Not Backing Down - 12.11

Published Dec 11, 2018, 11:00 PM

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

That was just why people love and fight so hard for Donald Trump. Earlier today, glad you with us eight hundred and nine for one, Shawn, if you want to be a part of the program, so the president, the Vice president of there. The body language is priceless, it really is. And I'll play parts of it here. Maybe we'll play more of it later. But just amazing exchange with Pelosi and Schumer. Now, I remember, we've got the old Democrats, and at some point in the program I'll replay for you the Democrats in the Obama years sounded just like Donald Trump on the border, on illegal immigration, on the wall, on everything, and that it means all of them, including Hillary, including Obama, including Schumer, including Pelosi, they were all in the same spot. By the way, there's just breaking in the Washington Post. It just doesn't get any better than this. Moments after returning to Capitol Hill after an oval office stand with President Trump, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi questioned Trump's manhood. I'm not making this up in the Washington Post. I swear no where did I get it? Hang on? Maybe not the Washington Post. Yeah, it's Washington Post manhood and said the border wall is a matter of masculine pride. Wow, it's like a manhood thing for him, as if manhood could ever be associated with him. This wall thing, she said, Well, this wall thing. You know, you would think that maybe she would recognize that there were many angel moms and dads out there like Kate Steinley, I believe was in San Francisco and what happens sometimes when illegal immigrants. But of course she lives in a sanctuary state, in a sanctuary city. And she made the remarks in a Democratic Caucus committee meeting where she was recounted, which were recounted by an aide president and not authorized to comment. She told the colleagues that she was trying to be a mom in the room while Trump and Chucky Schumer bickered about coming about the coming funding a showdown on the wall. But she had described Trump's admission during the seventeen minute on camera battle that he would be proud to shut the government down as a political triumph. You know, there's a myth that somehow these government shutdowns hurt Republicans. They don't remember they said that when Ted Cruz had the nerve to dare to go up and do a real filibuster for like twenty four hours and were they blaming him for twenty fourteen ended up being a great year for Republicans as it relates to the Senate. Let me just play a couple of the key moments just to give you a flavor of what this was like in the Oval office today, and we'll get to the heart of where this is all headed and why this is good. Okay, let us have our conversation now that you need would the press again, But the fact is, is that legislating and which is what we do? You begin to make it to your point to state your case. That's what the House would publicans do if they had the votes. But there are no votes in the House majority of votes for a wall, no matter where exactly right, you don't. If I needed the votes for the wall in the House, I would have them in one session. That would be done. They'll do it. It doesn't help because we need ten Democrats and the put put it on into Okay, let me ask you this just and we're doing this in a very friendly manner. It doesn't help for me to take a vote in the House where I will win easily with the Republicans when it doesn't help to take that vote because I'm not going to get the vote of the Senate. I need ten senators. That's the problem. You have the White House, the Senate. I have the White House. The White House is done, and the House would give me the vote if I wanted it, but I can't because I need Nancy. I need ten votes from Chuck or let me say something. Let me get say White done. The fact you do not have the votes in the House, Nancy, I do. And we need border security, Nancy, Nancy, we need border securities very severe. We need border security injected and says, yeah, here's what I want to say. We have a lot of disagreements here. The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much the wall is built, how much of the wall is built, and how much is there. But that's not the point here. We have a disagreement about the wall, Washington, whether it's effective or or not. On board of security, but on the wall. We do not want to shut down the government. You have called twenty times to shut down the government. Who say I want to shut down the government, We don't. We want to come to an agreement. If we can't come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass the House and Senate right now, and we'll not shut down the government. And that's what we're urging you to do. Not threatened to shut down the government because you let me just finish for them, because you can't catch it way you shut it down. Yet, let me say something as the president, you just say my way, or will shut down the government. We have a proposal that will Democrats and Republicans will support to do a cr that will not shut down the government. We urge you to take it. If it's not good border security out it is very good. If it's not good order security, I will take it's because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our border security, and when you look at the job that we're doing, what you said it is effective. Can I be Can I tell you something you just said, without a wall, these are only areas where you have the wolf you want to do. You have walls, Chuck, it's effective. Well, you don't have walls. It is not effective. One thing I think we can agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute and you want to shut it down, and you're not talking about the last time, Chuck, you shut it then no, no, no, and then you any time quickly. And I don't want to do what you did twenty times you have called for. I will shut down the government if I don't get my wall, none of us. If you want to know something you said you want to put them and said it, I'll take it. Okay, good, you know what, I'll say. Yes, if we don't get what we want one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the governay, absolute enough, And I am proud and I'll be disagree. I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mental. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mental of shutting down and I'm going to shut it down for border. But we believe you shouldn't shut it down. These are only areas where you have the world want to do. You have walls, Chuck, it's effective. Were you don't have walls, it is not effective. Yeah, that's calohl to this. We've come in here as the first branch of government, Article one, the legislative places, but coming in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open. We're gonna keep it open if we have border security. If we don't have border security, we're not going to keep the doll mean, we haven't had lawyers and it's the same border. You're bragging about what has been done. But we want to do the same thing we did last year this year. That's our proposal. If it's good, then it's good now, and it won't shut down the check we can build up in private. Let's debate in private. This is not going well for me. This has to end right now. You know, this is what people want in terms of if you're gonna fight, fight for something the American people that you promised the American people you do. This is what was missing when Trump first gets in the office in twenty seventeen. All those Republicans have voted sixty five times to appeal and replace. We're nowhere to be found. If they would have fought like that, all of those people, we would have repealed and replace all of it. We only got rid of the individual mandate because that was thrown into another supplemental bill of some kind. Now it's the same thing with the wall. What the President is saying. The polls show absolutely dramatically that the American people we you, we the people want border security. It's really that simple. There's a January twenty eighteen Havid Harris Pole where eighty one percent of those surveys want immigration slashed, seventy nine percent want secure borders, seventy nine percent want merit based immigration, sixty eight percent want an end of the visa lottery, sixty five percent want a dock a deal with no amnesty, sixty one percent say the current border is inadequate and say no docer relatives, and fifty four percent won the wall. It's a winning issue. I'll take responsibility. Yeah, I'm going to shut down the government. Is this is what's been missing. Like the seven Senators in twenty fifteen that voted just to repeal Obamacare, the same exact bill, same exact language, and they, oh, they didn't really mean it in twenty fifteen when it would have mattered. In twenty seventeen, they were nowhere to be found. It's pretty pathetic, but it's they keep trying to get this president to back down on the border wall, and he's not gonna do it. He's only asking for five billion, he's not asking for all of it. We have three and a half i think or four billion already allocated to it. And the president and they want to we're gonna blame you, and he said, I'll take that. I won't blame you. I'll absolutely I'm gonna I'm gonna fund the wall, or blame me. Now these government shutdowns, essential services all continue. Everyone gets their Social Security check. That's hospitals they open, Our Defense department is up and running, and intel services. It's you know what happens when government shutdowns. You got a bunch of bureaucrats that get a free vacation because we always end up giving them back pay for whatever time or days they have off. Now they can try all they want. Maybe they think that Mitch McConnell is afraid of a government shutdown, and maybe he is, but it is a top priority that the President you know, for whatever reason Republicans have felt under Obama now under Trump, doesn't matter who's in office, they don't want to get blamed. I don't know why Paul Ryan is almost as afraid of a showdown and shut down as Mitch McConnell. Maybe he just hides it a little better. But the problem for Chuck and Nancy is they're not dealing with Paul Ryan. They're not dealing with Mitch McConnell. If they were, they'd be able to steamroll the GOP within a few minutes. You got a president that's saying, no, it's not going to continue. We're going to fulfill a promise, and I'm going to fight to fulfill the promise. And if that means you don't want to fund it, that's fine, but there are going to be ramifications and he's holding the line. Now. Another good thing that's happened in all of this Lindsey Graham. He's saying the exact say, this is the fight we're going to have. He needs to dig in, meaning the president and a liberal arrogance, take it on and stare it down. This is a new and revitalize Lindsey Graham, which I'm very happy to see. Now. The President also said in his warning congressional democrats, remember he's just sent down the military to build and put up the you don't call it barbed wire, what is it razor wire fences down there, which were very helpful, and the lead up to the caravan coming, and we saw what happened when some of them tried to bang down one of our borders, and bottles and rocks were be impelted at at our border troops and ice agents down there. Anyway, so the AP reported the President threatened repeatedly today to shut down the government if Congress doesn't provide the money. Now, notice he kept the press in the room for that exchange. Chuck ship, we want to do this in private. Why because then they can come out and mischaracterize what happened in private. So Trump's comments come as he opened this contentious meeting with Schumer and Pelosi, and they both said legislation to keep the government open and provide additional border security could pass. But Chuck has said, well, I want a fence. We don't need a wall a fence. I got a chain link fence. I can tell you that it doesn't I have deers sometimes running in my backyard. They leap over it like it's nothing. I