July 29, 2025 • 29 mins
Hannity and investigative reporter John Solomon expose new revelations about Susan Miller, a key CIA analyst behind the second Intelligence Community Assessment that sparked the Russia hoax. They reveal her anti-Trump social media footprint and detail how top intelligence leaders ignored their own experts to push a political hit job. Plus, Hannity tackles woke hysteria over a jeans ad featuring actress Sydney Sweeney and slams Chuck Schumer’s race-baiting rhetoric. A power-packed hour of hard facts, cultural sanity, and biting truth.
Follow Sean and Our Guests on Social Media:
-
Facebook: facebook.com/SeanHannity
-
X (Twitter): x.com/seanhannity
-
Truth Social: truthsocial.com/@SeanHannity
-
Website: justthenews.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information Overload.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All right, News Roundup, Information Overload hour. Here's our toll
free telephone number if you want to be a part
of the program. It is eight hundred and ninety four
one Shawn if you would like to join us. We
have a lot of developments as it relates to the declassification.
If you remember the career senior intelligence officials, they did
(00:26):
a determination, an audit if you will, of the twenty
sixteen election, and we read what their findings were. They
didn't find any evidence of Trump Russia collusion at all whatsoever.
And that was the case up until early December of
twenty sixteen, and then all of a sudden, according to
(00:47):
the declassified documents, well then Barack Obama did not like
what they had to say and ordered another intelligent intelligence
community assessment that got taken over by the likes of
Brennan and Clapper and others, and it came up with
a conclusion that completely contradicted what senior intelligence officials had concluded.
(01:13):
As John Solomon says, it was polluted or corrupted, and
it was turned on its head. According to Tulci Gabbards
at the direct Orders of Barack Obama himself. There's a
lot of speculation about who might be held accountable to
all of this, but it goes even further with this.
The person responsible for the Second Intelligence Assessment ended up
(01:38):
being somebody that John Solomon now has done a deep
dive into, and I have ausinews dot com headline he's
the founder, editor in chief and chief investigative reporter about
how social media posts unmasked an anti Trump sentiment of
the CIA officer that helped draft the Second Intelligence Community
Assessment report that they wanted the one that set in
(02:02):
motion a phony narrative about Donald Trump and Russia that
even career and senior Intel officials had said, this is
absolutely ridiculously wrong, and they didn't care because they wanted
their report to basically sabotage an incoming president. John Solomon
joins US Now, am I assessing that right?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Yeah, listen, this is an important story, and I want
to remind everybody back in the Reagan years forty years ago,
the Reagan administration used to always say people are policy.
The people you pick and put into these positions end
up crafting and driving the policies. In the conclusion that
government makes and I think we now know something about
a woman named Susan Miller. She was the CIA counter
(02:47):
intelligence chief as Russia collusion was playing out in twenty
sixteen seventeen eighteen, and she has been on media the
last few days now that she retired, saying, I helped
lead the team that drafted this ICA, this Intelligence Community Assessment,
the one that brought the way.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
The ICA is the second ICA. They had the first
version of it, which got rejected for political reasons.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Yeah, and by the way, they had briefed it the
Congress array, so Congress was told no, Vladimir Putin didn't
have a preferred candick, No, he didn't try to help
Donald Trump. And then they do a one hundred and
eighty degree flip in December of twenty sixteen as Barack
Obama's leading a leaving office, and then they released a
different conclusion. Well, this woman has said in numerous legacy
media interviews that she was the woman that led the
(03:36):
team that helped draft this Intelligence Community Assessment. What do
we know about this woman other than what role she
played in the CI And the answer is, since she
retired in the last year, she's been very active in
social media. We know this because of the great work
of my colleague here at justin News, Jerry Dunleavy, one
of the great investigative reporters. He went through all her
social media, particularly well LinkedIn, where she's a pro poster.
(04:01):
That's a social media for business colleagues, and lots of
us who are professionals use it well. In her time there,
she's referred to Donald Trump as a dictator. She's referred
to MAGA supporters as Nazis. She suggested that the Steele dossier,
which John Dura's report Flatley said, didn't have any truthful
information or accurate information, and that it still might be true.
(04:23):
This is a woman that clearly, at least now has
anti Trump sentiments of a massive level, very prolific in
how she writes. There's a point where she's talking on
social media, people sharing stories and they say, look Trump,
there are parallels to Trump and Hitler, and she says,
it's not lost on me the comparison. These are really
(04:45):
remarkable statements that she's making. That Jerry dug up. We've
also gone through some of her interviews and looked at
some of the things that she said. But when you
look at this woman, she clearly, at least today, is
very anti Trump. And this is the sort of woman
that was helping John Brennan drive that second conclusion by
her own description, by what she says, this is what
she did.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Okay, let's go through some of this, because this is
pretty amazing to me. All Right. So she's writing, you know,
exhaustively on linked LinkedIn and recently retired CIA counterintelligence officer,
and she's doing these media interviews and apparently handpicked, allegedly
hand picked by former CIA director John Brennan himself. After
(05:29):
they didn't like the career senior analyst assessment, they decide
to make another assessment. She gets chosen for this, and
she has repeatedly been out there suggesting Trump may be
a Russian asset or a Kremlin asset, claiming that Christopher
Steele's anti Trump dossier, which we know has been totally
(05:51):
completely debunked. It was debunked, correct me if I'm wrong
as early as twenty sixteen in December, and it was
even debunked before that. People were warned not to use
it because they knew it was bought and paid for
by Hillary Clinton. Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, they had concerned House. So here's
another reason beyond just who paid for it. When they
looked at it from an intelligence product standpoint, it didn't
rise to the level of trust, meaningful or meritorious intelligence.
It actually using it in the ICA. The way they
did violate it the very intelligence roles that Obama's team
(06:26):
had put in place to govern these analysis. So they
break their own rules by putting it into the report.
They knew it wasn't corroborated, and then it had multiple
things in it that were disprovable, falsely wrong, like Michael
Cohen didn't go to Prague, remember that famous line home.
We know that didn't happen. So that's why it wasn't
supposed to be put in the report, and then they
shoehorned it in there anyways.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
All right, So let's look at some of the things.
