All Episodes
Previous Next
May 5, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
31:05
America Last - May 4th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Well, we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound We'll all be inside.
High in a jail honor.
And if you want a little bang in your yin yang, come along.
The smuggler's propaganda is false.
Let me be clear.
Our border is not open and will not be open after May 11th.
Congressman Omar, where are you, Congressman Omar?
There you go, God.
Too many jobs in this country.
Are you serious?
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome.
To the revolution.
Yeah, we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song Sean Hannity Sean Hannity Show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
All right, hour two Sean Hannity Show toll-free.
It's 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, uh, I actually am really happy to be able to make this announcement because he's been so great on the issue of COVID, and he's been a of a voice of sanity uh throughout the entire pandemic, and it's Senator Ram Paul, Dr. Rampall.
And uh anyway, he's going to release a book later this year that will focus on the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, uh Wuhan Virology Lab, uh just saying, and also argue that the NIH uh and director Fauci deceived the entire world about this.
The title of the book I love, it's called Deception, the Great COVID cover-up.
I don't even know if there's a link on Amazon yet, is there, Linda?
Is there any link there?
If it is, we'll link, and we will put it up for the good doctor.
We'll put it up on Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
I want a first edition, print edition signed by Dr. Ramp Paul, who joins us now.
Sir, how are you?
Very good, Sean.
Thanks for having me.
You know, you're exactly right.
Uh the cover-up began in China, which we kind of expect.
It's a totalitarian government.
We expect them to cover up.
But then as we look deeper, as we probed for answers, the Chinese were not helping us, but now there was U.S. government because the U.S. government had been funding this research.
And so throughout the deep state, people say, oh, the deep state is a myth.
Well, the deep state is all the people in the bureaucracy who circle their wagons and who basically funded this research, and now they don't want to reveal it.
The State Department funded a lot of this research, and I've been round and round with Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State, and with two undersecretaries, and they won't divulge the information.
All I'm asking for is the grants of the money they gave to Wuhan, and they're acting like it's top secret.
None of it's classified, and yet they're resisting letting me see it.
Well, if it's not classified, they won't let you see it, then uh there is something in call called congressional oversight.
There is a principle called checks and balances, Senator.
Uh, so that's a crock to me.
Uh, but we now know this.
You know, I was actually in the beginning, I would even say I I this hit everybody out of the blue.
The fact that some mistakes were made, uh, I gave, you know, I I I can understand that because we didn't know what we were dealing with.
Um, but now when we find out that in January of 2020, you know, in the earliest days, there's this furious, you know, email back and forth with the top officials at the NIH, and and later the Intercept got more information, and and then we got the NIH emails themselves.
Uh, they are panicked because they knew that they had given money to the Eco Health Alliance.
They knew that this was taxpayer dollars, they knew that it went to the Wuhan Virology Lab, and they knew that gain of function research and coronavirus research took place there.
So that that now now knowing that, and all the people that died in this country and died around the world, it should infuriate everybody.
See, not only did they know that they had funded gain of function research, Fauci for years had publicly been the most well-known advocate of gain of function research.
But they funded the research, they denied That, but when they were caught red-handed funding it, they also were caught red-handed avoiding the controls that were supposed to scrutinize this type of research to see if it should be funded.
So in back in 2014, they set up a committee, and the committee was supposed to look at research and say, is this gain of function too dangerous to be performed?
Well, it turns out there was one way around the committee.
Fauci could give you an exception.
So really not only did he fund it, not only did he advocate for it, in all likelihood, it looks like he specifically gave them permission to evade any kind of evaluation of safety before this happened.
So yeah, he's got blood on his hands, he's responsible, he's culpable, and he to this day refuses to acknowledge his share of the guilt in what happened.
You know, he I mean, he's you have had these now infamous or famous exchanges with him, uh, but emails tell a very, very different story, and this is the same Fauci, I believe the year was 2012 when he said uh that he would support gain of function research, even if it resulted in a worldwide pandemic.
So we know where his mindset is on this, don't we?
Yeah, and that's a a judgment call that even if you gave him the benefit of the doubt and say, well, you know, he's not evil, he's not bad, but the judgment, the judgment call of saying, yeah, we should fund this research even if we should we could cause a pandemic.
So now we've seen what happens.