mean, people just cut through a wire fence, simple and easily. And the purpose is to keep people safe on both sides of the border, to protect American laws and American sovereignty, and to stop what we now know that sixty seven percent of people that are in this country illegally, that they are on American assistance at a greater rate, sixty seven percent greater rate than the American people. We know now a study that came out weeks ago, seventy thousand dollars per illegal immigrant in this country. We the taxpayers, we foot the bill that's for the educational system, the healthcare system, the criminal justice system. And then of course, on top of it, you have people that we noticed in the caravan. We identified between us in Mexico, six hundred criminals that we're trying to get across the border. If you have an open border, they can get in. Anything like the caravan would ever cease to happen if you had the border wall properly built all the way across the southern border. So I like this, this is what you know. Everyone says, well, the president fights too much on Twitter okay, but when he's fighting to keep the promises he made, it's worth it because this needs, this fight needs to happen. And let me tell you, Nancy Pelosi going back to our caucus and talking about his manhood shows that they are just they are out of their league in terms of negotiating and dealing with the President. And they can throw all the subpoena cannons they want at them, it's not going to matter. And at the end of the day, just like campaign finance, no that's not a problem either. Hey guys, remember when you need gifts that you need to bring a smile to somebody's face. One eight hundred flowers dot com. They have to be your go to, whether it's a birthday, an anniversary that slipped your mind, or maybe you just want to get ahead and deliver something just because you want them to know you're thinking about them. One eight hundred flowers dot com. They have the deals, the bouquets that are guaranteed to show people you love them. And right now, when you order twelve peppermint roses for twenty nine ninety nine, well, one eight hundred flowers will give you an extra half dozen roses and a vase absolutely free. Now, that's up to forty percent off the original price. Permitt roses from one eight hundred flowers dot com are picked at their peak and they're shipped overnight to ensure maximum freshness. Now to order twelve peppermint roses for twenty nine ninety nine plus another half dozen roses and a free base, just go to one eight hundred flowers dot com slash Hannity. That's one eight hundred flowers dot com slash Hannity. But you gotta hurry. This offer ends on Friday. You know, we're gonna have to start monitoring a little more. The rising Democratic star Acasio Cortez apparently called war hero General John Kelly a coward. Um. She just you know, the things she's saying on a daily basis are just nuts. You know that General Kelly lost his son fighting for his country. And where's the apology. I'm sure that's forthcoming any minute now, all right, eight hundred nine point on. This is this is the showdown, This is is what this We ought to be thankful for these moments that finally and I know, you know, everyone talks to me about, well, the president's style and he's he's combative and he fights, and you know why does he always say these things on Twitter? Because that's his nature. But when the president fights and gets the reductions in the bureaucracy that lead to the good news that we gave you yesterday, that we're energy independent and now exporting more energy than we have in seventy years. We have NATO now countries now stepping up to pay their fair share. We have four and a half million new jobs, four hundred thousand manufacturing jobs, three and a half million people off the food stamp roles, and you know, another four million out of poverty, first time in seventy five years. The US is not dependent on foreign oil. I mean, I mean, that's what you want in a president. By the way, just as Kavanaugh, well, that was not a good first ruling on his part. Their early decision involving abortionity decided with the liberal left of the court and declining to hear a case that could have allowed states to defund planned parenthood in state medicaid programs. And I think Clarence Thomas was not happy, and you know it was very strong in his descent, saying why are we punting? We'll continue smoking is not about politics, it's about people. There are thirty four million Americans that smoke. For me, Jewel was a game changer because you switch to Jewel, It's simple, it's satisfying, and no more smell. I watched people all the time they run outside and the freezing coal could be grabbing their cigarette. Well, with Jewel, you'll take a quick puff and you're good. That's it now. Jewel is designed which smokers in mind. From its form to technology. It's easy to use, no buttons, no switches, and the goal of Jewel is to impact the lives of adults smokers by providing a satisfying alternative. Switched to Jewel, you'll wish you a on it. A long time ago. To discover the smoking alternative that is nothing like any e sig vape you have ever tried. Go to this website Juul jewel dot com slash switch America. That's Juul dot com slash switch America. Warning this product contains nicotine and nicotine is an addictive chemical. Juul dot com slash switch America. We need border security. That's what we're gonna be talking about. Vorter security. If we don't have vorter security, we'll shut down the government. This country needs border security. The wall is a part of voter security. Let's have a talk. We're gonna get the wall built. And we've done a lot of wall already. Bigger part of border security is the wall. It's a big section. It's a big part of it. Everything that you need, it's a big part of it. We need to have effective border security. We need a wall in certain parts. No, not in all parts, but in certain parts of a two thousand mile border. We need a wall. How much money we are doing it? Much under budget? We're actually way under budget the areas that we've renovated, in areas that we've built. I would say if we got if we got five billion dollars, we could do a tremendous chunkle wall. Guests, well, we're gonna see, We're gonna see. Look, we have to have the wall. This isn't a question. This is a national emergency. Drugs are pouring into our country. People with tremendous medical difficulty and medical problems hop pouring in and in many in many cases that it's contagious. They're pouring into our country. We have to have water security. We have to have a wall as part of water security. And that was the President allowing the press to stay in this meeting with Chuck Schumer and with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schum Please please can we speak about this privately? Pretty please? Um? And they're just you're gonna shut down the government? What? How is a government shutdown? Why is this? There always been an inordinate fear when every key part of government stays up and running and is funded and you just throw continuing resolutions at it and the military and checks to seniors and nobody gets hurt. If anything. The people that get free vacations, paid vacations ought to be happy about it. But I'm not saying they don't do important work. But I'm saying it never is the great threat that people make it out to be. This is about having been down that this is the opportunity we have. This is the moment. And if you want, if you ever want to be a politician, let me tell you. My advice to you is, if you make promises, keep them. If you promise to serve the people where you live in your state and your district, then serve them, not yourself. Asking people now, every time you watch what they're calling the canons of subpoenas that they're going to throw at the Trump administration every day, and Adam Schiff and Gerald Nadler and everybody in company. It's not a winning strategy because than not serving the American people, they're serving their own political power grab agenda. Period. And as you listen, as we start the new year next year, we're going to follow these people like they've never been followed. There. Every word, they're every comment, We will have every insane thing they say. Nancy Pelosi leaves this meeting with Donald Trump and says this is a manhood issue for him. This wall, it's nut. They're nuts. I've been down there at thirteen times. I've seen people arrested, seen a gang member arrested. I've also watched the spending, the drug warehouses, seen the tunnels, seen the vulnerability. You know, sixty seven percent of people now higher percentage of people illegal immigrants, that need government services, welfare, etc. And we're paying all of this. I don't think it's too much to ask that people respect our laws, our sovereignty, and they go through the process legally. That's all we're asking. I don't think it's that much to ask for. And I also think On the political side of this, I mentioned the poll before. It's a winning political issue. The Harvard Harris poll, eighty one percent want immigration slashed, a seventy nine percent want secure borders, seventy nine percent want merit based immigration. Part of that means we vet the people and they have to show they have the ability to take care of themselves. While here sixty eight percent want to end the visa lottery, sixty five percent want to dock a deal with no amnesty, and sixty one percent say the current border is inadequate and it is, and sixty percent say no to docer relatives, and fifty four percent want the wall. So the president, in true Trumpian form, is standing by his words and that's what we want. And he's saying, look, Chuck, too bad, this is what we need. I am the commander in chief, Nancy Plosi. One point, where the first branch of government where the legislative branch of government. Right, he's the president and he's the executive branch of government, and he's also the commander in chief. Is part of his duties, and to stop human trafficking and drug trafficking along our southern borders is a good idea. And it's costing every illegal immigrant according to a study from a couple of weeks ago, seventy grand per illegal immigrant. Well, we have plenty of Americans that need help here. First, not against having a big door in an open legal immigration system, but it's got to be legal certain things anyway. So the President also is saying repeatedly that hey, listen, if I have to, I'll have the military build it. Now. It's going to be interesting as we watch that to watch Democrats arguing they're going to claim the military is no business protecting America from thousands of illegal immigrants that are invading our borders. Democrat Bernie Thompson, they up becoming a Homeland Security chairman, said using the military to build the wall just doesn't make any sense. I can think of a lot more important things we could do with the military than build a fence. We're not building a fence, we're building a wall. On the other hand, you got key Republicans Republican chairman of the Senate Arm Services Committee Appropriations committees both saying today that they would consider the president's newest suggestion that in fact, the Pentagon build the southern border wall. And if that's what it comes down to Richard Shelby, Senator Appropriations Committee chair, who would oversee the Pentagon spending on a border wall, said, the President has got a lot of leeway on all of this because under the Constitution, he has the right and the duty to defend the nation and protect the borders and everything that goes with it. Jim Inhoff, Senate Arm Services Committee said he spoke with the President last week about his bill that raises what he says is enough revenue to pay for the wall. Directing the military to build the wall, possibly out of military construction funds, could also be an option if if they push, If the push by Inhoff and other defense appropriators, you know, works for seven hundred and fifty billion dollar defense budget plan that is coming next year. That's a big amount