For example, she also was sending mixed messages that the
is the ICA team had found no collusion, So you know,
how do you have it both ways when writing their
assessment and in late twenty sixteen and even claimed that
there's no collusion finding was made clear in the ICA.
But he's singing a very different tune. And let's go
(07:10):
to the heart of this, which is why was this
ever questioned in the first place when you had seen
your career intelligence officials coming to a very different conclusion.
Why did Barack Obama direct a second assessment to take
place in the first place. There's no real reason. And
what role did Brennan, Clapper and call Me play in
(07:32):
all of this?
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Well, one thing we know for certain. One thing we
know for certain is that John Brennan wrote an email
to his team saying I want the DASS in after
the team said we don't believe it. Belongeria will bring
shame on the Intelligence Committee. It's not the sort of
product that we should be basing analytical results, and in
John Brennan writes an email saying I want it in. Now.
That's important for some reason, because his story has always
(07:55):
been the FBI wanted it, and we do know the
FBI wanted it in. But when he over rules his
own people, we know that he took that action. Right,
there's an email John Radcliffe's report makes clear. And now
we know from last week's release, which is the House
Intelligence Committee's review of this matter, back when Devin Noons
(08:15):
were still in charge of it, that several people had
concerns about the way this analysis was done. It didn't
follow the rules, It shouldn't have used the Steele dow
Say had given all the things they knew about it,
and John Brennan lets that go on. Barack Obama lets
that go on. Why because he releases that report in
the aftermath he makes it public in January to dirty
(08:36):
up Donald Trump as Donald Trump's about to take the
oath of office for the first time. So and all
of this, all of this activity in December of January,
which we've been focusing on in the last couple of weeks,
has to be looked at in light of what Barack
Obama knew in July twenty sixteen, because in July twenty
sixteen there's an intelligence intercept. I think we're going to
(08:57):
learn a lot more about this in the next couple
of days where they knew classification. But in July twenty sixteen,
John Brennan goes over and personally briefs the President and
tells him there's intelligence Hillary Clinton has authorized a dirty
trick where she's going to try to make it look
like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are colluding to win
(09:18):
the election. He knows that Barack Obama knows that. John
Brennan knows that before the FBI opens up their investigation
called Crossfire Hurricane. In other words, they know what they
open up on is the likely fruits of a Hillary
Clinton political dirty trick, not a real intelligence threat, a
security matter, a political dirt trick, and they bite on
(09:38):
it and they legitimize it by going to the fis
a court, getting a special counsel interviewing everybody, making Mike
Flynn go through hell. Knowing that Barack Obama knew that
at the beginning, at the top of the food chain,
and he doesn't stop. It tells you that Barack Obama
has some things he really needs to answer to you,
to the American public.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
All right, quick break will come right back more with
with John Solomon, founder editor in chief and also chief
investigative reporter justinews dot com on the other side. Then
we'll get to your calls eight hundred and nine for
one Sean if you want to be a part of
the program as we continue, we continue, John Solomon, as
for US new developments as it relates to the declassified
(10:18):
documents involving Russia, Russia, Russia and what a real hoax
it was, far worse than we ever knew. John Solomon,
editor in chief, founder of justinews dot com, also the
chief investigative reporter. Let's go to when did they know
the dossier was political in nature? When was the first warning?
(10:40):
The one that I remember was Bruce Or, oddly enough,
considering Nelly Or was working on the dossier, but Bruce
Or warned that it was political in nature and shouldn't
be used. Now, that's just prior to it becoming the
bulk of information for what became four five applications, three
of which James Colemy signed. Comy and the FBI director.
(11:04):
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe had pushed in December of
twenty sixteen to include Steele's debunk dossier in the twenty
sixteen ICA. But didn't they know by December? Didn't they
get rid of Christopher Steele by December of twenty sixteen?
And didn't they take them off the payroll for a
period of time? Wasn't he discredited by that time? Wasn't
(11:25):
the dossier discredited by December of twenty sixteen?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
It has? And let me give you these precise time
frame in August of twenty sixteen is when Bruce Org
gives the first tip off that hey, this is probably
coming from politics. Now, there are other places where they're
learning that, but that was an important one because it
was a senior Justice Department official in November first excuse
me in the fall of twenty sixteen, based on information
that was he classified in twenty twenty by the first
(11:50):
Trump administration, the CIA warned the FBI that Christopher Steele's
network of sources that he was allegedly basing this information
was infiltrated, potentially by Russian intelligence and that they needed
revalidate it. Don't rely on them. They didn't revalidate him.
They kept them going. On November first, the FBI terminated
(12:12):
Christopher still the source because he had gone to the
news media and leaked information from the dossier in the
existence of what the FBI was doing. So by December,
all that baggage, all of those red warnings are there.
But there's one other thing that has happened. The FBI's
counterintelligence team has built a spreadsheet. You and I broke
this on your show many years ago. The spreadsheet went
(12:33):
line by line everything that Christopher Steele was a curt
and came from his sources and they were ninety percent
of it they determined either wasn't corroborated or had been debunked.
It was either uncorroboratable or debunked. That makes it a
very bad intelligence product, the sort of thing not supposed
to use to create an ICA for the President of
(12:55):
the United.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Well, but senior Intel officials that did the original ICA,
we're screaming the same thing that this goes against all standards,
and rat clufs review of everything and post mortem on
this said the same thing. Last question, and it's about
two different subjects. Devin Newnez and the Intel board chairman
(13:16):
want security clearance is revoked over this and other abuses.
And what do you make of former FBI agents Struck
deleting all of his posts on social media yesterday?
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Maybe he just decided to take a break from social media.
He's not going to keep it from the Justice Department.
You can take him down, but obviously Twitter archives them,
they're there for everybody to see. So I don't think
it's a grand conspiracy with Pete Struck done. Maybe he
just decided, after all that's been exposed about him, he
doesn't want to stay in the town hall anymore and
keep talking about it because we now have the facts
(13:50):
to judge his behavior much differently than we did a
few years ago. But no one's going to get rid
of those posts there in time machine. Twitter is going
to keep them. I think he's just gone silent on
social media, probably because the heat's turning up on him,
like so many of the players. Now, people are beginning
to realize he trusted these FBI agents, but they may
(14:10):
have misled us. And I think that he's praising for
a moment. I think this next revelation that comes out,
the timing of Petees truck topping off is because there's
going to be the classified annex of the Durham Report
being released. I asked President Trump in an interview ten
days ago, would you because if it he said yes,
he immediately went and started the process that's going to happen.