This was a pandemic that killed less than one percent of the people, but turned out to be maybe twenty million people worldwide, about a million people in our country.
Think if this would have been five percent of the country dying or ten percent or fifty percent.
So, you know, we should be thinking this through in every research proposal that proposes viruses that could get out that are newly created, never seen in nature, should without question be scrutinized very carefully by some sort of safety committee.
But Fauci in the end gave them exemption.
They went around the committee, he said this is not gain of function, they don't have to go before the committee.
But that's what the committee was set up to determine.
Is it gain of function?
Is it dangerous?
He just said preemptively they're not.
And it turns out that this is the kind of research that in all likelihood did lead to one of the worst pandemics in world history.
Well, and we can't if we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it.
Um and I don't by the way, did you read that the the Moderna CEO made four hundred million dollars off that vaccine?
Did you read that?
Well, what the hell is that?
Then so did the NIH.
You realize the NIH was paid 400 million also.
So how can they be objective?
How can Anthony Fauci be objective in mandating you take a vaccine that his company or NIH, his part of government got 400 million, they're all conflicted because they can't be honest whether you need a vaccine when they get more money.
The money flows through to the researchers, flows through to their salaries, they're all conflicted.
They should none of them should be involved with any determinations of whether a vaccine should be mandated because they're all making money off of it.
It's really unbelievable to me.
Uh I'd be negligent if I uh don't ask you about a series of issues that are now going on.
Uh as you know, uh Hunter Biden, uh the rumors are that his arrest is potentially imminent, uh that he will be indicted on charges involving tax violations and lying on a gun application.
But I think the bigger issue is that Joe Biden himself has now been directly implicated in what would be a serious crime.
Uh we have a now a we have now a brand new legally protected, highly credible whistleblower disclosure.
Uh this could be the biggest story of the year, and according to the bombshell disclosure, uh detailed by your colleague Senator Charles Grassley and Congressman James Comer, uh, both the DOJ and the FBI are in possession of evidence that they believe would prove that Joe Biden took foreign bribes.
This document, quote, describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then vice president Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.
And I'm reading directly from the letter that Grassley and and Comer wrote themselves.
In other words, the very definition of a high crime felony, misdemeanor, whatever you want to call it, would result in obvious impeachment and and even far worse.
What is your reaction to that news?
You know, when you say rumors of Hunter Biden's arrest is imminent.
I'm kind of reminded of Mark Twain who said, you know, rumors of his death were premature.
I know.
But in this case, I actually think it's real.
I I think the IRS whistleblower accelerated the urgency to do something because uh there was so much incoming fire and they went for the low hanging fruit.
I hope there is a sense of justice.
And I think what most Americans want is that if you're a Republican or a Democrat, there should be one set of justice.
And by a lot of appearances over the last few years, it appears as if the the Biden family is a above any kind of equal treatment under the law, that they get special treatment under the law.
So by all appearances, by lots of event evidence that's come out, it appears that Hunter Biden's guilty of a lot of things.
You remember what they they threw the book at Manafort for foreign activities without registering as an agent.
They put him in prison for life.
I keep reading that Hunter Biden did all those foreign business all had all these foreign business dealings and didn't register himself.
Yeah so I mean how could that be the same set of justice?
You know, he has uh guns that aren't registered.
He's doing all of these things that break laws that any Republican does, they throw the book at so I think Well he lied on the gun application just to be very specific here.
That's what it was.
You're right.
That's but y now this is my question, because I do not believe we have equal justice under the law in the in this country anymore today.
I don't think we have equal equal application of our laws.
And if that's the case, if we don't get this straightened out you might as well take that document that I know you love called the Constitution Senator and just shred it because it's meaningless.
Yeah and this is something that we all worry about.
It's something I hear about every day.
People come up to me in the airport, I'll be in the airport in the next thirty minutes and as I'm in the airport people will come up and they will truly look at me with sadness in their eyes and say they're worried about our country that there isn't equal justice anymore, that people are being targeted for their religious beliefs, targeted for their political beliefs,
and that's a sad state of affairs, but it doesn't mean we give up we have to take our country back, take our judicial system back and make sure and I tell you the absolute truth I see people exactly the same no matter which party they're in if it's an abuse of executive power, I was an equal parts critic of President Trump on occasion as I have been of President Biden, but we need more of that that people see what is right and proper and constitutional as opposed to what's Republican or what is Democrat.