of money, and certainly we have other areas that need fixing, but this is priority number one. This is gonna be fun to watch. I'll tell you that. We'll get back to this later in the program today. You know what's amazing something to watch. There are hundreds of Congressmen that paid apparently millions of dollars in taxpayer funded hush money to those that are claiming some type of sexual harassment or worse. You know, with all the talk, I wonder how many of these are Democrats. Now. The problem is, you know, everyone's making arguments that's somehow a non disclosure agreement that the President might have gone into with somebody twelve years ago. And these agreements are far more common than you ever think. You know, people will say, all right, well it's worth this much if I litigate it and I got whatever, I don't need the headache. Let's just we'll come to a deal whatever happens. So sometimes it's done for those reasons, sometimes for legitimate reasons, and it's hard to know the difference. But that's an individual making an agreement on their own using their own money. Very different if you work for the government. For example, if the House wants to really push this issue of a campaign finance violation, I said, well, let them push it as hard as they want to push it. Because if you go back to November twenty seventeen, it was The New York Post that broke the story, telling the story of Representative Jackie Spire that millions of dollars had been doled out to allege victims of harassment from congressional members over the past decade. Many of these members still working there, and she testified the current members of Congress who are known sex harassers, and that fifteen million dollars in taxpayer hush money has been made to accusers. So as you hear the sanctimony over, well, we couldn't get them on Russia. There's no Russian collusion at all. And their hopes and dreams what they would get out of Muller's filings last Friday didn't come to fruition. Then they all settled on a well, we think he broke a campaign finance law and I'm watching this unfold here. Well, if that's the case, then well then I think we have a pretty strong case about campaign finance violations as it relates to oh maybe Hillary Clinton. And that case was made in a piece by Mark Penn because the Steel dossier was at least partially paid for by the DNC Committee law firm. Remember they funneled money the Clinton campaign, and Donna Brazil claimed that Hillary was in charge of the DNC money. Remember how Mark Penn points out in The Hill Today that Hillary's payments to Christopher Steele were first funneled through her campaign lawyer and laundered, remember was sent to Perkins Cooey apparently not even what's that James call me, didn't know who Perkins cooee was. And I don't believe that either, as he was saying, I don't remember two hundred and fifty times, but then laundered through Fusion GPS to hire a foreign national to come up with the phony Russian lies that they used to influence the American people consciously in the election of twenty sixteen. How Robert Muller and the Pitbull, Andrew Weisman and Company and Genie Ray are not focused on that as a miracle. Steele DOCA was paid in part by the Democratic National Committee. They used to cut out on the FEC forms by saying it was a legal expense. It's settled law, as Mark Penn points out that the ultimate recipient, not some intermediary, must be disclosed in cases along with the proper use category, so it was not a legal cutout. Yet to complaint against the DNC and Hillary's campaign is, you know, slowly working its way through the FEC in the law firm. They've not been rated by prosecutors. We don't see anyone making pleading guilty to felonies here. Muller prosecutors are looking the other way on uranium one, and that's you know, giving putin twenty percent of America's uranium, the foundational material for nuclear weapons. We had a spy in there telling Robert Muller himself about bribery, extortion, money laundering, and kickbacks, and Muller's prosecutors look the other way on what a campaign finance violation. You don't think this is going to come up for Hillary and that they're going to get away with this. It was a great post today by the great one, Mark Levin on his Facebook page. You know some stuff we already know. Sitting president campaign diided that's official DOJ policy since seventy three. Neither the Special Counsel, nor the SDNY Southern District of New York, or the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein can defy a forty five year old policy, so it's not an issue for the president, you know. He points out also that you know, the Southern District of New York they're not experts in campaign finance violations, and either is the Clinton appointed judge district judge. They rarely handle these cases now they've known him for doing great work in the Southern District of New York, especially on terrorism cases, in the Blind Shade case, and so many others, and a lot of great lawyers, Andy McCarthy, Rudy Giuliani, John Sale, who's going to join us later. They've all come out of there. But the media and others intentionally refuse to actually look at what the real rules and context are. And they would have you once they didn't get anything Russia out of the Friday filings. This is what they ran to, regurgitating what prosecutors have merely filed in their own self serving briefs. Now, he points out that the actual campaign rules and contexts do not include nondisclosure agreements or infinite other contracts or payments or arrangements acts of a private nature as campaign contributions. In other words, especially twelve years ago, this is normal human behavior. People have a right to end or into agreements for whatever reasons they choose to do it. Private payments can be made in any manner, any amount, and again their private payments involving private parties, so there's no reporting requirement because they're not campaign payments made with or without campaign funds top of the fact that the president can donate as much as he wants to his campaign even if it was but it's not. And the Southern District's inclusion in these charges in the Cone plea deal, it's kind of a pr attack against the president by an office coordinating with Muller, obviously aligned with Comy, and they knew the CONE would plead. But it's why did they believe that version of what Michael Khne said when he said a very had a very different version when he said he did it on his own with his own money early on and was paid back. You know, So I don't think that this would work in any court anyway. But you know, as Mark points out here, they knew the left wing media politicians would use that to just pivot away from Russia. That was all part of the strategy. By the way, no due process, no presumption of innocence. They knew they couldn't charge a sitting president that's never been brought up either. Thus they convict the president, scream impeachment as loud and as often as they can, and it really has no chance of going anywhere, and it's awful political purposes. By the way, when have you ever seen judges or people to release materials that are redacted the way we saw. That's another question. And as for impeachment, Mark points out the NDA's involving holy private matters occurring before the president was even a candidate, unrelated to his office cannot legitimately trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause. In other words, they could not be more irrelevant. And the history of the clause and its high crimes and misdemeanor language mayke it clear that the office of the President's duties are not affected in any conceivable way by earlier private contacts. Now, Gerald Nadler and Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff can say whatever they want. Doesn't matter what they say, you know they'll mark wrights and his peace. He's more than thrilled to be an executioner in this French revolution. Reducts the Constitution be damned. Meanwhile, he and others wave around the Constitution as if they're defending it against the tyrant, but in fact it's them, no not, it's meaning in any way all right. Eight hundred ninety four one Sean Tolfree telephone number. You want to be a part of the program, Jim Jordan. We'll talk about all these things when we get back who entered the United States without our permission. Our illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the US legally. President's decision to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless. When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration. Hundreds hundreds of thousands of families will be ripped apart. If you don't think it's illegal, you're not going to say it. I think it is illegal and wrong. Ends of thousands of American businesses will lose hard working employees. And the argument them as the president, is Americans don't want to do the work. Wait, just can't find American workers to do the work because the president that is a cruck In many instances, it's just not true. In my view, From's decision to end the DOCCER program or some eight hundred thousand young people, is the cruelest and most ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country. I cannot think of one single act which is uglier and more cruel. We've got to do several things, and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants. People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk in Nassau County, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work. You know, Idio, this is not a problem that the people who are coming into the country are solely responsible for. They coming if we didn't put them to work. My proposal will keep families together, and it will include a path to citizen check. Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants. Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship. Flipping the flopping, the flailing that goes on on the issue of immigration, and of course the beatdown that the President had with Pelosi and Schumer today and he's not given up, and it's clear. And the other good news is he has the support of even people like Lindsey Graham said, no, he's got to hold out. This is a fight worth fighting. And you know, the President also taking major steps today to reign in and the abuse of our welfare system by non citizens who utilize federal subsidies in far greater numbers than their US born counterpart I mean, sixty seven percent of illegal immigrants, according to a recent study that came out. And the President now also threatening that if he has to, he'll use the military to get the wall built that way, and that exchange goes back and forth. He says, look, get it done. I'll have the military do it. And if I have to shut down the government. It's a myth that Republicans get hurt by government shutdowns. They were afraid to do it when Obama was president. Now they're afraid to do it when a Republicans president. They're just afraid. You know, three thousand people on a single day got caught jumping in the border recently. And there's nothing that they're proposing, meaning Nancy or Chuck that is going to fix that anyway. Jim Jordan, Freedom Caucus member with us. By the way, our two Sean Hannity Show eight hundred nine for one, Sean are told free telephone number. What do you think of the President's exchange with Pelosi and Schumer today, Sean? I loved it. I mean, this is this is why the American people elected this guy president because he is standing firm and going to This is not about shutdown. This is about doing what we set doing what we told the voters we were going to do. And one the central promises made the twenty sixteen campaign is that we were going to build a border security wall. We were going to get control of the border, and the President is standing film for that. We took a position as the Freedom Caucus last night that we will only think about supporting this this fix spending bill if, in fact, we do what the President said today. So I thought it was great, and I think the American people think the same thing. Well, look, as you know, he pointed