American immigrants for the most part, though there's people that have tried to take this route from as far as Africa and the Middle East.
But you're right, Connie.
These are not Mexican immigrants.
These are Central American migrants coming through multiple countries.
That's why it gets more complicated with where they should be for the asylum claims.
Exactly.
But, you know, this is, what is also nuts, what's really nuts is that it took so long to get that humanitarian relief package.
But it was Nancy Pelosi finally caved.
And I think it was the father and the daughter.
Some of them try to blame that on Donald Trump, but I think Nancy Pelosi realized.
I think it backfired.
Yeah.
It was a horrible, listen, that photo.
There's not a person that saw that photo that was not touched and moved.
But the reality is there was a proposal by the Republicans in the Senate to get $4.6 billion of aid to the border, and it was being blocked by Nancy Pelosi in the United States House of Representatives.
It was 84 to 8 in the U.S.
I mean, it was bipartisanly bipartisan.
I was just going to support it.
Yeah, overwhelmingly bipartisan.
So what happens?
The House, no, they don't want to do it because they want other additions, other enhancements, so to speak.
But her own caucus, including leadership, her own leadership within the party, within the Democratic Party, split from the leader on this and said, we have got to get this done.
So Connie, the answer is the president got it through.
They got through the Senate, now the House, and done.
But that's what it took to get done.
And this is where politics, the outrage here is they made this into a political issue instead of just getting the aid done.
They wanted to increase it with things unrelated to this whatsoever.
Absolutely.
And what happened, it was interesting, Nancy Pelosi, we've talked about so much when is she going to finally start losing control?
She did last night.
Half of her leadership voted against this, and then half joined her.
So half of the Democrat Party leaders in the House, the named leadership positions, voted against this legislation.
So they broke from Nancy Pelosi, and they were really upset with her.
Again, Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo hosting for Sean Hannity.
Let's take another call.
Yeah, Jimmy in Brooklyn, New York, calling into Sean Hannity's show.
Thanks.
Thanks, Jimmy.
You're on the air.
All right, Jimmy.
I'm a Brooklyn guy, too, so tell us straight.
You guys are doing a great job.
Listen, America stands in the way of the world socialist movement, and the Democrat Party is part of that world socialist movement.
So they'll implement policies that will collapse our economic system, which will collapse our military in order to bring about this world socialist government.
Now, remember, the Soviets always called America enemy number one, and their radical Muslim terror allies always called America the big Satan.
Right.
So this is a coordinated movement worldwide.
The only way the liberal media, the professors, the Democrats, and all of these people make any sense is when you realize what they are and what they want.
The Democrat Party complaining about Putin is part of the deception.
It creates the illusion that the Democrat Party, who's working for Marxists and socialism, that the Democratic Socialists.
But they become the party of son, Jimmy.
They become the party of socialists.
I mean, look, Bernie Sanders is number two in the standings right now.
He's not hiding it.
I mean, now it's almost like it's the normative posture of the Democratic Party to say we're socialists.
He says he's a Democratic socialist.
Now, the question will be, because the others are sure sounding like it.
They're not saying their name is, they're not going to put the label of socialism on there, but their policies are that.
And, you know, so you mention where are they going, and they're being really clear.
So I think one thing that's you got to be, you know, the veneer has been peeled back, so to speak, and you know exactly what you're dealing with.
And if they want to become the party of socialists, guess what's going to happen in the election?
Which is going to happen anyways.
Donald Trump's going to win by an even bigger margin this time.
And I think the reality is that with all this talk and all the hype and the free this and the free that, the fact of the matter is you can have free health care, debt relief for college debt, free health insurance, and not have a tax burden on the American people.
It will not be sustainable.
And you can't get elected if you're going to give health insurance to illegal immigrants.
That doesn't mean you don't give health care when there's a need for someone that's here illegally, but you don't.
Health insurance?
I mean, they're turning it upside down.
That's why I feel pretty confident.
You know, I've been working on this book for a while, The Next Red Wave.
And I have to thank Sean for endorsing the book.
He's on the front cover.
The publisher said, let's put Sean on the front cover too, not just on the back, but a quote.
And The Next Red Wave, Sean said, is a must-read for anyone who cares about America.
It comes out September 24th.
If you want to take a look, you can check out Amazon, Barnes ⁇ Noble.
Just Google The Next Red Wave.
But I feel a lot more confident in my book title.
But after watching these debates, and then we've got another round of these debates coming up a month from now.
But I really do believe that this book is not just ⁇ it's not about relitigating every issue.
It's about how do we get Donald Trump?
Because I do believe what the Democrats will figure out after last night is we did bicker too much.
We need to turn the, we still can get 48%, 49% of the country against Donald Trump.
Somehow we've got to focus on that, but we've also got to differentiate ourselves.
I mean, it's a weird thing they're in right now.
Yeah, so last night what you saw with it, well, you had this in the pylon, what I call it last night, and the food fight is what Kamala Harrison said.
And I don't think that's wrong.
So she called it that because that's what it was.
Eventually it'll widdle down, and we'll see.
And it's going to be interesting to see who rises to the top here.
But again, I think this is just kind of the nature of the political season we're in.
All right, we're going back to the phones again.
Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo in for Sean Hannity today.
It's been a great pleasure to do this, and I appreciate Sean's entire team allowing us to do this and helping us with this.
It's been great.
Let's take another phone call.
Yeah, Arnie calling in from Detroit, Michigan.
Arnie, thanks for calling Sean Hannity's show.
Hi, Arnie.
Yeah, good to talk to you both.
I push back on the concept of health care as a right and not a privilege.
And I would submit that if it's a right as an example, you could walk into my office, expect and get services rendered for whatever the problem is.
And because it's a right, you really don't have to pay me.
Okay?
Well, there is no constitution.
You're right.
I mean, there's no constitutional right to health care.
I mean, this idea, that's a soundbite.
They're using that as a soundbite.
And they're conflating, Arnie, health care with an emergency situation.
I use this example.
If someone's here in the United States illegally and they have chest pains and they go to a hospital, guess what?
They're getting treated, and they should, because we're Americans.
We get that.
Access to health care is there.
Right.
Exactly right.
What they're trying to do is turn it into, they're not talking about access.
They're talking about coverage.
In other words, this is you're here illegally, but we're going to give you health care as if you were a citizen of the United States.
As if the citizens of the United States really want that health care plan, by the way, which I think 200,000, 200 million people do not want.
But that's what you're really fighting, Arnie.
And I think, look, the party, the lines are going to be drawn very clearly here.
And I think when the Republicans put out a health care plan, which they're going to, it's going to be clear where this is going.
And at the end of the day, the American people are not going to vote to get rid of their private health care insurance.
I do not believe that for a moment.
No, absolutely not.
And they're not going to vote to give that away and then also pay for illegal immigrants to have the same insurance they do.
No, there's no way that's going to be.
This is the legal case.
They would never put this through Congress.
They could not get it through Congress.
Went put it on the floor of the United States Congress, controlled by the Democrats, and they're not putting that up.
You know, I kind of want your thoughts on this.
And, you know, kind of where do you think things stand between now and the next debate?
You think Joe Biden takes a big hit, or do you think he kind of stays at his 28%?
I think he's going to take a little bit of a hit.
I'm not convinced yet.
I said this on our radio broadcast.
We do a radio broadcast as well during noon hour.
And I said this on our broadcast today.
I don't believe that this was a knockout punch.
I mean, I thought Kamala Harris hit him hard on the race issue.
We talked about that earlier in the broadcast today.
But I don't think it was a knockout punch.
Now, the question is, is she going to go up three or four, five, seven points?
She's down in the 7%, 8%.
She's right there with Buttigieg.
So she's down in the polls.
I mean, she's kind of bottom of the top tier, I would say.
So she goes up a little bit.
Does Biden go down a little bit?
Yeah.
But he had a bad debate performance generally.
It wasn't just the Kamala Harris matter.
It was, you know, that back and forth.
I just don't think he had a good debate.
So I think he's got, you know, look, things will change in the next month, but I think right now you're looking at Warren, Sanders, Biden, Harris, probably Buttigieg.
That's where it is, I think, right now.
Yeah.
No, I mean, I think that Mayor Pete survived the incident.
Yeah, he was in real trouble because of his own problems back in the day.
I'm not sure if he, by the way, after a month of getting really, now everybody's going to look into his time as mayor of South Bend and see.
That'll be so great.
If you're not a competent mayor of South Bend, Indiana, you have no business running for president of the United States.
And first focus on turning your city around.
Corey Booker could have learned that lesson maybe too, but he went to the U.S. Senate instead.
And then I think that, you know, it'll be interesting to see Elizabeth Warren in that first debate.
No one hit her.
She did pretty good if you're a liberal.
She didn't get asked very tough questions.
I have to imagine she moves up a little because Bernie probably kind of moves down.
All right, let's go ahead and take another phone call here.
Yeah, let's go back to the phones.
Let's go to Lori in California.
Lori, thanks for calling the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi, Lori.
Oh, you're welcome.
Hi.
This is probably a simple question, but I just want to know how is it that the media gets away with presenting false narratives, propaganda, and just flat-out lies to the people, and they aren't held accountable.
They don't get in trouble.
Because they have an agenda.
They're sticking to their agenda.
And it's like no matter what you say, the agenda is not going to change.
And you can give facts, but they're not going to want to state those facts.
I mean, I had to, you know, I deal with the media all day.
I mean, in my representation of the president.
So, I mean, it's just, I'm constantly dealing with it.
And there are some reporters that will give them facts and they will report the facts, at least get your statement and your position out accurately.
There are others that just don't.
And it's unfortunate, but that's why it's great that Sean Hannity is on the air every single day.
That's why it's great that you're able to listen to this and get information at his website.
Same thing with us at the American Center for Law and Justice at aclj.org or our radio broadcast.
There's a lot of ways to get good information out there.
Because if you look at what the mainstream media is carrying, they don't have the punch of what the conservative media has.
It's just fact.
I mean, liberal talk radio has never worked.
Why?
It's boring.
Kind of like the first debate.
That's kind of what it reminds me of.
You walk away from it and you're saying, okay, I listened for an hour or two, and what did I learn?
Nothing really.
But, you know, what we're trying to do and what Sean does so well every day is get this information out.
And that's what this is all about.
All right, let's take another call.
Yeah, Sharon in Mississippi.
Thanks for calling the Sean Hannity Show.
You're on the air.
Hi, Sharon.
Well, hi, guys, and thanks for all you do around the world.
Thanks.
I want to know if y'all are familiar with Evelyn Varkas.
Yes, we are.
Okay, so she's on your radio.
Can you guys please ask her, who is we and who are they?
Who did she give that information?
Let's tell everybody who this is.
So let's explain it, Sharon.
I think, great, this goes to our unmasking.
This goes to the national security information we've talked about.
So, Evelyn Farkas was a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia.
Okay, so a deputy assistant secretary of defense.
It's a high position.
Under President Obama, in 2013, he allowed the presidential daily briefing, which is highly classified, to go up to about 30 recipients.
So he's already expanding.
Who would see that?
She was one of those people.
She was, by her own admission, so she joined the Hillary Clinton campaign ultimately as a foreign policy advisor in 2016.
She started going, though, in interviews and saying that she still got classified briefings, including information on Donald Trump through 2016 and 2017.
The big moment came, remember, with this is just to remind people that she came on, she went on Morning Joe, March 2017, and said, I urge my former colleagues and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, remember this, Dad?
More accurately, aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much info as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration and figure out how to disseminate that information.
So this was exactly what we have now uncovered in the documents that we went to federal court to get at the American Center for Law and Justice.
This was political panic.
They were in political panic.
And they had waning days, and that's when they did this.
And now we're starting to put all the pieces together.
There's going to be a, by the way, in the days and weeks ahead, there's going to be a lot more on this issue of unmasking FISA warrants, surveillance of American citizens, the so-called dossier.
And then, of course, how can you forget Crossfire Hurricane?
All right, back with more of the Sean Hannity show in just a minute.
Hey, thanks for having Jay Seculo and Jordan Seculo hosting on the Sean Hannity program.
Thanks to Sean's great team.
If you want to follow us on Twitter, you can do it at Jay Seculo and at Jordan Seculo.
Yeah, and to find us on Facebook and Twitter, it's S-E-K-U-L-O-W.