Well it's going to be interesting.
I mean I can give you one example you have the for the president when he was vice president after the time he was vice president bragging on tape that he leveraged one billion taxpayer dollars to get a prosecutor in Ukraine fired.
Turns out that prosecutor was investigating his son who even went on Good Morning America and admitted he had no experience in Ukraine, no experience in oil, no experience in gas or coal or energy at all, and yet they're paying him a fortune why would a vice president leverage a billion taxpayer dollars to get a prosecutor fired in six hours and he accomplished it.
How is that not a quid pro quo?
When we look at this the traditional argument would be people on the Biden side would make the arguments for why it isn't so and the facts indicate something different.
They don't make that argument anymore.
Now they make the argument that any facts that seem to implicate a Democrat are misinformation or disinformation or they're spread by the Russians and we're not going to counter the argument.
We're just going to simply tell you it's untrue we're going to take it down from the internet and we're not going to report on it from the mainstream media.
So this is a real problem.
We we no longer have the debate back and forth we simply have the oh it's a lie and it's not true and we even have fifty some odd intelligent uh former intelligence officers high ranking signing a document that was an out and out lie and yet most of them are still employed by CNN and MSNBC.
They're analysts they're disgraced some of them have been fired some of them have been kicked out of the intelligence agencies but many of them signed a document that was an out and out lie and yet they're put on television on a daily fashion as uh somehow upholding and and purporting to tell the truth of or uh comment on facts when they're actually dishonest individuals.
Well then explain this to me, Senator, because I can't figure it out.
We know that the FBI had a copy of Hunter Biden's laptop in December of twenty nineteen that's eleven months before the 2020 election.
Now I've not corroborated this but John Solomon reported that they verified the authenticity of that laptop in the spring of twenty twenty.
then it raises the question if that's the case, uh, why did Yel Roth in a case in Missouri, who is the former uh integrity site head at Twitter before Elon Musk took over, uh, that in fact when they had these weekly meetings with the FBI, meaning big tech, including Twitter, uh, that they warned them that they might be victims of a misinformation campaign.
Uh, and uh Yel Roth said, uh, yeah, they told us it might even be about Joe Biden or it might be about Hunter Biden.
Now the FBI also knew that Rudy Giuliani, then President Trump's attorney had a copy, and that was likely going to come out.
And then that entire story was censored by the New York Post in the lead up in the weeks before.
Uh is that the FBI putting their their cinder blocks on the scales of an election?
Absolutely, and this is the problem we face now.
We've graduated from uh a political debate society where we debate the facts on each side to if I don't like your facts, I'm just gonna call you a liar, and I'm gonna say the Russians made up the stuff that you're saying.
And this is a real problem because it's getting to the point where people are searching out and seeking truth.
I think people are still able to find it.
But what if we eventually get to a point where half the country believes one thing, half the country believes the other thing, and they think the only way to settle things since there is no justice system unless your team's in power, when your team's not in power, what do you do?
Do people take justice in their own hands?
God forbid.
I mean, we can't have that happen.
But Senator, how do you reconcile the the vast differences?
The people that want to defund, dismantle the police department, no bail laws, uh, the people that don't want any domestic energy production, uh the people that are perfectly happy uh that we have a recruiter hired by the Navy uh that is a trans activist while China is building all the weaponry in the world and creating a new axis of evil with Russia and Iran and even the Saudis have joined in and partnered with Iran and China and Russia.
The UAE has abandoned us, Egypt now abandoning us and going along with Vladimir Putin.
The world is being changed right before our eyes, and these are not good people, good countries.
These are evil actors on the world stage.
It should fear every American.
Yeah, I think one of the things we have to separate out is between our levels of engagement with the countries and how far we want to go.
So for example, with Saudi Arabia, I was very unhappy, uh angry, still a mad about them killing Kashogi, uh, and it being a member of the government.
And so I really have voted often more than once not to sell them arms.
But at the same time, my anger with Saudi Arabia doesn't extend to the point where I'd be for an embargo or not trading with them, because I think you can go too far with your anger such that you push them into the arms of other countries.
All right, quick break right back.