out that you know, everywhere the wall is, it's one hundred percent certainty we stop all the illegal immigration. Also, it's good we saw a potential catastrophe building with the caravan, and as much as if what happened at the southern border of Mexico and it was attempted up here had happened up here and we didn't have the means to stop them, then at that point it becomes unlimited illegal immigration into the country. And also, you know, it was bad enough to watch rocks and bottles being thrown at our ice guys and the border patrol people, but it was happening right before our eyes. Yeah, the President is so this is common sense, and the President is standing strong for common sense reform here. Build a wall and reform our asylum wall, stop the catch and release, change our asylum law. And if you do those two things, this caravan phenomena that we've watched the last several weeks, that's how you deal with it. That's how you send the right message. That's how you have orderly legal immigration, not what we've been seeing the last several weeks with this caravan and the attempts to try to get over the wall, under the wall, through the fence, all the things you're trying to do. So again, I love what the President did. He stood for him there, and I think this is where we got to be stand firm for doing what we told the American people we were going to do, more importantly, what they elected us to do. Any insight is to what's going on with Mark Meadows. I keep reading his name all over the place as a potential candidate, but chief of staff, which I'm sure you would probably like, because then it's a coup for you and you'd be probably back in the driver's seat. Well as chairman. You are the chairman, right, but you lost your chairmanship. You're the honorary member. You know, you're the only group that's into freedom. You're the only people I try honestly you, I won't tell you. One person that is impressing me more and more is Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham said, no, this is a fight we're gonna have, and the President's gonna win, and he's right. We have to win it because if not, this never goes away. And it's interesting to watch the Democrats. There's nothing that apparently that the president would offer them that they would take because they so desperately want to just say no to him and not be seen as as making any deals with this president. So that means no progress at all for the country. If follow up on that, it doesn't matter what the presidents for there against it. You played the montage there at the front end where it shows all the things they said before. Now therefore the borderless hemisphere, as their candidates for president said in twenty sixteen, there for abolishing eyes. So they've changed him that. If you to your first question, Mark Meadows would be a tremendous chiefest step. I hate to lose him on Capitol Hill because he's my best friend up there, but he would be great for the president if that's who the president chooses. I think the country and the president and you know, our intim nation is well served if if that's who he picks. But on this immigration issue with Lindsay, Senator Graham is exactly right. Stand firm, mister President, Stand firm. Let's get this done now. We've got a few weeks left where we have the majorities in both houses. Let's make it happen. Well, I think Mitch McConnell saying that he's going to go forward. How do you feel about the prison reform bill? I interviewed Jared Kushner last night. The one thing that it bothered me is one part that Tom Cotton had been pointing out. There can't be any possibility that any violent felons are released as part of that deal. But on the other hand, do you remember Alice Marie Johnson, the woman when she was had her sentence commuted by the president. Yeah, she comes out of prison, twenty plus years in prison, one time offender. It was a drug it was a drug deal. And she got out and she said something that I thought was amazing. She said, first, thank you to the President, thanks to the country, and then she went on and said, I'm never gonna let you down. Thank you for giving me a second chance. And then I got a chance to interview her, and she's as lovely or more lovely in person. Yeah. Yeah, we have to find those people that deserve that second chance and maybe even transform the use of the pardon power of the president. I'd love to see that exactly. We're all in need of God's grace. If you do something wrong, you're gonna have to serve your time. But while you're in prison, let's let's get you the training, the help that you need so that when you do get out, you can you can go on with your life and get that second chance, and I know Jared has been working hard on this. We think this is the kind of legislation that makes sense. There was some concern to stend of the cotton race. I think those are being addressed. We had Mikely at our Freedom Caucus meeting last night. Mike's been a strong proponent of this legislation. So again, I think Jodan and the team done a lot of good work, and let's see if we can get this thing done. And I think we can. All right, So let's imagine at first, I was a little concern and I heard Nadler and some others saying we're going to end the deep State investigation almost immediately. There's no points. So we all knew that was going to happen. However, yeah, we now we had the testimony of you were you in the testimony when Comey gave it last week? Yeah? Okay, And James Comy literally said he said in that meeting, Well, first of all, he said, I don't remember some two hundred and fifty times. Put that aside. He never vetted the dossier. We already knew it. But now he's on record saying they never vetted the dossier. But he put his signature to it, right, and Sally Yates did and Rob Rosenstein did right. Yeah, well, I think it's even worse, Shan. He didn't know anything about Christopher Steele. So it's one thing to take his work. You don't know anything about the work product. The guy who wrote the work product that you took to the court to get the warrant. He never talked to Christopher Steele, didn't know Christopher Steele was meeting with Bruce or top Justice Department official, didn't know that Bruce was asking Chris Steel's information to the FBI, didn't know that they had terminated that Christopher Steele, didn't know that Christopher Steel continue to give information to the FBI after he was terminated. Didn't know any of that, and yet takes his work product to the FIS the court to get the warrant to spot the Trump campaign. That's literally That was the biggest takeaway I had is you didn't know squat about the key guy whose work product was the basis for the whole darn thing. Have you heard about this email chain that John Solomon was reporting about? Now, there there were three buckets that the President has talked about that he would unredact and release to the American people. Bucket one would be the applications. Both the Nunez and Grassy Graham memos say that the bulk of information came from the dossier that we now know they never vetted. On top of that, Christopher Steele has since you know, distance his own self from that by saying, oh, I have no idea if any of it's true when he was threatened with perjury and an interrogatory in Great Britain. So but then we want the three O two's gang of Ape. But there's also this email letter chain. Comey is on it, and what can you tell us about it? I asked him about it. He didn't know it. That was another one in his two hundred and forty five I don't know. So I did ask him about an email chain relative to the fact that Christopher Steele this is This was in mister Solomon's reporting, and I went basically from mister Solomon's reporting that mister Steele had met with reporters in September twenty sixteen prior to again his dossier being taken to the FISA court as the basis for the for the Carter Page FISA so asking about that, he didn't know anything about it. I specifically asking, so you didn't know anything about Christopher Stile, possibly meaning with Michael Isikoff, with Yah who News. He didn't know anything about that either. I do think we need to come back to that and export deeper, because it was basically two questions, is all at that I got a chance to ask him about I think we need to dig a little deeper into that. But he didn't know anything. And that's what he told us in the in the deposition last week. So we have the sentencing memos. You know, this is what we what the whole Muller investigation has become. Lying to the FBI, lying to a law enforcement about taxi medallion's lan applications not paying your taxes, which is really stupid. If you don't pay them, you got to pay your taxes, because that's the easiest way they're going to throw anybody in jail. And you know, so we have all of this hysteria by the media and the left, and they're all thrown around the world impeachment. By the way, these are the people that have been hating on the president from day one and even before he got elected. The reality is you can't. You can indict a sitting president. That's the oj policy period. Neither the Special Counsel, nor the SDNY nor Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein can defy that policy. Not only that, there is no campaign finance violation here for a multitude of reasons, which I went into earlier today. Right, No, Right, I mean this is all about you know, Cohen did a lot of things you shouldn't have done, a mister Manaford, but didn't register right as a lobbyist. It's all that kind of stuff. But where's the relationship to what the underlying mission of the Special Council was? Where is where is the any type of collusion or coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia? To date, not one bit of evidence in any of that to say that there was any type of coordination. So I always just come back to the basics. That's what mister Mueller is supposed to be looking at. We've not seen any of that, and yet Jerry Nadal and Adam Shift they already got the president going to prison, which is right, Listen. I'm just hoping that the new Attorney general is we'll believe an equal justice under the law, an equal application of our laws. And if that's the case, and we really are worried about Russian interference, then I think the Uranium one deal shows a lot of stupidity, bad decisions, corruption and put an influence. And I think the same thing with the dossier that was disseminated to the American people to make Americans vote against Donald Trump. I'd like that to be dealt with as well. But stay right there more with our good friend, Representative Jim Jordan, House Freedom Caucus Member, Right as we continue with Jim Jordan, House Freedom Caucus Member, congressman from Ohio. All right, so it's a little different. I mean it's a good thing. I will say that the president works so hard to save the Senate because it doesn't matter what nance Pelosi does in the end or what the House Democrats do, as extreme as they are, but it makes your job harder. And if they're coming with a cannon of subpoenas as they are telegraphing, Yeah, how do you and the minority fight that you focus on the truth? I mean that's all. That's what you've been focused on, Sean, and does such a good job with what we've been focused on Mark Meadows, Matt Gates and a bunch of us in the House. You focus on the truth, and that's that's got to be our job. So look, we have an obligation, constitutional duty to provide oversight of the federal government, particularly the Oversight Committee, where Elijah Coming already had sixty four subpoenas he wanted to send this Congress. So we assume those are coming the next time, but we focus on the truth. They're going to drive how they want to, and they're going to do what they want and subpoenas and hearings and bring people in and all the things they do. Our job is to Could you imagine if anybody deleted the emails when they were subpoenaed by Gerald Nadler or any other committee chair of the Democrats and then used acid wash, bleach bit to clean the hard drive and bust up their devices. I wonder what they'd