(14:30):
What that annex is going to show is that it
wasn't just Barack Obama and John Brennan that knew that
Hillary Clinton was pulling a dirty trick, That the FBI
themselves knew that Hillary Clinton was doing this dirty trick,
and they continued to proceed down the line of crossfire.
Hurricane the fice of Warrens, all the things that we
now know about. I think that moment's going to be
(14:50):
a very difficult moment for people who worked in the
Komi mckabe FBI, because it's going to show they were
legitimizing something they need to just simply be a dirty trick.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
I want to see if this grand conspiracy has followed
through on I don't want to overpromise an underdeliver, but
it has all the markings of the biggest political scandal,
far bigger than Watergate in the last one hundred years.
Let's see where it goes. We've been disappointed before. John
solomonsinews dot com. We appreciate your time and your hard
(15:21):
work as always, and thank you for sharing it with
us as always. Also, you know how I know I'm
getting old, Linda gray hair all right? Wise, Wisenheimer, are
you it's five thirty? It's allow Now, you're a wise
Laura Wise It that's a wise ask comment. You're right,
that's a wise ask, cimate.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
Indeed it is. I mean there are other things that
are indicative of old age, you know, asking a lot
of questions. What did I tell you earlier? I can't
remember Why did I walk in this room? What did
I come here? For all of those boys?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
I haven't gotten to that point in my life yet,
but if I do, I'll let you know. What's that said?
Speaker 4 (15:56):
God bless you, so I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
I know I'm getting hold when I read the hard
copy of the New York Post every day, which I do,
and I kind of that's the one thing I take
my time with. I've raced through.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Where do you get it from?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
It's all over the place down here? Is there really
seven eleven? You get at CBS, you can get it
at public, so you can get anywhere.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
It really is New York with sand Okay, it's.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
New York with Sandon and better weather than the crap
weather you've been having in the Northeast all spring in
summer long, it's been horrible. So you know, you get
old when when I go to page six, which is
like the gossip page, and it's always interesting, and when
I start seeing somebody over and over and over again,
(16:41):
and I have no earthly idea who the person is.
And apparently this young woman, Sydney Sweeney, is very very popular.
Do you know about this girl?
Speaker 4 (16:51):
I know about her because of the news I have
never seen her before.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
No, Okay, she's all over page six almost on a
daily basis, or they have a picture of her in
the like every day. She's like the IT person of
the hour, right, correct and anyway, So she starts this
ad campaign and now there's a backlash to it, and
the ad campaign includes her wearing American Eagle gene products
(17:15):
modeling with a dog and a white Mustang. Okay, the
ads declared that Sweeney has great genes ge n ees.
Now I interpreted that to me, Oh, she's an attractive
young lady. Okay, That's how I interpreted it. The word
genes spell ge nes is replaced with genes, which is
(17:37):
what they're selling. Now, these people on social media have
lost their mind and they're trying to tie the ad
to Nazism and racism? Did you mean to include a
bunch of Nazi dog whistles in this?
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Now?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I think I'm pretty hip to anti semitism. I mean,
there are people out there that are claiming and it's
gone more viral than I ever thought it wouldn't. We
talked about it a little bit yesterday. I talked about
it with Patrick bet David on his podcast. That are
trying to rewrite history as though Winston Churchill was not
one of the most heroic and brave, you know people
(18:15):
in his time and battling back the forces of evil
with blood, oil and sweat. And what do we what
do I am Victory one of one of one of
the great leaders of our time. During the bombing of
Britain's guys walking among the people and he's standing up.
He understood Hitler was evil and and thank god, you know,
(18:37):
he was able to lead the way and Europe was
saved and victory in Europe occurred. And and somehow they're arguing, well,
he didn't save Western civilization, no, but he he saved
it for his time. And I'll go back to my
interview with Levin earlier, and it's like, well, Reagan said
it best. You know, we're but one generation away from freedom.
Every generation has their their moral obligation to preserve the
(19:02):
cause of liberty and freedom, and it lands on their shoulders.
You can't blame somebody from the forties that defeated Nazism
and fascism, and we defeated imperial Japan and expect that
they're responsible for every generation thereafter. And I know this
is a debate that apparently some people are buying into
(19:22):
this revisionism and I'm having a hard time understanding how
they are claiming to be conservative and believing that. But
I do believe in freedom of speech. But I digress.
And anyway, apparently MSDNC had an opinion piece arguing the
ad shows a cultural shift to whiteness, as well as
(19:42):
ABC's Good Morning America platforming the criticism with a report
on critics comparing the ad to Nazi propaganda and with
racial undertones. Whiteness is ugly. This is the ideology of
the left. Political consultant and Ryan James Dusky, writing on
(20:04):
x in response to the MSDNZ opinion post, I mean,
this thing has gone super heavy viral here, and I'm
just I don't know this young girl. I don't know
much about it. I guess she's a movie star. I
have no idea.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
She's laying a lot of TV shows and stuff, all.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Right, so she's very popular. She's a pretty young woman. Fine,
that's why she's in the paper. Okay, she's doing a
gene ad and it's like, oh, okay, she's a pretty girl,
so we'll spell Jens ge Nes. How does that have
anything to do with Nazis. Tell me what I might
be missing here. I could be missing something.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
You're just missing a liberal gene. We went from a
very long period of time where the ugliest and most
out of shape people were supposed to be the people
that we looked at and said, whoever you are, it's beautiful,
instead of addressing the real issues of maybe that nose
ring is not for you, maybe you shouldn't dye your
hair eighteen colors, Maybe you should work out because you
(21:01):
might get diabetes and it's hard on your knees and
your joints, in your heart. We weren't allowed to talk
about these things. So they put a pretty girl in
jeans because guess what that sells jeans, and they did it.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Guess what. They did the same thing years ago with
Brooks Shields, and it was a huge controversy. You know
what comes between me and Mike Calvin's nothing right.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
But she was fourteen years old, so it was gross.