Uh Rampal will stay with us a little longer on the other side.
800 nine four one Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Quick break right back more with Ramp Paul on the other side as we continue.
Senator Rampall remains for a few minutes with us.
Uh he's writing a brand new book.
I can't wait to read this, Deception, the Great COVID cover-up.
Uh and by the way, if you want to first print edition copy, uh it's it's coming out in a couple of months, uh just go to Amazon.com or Hannity.com and he is taking on Anthony Fauci and China and the Wuhan Virology Lab and the origins of COVID and gain of function and how often we were lied to.
Uh, but Senator, we're talking about equal justice, equal application of our laws, and and it's very, very scary to me.
I want to go back to this issue we were just talking about, and that is the FBI had the laptop in 2019.
Now, they could have verified the authenticity of it, I'm guessing.
In 48, 72 hours, I would assume the FBI has top computer people, don't you think?
Yeah, without question, I think they knew within a day or two.
So there's uh it's without question a cover up.
It's without question protecting powerful people, but it's coming from an agency where there's been a lot of evidence that they've specifically gone out and targeted people on the right who've been prosecuted.
I mean, if you really want to look at the sense of how different the justice is, look back to the trespassers who trespassed during the Kavanaugh hearings.
He had a hundred women or more in uh the Heart Building, the Senate Heart Building, writhing on the floor, yelling and screaming and disrupting the place, and they were arrested for trespassing.
But you know what they got?
A traffic ticket or nothing.
I don't think they got anything, but they were told and made to leave the building.
That's sort of appropriate.
So they have the laptop.
They know it's likely going to be leaked, and then the FBI in the months leading up to the 2020 election are meeting with big tech companies.
Uh and in the testimony in Missouri, uh, the head of site integrity for Twitter at the time, Yoel Roth acknowledges that, yeah, they warned us that this misinformation campaign that we might be a victim of uh might be on Hunter Biden.
So then the New York Post breaks the story.
Uh Anthony Blinken does his job, and he gets fifty-one former Intel people to say, oh, it has all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.
Uh, but more importantly, uh, you can't even share the story on any social media platform because the FBI primed every every uh big tech company into thinking that this was all going to be phony.
And realize when the FBI goes to Twitter and tries to suppress information, they go to Twitter and they say this needs to be suppressed, and clear says, Oh, we'll do it, but can you pay us to suppress it?
They got three and a half million bucks from the FBI.
The federal government via the FBI going to Twitter saying suppress knowledge of the Hunter Biden laptop, it might be disinformation, suppress it.
And Twitter's saying, well, it's so much work to do all this censorship, won't you at least pay us?
So basically they became an agent of the government, and it's obnoxious.
And really, whether you're on the left or the right, you should be very, very worried.
And I have a bill coming out in the next couple weeks that will forbid the FBI, the Department of Homeland sub uh security, the disinformation groups, all these groups, it will forbid them from meeting with anybody in the media to discuss limitations or censorship of protected companies.
You think you can get any Democrats to support you?
Because I would think not.
That's the hard part.
And there are some progressive Democrats who I have conversations with over civil liberties.
They claim to care about civil liberties, but you're right.
They've lost the ability to protect the First Amendment.
If this were 1965, you would see them first in line because the FBI was abusing the rights of African Americans, war protesters, etc.
But now they seem to only care about whose rights are being abused.
If the re if some Republican or some conservative or some pro-life group is being abused, they don't seem to care.
And I just wish there was more across the board support for the principles of the Bill of Rights instead of a selective outrage depending on which party is involved.
I gotta tell you, Senator, you're right on target.
These are really dangerous times.
Um I know you've been a critic of the U.S. and involvement in Ukraine.
Um what infuriates me is I would not be against the United States, because we see we see we know that Vladimir Putin is evil.
We know he's targeted uh neighborhoods and apartment buildings and infrastructure.
We know this is a sovereign country.
I know they're not a part of NATO.
However, there's two prerequisites that I have, and I I wonder if you agree with me.
The first one has to be this is Europe.
This is their backyard, not ours.
This is their continent, it's not our continent.
And the fact that they have paid so little and put the burden financially on the United States, and the fact that Joe Biden wouldn't even allow Poland to give 28 MIGs to Zelensky tells me he's not fighting a war to win a war.