say. Then, Yeah, I wonder if they suppeened me and I did all those things, what do you think would happen? You'd in big trouble. This is the double standard that drives people crazy. And you've talked about it, but it's so true. One set of rules for us regular folk, but a difference set If your name is Lynch Learner Page struck, you get a different set of rules. You know. One of the things I was struck with two and I actually asked this question that mister Kobe, think about go to the basis. Remember it was the same people who ran the Clinton investigation who then took over and launched and ran the Russian investigation. And I think you go right back to the beginning. Think of the names they gave each of those investigations. One was called the Midyear Exam. That's sort of like you had to get through this, we had to go kind of make it look like we were doing it, but the fix was in and they were going to make sure Clinton was exonerated. And then the other one was called Crossfire Hurricane, which I think when you step back and think about the names and what those names imply, that sort of right from the get go shows you there were some extremes against President Trump right for the geta of sixteen, right from the get go. All right, Jim Jordan, thank you eight hundred. You know I'm gonna play you know, why don't we play this exchange in full when we get back Then We'll take some calls on it, because I've been referring to it now since the first hour. Eight hundred nine for one, Sean is our number. You want to be a part of the program. Later on, John Sale, we'll look at the prosecutorial head. The president is in trouble over campaign finance. Forget Russia collusion, it's campaign finance. Now the answers, No will explain and more coming up straight ahead, Hannity. Oh, we got a great show tonight, nine Eastern, all right, twenty five to the top of the hour. UM, I know a lot of you missed it earlier today. I think it's worth It's like a ten minute exchange here with the President, Pelosi and Schumer in the Oval Office and dealing with government funding, government shutdown possibility, and funding the wall. Lindsey Graham's back in the president. Republicans were back in the president. They say, no, we did, we made a promise. This is what people want them to do. Let's fight, stand up and fight because it's the right thing to do. And so here's that exchange, which I just thought the President just nailed them multiple times and it was great. Listen to this. We may not have an agreement today, we probably won't, but we have an agreement on other things that are really good. Nancy, would you like to say something, well, thank you, mister President, for an opportunity to meet with you so that we can work together in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the American people. I think American people recognize that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is not worth anything, and that you should not have a Trump shutdown. You have the Trump down, you have the White House going to you have the Senate, you have the House of Representatives, you have the votes you should pass. We don't vote because in the Senate we need sixty yards. But in the half, we don't have to bring it up right now. But I can't excuse me, but I can't get it passed in the House. If it's not going to pass in the Senate, I don't want to waste them. The fact is you can get it started that way. The House. We could get passed very easily. Okay, we do it, but the problem is the Senate, because we need ten Democrats to vote that they want the point. It's because the point is is that their equities to be weighed, and we're here to have a conversation your careful way. So I don't think we should have the debate in front of the press on this. But the fact is, the Senate, the House Republicans could bring up this bill if they had the votes immediately and set the tone for what you want. If we thought we were going to get it passed in the Senate, Nancy, we would do it immediately, would get it passed very easily in the House. Well, we would get it, Nancy, I'd have it passed in two seconds. It doesn't matter though, because we can't get it passed in the Senate because we need ten Democrat votes. Again, let us have our conversation, then we'll meet with the press again. But the fact is, is that legislating, and which is what we do. You begin to make your points, to state your case. That's what the House Republicans could do if they had the votes. But there aren't votes in the House majority of votes for a wall no matter where. You're exactly right. If I needed the votes for the wall in the House, I would have them in one session, would be done. Do it. It doesn't help because we need ten Democrats and the Senate put it on an Okay, let me ask you this just and we're doing this in a very friendly manner. It doesn't help for me to take a vote in the House where I will win easily with the Republicans when it doesn't help to take that vote because I'm not going to get the vote of the Senate. I need ten senators. That's the problem. You have the White House, the Senate. I have the White House. The White House is done, and the House would give me the vote if I wanted it, but I can't because I need Nancy. I need ten votes from chub Or. Let me say something here. Let me say white The fact is you do not have the votes in the House, Nancy. I do. And we need border security, Nancy, Nancy. We need border securities, very simple question. We need border security. People are pouring into our country in ruting terrorists. We have terror We caught ten terrorists over the last very short period of time. Ten. These are very serious people. Our border agents, all of our law enforcement has been incredible what they've done. But we caught ten terrorists. These are people that we're looking to do harm. We need the wall. We need more appoint than anything. We need border security, of which the wall is just a peace but it's important. Ject did you want to say, sah, Here's what I want to say. We have a lot of disagreements here. The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of pinocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much the wall is, how much of the wall is built, and how much is there. But that's not the point here. We have a disagreement about the wall, Washington, whether it's effective or not on boorder security, but on the wall. We do not want to shut down the government. You have called twenty times to shut down the government. Who say I want to shut down the government. We don't. We want to come to an agreement. If we can't come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass the House and Senate right now, and we'll not shut down the government. And that's what we're urging you to do. Not to shut down the government because you let me just finish from them, because you can't catch you shut it down. Let me say something, mister president, you just say my way, or will shut down the government. We have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do a cr that will not shut down the government. We urge you to take it. If it's not good border security out it is very good. And if it's not good border security, I will take it's because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our border security, and when you look at the job that we're doing, we just said it is effective. Can I be Can I tell you something you just said without a wall, these are only areas where you have the we want to do. You have walls, Chuck, it's effective, Well, you don't have rules, it is not effective. Yeah, that's calohl to this. We've come in here as the first branch of government, Article one, the legislative branch. We're coming in in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open. We're going to keep it open if we have border security. If we don't have border security, we're not going to keep it on. We haven't had bader and it's the same border you're bragging about what has been done. But we want to do the same thing we did last year this year. That's our proposal. If it's good, then it's good now, and it won't shut down the gol Huck. We can build up a much bigger. Let's debate in private. Okay, yeah, let's debate in private. Devoid frankly the fast and we can we need border security. I think we all agree that we need water SECAs good we do. Say we get a law. Thank you everybody. President, you save border security at the wall. Can you have border security with alcohol? You need you need the wall. The wall is a part of water security. What it means to have border security. We need border security. The wall is a part of border security. You can't have very good border security without the wall. No, not true, because that is a political promise. Border security is a way to effectively on our respond The experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem. It totally solves the problem with and it's very important. This is spiraled downwards when we came at a place to say, how do we meet the needs of American people who have needs? The economy has its people are losing their jobs, the markets in a mood. Our members are already we have the lowest unemployment that we've had in fifty years. See, people of the Republican Party have lost are losing their offices now because of the transition. The people are not at the memory gained in the Senate. Nancy, we've gained in the Senate. Excuse me, did we win the Senate? Because we're won the Senate. When the President braggs that he won North Dakota and Indiana, he's in real trouble. When I did, let me say it did North Dakota and in most unfortunate And we came in here in good faith and we're entering into this kind of a discussion in the public. But it's not bad advancing no and no cold transparency. I know it's not transparent. Se well, we're not stipulating to a set of facts. And when we wanted to have a debate with you about saying, we confront them. Use that's you know what we need border security. That's what we're going to be talking about border security. If we don't have borter security, we'll shut down the government. This country needs border security. The wall is a part of borter security. Let's have a tall We're going to get the wall built. And we've done a lot of wall already. Bigger part of border security of the wall, it's a big section. It's a big part of it everything that you need, it's a big part of it. We need to have effective border security. We need a wall in certain parts, No, not in all parts, but in certain parts of a two thousand mile border. We need a wall. How much money we are doing it? Much under budget? We're actually way under budget. Or the areas that we've renovated, in areas that we've built, I would say if we got if we got five billion dollars, we could do a tremendous chunkal walls. Well, we're going to see, We're going to see. Look, we have to have the wall. This isn't a question. This is a national emergency. Drugs are pouring into our country. People with tremendous medical difficulty and medical problems are pouring in, and many in many cases that it's contagious. They're pouring into our country. We have to have border security. We have to have a wall as part of border security. And I don't think we really disagree so much. I also know that you know, Nancy is in a situation where it's not easy for her to talk right now, and I understand that, and I fully understand that we're going to have a good discussion and we're going to see what happens. We have to have border secret to the president, Please don't characterize the strength that I bring for this need as a leader of the House Democrats who just want a big elections have consequences. He just says that's right, and that's why the country is doing so well. But the president is representing them as his cards over there are not fact. We have to have an evident, stase conversation about what does work, what money has been spent in, how affects that it is? This isn't it that this is about the security of that country to take an oath to decay and defend. And we don't want to have that mix character by anyone. I agree with it, and we are no. No, I agree with it. So let us have a conversation. But we don't have to contradict in public to statistics that you put forth, but instead can have a conversation about what will really work and what the American people deserve from us at this uncertain time in their lives. One thing I think we can agree on is we shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute. And you want to shut it down. I'm talking about the last time, Chuck, you shut it there, no, no, no, and then you any time quickly. And I don't want to do what you did twenty times shut we've called for. I will shut down the government if I don't get my will, none of us. If you want to know something, you said, okay, you want to put them on set, I'll take it. Okay, good, you know what, I'll say. Yes, if we don't get what we want one way or the other, whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the absolutely. And I am proud and I'll just agree. I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mental. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mental of shutting down, and I'm going to shut it down for border but we believe you shouldn't shut it down. Thank you very much, everybody. A lot of friends of mine wanted a lot of people that Chuck and Nancy know very well wanted. I think people you'd like. We have a lot of people that want the job chief of steps. So we'll be seeing what happens very soon. We're no rush. Why we're no rush? Why? No rush? Why? Because we have a wonderful chief of staff right now. Just we are in no rush. Over a period of a week or two or maybe less, will announce who it's going to be. But we have a lot of people that want the position. Thank you very much. All right, So that was from earlier today. That was the President with Nancy Pelosi Chuck Schumer in the Oval office. I'll take a quick break here, we'll come back. We'll continue eight hundred nine Poll one. Shaun is on number. We'll get to your calls when we get back. John sam formerly of the Southern District of New York Prosecutor, is going to analyze this ridiculous notion that campaign finance is the big Muller find here, because it's not, and it's ridiculous and anyone that tells you it is doesn't know what they're talking about. A right, as we continue, let's get to our busy phones here. Michael is in Pittsburgh, PA. Mike, Hi, how are you glad you called sir fucor Sean on Good Afternoon. The only problem I think I have is the fact that the representatives created a slush fund from our money and they went ahead and paid off women who accused them supposedly of sexually harassing them. And I don't know who these women are. Was it someone's cousin, was it their sister. I mean, we have no way to trace you know how much hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars of our money, and we don't know who they were. We don't know what happened, but we knew that was mister Kavanaugh. We know it was mister Trump, President Trump. I would like a little uh, you know, a little openness about Yeah, here's what well, this is what I know. And this was printed. This goes back a year now, and I remember first seeing it in the New York Post. You know, like Democratic Control House members they want to impeach President Trump for nondisclosure agreement payments or whatever. You know, a lot of times they're made just to make things go away and it's cheaper. Other times it's true and accurate, and they pay a lot of money But the difference here is, and I think you're raising a point. I think we have a right to know because I think there's going to be a lot of explaining to do Republicans and Democrats if they're spending millions of our tax dollars to silence women who accused them of everything from sexual harassment to worse, and that would include a whole lot of Democrats who stand accused. Now, say what you will the president's issues, believe them or not. We're twelve years ago and the president, which we know, would use his own money, but not the case of Congress. You know, we had a congresswoman who testified the current members of Congress are known sexual harassers and that fifteen million dollars of taxpayer money has been paid to hush accusers. Okay, and Representative Jackie Spire told you a news outlet the millions have been doled out, and even CNN reported according to Congressional Office of Compliance, there were two hundred and sixty eight settlements. Okay, we're footing the bill for that. Now, if you want to pay somebody off and have your own nondisclosure agreement, have at it, but don't make me pay for it. I'm not paying for it. At least I'm gonna at least we should have the knowledge of what went on. Right, Yeah, I think the hash too hash with the hashtag me too, or they bring back the girls, that's all gonna be fake and it's all gonna be for not if they don't really push push it here. I mean, they really need to go after these people, whether the Republic. I'll bring this up tonight. You're raising a good point. All right, Thank you so much for the call, eight hundred and nine for one, Seawan told free telephone number. All Right, Former SDN Y proscly Southern District New York Prosecutor John Sale will join us. We'll get his analysis on this whole campaign finance non issue, but we'll they get his take on it straight ahead as we continue. Coming up next our final news round up and Information Overload hour. If it is proven that the President directed or coordinated with Cohen to commit these felonies, are those impeachable offenses? Well, they would be impeachable offenses. Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question, but certainly they'd be impeachable offenses. This president, in my estimation has done everything possible to certainly be eligible for impeachment, and so I really do think that it should be started. I think what this totality of today's filings show that the House is going to have little choice the way this is going other than to start impeachment proceedings. This is a man who came in and said, I'm bigger than the House. I've been in checks and balances, I'm beginning the judicial community. I'm bigger than the free press. And he's going to pay for that the rest of his life. When immigrants procure their citizenship by fraud, we strip them of their citizenship. When a president procures his presidency by fraud, should we consider doing the same. That can be a criminal case if they can prove willfulness there. I also think it potentially grounds for impeachment. I think the American people would support impeachment. Donald Trump will be must be impeached. He's got to know his future looks like it's behind bars. Donald Trump is a criminal enterprise. It certainly looks like they are the kind of offenses that would call for impeachment hearings. You have this memorable phrase of individual number one. You know it's going to go down I think in the history books along with some of those memorable Watergate phrases. Do you agree with Congressman Adam Schiff, who is going to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, that President Trump could be indicted and possibly faced jail time after he leaves off. Yes, these are felonies that we're talking about. As it relates to impeachment, Anderson, the Constitution could not be any clearer. Impeachment is the appropriate remedy for bribery, for treason, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It speaks for itself. If the President orchestrated and ordered Michael Cohen to break the law, to act in a criminal manner, and did so knowingly, as Jerry Nadler, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said, that would be an appeachurable offense. Potentially again, if knowledge was there, all right, dudes, round up information overload and yeah, that is your left wing media and their overreaction and their stupidity and their ignorance all on full display here. You know, it's amazing the collectively they were waiting for these sentencing recommendations on Cone and Manaford, and the end of the cooperation deal that Manaford had with the Special Council, thinking that there's a smoking gun so on Russia. But of course there was nothing. For Michael Kohne, we're talking about taxi medallions, financial issues, tax issues, loan applications and from Manaphort pretty much the same thing, nothing to do with Russian collusion. So first that raises the question why might we even be here right then on the Michael khone, then they found nothing on Russia, and then like we gotta get something. Well, Michael Kohane said, and he did this at the direction of the president. Problem with Michael is that's not the only version of that story that he's given. He said actually that he did it on his own without any input for the president. When the president found out, he paid him back, So that turns into a whole different thing. I go back to Levine's peace earlier that I mentioned that he put up on Facebook. When you look at actual campaign rules and the wording in the context, they don't include nondisclosure agreements NDAs or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature as campaign contributions. In other words, it's normal human behavior that was never intended ever, nor is it mentioned to be regulated or reported. So the Southern District of New York, which I have a lot of respect for, in this case I believe, is way off of course. And whatever private payments might have been made in any amount out by anybody, their private payments involving private matters. And to underscore, there's no reporting requirement because they're not campaign payments made with or without with or without campaign funes. So the inclusion of this and their desire to only believe the version of events that fits their narrative doesn't really work in a court of law. And as a practical matter, you know, how do you get to pick and choose which version of somebody's story that you want. That he's not a cooperating witness in this particular case, And but you know, this is what the left wing does. This is what they've been now calling for for two years. And as for impeachment, I mean, there's nothing dumber that I've heard in my life. A nondisclosure agreement is a nondisclosure agreement involving private matters that people agree to. They don't have to agree to it, but they choose to agree to it, and unrelated to anything that ever had to do with his office or obtaining his office. And how, you know, how we get to this point is just showing you how desperate and political things have become in this atmosphere of destroyed Trump anyway. John Sale is a former federal prosecutor. He served in the Southern District of New York as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor as well. And Sale has particular understanding of the Southern District of New York, probably the most prestigious I guess in the country. Is that a fair statement, John Sale? I think it is, even though I've been in other US attorney's office as I think it is. You know, I think it's. I mean the cases that have and you worked with Andy. I think on the blind Shake case, didn't you. You work with Rudy over the years as well well. I worked with Rudy over the years. The judge in the blind See case is my good friend Michael Mukasey, Right. I mean, the names that come out of here are who's who in terms of legal minds and political uh political powerhouse people so and have in the Southern District of New York had taken on some of the biggest hardest cases, especially with terrorism and other issues. What is your reaction to all of this. Do you think there's any validity to this campaign finance argument? Well, I think that that's pretty easy one for staters. When Michael Kohen first entered his plea, he pled too. As you pointed up before, he Matt is involving his own misdeeds, false tax returns, false applications to loans, having nothing in the world to do with the president, And they threw in a couple of soil called campaign violations, and he gratuitously added, oh, and it was directed by obviously he was referring to the president. And then his lawyer went on TV and tried to sell his