I mean, I wouldn't like my fourteen year old ugh
to do that, but you know, they have been.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I actually met her once. In fairness to her, she
was very lovely. She's a very nice, lovely, lovely woman.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
It doesn't mean that she wasn't you know, manhandled and
manipulated as a childhood start fourteen.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
That's a parent, parental decision. I'm not going to get
into a personal life, right. So leftists are melting down
after American Eagle dropped this ad with Sydney Sweeney over
the blue jeans. Then the ad shows Sweety flaunting the
jeans in a provocative fashion. Okay, aka, I guess Brooks,
Shields and Calvin's and it shows you know are doing
(22:01):
that with a voiceover of the actress talking about her genes.
And then he took the ad to employ wordplay in
order to imply that people with good genes was spelled
with a G are better than others. I mean, come on,
stress from the real anti semitism we hear every day.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Let me tell you what it is. It's an opportunity
to take a very popular story and make it woke
as a joke, in an effort to make people who
are looking at it and say, oh my gosh. For
a moment, I let go of my woke as a
joke isms and just read an article and thought, oh,
she looks good, the jeans look good or whatever, or
for guys to look at that girl and go, oh,
she looks pretty. Now we have to go back to
(22:42):
our woke as a joke is and say that everything
that is pretty, you know, it really isn't. The things
that they're saying are normal. The things that they're saying
are pretty. The things that they're saying are supposed to
be the every day. Now, it's all a bunch of
woke bs. And for once, they actually had an ad
that had a double Enton had a smart ad writer.
The copy was good and we kept it moving. They
just want to make it ugly because it actually isn't.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Okay. Now, some people think she's very attractive. I think
she's moderately attractive as my home at the end of
the day, you know, but Jean's. But apparently everybody thinks
she's super attractive, and then that that is the reason
why I this is my interpretation they're talking about Jean's meaning.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
So she looks she has a certain feature of her
body which I will not go into here, But anybody
who looks at the picture can see there's a part
of her body that theycentuate more than others.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
So I don't I'm looking at I have no idea
what he's talking.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
Obviously, your second sign of aging is your inability to see.
So we'll work on that.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
But at the end of it, now I can't. I
have to text me the answer be an informed host.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
But the point of the matter is, well, I'm only.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Looking at a printed version here. It's not like it's
a big picture.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
It's pretty big. It's pretty big print online, it's all.
It's all big.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
At the end of the day, I think I figured,
good job.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
The point of the matter is is that they're mad.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
It's very, very wrong of you to be talking about
people's body thoughts like that.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
I wasn't talking about any particular body part.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I just feature, you know, there's one way to put it.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Sure, we're features, you know what.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Can everyone just take a deep breath and calm the
hell down? This girl for Adam, I don't, But she's
not a Nazi. I don't see anything Nazi related to
this much. Just like Calvin Klein and Brooke Shields back
in the day. That's what I see.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
The left is completely backwards. This girl is not a Nazi,
just like the shooter last night was not white. Everybody
on the left, like you think, we're looking at the picture.
Oh my guys, some things are just facts.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Sorry that it doesn't watching them and not me.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
I always watch the enemy That's what I do. I
watch all the channels I can't stand, so I know
exactly what they're saying, so I can WHOA.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
That means I'm not on the enemy list anymore. I
just stop watching me.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Look at that.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
I mean in here for me. You know, if you
want to call people names, I'm going to tell you something.
One of the worst things you can call people as
a racist. One of the worst things you can say
is they're misogynists and sexist. You can say there are Nazi, homophobes,
even the FOBE. I mean, it's like Chuck Schumer his
latest comments, Oh Americans don't want people of color to vote,
(25:35):
among other things. This is what he said.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Listen, It's been clear when we fight for democracy, when
we protect democracy, we got to fight fire with fire.
We're not going to stand idly by, as Maya said,
We're not going to let.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Them revert to Jim Crow.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
And if you don't think they want to revert to
Jim Crow, just look what they did in the Save Act,
which went back to the Jim Crow for the whole
nation by so making it hard. They said, you need
ID and they made it so hard to show ID
that probably half the people in America couldn't vote. We
wouldn't let it pass Democrats they needed our vote.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
They went to court.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
Many of us Durban, myself and others will lead plaintiffs,
and we beat them in court. But it shows why
we need legislation because these guys are undoing everything in
every way they can. They don't want poor people to vote,
they don't want people of color to vote, they don't
want Democrats to vote. They don't believe in democracy we do.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
They don't want poor people to vote, they don't want
of color to vote, they don't want Democrats to vote.
I mean, they just make this up. You're racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynists, xenophobic, islamophobic.
You want dirty air and water and grandma and grandpa
to be thrown over a cliff by a republic. It's
the same crew.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Here's what's so funny. I always you know you and
I've talked about this for years, and it's so true.
You never have to wonder what the left is doing
because they pretend and they projected on the other side
you want to know what a Nazi is, just look
at Antifa, Look at the people calling for the complete
and total elimination of the Jewish people.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
About the anti Semitism in the squad.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
About these are the Nazis.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
That's not okay. Well, and let me add one other
point here. Chuck Schumer has to go harder and harder
and more radical left. Let me tell you what Chuck
Schumer's greatest fear right now is is that he's gonna
get primaried by AOC. And if he gets primaried by AOC,
she wins by double digits, if not by twenty points
or more. He knows she would crush him. Knows it.
(27:36):
And Chuck Schumer, that's why he can't stand up to
Mom Donnie. He's never going to stand up to the squad.
Neither can Hakim Jeffries. And they are they are just
leaders in name only. They are impotent, they are weak,
they are gutless, they are cowardly, and they have no
business even being in the house or sent it either
one of them, and they lie with abandonment. You know, look,
(27:59):
if if anybody has stood up against this Nazi talk
and naziism and antiseme stood against anti Semitism. It's been me,
it's been this show. We have been consistent. We find
anti semitism from anybody, virulent anti semitism, halls of Congress, worldwide,
(28:22):
it's growing college campuses. We've been chronicling it. And for
those people you know that we played yesterday this podcast
which was repulsive in the comments that were being made
about about Jewish people and during the Holocaust and Hitler.