And if they're not going to fight to win, and if Europe's not uh going to see the urgency for their own destinies in play here, then I don't think we should be involved.
You know, without question, my sympathies are with Ukraine, my sympathies are always with the underdog attacked by bigger, more aggressive outliers coming across into their country, taking their land.
But I'm not for borrowing money from China to send it to Ukraine.
We have really no money to send to Ukraine.
We have to borrow it.
It depletes our arsenals, it puts us at risk.
But also, if you tell a country you will give them unlimited arms, they're less likely to ever begin the discussions for peace.
My prediction is Russia will not completely defeat Ukraine, but Ukraine will not completely defeat Russia, and it'll be at a standstill for years.
And every year that it goes on, the country gets further destroyed, and the Ukrainian people are further destroyed.
So really at some point in time, when you have a stalemate, there has to be a discussion and a debate for peace.
And I think unlimited uh weapons to Ukraine will make that day farther and farther away, such as there'll be more suffering and death.
You were as worried as I am about China's clear territorial ambitions, uh and its alliance now with Russia, uh it's alliance with Iran, brokering deals with the Saudis and the Iranians and the Saudis and the Syrians.
Are you as concerned as I am that the UAE is now in bed with Putin, as is apparently Egypt based on leaked documents?
Yes, but I guess the our approach might be slightly different, in that I am very much worried about what China's plans are.
I'm worried about the spread of the totalitarian government.
But I do think that if we end trade with China and we continue to get Well, we the fact is we can't because we're too dependent on them right now.
How stupid is that?
We do, but if we do, I'm for more independence, I'm forgetting pharmaceutical chain over here, chips, I'd give all kinds of tax breaks.
But my point is this if we continue to separate ourselves, if we get to the point where we embargo Chinese products and we don't deal with them at all, we do push them further and further away from us, and actually their expansionary tendencies may be worse.
So I am actually for continuing to trade.
I'm not saying to cut off all all connections to China, but I am saying use this interim period uh to to become energy independent, to become self-sufficient, to have our pharmaceuticals, our medicines, our chips all made here.
Do you have any doubt that China's gonna take Taiwan?
Because I have none.
And I also predict that Joe Biden's not going to lift a finger or do a thing.
So for example, if you want to become more independent in the pharmaceutical chain, what we should do is we should lower taxes virtually to zero on domestically produced uh uh pharmaceuticals.
We could have all the pharmaceuticals we want.
We have the ingenuity, we have the capital, and we could do it if you lower the taxes virtually to zero.
We used to have virtually zero tax down in Puerto Rico, and we had a huge pharmaceutical industry down there.
They got rid of the tax break, and the companies left and they went uh Central America, South America, China, etc.
So we could have them back, same with the chips industry.
But I don't want to do subsidies for billion dollar chips company or billion dollar pharmaceutical companies.
Tax breaks are fine with me if you want to get more domestic production.
We could do that.
We could become stronger.
It takes a little while, but uh those are the things we should do in the center of the let's assume that I'm right.
It's not a matter of if it's a matter of when China takes Taiwan.
What should the U.S. response be?
I don't think it is inevitable.
And I think that's the first premise I'd start with.
It's a very difficult situation.
We uh need to show the strength of character to uh Yeah, uh by the way, do you want to bet on this?
I'll give you a hundred to one odds.
You know, I think it's better not to speculate for something terrible that we don't want to happen.
I don't want it to happen, but I think China's made it very clear it's gonna happen.
Right.
But I think the best way, because there is no easy solution to this to what we're discussing, the best way to try to deter that is to continue to have diplomatic relations and trade relations with China.
I think if you want to protect Taiwan, there's a much better chance that Taiwan is in danger by cutting off ties with China.
So I would have arms negotiations on nuclear weapons, I would have ongoing arms negotiations.
I would have communications, peer-to-peer patriots.
All right, Senator, let me I'm I'm not trying to be rude.
We're friends, so I can do this.
Okay, here's the problem.
We have a president that has no idea today's Thursday.
They see this.
Our enemies see this.
Hostile regimes see this.
This is a huge problem, Senator.
Well, I think what you saw when you had the uh uh President Trump as the head of our diplomatic corps, uh, that uh they perceive strength.