cooperation to the Special Council, which is a kind of a bizarre way to do it. So now he's changed his story for about the eighth time. But I'll tell you so's showing something that really is unusual. And as I said, I'm proud of my former offer. But usually when two prosecutors officers take different positions, they don't do it publicly. They'll sit down sometimes with the Deaupment of Justice being the referee, and then they take a uniform position. So here you see the special counsel saying that he was helpful somewhat, and you have the Southern District blasting him in a sentencing memo. But to get back to your question, I mean, first of all, it's only Michael Khan who is saying he was authorized by individual number one, which I think it's disingenuous to say individual number one because we all know who he's referring to. But I don't concede that that happened because of his credibility. But if it did happen, and just for the sake of argument there, it's a specific intent crime, so they would have to prove that individual number one knew it was against the law, which they can't prove. And it's also an offense which is rarely prosecuted criminally and when and it is usually dealt with by a fine. So you know, is that impeachable? Well, spitting on the sidewalks impeachable if a Congress of votes it is, but of course it shouldn't. It's not an impeachable offense in fairness, and I'm not I don't join the bandwagon. I watch a TV show regularly shown, and I'm a big fan, but I don't necessarily agree that Mahler's office is on a witch hunt. But I just think they're wrong, and I think the fairness you frequently talk about though the investigation is tainted. I think you don't have to go there to just look at what are they doing regarding the president. And I'm not here to defend the president, but what they're doing regarding the president is unfair the Special Counsel's office, These redacted pleadings, to me, are appalling that they've filed publicly. And I called four different, very seasoned federal judges in different parts of the country, and I asked every one of them, have you ever in your twenty some ideas sitting on the bench seeing anything like that? And every single one of them said no. And here's my problem X or whicheveryone we're talking about in public. They file a document that says he provided very valuable information regarding and then it's all blank. So what does that lead to speculation about it? Is it why I'm not going to mention their names, because I'm going to then contribute to the problem of destroying their reputations. That information should be filed under seal so that nobody's speculating and nobody is in them imagination creating evidence about the president, about the president's family. And the only thing it tells me is that this investigation is probably not coming to a close. And I think it should and I think they're As I have said before, if a special Council does a very thorough investigation and it does not incriminate the president, they have not failed. If the evidence shows it does, then that's one thing. But we have not seen any evidence to incriminate the president. And everyone is spy on some of the other networks. Everyone is speculating, and that's all it is unless they are right. Well, here's some of my problems. Let me tell you where my main criticisms are is I think we've lost any sense of equal application of our laws, equal justice of our laws. Under our laws I look at I can compartmentalize and break down each individual case for you, but there are a whole lot of people I have listed that have been caught lying to either Congress or to the FBI and nothing has happened to them. I'm worried about a double standard. I'm worried about in the Michael Flinn case, the abuse of surveillance. They didn't. They ended up unmasking him and leaking raw intelligence against him, which is against the law. He wasn't doing anything nefarious except talking to a future counterpart. Nobody in the FBI thought Michael Flynn had lied when they did the interview with him, but yet he signed onto that because he's bankrupt, and I would suspect they probably said, well, we're going to go after your son, and he probably dove on his sword. I think it's a pretty good educated guess. We know they were writing an exoneration of Hillary in May with Ay had written in the legal standard gross negligence and changed it shifted into extreme carelessness. That was in early maya, twenty sixteen. Comey said that he wasn't writing it before he interviewed her. That was a lie, and Peter Struck and James Comy were writing that, and then it ends up that I felt like they gave her a pass. I think that it's a clear violation having top secret classified information on an outside server the way she did, and their original assessment was that as many as six foreign intelligence agencies hacked into it, and then we have, of course, the beginning of the Russians investigations. Comey said Friday least a page before that they had nothing after nine months of looking at it. So why after nine months did they start with a special counsel James Comey helped precipitate. And then we get into the issue of, you know, the Russian dossier and lying to FISA courts for Jim Comey to say they never vetted or verified anything in that document that he signed that would spy on an American citizen, a Trump campaign official. If we really care about Russian influence, I think we would dig into that matter as deeply as any matters involving Trump. I think the Uranium one deal is even more problematic because we ended up handing over twenty percent of America's uranium while we had a spy inside of Plutin's network in America. We knew they wanted a foothold in the uranium industry. Our spy was telling our top FBI official at the time, Robert Muller, that there was blackmail, bribery, extortion, and kickbacks going on. It still happened, and the people involved kickback one hundred and forty five million of the Clinton Foundation. So if we cared about Russian influence, we would be also covering those stories, and they're not in the particular cases I'm mentioning here. I feel like I have real evidence in corroboration where they have none as it relates to Trump. So the double standard is glaring to me. Well, Shan, you lay out a very plausible case, and I think this should be an investigation of all of that. And I give all of the people you're referring to the presuction of innocence. Oh, I hang on one second, Why don't we pick it up there? But I want to give you a full chance to respond more with John Sale eight hundred nine one Sean. Right, as we continue with John Sale, former federal prosecutors served in the Southern District of New York and also served as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Right, I gave you this whole litany of where I believe the double standard is, and you were saying, I was saying before you had to go to the break, that you lay out a very plausible case, and I think it should all be investigated by a legitimate, appropriate investigator, probably the depaupuit of justice. I mean, I don't. I think there's too many special counsels around. Having been part of a special prosecution in Watergate, you know, I think we all came away thinking that there's a problem. You have to do it right, but there's really no accountability. That's the danger with a special counsel. But switching to the president, if I think that should be investigated, and I think every person you mentioned should get the presumption of innocence, but where is that presumption of innocence for the president? I mean? And you? But how can we justify all the time, two years worth of investigated work with no evidence and then they're going after people, you know with thirty five years of serving their country, track records of you know, on a lying to the FBI. Doesn't that by the way, doesn't that render Doesn't that take away motivation for those of us to love the FBI from ever wanting to talk to them. If that's the result, well, I think we should respect the FBI. I think most do respetomen who I know, I know you do, And because I have an active law practice in Miami and I deal with the FBI all the time, and most of them are one of the best chins. But but Sean, it's it's not the FBI. I mean, it's uh, just what's going on possibly with a few individuals. But again I don't want to prejudge them, but I would say other people who are prejudging the president and making outrageous statements based upon nothing and that based upon redactions. I gotta run John Salem just away behind. Thank you, my friend. Eight hundred nine for one, Sean, toll free telephone number. There's a voice of sanity in this finally quick break right back. We'll continue all right twenty five now till the top of the hour. Toll free telephone numbers eight hundred and nine for one, Sean. If you want to be a part of the program, I can't tell you everything I'm doing tomorrow until I get on the air tomorrow. But I'm doing something very cool. And you know at this time of year, especially knowing all of you in this audience, your great love, your passion, your understanding of the sacrifice of so many others for us. One group we've really gotten to know in recent years as Troops Direct. They're an organization gets that gets needed supplies, tools to deploy troops. And I'm not saying this. We work with a lot of military charities, but they get the supplies to the troops that they need and the tools they need when they're sent overseas, so they're not underprepared. And it's donations from we the people, the American people, that keep this nonprofit organization going all year long. And you know, look, we go about our daily lives. We don't stop every minute, every second of every day and think about what sacrifice goes on behind the scenes and on the front lines for us. But at this time of year, we think about giving, and we think about all that we have. And one of the great blessings we have are so many men and women that want us, serve us and keep us free so that we can live in peace. Our brave men and women, and they sacrifice a lot to do it. Their family sacrifice a lot to let them do it. Anyway, joining us now is Aaron Narbomb, who's with us, founder executive director, and Jake Jones is with us. Guys, how are you good to talk to you again? What's going on? Hie afternoon? How are you you know? The only thing I don't understand is why for example, we're deploying people without needed helmets, body armor, carriers and some fundamental things that the government should be providing. We now had a big increase in our military budget. Why are they still without some basics? Well, you know, Sean and I founded Troops Direct in twenty ten. That was the question I asked as well. And I thought our troops had everything that they needed when they were in harm's way defending our country. And I found that that was just not the case because of bureaucracy's red tape, the slow logistics sometimes the military that our troops need things immediately for their missions and to protect their lives and the lives of their brethren in a manner that's quicker sometimes in the military supply chain is And we have I have Jake Jones who works full time for US, who was a recipient of our support, and he said, I need to be a part of this. And you know that's why we exist, is to support our troops immediately, to help them get their jobs done and get them back home. But Sean, I'll let Jake speak more to it. Jake, why don't you, you know, fill us in on all the things that you guys are doing and the things that they need, well, it's really a myriad of things. Sean. We support anything that doesn't go boomer banks for r compliant vendors. So it's anything from boots to rifle scopes, laser rangefinders, helmets, body armor, advanced medical kits, and these things are in demand every day. I mean I spend proximately kinds of thousands of dollars monthly in the support that we provide to our service members overseas. And it's all done to the patriotic donations of just mom and pops from around all around the United States