It was I can't even believe the level of depravity
(28:43):
and the ignorance of these people on this podcast. I
don't even know who they are. I mean, it's it's scary,
the lack of knowledge about Israel, its history, its homeland,
how it's been attacked again and again and again, and
that they get accused of atrocities. Meanwhile, they lost nearly
(29:03):
forty thousand people in a single day on October seven.
Nobody ever brings that part up. Eight hundred and nine
point one, Shawn is our number if you want to
be a part of the program.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information Overload.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All right, News Roundup, Information Overload hour. Here's our toll
free telephone number if you want to be a part
of the program. It is eight hundred and ninety four
one Shawn if you would like to join us. We
have a lot of developments as it relates to the declassification.
If you remember the career senior intelligence officials, they did
(00:26):
a determination, an audit if you will, of the twenty
sixteen election, and we read what their findings were. They
didn't find any evidence of Trump Russia collusion at all whatsoever.
And that was the case up until early December of
twenty sixteen, and then all of a sudden, according to
(00:47):
the declassified documents, well then Barack Obama did not like
what they had to say and ordered another intelligent intelligence
community assessment that got taken over by the likes of
Brennan and Clapper and others, and it came up with
a conclusion that completely contradicted what senior intelligence officials had concluded.
(01:13):
As John Solomon says, it was polluted or corrupted, and
it was turned on its head. According to Tulci Gabbards
at the direct Orders of Barack Obama himself. There's a
lot of speculation about who might be held accountable to
all of this, but it goes even further with this.
The person responsible for the Second Intelligence Assessment ended up
(01:38):
being somebody that John Solomon now has done a deep
dive into, and I have ausinews dot com headline he's
the founder, editor in chief and chief investigative reporter about
how social media posts unmasked an anti Trump sentiment of
the CIA officer that helped draft the Second Intelligence Community
Assessment report that they wanted the one that set in
(02:02):
motion a phony narrative about Donald Trump and Russia that
even career and senior Intel officials had said, this is
absolutely ridiculously wrong, and they didn't care because they wanted
their report to basically sabotage an incoming president. John Solomon
joins US Now, am I assessing that right?
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Yeah, listen, this is an important story, and I want
to remind everybody back in the Reagan years forty years ago,
the Reagan administration used to always say people are policy.
The people you pick and put into these positions end
up crafting and driving the policies. In the conclusion that
government makes and I think we now know something about
a woman named Susan Miller. She was the CIA counter
(02:47):
intelligence chief as Russia collusion was playing out in twenty
sixteen seventeen eighteen, and she has been on media the
last few days now that she retired, saying, I helped
lead the team that drafted this ICA, this Intelligence Community Assessment,
the one that brought the way.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
The ICA is the second ICA. They had the first
version of it, which got rejected for political reasons.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Yeah, and by the way, they had briefed it the
Congress array, so Congress was told no, Vladimir Putin didn't
have a preferred candick, No, he didn't try to help
Donald Trump. And then they do a one hundred and
eighty degree flip in December of twenty sixteen as Barack
Obama's leading a leaving office, and then they released a
different conclusion. Well, this woman has said in numerous legacy
media interviews that she was the woman that led the
(03:36):
team that helped draft this Intelligence Community Assessment. What do
we know about this woman other than what role she
played in the CI And the answer is, since she
retired in the last year, she's been very active in
social media. We know this because of the great work
of my colleague here at justin News, Jerry Dunleavy, one
of the great investigative reporters. He went through all her
social media, particularly well LinkedIn, where she's a pro poster.
(04:01):
That's a social media for business colleagues, and lots of
us who are professionals use it well. In her time there,
she's referred to Donald Trump as a dictator. She's referred
to MAGA supporters as Nazis. She suggested that the Steele dossier,
which John Dura's report Flatley said, didn't have any truthful
information or accurate information, and that it still might be true.
(04:23):
This is a woman that clearly, at least now has
anti Trump sentiments of a massive level, very prolific in
how she writes. There's a point where she's talking on
social media, people sharing stories and they say, look Trump,
there are parallels to Trump and Hitler, and she says,
it's not lost on me the comparison. These are really
(04:45):
remarkable statements that she's making. That Jerry dug up. We've
also gone through some of her interviews and looked at
some of the things that she said. But when you
look at this woman, she clearly, at least today, is
very anti Trump. And this is the sort of woman
that was helping John Brennan drive that second conclusion by
her own description, by what she says, this is what
she did.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Okay, let's go through some of this, because this is
pretty amazing to me. All Right. So she's writing, you know,
exhaustively on linked LinkedIn and recently retired CIA counterintelligence officer,
and she's doing these media interviews and apparently handpicked, allegedly
hand picked by former CIA director John Brennan himself. After
(05:29):
they didn't like the career senior analyst assessment, they decide
to make another assessment. She gets chosen for this, and
she has repeatedly been out there suggesting Trump may be
a Russian asset or a Kremlin asset, claiming that Christopher
Steele's anti Trump dossier, which we know has been totally
(05:51):
completely debunked. It was debunked, correct me if I'm wrong
as early as twenty sixteen in December, and it was
even debunked before that. People were warned not to use
it because they knew it was bought and paid for
by Hillary Clinton. Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, they had concerned House. So here's
another reason beyond just who paid for it. When they
looked at it from an intelligence product standpoint, it didn't
rise to the level of trust, meaningful or meritorious intelligence.
It actually using it in the ICA. The way they
did violate it the very intelligence roles that Obama's team
(06:26):
had put in place to govern these analysis. So they
break their own rules by putting it into the report.
They knew it wasn't corroborated, and then it had multiple
things in it that were disprovable, falsely wrong, like Michael
Cohen didn't go to Prague, remember that famous line home.
We know that didn't happen. So that's why it wasn't
supposed to be put in the report, and then they
shoehorned it in there anyways.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
All right, So let's look at some of the things.
For example, she also was sending mixed messages that the
is the ICA team had found no collusion, So you know,
how do you have it both ways when writing their
assessment and in late twenty sixteen and even claimed that
there's no collusion finding was made clear in the ICA.
But he's singing a very different tune. And let's go
(07:10):
to the heart of this, which is why was this
ever questioned in the first place when you had seen
your career intelligence officials coming to a very different conclusion.
Why did Barack Obama direct a second assessment to take
place in the first place. There's no real reason. And
what role did Brennan, Clapper and call Me play in
(07:32):
all of this?
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Well, one thing we know for certain. One thing we
know for certain is that John Brennan wrote an email
to his team saying I want the DASS in after
the team said we don't believe it. Belongeria will bring
shame on the Intelligence Committee. It's not the sort of
product that we should be basing analytical results, and in
John Brennan writes an email saying I want it in. Now.
That's important for some reason, because his story has always
(07:55):
been the FBI wanted it, and we do know the
FBI wanted it in. But when he over rules his
own people, we know that he took that action. Right,
there's an email John Radcliffe's report makes clear. And now
we know from last week's release, which is the House
Intelligence Committee's review of this matter, back when Devin Noons
(08:15):
were still in charge of it, that several people had
concerns about the way this analysis was done. It didn't
follow the rules, It shouldn't have used the Steele dow
Say had given all the things they knew about it,
and John Brennan lets that go on. Barack Obama lets
that go on. Why because he releases that report in
the aftermath he makes it public in January to dirty
(08:36):
up Donald Trump as Donald Trump's about to take the
oath of office for the first time. So and all
of this, all of this activity in December of January,
which we've been focusing on in the last couple of weeks,
has to be looked at in light of what Barack
Obama knew in July twenty sixteen, because in July twenty
sixteen there's an intelligence intercept. I think we're going to
(08:57):
learn a lot more about this in the next couple
of days where they knew classification. But in July twenty sixteen,
John Brennan goes over and personally briefs the President and
tells him there's intelligence Hillary Clinton has authorized a dirty
trick where she's going to try to make it look
like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are colluding to win
(09:18):
the election. He knows that Barack Obama knows that. John
Brennan knows that before the FBI opens up their investigation
called Crossfire Hurricane. In other words, they know what they
open up on is the likely fruits of a Hillary
Clinton political dirty trick, not a real intelligence threat, a
security matter, a political dirt trick, and they bite on
(09:38):
it and they legitimize it by going to the fis
a court, getting a special counsel interviewing everybody, making Mike
Flynn go through hell. Knowing that Barack Obama knew that
at the beginning, at the top of the food chain,
and he doesn't stop. It tells you that Barack Obama
has some things he really needs to answer to you,
to the American public.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
All right, quick break will come right back more with
with John Solomon, founder editor in chief and also chief
investigative reporter justinews dot com on the other side. Then
we'll get to your calls eight hundred and nine for
one Sean if you want to be a part of
the program as we continue, we continue, John Solomon, as
for US new developments as it relates to the declassified
(10:18):
documents involving Russia, Russia, Russia and what a real hoax
it was, far worse than we ever knew. John Solomon,
editor in chief, founder of justinews dot com, also the
chief investigative reporter. Let's go to when did they know
the dossier was political in nature? When was the first warning?
(10:40):
The one that I remember was Bruce Or, oddly enough,
considering Nelly Or was working on the dossier, but Bruce
Or warned that it was political in nature and shouldn't
be used. Now, that's just prior to it becoming the
bulk of information for what became four five applications, three
of which James Colemy signed. Comy and the FBI director.
(11:04):
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe had pushed in December of
twenty sixteen to include Steele's debunk dossier in the twenty
sixteen ICA. But didn't they know by December? Didn't they
get rid of Christopher Steele by December of twenty sixteen?
And didn't they take them off the payroll for a
period of time? Wasn't he discredited by that time? Wasn't
(11:25):
the dossier discredited by December of twenty sixteen?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
It has? And let me give you these precise time
frame in August of twenty sixteen is when Bruce Org
gives the first tip off that hey, this is probably
coming from politics. Now, there are other places where they're
learning that, but that was an important one because it
was a senior Justice Department official in November first excuse
me in the fall of twenty sixteen, based on information
that was he classified in twenty twenty by the first
(11:50):
Trump administration, the CIA warned the FBI that Christopher Steele's
network of sources that he was allegedly basing this information
was infiltrated, potentially by Russian intelligence and that they needed
revalidate it. Don't rely on them. They didn't revalidate him.
They kept them going. On November first, the FBI terminated
(12:12):
Christopher still the source because he had gone to the
news media and leaked information from the dossier in the
existence of what the FBI was doing. So by December,
all that baggage, all of those red warnings are there.
But there's one other thing that has happened. The FBI's
counterintelligence team has built a spreadsheet. You and I broke
this on your show many years ago. The spreadsheet went
(12:33):
line by line everything that Christopher Steele was a curt
and came from his sources and they were ninety percent
of it they determined either wasn't corroborated or had been debunked.
It was either uncorroboratable or debunked. That makes it a
very bad intelligence product, the sort of thing not supposed
to use to create an ICA for the President of
(12:55):
the United.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Well, but senior Intel officials that did the original ICA,
we're screaming the same thing that this goes against all standards,
and rat clufs review of everything and post mortem on
this said the same thing. Last question, and it's about
two different subjects. Devin Newnez and the Intel board chairman
(13:16):
want security clearance is revoked over this and other abuses.
And what do you make of former FBI agents Struck
deleting all of his posts on social media yesterday?
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Maybe he just decided to take a break from social media.
He's not going to keep it from the Justice Department.
You can take him down, but obviously Twitter archives them,
they're there for everybody to see. So I don't think
it's a grand conspiracy with Pete Struck done. Maybe he
just decided, after all that's been exposed about him, he
doesn't want to stay in the town hall anymore and
keep talking about it because we now have the facts
(13:50):
to judge his behavior much differently than we did a
few years ago. But no one's going to get rid
of those posts there in time machine. Twitter is going
to keep them. I think he's just gone silent on
social media, probably because the heat's turning up on him,
like so many of the players. Now, people are beginning
to realize he trusted these FBI agents, but they may
(14:10):
have misled us. And I think that he's praising for
a moment. I think this next revelation that comes out,
the timing of Petees truck topping off is because there's
going to be the classified annex of the Durham Report
being released. I asked President Trump in an interview ten
days ago, would you because if it he said yes,
he immediately went and started the process that's going to happen.
(14:30):
What that annex is going to show is that it
wasn't just Barack Obama and John Brennan that knew that
Hillary Clinton was pulling a dirty trick, That the FBI
themselves knew that Hillary Clinton was doing this dirty trick,
and they continued to proceed down the line of crossfire.