So I think there is something about perceiving strength in in the commander in chief and perceiving that you know he he may well just do something.
Oh, they thought it the hit their thinking was he's crazy enough to do it.
I have no doubt about it.
Exactly.
But uh along with that, though, you still have to have diplomatic communications as well as trade.
And right now, for about ten to fifteen years, China's become more belligerent, but we've also become more belligerent, which happened first.
There's sort of coincident coincidence and they keep getting worse, and our relations with China are at the worst they've been in a long time.
And that's not to say that it's all our fault or all their fault, but the problem is is there needs to be someone, and I try to be that voice of someone who believes that we we should not have an embargo.
We should not be sanctioning everything that goes on in China, or the reaction is that we may bring it.
Okay.
Let's just play a game and let's pretend that Hannity is right and you're wrong, and that they take Taiwan.
What should America's response be then?
Yeah, I think we will cross that bridge, and hopefully we never have to cross that bridge.
It sounds like you're running for president with that answer.
Um but I think we're going to cross the bridge.
I wouldn't be pushing if I didn't think that.
Yeah, but but here's the thing, Sean.
Are you willing to say on air today?
No, I'm not willing to send one U.S. troop over there, not one.
Yeah, but then it's not easy just to stand up and say, well, I'm not going to do that, but somehow I'm going to keep China from invading Taiwan.
No, I'm just trying to ask, what will our response be?
What can it be?
I mean, we need the chips from Taiwan.
Uh you're right that we get our pharmaceuticals uh from China as well as so many other uh uh consumer products and everything else.
I mean, we are not prepared look the 911 Commission report said one thing I I agreed with.
They were at war with us, we weren't at war with them.
China is now as hostile as they've ever been to the U.S. And we're not perceiving, we're not picking up on it.
They're preparing for war, and we have you know, uh trans recruiting and trans story hour for military recruitment.
They're building bombs and weapons, hypersonic missiles, and that's what we're doing.
Let me interject.
The best way to deter China from uh invading or taking over Taiwan is in the deterrence.
Afterwards, there's not, you know, there aren't a lot of great options afterwards.
And the deterrence has to be in conversation and trade.
And so if you say, Oh, we're gonna be more likely or less likely by for example, many Republicans are saying we should place nuclear weapons in Taiwan and in countries surrounding China.
I think that's about the craziest thing I've ever heard.
Well, are you gonna place them there and and are you ready to use them?
Because if you're not ready to use them, don't put them there.
And I and if that happens, you know, all bets are off what happens in the world.
The people wanting to place nuclear weapons in Taiwan don't remember history.
Do they remember the Cuban missile crisis, what we did when Cuban uh when nuclear missiles were being placed ninety miles off our coast?
Yep.
Precipitate a war.
You put nuclear weapons in Taiwan, that will precipitate a war.
It's the dumbest idea I've ever heard, but I'm hearing it every day of the Republican caucus.
I'm hearing it every day upon many conservative circles.
They want to stick nuclear weapons into Taiwan now, thinking that will deter China when in actual Senator, I I I hate to say it, but Taiwan is a partner.
We've had this long-standing relationship, but I don't think that's an option.
Because that will be viewed as a hostile act by China, and and I think their weaponry may be more advanced than ours right now.
I'm guessing, I hope to uh to God that I'm wrong about this.
All right, Senator Rampall, by the way, he's gonna have a book released.
Uh he's writing it now.
It's called Deception, the Great COVID cover-up.
It will deal with the origins of COVID nineteen.
It will deal with the lying, the NIH and Anthony Fauci and American tax bot dollars funneled through the NIH to the Eco Health Alliance, uh that went to the Wuhan Virology Lab, uh, where we knew gain of function research took place, and we knew coronavirus research took place, and all of us were lied to.
Uh, Senator Paul was the first to point it out.
Anyway, Amazon.com Hannity.com, if you want to guarantee a first printed edition.
Senator, I expect an autograph copy, first print edition, sir.
Without question, in person.
Thanks, Sean.
I appreciate it.
Uh anyway, Senator Rampall on the Sean Hannity Show.
Uh 800-941 Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program, uh at the top of the next hour.
Man, what a day this has been today.
Unbelievable.
Um, at the top of the hour, Jim Jordan will join us with the House Judiciary Committee.
That's straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection