All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 22, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
31:48
Senator Rand Paul - November 21st, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
All right, news roundup, information overload hour on the Sean Hannity Show.
And we have so many investigations coming up.
And, you know, it's getting very, very interesting.
If you watch and listen to what James Comer and what Jim Jordan laid out, there are a couple of very significant investigations that are going on.
Not the least of it, which is the FBI is a politicized.
He's...
We have all these whistleblowers that say it is.
We already knew that fact.
You know, we know, for example, with Hillary Clinton's dirty dossier, we know that they offered Christopher Steele in early October of 2016 a million dollars if he could corroborate it.
He didn't, but by the end of October, became the foundation of the FISA application on the top of a FISA application that says verified.
We now know it was all unverifiable because he would have taken the million bucks and corroborated it for the FBI.
But, you know, as Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director said, well, there's no FISA application approved without the dossier.
And then when they talk to the sub-source in January of 2017, a guy by the name of Dan Chenko, it turns out he says, no, none of this is true.
He was the main source for Christopher Steele.
And what were the consequences for him at the time?
He got put on the FBI payroll.
And then they kept using the dirty dossier as the bulk of information to get the FISA applications approved.
The FBI had Hunter Biden's laptop long before any of us knew about it, three weeks before the 2020 election.
This is two elections in a row now that the FBI is presidential elections, they're putting their thumb on the scale in favor of the Democrats.
So it's time for an investigation.
Similarly, the investigation is now moving into the Biden family syndicate business.
And where this ends, where this goes, I can't say for sure.
I know that Ram Paul, if they, there would have been complimentary investigations in the Senate had Republicans taken the Senate, but let's see what happens.
That could happen in due course.
Senator Ram Paul is with us now.
How are you, sir?
Good, Sean.
Thanks for having me.
Let's get your thoughts.
We have all of these whistleblowers, and the headline is that they're screaming at congressional investigators that the FBI has been politicized and the DOJ is weaponized.
I think the fact that they had Hunter Biden's laptop for as long as they've had it, I mean, these investigations will run parallel with each other, I think is pretty evident that, well, if your last name's Clinton, you don't get in trouble.
If you last named Biden, you don't get in trouble.
But if you're a conservative, God help you.
I think without question, the FBI has become politicized.
It's pervasive.
There's a great deal of evidence that they've been in collusion with big tech to censor speech.
I brought up with Director Ray in committee just this week the fact that there was a story in the New York Post saying that Facebook is giving up personal information to the FBI.
The FBI then reads that information, then sends it to its agents, and uses that information as a predicate to then file warrants to get the information they've already been given.
The problem with this is that it's against the law.
We have a law called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act from 1986.
And that law forbids Facebook and others who have your personal information from giving it to anyone, including the government, unless there is a warrant or a subpoena for it.
So if Facebook's doing this, it's illegal.
The FBI was quoted in the New York Post article as saying, yeah, they're giving us information, but on foreign actors.
So I ask Ray, is it foreign actors or is it American actors?
Does it involve speech?
Does it involve people like me who think that there were irregularities, if not downright problems with the 2020 election?
And he wouldn't answer the question.
He says he doesn't know, but he says I can be assured that he's following the law.
But he wouldn't answer the question specifically, are you receiving information from Facebook?
Because I believe if you were to say yes, it's illegal, and we'll send questions in writing to him and his team.
And about six months from now, they'll answer with a non-answer.
So this is unacceptable, and we can't let it go on this way.
Let me play this.
This is Christopher Wray actually answering your question on this.
Let me shed some more light on it.
Director Ray, is Facebook or any other social media company supplying private messages or data on American users that is not compelled by the government or the FBI?
Not compelled.
In other words, not in response to the legal process.
No warrant, no subpoena.
They're just supplying you information on their users.
I don't believe so, but I can't sit here and be sure of that as I sit here.
All right, so there you have it.
So, Senator, I ask you, you know, why can't they answer that question?
Well, I think that the answer is very, very murky and probably that they're being dishonest with us.
They admitted, the FBI admitted to the New York Post, they responded to the article and said, oh, yes, Facebook is giving us stuff.
We also have reports, you know, that the FBI went to Facebook and gave them information to try to prevent them from publicizing anything about the Hunter Biden laptop.
So yes, if there is a conspiracy or if there is an involvement of a government entity trying to influence an election, it's our government.
It's the FBI.
What they did to Ron Johnson was unconscionable.
They had a meeting with him, a private meeting, and then later released to the voters of Wisconsin and said somehow Ron Johnson was feeding Russian disinformation.
So now you have the FBI getting involved in Ron Johnson's Senate race.
It ended up being a very close race, and he's one of the fighters.
We're fortunate that he won, but it wasn't for lack of the FBI getting involved.
And so for all their talk of going after, you know, conspiracy, going after insurrectionists and going after all these people, they're the ones getting involved in mucking up our elections, not Russia, but the actual FBI is involved in our own elections.
Well, obviously, they put their thumb on the scales in 2016 and in 2020.
And then, of course, then you have social media companies and giants, and they wouldn't even let people read the story about Hunter Biden's laptop.
That turned out to be true.
The dossier turned out to be completely debunked.
Comer said, now, if you go back into the issue of Joe Biden and his relationship with Hunter, he said numerous times that he never had a single conversation with Hunter about his foreign business dealings, but we have photograph after photograph that shows Biden pictured with his son and his foreign business partners.
We have accumulated a list of at least 14 meetings that took place between 2010 and 2018.
The Republican Congress rightly is demanding answers, but the amount of money we're talking about, a $1.5 billion deal with the Bank of China, $100 million from the former First Lady of Moscow, leveraging a billion taxpayer dollars to Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired.
It turns out as investigating his son, being paid millions with no experience at all whatsoever.
I could just, if this had any Republican's name on it, Democrats would be all over it.
Now, Comer said this is an investigation into Joe Biden, the president of the United States.
Our investigation is about Joe Biden.
Now, is it a fair conclusion to think that while you're simultaneously canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, but giving Vladimir Putin a waiver on a Nord Stream 2 pipeline, could that be because of the fact that the Biden family is compromised, that Joe Biden himself is compromised?
I think the question is a valid question, and I think there could be a forensic look at all of the financial dealings of Hunter Biden.
Clearly, it appears on the surface.
Well, it seems like Hunter and Joe Biden, not just Hunter.
Well, I think the look at Hunter Biden's finances is in order because of the evidence.
And so I think you can get court orders to do that as part of an investigation.
I think that the things that Hunter Biden's been accused of are every bit as bad or worse than the things they accused Paul Manafort of.
And they were able to get not only access to Manafort's records, they ultimately convicted Manafort and gave him significant time.
From what I've seen, everything that the evidence points towards in Hunter Biden is equally as bad or worse.
And once you have the ability to investigate Hunter Biden's finances, then the question will be, is there a connection to a big guy?
Is the big guy his father?
Are there financial disbursements from Hunter Biden?
Or was he carrying the money around in cash to the big guy?
But really, Hunter implicates Joe numerous times in this laptop.
He implicates him complaining that he has to give pops half his salary.
Tony Bobolinski confirmed that he was in a meeting with both of them and that his father had intimate knowledge of a lot of the business dealings in that particular case with China complaining about having to put aside.
He's the one that confirmed that the big guy is, in fact, Joe Biden.
The first thing is, as I meet voters every day who are coming up to me and they're worried about our country in a big way, worried such that there's getting to be two forms of justice, that you can be prosecuted based on who you are, what political party you represent, and that it's a different set of justice for Republicans.
You know, Republicans are frog-marched out in their underwear with their hands behind their back, handcuffed, whereas Democrats like Hunter Biden, it's basically ignored.
So, no, if we want to believe in equal justice, you know, before the law, we've got to believe that the FBI is not going after Republicans.
They're not going after our speech.
So I have a bill that we're going to introduce in the near future that gets around the question of how much we can regulate big tech and goes straight to the source and says we can regulate big government in any way we see fit.
And so my bill will say that it will prevent and prohibit the federal government from colluding with big tech.
It says that the federal government cannot collude with big tech to censor speech and that the big government cannot purchase lists.
I am worried that what is happening now is that there are publicly available lists that are anonymous so I can find out who likes these kind of these Nike shoes and I can sell them digital advertising.
That's the way the internet works.
But my concern is the government is purchasing those lists and then getting through the veil of anonymity to actually put individual names to lists and is able to characterize and profile Americans' citizens based on a whole host of things that are public but anonymous.
And I asked that question to Ray in the committee and once again he didn't answer.