Hurricane the fice of Warrens, all the things that we
now know about. I think that moment's going to be
(14:50):
a very difficult moment for people who worked in the
Komi mckabe FBI, because it's going to show they were
legitimizing something they need to just simply be a dirty trick.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
I want to see if this grand conspiracy has followed
through on I don't want to overpromise an underdeliver, but
it has all the markings of the biggest political scandal,
far bigger than Watergate in the last one hundred years.
Let's see where it goes. We've been disappointed before. John
solomonsinews dot com. We appreciate your time and your hard
(15:21):
work as always, and thank you for sharing it with
us as always. Also, you know how I know I'm
getting old, Linda gray hair all right? Wise, Wisenheimer, are
you it's five thirty? It's allow Now, you're a wise
Laura Wise It that's a wise ask comment. You're right,
that's a wise ask, cimate.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
Indeed it is. I mean there are other things that
are indicative of old age, you know, asking a lot
of questions. What did I tell you earlier? I can't
remember Why did I walk in this room? What did
I come here? For all of those boys?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
I haven't gotten to that point in my life yet,
but if I do, I'll let you know. What's that said?
Speaker 4 (15:56):
God bless you, so I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
I know I'm getting hold when I read the hard
copy of the New York Post every day, which I do,
and I kind of that's the one thing I take
my time with. I've raced through.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Where do you get it from?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
It's all over the place down here? Is there really
seven eleven? You get at CBS, you can get it
at public, so you can get anywhere.
Speaker 4 (16:15):
It really is New York with sand Okay, it's.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
New York with Sandon and better weather than the crap
weather you've been having in the Northeast all spring in
summer long, it's been horrible. So you know, you get
old when when I go to page six, which is
like the gossip page, and it's always interesting, and when
I start seeing somebody over and over and over again,
(16:41):
and I have no earthly idea who the person is.
And apparently this young woman, Sydney Sweeney, is very very popular.
Do you know about this girl?
Speaker 4 (16:51):
I know about her because of the news I have
never seen her before.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
No, Okay, she's all over page six almost on a
daily basis, or they have a picture of her in
the like every day. She's like the IT person of
the hour, right, correct and anyway, So she starts this
ad campaign and now there's a backlash to it, and
the ad campaign includes her wearing American Eagle gene products
(17:15):
modeling with a dog and a white Mustang. Okay, the
ads declared that Sweeney has great genes ge n ees.
Now I interpreted that to me, Oh, she's an attractive
young lady. Okay, That's how I interpreted it. The word
genes spell ge nes is replaced with genes, which is
(17:37):
what they're selling. Now, these people on social media have
lost their mind and they're trying to tie the ad
to Nazism and racism? Did you mean to include a
bunch of Nazi dog whistles in this?
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Now?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I think I'm pretty hip to anti semitism. I mean,
there are people out there that are claiming and it's
gone more viral than I ever thought it wouldn't. We
talked about it a little bit yesterday. I talked about
it with Patrick bet David on his podcast. That are
trying to rewrite history as though Winston Churchill was not
one of the most heroic and brave, you know people
(18:15):
in his time and battling back the forces of evil
with blood, oil and sweat. And what do we what
do I am Victory one of one of one of
the great leaders of our time. During the bombing of
Britain's guys walking among the people and he's standing up.
He understood Hitler was evil and and thank god, you know,
(18:37):
he was able to lead the way and Europe was
saved and victory in Europe occurred. And and somehow they're arguing, well,
he didn't save Western civilization, no, but he he saved
it for his time. And I'll go back to my
interview with Levin earlier, and it's like, well, Reagan said
it best. You know, we're but one generation away from freedom.
Every generation has their their moral obligation to preserve the
(19:02):
cause of liberty and freedom, and it lands on their shoulders.
You can't blame somebody from the forties that defeated Nazism
and fascism, and we defeated imperial Japan and expect that
they're responsible for every generation thereafter. And I know this
is a debate that apparently some people are buying into
(19:22):
this revisionism and I'm having a hard time understanding how
they are claiming to be conservative and believing that. But
I do believe in freedom of speech. But I digress.
And anyway, apparently MSDNC had an opinion piece arguing the
ad shows a cultural shift to whiteness, as well as
(19:42):
ABC's Good Morning America platforming the criticism with a report
on critics comparing the ad to Nazi propaganda and with
racial undertones. Whiteness is ugly. This is the ideology of
the left. Political consultant and Ryan James Dusky, writing on
(20:04):
x in response to the MSDNZ opinion post, I mean,
this thing has gone super heavy viral here, and I'm
just I don't know this young girl. I don't know
much about it. I guess she's a movie star. I
have no idea.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
She's laying a lot of TV shows and stuff, all.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Right, so she's very popular. She's a pretty young woman. Fine,
that's why she's in the paper. Okay, she's doing a
gene ad and it's like, oh, okay, she's a pretty girl,
so we'll spell Jens ge Nes. How does that have
anything to do with Nazis. Tell me what I might
be missing here. I could be missing something.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
You're just missing a liberal gene. We went from a
very long period of time where the ugliest and most
out of shape people were supposed to be the people
that we looked at and said, whoever you are, it's beautiful,
instead of addressing the real issues of maybe that nose
ring is not for you, maybe you shouldn't dye your
hair eighteen colors, Maybe you should work out because you
(21:01):
might get diabetes and it's hard on your knees and
your joints, in your heart. We weren't allowed to talk
about these things. So they put a pretty girl in
jeans because guess what that sells jeans, and they did it.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Guess what. They did the same thing years ago with
Brooks Shields, and it was a huge controversy. You know
what comes between me and Mike Calvin's nothing right.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
But she was fourteen years old, so it was gross.
I mean, I wouldn't like my fourteen year old ugh
to do that, but you know, they have been.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I actually met her once. In fairness to her, she
was very lovely. She's a very nice, lovely, lovely woman.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
It doesn't mean that she wasn't you know, manhandled and
manipulated as a childhood start fourteen.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
That's a parent, parental decision. I'm not going to get
into a personal life, right. So leftists are melting down
after American Eagle dropped this ad with Sydney Sweeney over
the blue jeans. Then the ad shows Sweety flaunting the
jeans in a provocative fashion. Okay, aka, I guess Brooks,
Shields and Calvin's and it shows you know are doing
(22:01):
that with a voiceover of the actress talking about her genes.
And then he took the ad to employ wordplay in
order to imply that people with good genes was spelled
with a G are better than others. I mean, come on,
stress from the real anti semitism we hear every day.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Let me tell you what it is. It's an opportunity
to take a very popular story and make it woke
as a joke, in an effort to make people who
are looking at it and say, oh my gosh. For
a moment, I let go of my woke as a
joke isms and just read an article and thought, oh,
she looks good, the jeans look good or whatever, or
for guys to look at that girl and go, oh,
she looks pretty. Now we have to go back to
(22:42):
our woke as a joke is and say that everything
that is pretty, you know, it really isn't. The things
that they're saying are normal. The things that they're saying
are pretty. The things that they're saying are supposed to
be the every day. Now, it's all a bunch of
woke bs. And for once, they actually had an ad
that had a double Enton had a smart ad writer.
The copy was good and we kept it moving. They
just want to make it ugly because it actually isn't.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Okay. Now, some people think she's very attractive. I think
she's moderately attractive as my home at the end of
the day, you know, but Jean's. But apparently everybody thinks
she's super attractive, and then that that is the reason
why I this is my interpretation they're talking about Jean's meaning.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
So she looks she has a certain feature of her
body which I will not go into here, But anybody
who looks at the picture can see there's a part
of her body that theycentuate more than others.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
So I don't I'm looking at I have no idea
what he's talking.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
Obviously, your second sign of aging is your inability to see.
So we'll work on that.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
But at the end of it, now I can't. I
have to text me the answer be an informed host.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
But the point of the matter is, well, I'm only.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Looking at a printed version here. It's not like it's
a big picture.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
It's pretty big. It's pretty big print online, it's all.
It's all big.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
At the end of the day, I think I figured,
good job.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
The point of the matter is is that they're mad.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
It's very, very wrong of you to be talking about
people's body thoughts like that.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
I wasn't talking about any particular body part.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I just feature, you know, there's one way to put it.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Sure, we're features, you know what.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Can everyone just take a deep breath and calm the
hell down? This girl for Adam, I don't, But she's
not a Nazi. I don't see anything Nazi related to
this much. Just like Calvin Klein and Brooke Shields back
in the day. That's what I see.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
The left is completely backwards. This girl is not a Nazi,
just like the shooter last night was not white. Everybody
on the left, like you think, we're looking at the picture.
Oh my guys, some things are just facts.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Sorry that it doesn't watching them and not me.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
I always watch the enemy That's what I do. I
watch all the channels I can't stand, so I know
exactly what they're saying, so I can WHOA.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
That means I'm not on the enemy list anymore. I
just stop watching me.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
Look at that.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
I mean in here for me. You know, if you
want to call people names, I'm going to tell you something.
One of the worst things you can call people as
a racist. One of the worst things you can say
is they're misogynists and sexist. You can say there are Nazi, homophobes,
even the FOBE. I mean, it's like Chuck Schumer his
latest comments, Oh Americans don't want people of color to vote,
(25:35):
among other things. This is what he said.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Listen, It's been clear when we fight for democracy, when
we protect democracy, we got to fight fire with fire.
We're not going to stand idly by, as Maya said,
We're not going to let.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Them revert to Jim Crow.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
And if you don't think they want to revert to
Jim Crow, just look what they did in the Save Act,
which went back to the Jim Crow for the whole
nation by so making it hard. They said, you need
ID and they made it so hard to show ID
that probably half the people in America couldn't vote. We
wouldn't let it pass Democrats they needed our vote.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
They went to court.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
Many of us Durban, myself and others will lead plaintiffs,
and we beat them in court. But it shows why
we need legislation because these guys are undoing everything in
every way they can. They don't want poor people to vote,
they don't want people of color to vote, they don't
want Democrats to vote. They don't believe in democracy we do.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
They don't want poor people to vote, they don't want
of color to vote, they don't want Democrats to vote.
I mean, they just make this up. You're racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynists, xenophobic, islamophobic.
You want dirty air and water and grandma and grandpa
to be thrown over a cliff by a republic. It's
the same crew.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Here's what's so funny. I always you know you and
I've talked about this for years, and it's so true.
You never have to wonder what the left is doing
because they pretend and they projected on the other side
you want to know what a Nazi is, just look
at Antifa, Look at the people calling for the complete
and total elimination of the Jewish people.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
About the anti Semitism in the squad.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
About these are the Nazis.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
That's not okay. Well, and let me add one other
point here. Chuck Schumer has to go harder and harder
and more radical left. Let me tell you what Chuck
Schumer's greatest fear right now is is that he's gonna
get primaried by AOC. And if he gets primaried by AOC,
she wins by double digits, if not by twenty points
or more. He knows she would crush him. Knows it.
(27:36):
And Chuck Schumer, that's why he can't stand up to
Mom Donnie. He's never going to stand up to the squad.
Neither can Hakim Jeffries. And they are they are just
leaders in name only. They are impotent, they are weak,
they are gutless, they are cowardly, and they have no
business even being in the house or sent it either
one of them, and they lie with abandonment. You know, look,
(27:59):
if if anybody has stood up against this Nazi talk
and naziism and antiseme stood against anti Semitism. It's been me,
it's been this show. We have been consistent. We find
anti semitism from anybody, virulent anti semitism, halls of Congress, worldwide,
(28:22):
it's growing college campuses. We've been chronicling it. And for
those people you know that we played yesterday this podcast
which was repulsive in the comments that were being made
about about Jewish people and during the Holocaust and Hitler.
It was I can't even believe the level of depravity
(28:43):
and the ignorance of these people on this podcast. I
don't even know who they are. I mean, it's it's scary,
the lack of knowledge about Israel, its history, its homeland,
how it's been attacked again and again and again, and
that they get accused of atrocities. Meanwhile, they lost nearly
(29:03):
forty thousand people in a single day on October seven.
Nobody ever brings that part up. Eight hundred and nine
point one, Shawn is our number if you want to
be a part of the program.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.