that just want to keep America's sons and daughters secure. All right, So tell me, you know, so how does it work here? You know, you tell stories. I know there was a case where a generator that was powering us a remote special opts outposts failed and replacement parts one or twelve month backwater. Through the military supply chain, you were able to acquire and ship those needed parts in less than seventy two hours. You know, that's my numbing bureaucracy to me, that's the kind of thing that drives me crazy. But or when a unit was rushed to fight terrorism, in the Middle East, but they didn't have the necessary communications equipment. I agree most of this help was needed in the Obama years. Are you seeing a shift and a change though under the Trump administration, considering they now have you know, considerably increased the military budget and general matters, we are seeing an increase the support through the new Trump administration, whether our ability to with rules of engagement or engagement authorities being pushed down to the tactical level as opposed to the previous administration where it was at the general Walster level. But yet you know, the endless terrorists game of lackable if you will, that's global. We need to have the ability to surge assets at a moment's notice, and that's really what we're seeing now is the fluidity of the situation. For us to go out and remove terrorists in the battlefield, we have to be agile enough to do it, and the government doesn't allow them to do that because of the contracting requirements. So we can click and shift anything in the world, anything globally within ten to fifteen minutes if it's in stock, and if it's not, I'll get it in stock and get it out the door. Suit as possible. And you know, Sean, one thing that the public doesn't realize is that we have Americans serving right now as this program airs in over one hundred and thirty countries around the globe, whether it's your special Operations teams or it's your regular old infantry service member, and they need things sometimes quicker than that airplane from the military can get there. And that's why Troops Direct is so valuable, because our service members know what they need right now to get their job done. And I can tell you we've unfortunately seen casualties out there in the battle space with the units that we have suppli through the years, but those Americans have said that without Troops Direct, less missions would be accomplished and more lives would have been lost if it wasn't for the support that we provide them. And as you know, Sean, we are the only ones out there that do what we do for our Americans every single you know, people forget too. We have Americans deployed, and I know it's hard to believe in one hundred and thirty different countries, and this is a vital role that you guys have playing. Look, the bottom line is I wanted to have you on, explain it to our audience and how can they help. We have a very generous audience, especially with military matters. You're specifically getting them really important things so they can do their job. You know, uniforms, helmets, communication equipment, life support here. So if somebody wants to help and you get to bypass all the bureaucracy, how can they do it? They can go to troops direct dot org and make a donation today. You know, our overhead is less than two percent here, and if you're really say you support the troops, this is the way to do it. Yeah, the troops like cookies and candy, but the troops need life support systems. The troops need replacement uniforms because there's are bloodied and torn. They need the communications that have failed while they're in the battle space, and we're the ones that they come to to get them now. So the best Christmas gift we can give our troops is the products they needs they can get back home to their families and so well, I'm gonna make a donation. I don't ask my audience to do something that I myself won't do, and I'm gladly give to a great cause such as this, we'll put it up on Hannity dot com, troops direct dot org and there's also all the information you'd ever want to check out the good work that they're doing every day. And Merry Christmas to you guys, and you know, godspeed and what you're doing. And our thoughts and prayers are always with these these men and women that so bravely sacrifice so much for us to give us the opportunities we have every day. Well, Sean, you've been a longtime advocate and supporter for us, and you know from the helm here are troops Director. I just want to see you. Thank you so much for everything that you do for our troops through your advocacy. Well, we appreciate it, and we'll put it up on Hannity dot com or just remember troops direct dot org. All right, thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it. We Aaron, thank you, Jake, thanks you as well. Eight hundred nine four one, Sean is on number. Greg is in Ohio. Greg, Hi, how are you welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. Hello, Sean, just want to say that I've been listening to you for a long time since actually since two thousand and eight, and I keep here and over and over again. How you know about this smaller investigation. The way to stop it, I think is for whoever's being investigated, whoever has been found guilty of anything that he's uncovered, should just go and have it all reversed, because it's all through the poisonous tree. None of this investigation would have started without that dossier, and we know that dossier is false. Listen, I the double standards. What is amazing to me. It's so funny because Friday there was a you could feel it in the air. They thought they had the president. Then that they got to the inner writings of the sentencing recommendations and the Cone case and the Metaphor case, and when you really break it down, they had nothing. There's nothing Russia. There's still nothing Russia. I mean, it's amazing. And then go to Friday's transcript of Jim Comey, and Jim Comey you know, said that, oh, when I was fired, we still hadn't found anything about Russia. That's nine months after this whole thing began, nearly a year. Lisa Page had said the same thing. And what you then have is that nassier that Clinton wought for that became the basis again unverified. That's that's the other amazing thing. He said, No, we never verified it, but he put his name to it. And that Russian lying dossier that was paid for ought to be as important to the investigation of Muller or we need another special counsel to really look into it. To that separately, and Uranium one separately. But there's real evidence and proof here and all that. The only thing they went back on is this whole issue of campaign finance, which I outlined earlier in the program today, and I go back there is nothing there for them legally at all, in spite of what you are hearing. Nothing. So it's so these are pretty amazing times that we live in. And I'm just convinced that you're gonna fee they're gonna rise up and say that we gotta impeachment, impeachment. But they've been saying that from two years and it's still the same people. You know, if you really listen, just gets louder at times and then it lessens. And look, Muller's gonna do his thing. He's gonna write his report, Julianni will write his report, and there's not going to be any crimes you can indict a sitting president in any way, and the Trump administration is going to go on. But as you're watching all of this unfold and then the new investigations in Congress, just to ask yourself, you know, how is this all for the benefit of the American people. It's going to help the average American? Is going to keep us safer as a country? Is it going to provide more opportunities for Americans? And the answer is going to be a resounding no. And that means that they're doing this purely out of a hatred and a power play that they have orchestrated. You know, public servants are supposed to serve their constituents, the people. We the people. That's what was so powerful about the Pelosi, Trump and Schumer exchange. It's the President's like, no, my job is to keep the American people safe, and they just can't deal with that reality. It's been a big issue anyway. Eight hundred nine for one, Shaun is on number of a big time AJ Houston, Texas. What's going on, baby? How are you? What's going on? Oh? Manqui? Happy thanks Giving to you guys. Everybody everybody up is Everybody always sucking up to Linda. Everybody's always sucking up to Linda on a phone call earlier today, they're sucking up to Lenda. Then I would not mistake true friendship and affection for sucking up. You know, some people just like other people, no, because they know that you hold the keys to the kingdom and people can get past your kingdom. Is that to get to me? What I don't know. I don't have any kingdom. My kingdom is a he's just like me for my New York brashness, you know, especially people like Aj. You know he's in Texas. There's no one like me that, no one. No one talks like you there, right Daj. Nobody talks like that. You know. It's the first of all. That's what we love about. That is the most important that we love than I'm glad someone to the idiot now America, now that we see who President Trump is for, all the media have egg on. They think this man is for the people, This man is for this country. You see what, Nancy, They dirty rat and I said it, and I don't get me. They done it. Rat. They don't care for America. They don't care for our safety. We didn't have these egals. Like Trump said, we got people coming in here. They're doing bad things to this country, and they won't two meeting more or two thousand. I don't. Trump is a man, and don't let nobody fool you people. This man up there making deals, This man up there cared about the country. And if we set back and that the left wing media, dick Jake, what this man doing? You right, Sean, They're gonna hit him like a bad habit. But guess what, they're hitting the wrong man because Trump gonna hit them back just as bad. And I thank god we got God. I mean, this is what America wanted. America wanted a disruptor. America wanted a fighter. And it's like, there's no chance in hell that you're ever gonna win a better trade deal with your European allies China, Mexico, Canada unless you say I'm gonna pull out of the other one and we're gonna have teriffs if you don't, if the threat isn't real, it's empty, and then they're never gonna respond. So all of that is getting done, some of it already has gotten the same with NATO. Why do we have to pay the bulk of NATO, while Angela Merkel stupidly is making multi billion dollars deals to make Putin and Russia rich again, and their entire commodity is based on, you know, the hope that he doesn't turn off to spick it in a fit of rage one day. That's a pretty dumb idea, John Quick. The Republican Party, they'd better know we're watching them, and they better grew us set like Trump got. We see them come on TV just running the mouth and then get not done. It's a joke what they're doing. They better get behind him. Are they gonna be gone in twenty twenty one? That's run as well. We tired of him coming on TV. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. We stick of it. Get out there and do your job what we sent you up there to do it quick, full crapp it you good thing. We had a bar all right, big time. I think if they hear that rant, they're gonna they just got their marching orders. Do your job all right, big time. AJ Houston, Texas. That's gonna wrap things up with today, Hannity. Tonight we'll have the Trump beat down on Pelosi and Chucky Schumer and the latest on immigration. Also the absolute stupidity of this campaign finance, impeachment hysteria that will never work and they know it. Ted Cruz, Dan Mongino, Solomon Carter, Greg Jarrett, Jesse Jessica All coming up tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel

The Sean Hannity Show

Sean Hannity is a multimedia superstar, spending four hours a day every day reaching out to millions 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 4,481 clip(s)