I said, are you purchasing lists of Americans that are anonymous and then using technology to penetrate the veil of anonymity to discover who those individuals are?
If they're doing this, this is really akin to the minority report and precogs and going after people based on who they are, not based on crime.
And it's a very dangerous step if that's happening.
Well, it seems extremely dangerous, and especially in light of the last two elections.
Quick break more with Senator Rampaul on the other side, 800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
Look, all of you have helped build my pillow into the incredible company it is today.
Look, without these products, I wouldn't fall asleep as fast as I do or stay asleep as long as I do.
It's helped my sleeping dramatically.
If you've never tried their Giza dream sheets, you're going to love them.
The softest, softest sheets you'll ever sleep on.
It's made from the world's best cotton, Giza, extremely durable, but yep, ultra-soft and breathable.
And right now, Giza dream sheets are at their lowest price ever, coming in as low as $29.99 when you go to the SeanHannitySquare at mypillow.com.
It's that simple.
Every MyPillow product has a 10-year warranty.
They've extended for the holiday season their 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee.
If you place an order between now and Christmas, they'll have your money-back guarantee extended until March 1st, 2023.
Now, if you want, you can call and mention my name, 800-919-6090, or just go to mypillow.com, click on the Sean Hannity Square.
They have other deep discounts on other great MyPillow products.
But go there, and when those products arrive, the sleep you've been wanting, needing, craving, desiring, deserving will be yours.
MyPillow.com, Sean Hannity Square.
Jobs.
Joe Biden can't spell it, and he can't keep them for the American people.
Check out the Sean Hannity Jobs Forum today.
Now, Hannity's on coast to coast.
All right, we continue now with Kentucky Senator Ram Paul.
Do you think and agree with me that if, in fact, we get to the bottom of this, we'll find that not only did Hillary get a break from the FBI, that, in fact, the Bidens have gotten a break from the FBI, and the FBI has gotten a break from the FBI in as much as they don't go after their own.
And that, you know, the actions taken, like, for example, if I lied before a court and I say something's verified, and in fact, we know that it's not verified, isn't that lying to a court, especially on something as powerful as a FISA warrant application?
I think without question, the FBI is riddled with political figures and the politicization of crime.
And I think that's really sad and disappointing because many of us want to believe that federal law enforcement should be above politics.
For a long time, people thought they were, but now it's become apparent, I mean, from Peter Strzok and his girlfriend all the way up, that you had a whole team of high-level people who were simply Trump haters, deranged by their hatred of Trump and would do anything, including using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to go after Trump's campaign.
So, you know, I've been fighting this battle a long time.
Libertarians were opposed to FISA even before there was a Trump, but our prediction was that eventually things that were said to be used against terrorists, and my dad said this right after 9-11.
He said the Patriot Act will be used ostensibly to go after terrorists, but in the end, it will be used against our own people.
And that's what ultimately came to fruition with Trump in 2016: these tools that were given to government, these powers that were given to government to keep us safe to go after terrorists, were then turned and used on our own citizens.
And this is a terrible place to be, and that's why we always have to be suspect of centralization and concentration of power.
Well, I will humbly admit that I was wrong.
I just thought after 9-11, it made sense to have the ability to go after people abroad.
And if, in fact, you know, we needed to get an application approved, I just assumed that there would be integrity in the process.
I always viewed the FBI as the premier law enforcement agency in the world.
It turns out, Senator, that I'm wrong.
Well, there are ways to reform it.
I'm not against using our tools of intelligence to try to prevent people from attacking us.
So, for example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, we should just apply it to foreigners, frankly.
That's what it's supposed to be.
So, the Constitution, if you're somewhere in Libya or Iran or Iraq and you're plotting against this, the fact that we can surveil you and listen to you, you don't have constitutional protections.
But if you work for a political candidate or you're an American, or if you're in America, you can't just surveil these people without a Fourth Amendment warrant, a constitutional warrant.
And this is something Ray fundamentally doesn't get either.
So, Ray is sort of from this camp of, you know, sort of this Liz Chain camp of whatever goes.
And these people think that, oh, well, yeah, that's just fine, but the Constitution doesn't apply to a FISA warrant.
They have a lower standard.
You don't have to have the Fourth Amendment to get a warrant.
All you have to do is say probable cause of a relationship to a foreign government.
But half the people in our foreign policy world in America, Americans, have had involvement or discussions with people overseas would somehow be caught up in that web.
And it wouldn't be fair or right to have the government invading all of their privacy and their phone calls and investigating them like they did the Trump campaign.
So I think there's a way you fix FISA.
You just say FISA is not for Americans.
If you want to spy an American, you go to a court, and occasionally the courts and courts actually all the time allow wiretaps on drug dealers and this and that.
You can get a wiretap from a federal judge, but it's an American court under the Constitution then and not a foreign warrant that doesn't have the constitutional protections.
All right, Ram Paul, appreciate you being with us.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we'll get an update on a story about this new special counsel appointed by the Attorney General Merrick Garland when we come back.
Continuing the mission of saving America as we return to the Sean Hattie Show.
Hi, 25 to the top of the hour.
We'll get to your calls here in a minute.
I want to update you on a story, justthenews.com.
Well, you've heard the name of the special prosecutor, Jack Smith.
There is a justthenews.com article, though, that points out that this new special counsel or special prosecutor was once overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and also tied to the IRS scandal.
That's the one with Lois Lerner and the targeting of conservative groups, which makes this pretty interesting.
And when you go into the different aspects of this, there's a lot more to this that meets the eye.
You might remember that there was a conviction of former governor of Virginia Bob McDonald, conviction on 11 felony counts.
The Supreme Court reversed that conviction in a pretty stunning loss for the DOJ, concluding the definition of public acts.
In other words, that the family accepted gifts in return for official public acts.
But the definition of public acts used by the prosecutor's team, led by this guy, Jack Smith, it went on to say, was unconstitutional and exceeded the definition of bribery statutes.
So that's pretty interesting.
In 2014, the House Oversight Committee concluded that during Smith's earlier stint at the DOJ, he set up a critical meeting between the Department of the Department and IRS official Lois Lerner that set in motion the targeting of conservative nonprofits.
That became one of the scandals that were signature in the Obama administration.
Anyway, John Solomon, who broke this story, joins us now.
How are you, sir?
I am well, sir.
I'm good to be with you.
Well, I guess we can only conclude: here we go again.
I mean, you have people that obviously don't have the best track records, people with a clear agenda that are now at the helm in what will be a probably long and drawn-out investigation yet again into Donald Trump.
Yeah, listen, Jack Smith is a name that rings big in my memory, banks, because twice in the last decade, he came across my radar as an investigative reporter.
First time when he was supervising the public integrity section.
That's the anti-corruption section of the Justice Department.
And he brought this case against Bob McDonnell.
And after they got the conviction, it went to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court slapped them down and hard, basically said, you stretched the law.
You made up your own definition.
You went beyond the law.
You pushed the envelope.
Well, he also pushed the envelope, it turns out, back in 2010, right at the ignition point of the Lois Lerner IRS scandal.
All the evidence that the House and the Senate came up with and looking at how did the IRS get the idea to target conservative nonprofit groups and unlawfully go after them.
Well, it started with an email that, in fact, I just dug this up out of my old notes just a little bit ago, Sean.
Jack Smith sends an email in September 2010 saying, hey, what about the idea of charging conspiracies or bringing conspiracy cases against any conservative nonprofit group that tries to get involved in politics?
This is right in the aftermath of the famous Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that basically freed up spending in elections.
And he's trying to conjure up, hey, maybe we could stretch the law here.
Sound familiar when you think about the McDonnell ruling to try to bring conspiracy cases.
That email prompts a meeting with the IRS.
The Justice Department goes over, meets with Lois Lerner, and that starts the IRS on its great witch hunt against the nonprofit, something that the Treasury Inspector General ultimately concluded was an improper use of the IRS resources.
So he's at the ignition point of the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, and he's on the losing side of a Supreme Court rebuke.
And in both cases, you see a prosecutor trying to push the envelope, trying to interpret the law more aggressively than perhaps Congress or the courts were prepared to do.
So the question is, obviously, Murray Garland had to know this about his past.
Why do you think he then appointed him?
It's a great question, right?
I guess only the Attorney General knows why.
When the Attorney General announced him on Friday, he said, this is a very well-respected prosecutor.
And it's true, he's been at The Hague for a couple of years pursuing war crimes.
And so that's always a noble endeavor.
But anyone who did a Google search, anyone who knew anything about the last 10 or 12 years of the Justice Department knows that Jack Smith is a figure that has, at least on two occasions, been accused of stretching the law.
And in both cases, to the detriment of conservatives, and what is he doing now?
He's going to be investigating a conservative former president, Donald Trump.
This has to raise concerns.
I just had a conversation a few minutes ago, Sean, with James Comer.
He's the incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman.
And he says he thinks that Jack Smith is the wrong thing.
That Merrick Garland made a bad decision here.
It's going to cast less credibility on the investigation and more doubt about the politicization of the Justice Department.
What do you make about the two investigations and the 31 pages put out by Comer in terms of where he is headed in his investigation of the Bidens?
Because he was very clear.
He went through a lot of the details about how Joe Biden personally participated in meetings and phone calls.
We have photographic evidence.
We also have implications on Hunter's laptop against his own father and 150 reports that were given by banks.
They're called suspicious activity reports or SAR reports.
And that was handed over to the Treasury Department.
And then he says very clearly, this is an investigation of Joe Biden, the president of the United States, why he lied to the American people about his knowledge and participation in the family's international business schemes.
And at that time, he said he would like to speak with Hunter and Joe Biden.
He seems to have pulled back on the Joe Biden part of that, but said again, our investigation is about Joe Biden.
Now, what was interesting is we've been watching apparently this grand jury convened in Delaware and nothing's happened.
You know, they seem to go dovetail very fluidly into the investigation of the House Judiciary Committee, and that would be Jim Jordan.
And they're looking into whether or not the FBI has been politicized and the DOJ has been weaponized.
So they seem complimentary to me, at least on paper.
James Comer says that they're cooperating with each other.
When Comer's staff finds something that suggests the Justice Department did something wrong, they send it over to Judiciary.
When Judiciary finds something wrong about Hunter Biden, they send it over to Comer.
So Comer is going to focus on the behavior of the Biden family and how they got rich in a pay-to-play screen.
And Jordan is going to focus on did the Justice Department drop the ball, try to stop or block or slow walk an investigation that might have led to criminal charges against Hunter Biden.
Here's the big thing I think I learned today.
I was talking to Comer and doing some research.
James Comer said one of the reasons they're so interested in getting those suspicious activity reports is they have strong evidence now that Hunter Biden was subsidizing his father's lifestyle.
So when Joe Biden is the vice president, according to James Comer, the committee has evidence that Hunter Biden was subsidizing his lifestyle.
In some cases, paying utility and phone bills.
In another case, apparently doing his taxes and getting a refund back from Joe Biden.
But we already know a lot of this from the laptop.
I mean, he implicates, he complains about paying for his father's repair bills and construction bills at his house.
He compares about having to give half his income to, quote, pops.
The big guy has been corroborated by Tony Bobolinski.
I mean, it's crazy that we're actually still talking about this two years after I've come public.
A thousand percent Joe Biden is the big guy.
Congressman Comer addressed it this morning.
There is a trove of facts.
And the good news for the American people is not only have I come forward, but in the last variety of months, multiple whistleblowers have come forward with a whole trove of facts that corroborate everything I've said, as well as add incremental information to it.
And I think the American people are going to see those facts.
I think they're going to be shocked by those facts.
And hopefully justice is served.
And then again, he claimed he never once talked to Hunter about his foreign business dealings.
President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else anything having to do with their businesses.
Period.
And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration.
There will be an absolute wall between personal and private and the government.
Do you stand by your statement that you did not discuss any of your son's overseas business dealings?
I stand by that statement.
There are at least 14 meetings that I know of that have been identified where Joe, Hunter, and foreign business partners met with each other, and there's many photographs of such meetings.
Well, the bank records will show at what point did a money come in from a foreign source, and at what point did a money go back out from Hunter Biden to his dad, making a clear link from foreign money in and benefit back to Joe Biden?
That is where the committee wants to get.
They want to be able to prove, not just through the inference of the emails, but in the following the money trail, that Joe Biden was the beneficiary of some of this foreign money coming in.
That's why those suspicious activity reports have become so important to the early investigation by James Comer.
Okay.
Now, there are a lot of people, including myself, that after the FBI put and the DOJ put their thumbs on the scales in two presidential elections.
In 2020, it was the Hillary Clinton dirty dossier, and they used it to acquire the FISA application, even after Christopher Steele couldn't corroborate it, even for a million-dollar offer.
And they did that in early October.
By late October, they used it as the bulk of information.
Andrew McCabe confirmed without it, they wouldn't have gotten the FISA application.
All right, so they put their thumb on the scale in 2016.
They put their thumb on the scale by saying that the Hunter Biden laptop, which the FBI had long before the three weeks it was exposed by the New York Post, they put their thumb on the scale of the elections then, too.
And my question is, there are many of us that look at this, and if you're Biden, you don't get in trouble.
If you're a Clinton, you don't get in trouble.
If you're in the FBI, deep state, you don't get in trouble.
You know, why would we think this time is going to be any different?
Yeah, listen, that is a great question.
And the only thing you can imagine happening is that Congress will ask such forceful questions, learn even in greater detail the amount of criminality that has been substantiated by the Justice Department, and try to shame the Justice Department into taking an action that it hasn't taken in four years.
It's very important.
The FBI and the Justice Department first opened the Hunter Biden investigation in 2018.
And by the way, they first got word that Hunter Biden hadn't paid his taxes on the Ukrainian money back in 2016.
I have those emails.
I've made those public.
So for six years, the Justice Department has known all the evidence that you and I have been learning piecemeal through the laptop and now through James Comer.
The only thing I think Republicans are hoping to do is maybe shame the Justice Department into finally taking the action.
Well, here's the next question.
Because they've delayed it so long.
Are we up against the statute of limitations?
Not if there's a conspiracy charge.
Conspiracy charge would get beyond the typical five-year statute of limitations.
And we understand, we've understood for some time that that's one of the things they've been looking at: conspiracy to evade multiple laws, that it was part of a larger scheme in which a conspiracy is the proper thing.
So if there's a conspiracy charge, the statute doesn't apply.
So I'm asking you to take off your reporter hat, your investigative reporter hat for a second and just give an opinion.
I mean, it seems to me that equal justice and equal application of our laws no longer exist in America.
I don't see it.
And I really believe it's so unfortunate, but it's also dangerous to this great republic.
Yeah, I was out in western Maryland just a few days ago, and a gentleman came up to me in a McDonald's.
I had stopped to get a coffee on the way back.
And he recognized me from the show, Sean, and he said, John, when I see an FBI agent 30 years ago, I used to say, thank you for serving, and I'm so proud.
And today, I'm afraid to go up to him for fear that I'll say something.
He'll arrest me.
That's not the America I want to live in.
And I thought, well, what an amazing thing for someone to say.
I think that the average American who's out there just trying to make ends meet, trying to survive the Biden economy, they don't like what's happened to the FBI.
They can see it.
They don't need to be told any more evidence.
They want somebody to fix it.
And the Republicans have a chance with Jim Jordan to go in and fundamentally fix the FBI.
Go ask the questions, get the resources, maybe defund some people if they don't want to listen to the law.
But they have to do something because the American public no longer trusts the lead law enforcement agency in America.
Should be the premier law enforcement agency in the entire world.
That's the problem with it all.
Well, great reporting.
Justthenews.com.
You had one other story today you were telling me about your breaking.
What are you breaking today?
Yep, just a little bit ago, Marco Rubio and Chip Roy put out a remarkable report looking at all the different ways that liberal ideology has been indoctrinating the Pentagon under Joe Biden and tying it to drops in readiness and preparedness in the Army.
Basically, we are less capable, a war-fighting machine, two years into the Biden administration because of so much focus on pronouns and critical race theory and other things.
They even got it down into the special forces.
Who would think that the special forces would be affected by these sort of things, but they're injecting it into the special forces, into the military academies, into the national security strategy, liberal indoctrination.
Very powerful report.
Just broke that up on Justin News a little bit ago from Congressman Chip Roy and Senator Marco Rubio.
Make some really powerful points and really strong evidence of what's going on.
John Solomon, editor-in-chief, justthenews.com, investigative reporter.
Thank you for that update, John.
Appreciate it.
Thanks, John.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for tonight.
Hannity, 9 Eastern on Fox.
Senator John Kennedy, New Gingrich, Sarah Sanders, John Solomon, Jonathan Turley.
We got it all.
News you'll never get from the media mob.
9 Eastern, Sai DVR.
Hannity, Fox News.
See you tonight.
Back here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection