All Episodes

July 6, 2024 29 mins

Dr. Steven Quay,  is a distinguished Physician-Scientist and acclaimed author of "Stay Safe: A Physician's Guide To Survive Coronavirus.” This past June he presented his research before a bipartisan Senate committee at the committee hearing titled: ORIGINS OF COVID-19: AN EXAMINATION OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

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):
See you right here for our final news roundup and
information overload.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
All Right, News Roundup and Information Overload hour toll free
on number is eight hundred and nine four one sean
if you want to be a part of the program.
Wall Street Journal Headline Science is closing in on COVID's
origins for studies, including two from well the propaganda arm
of China during COVID the who which I don't think

(00:26):
we should be funding or even listening to ever, But
the piece goes on and provides powerful evidence favoring the
lab leak theory. Now doctor ram Paul, Senator Ram Paul
has highlighted for the country the exchange of emails in
the earliest days of COVID between NIH members and how

(00:51):
they all knew pretty darn well that it was very
likely that American taxpayer dollars were used and funneled through
the Eco Health Alliance to the Wuhan Virology Lab, and
everyone was damn well aware that gain of function research
took place there and coronavirus research took place there. It

(01:12):
was testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday doctor Stephen Quay, who
will join us in a minute, testified that the Wuhan
Institute took documented steps in March of twenty nineteen consistent
with actions taken after the lab acquired infection.

Speaker 3 (01:29):
Listen to this.

Speaker 4 (01:31):
Documented events add or related to Oneister Virology beginning in
March twenty nineteen are consistent with the expected activities when
a lab acquired infection has occurred. This timeline includes unusual
attention from the Chinese Communist Party leading to the PLA
physicians soldier being put in charge, large tender request to
repair biosafety equipment, a virus database disappearing in the middle

(01:54):
of the night, large tender requests for a lab security
force to quote handle form for personnel, end quote patents
for a device to prevent a lab acquired infection, Rumors
in the virology community of ANUSARS virus in the lab,
thirty vials of the three most dangerous viruses on the
planet being shipped illegally from a lab in Canada to
WIV in March, and then one of those pathogens being

(02:17):
found as a major contaminant in a BLSA lab in December.
These events, taken together, are a classic example of closing
the barn door after the horse has left unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (02:27):
Now, doctor Quay further went on to talk about the
covid genome having eight features that are only found in
a synthetic virus, meaning a lab virus, and are not
found in natural viruses. Now, think all the times anybody
talked about the lab league theory. They were dismissed as

(02:47):
conspiracy theorists, and we were being told over and over
again it's most likely from a wet market and exotic
animals like bats. But here's his testimony from yesterday.

Speaker 4 (02:59):
The genome of SAR who has eight features found in
a synthetic virus that are not found in natural viruses.
The probability that SARSTU came from nature based on these
features is one in a billion. These features are the backbone,
the receptor binding domain, the fur and cleavage site, the
genetics of the fur and cleavage site, the number, location
and pattern of clothing cloning sites in SARSTW that use

(03:22):
the Barrack cloning method, and the orph e gene. Based
on SARS two cloning sites, I predicted how SARS two
could be made in the laboratory. A year later, Barrick
used the predicted steps to make an infectious clone of
SARS two. These same features were described in a twenty
eighteen DARPA grant by WIV and US scientists with respect
to the Grand SARSTU had, the proposed backbone from the

(03:46):
proposed region in China, the proposed adaption to human killing,
the proposed diversity from sars I, the proposed noseum cleavage
side number, location and pattern, the proposed human cleavage site
at the proposed as one has to junction.

Speaker 2 (04:01):
Now, think of all the lies. Think of what doctor
ram Paul exposed in his book Deception Uh talking about
this very issue. Think about the email exchanges in the
earliest days of COVID between top NIH officials, including doctor
Anthony Fauci laid into the night and and the likelihood
that they knew that that in fact it was NIH

(04:24):
funding that created this virus in this lab with a
new coronavirus. Research took place, gain a function, research took place,
and that American money went to this.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
Think of the lies.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
You were told, well, if you get the if you
get the jab and you get the two jabs, and
you're not going to get COVID and you're not going
to be able to transmit it to other people. How
true did that turn out to be not at all.
Uh add add to that all the other lies and
and even though there have been studies, for example, that
showed that yeah, if you took HCQ for example, didn't

(04:59):
cure COVID, but it did take an early mitigate symptoms
according to the Henry Ford Hospital and numerous other studies.
And I saw that doctor Fauci was attacking that again yesterday.
I'm like, well, do you ever read any scientific papers
or studies on these things? Because I'm not a scientist,
but I do anyway frontline medical professionals. But the bottom

(05:24):
line is is they knew it and they purposely kept
it from us. And I think that's the big takeaway
of all this. Anyway, Doctor Quay joins us now. His
first name is Steven, doctor Stephen Quay. He's a distinguished physician, scientist,
acclaimed author of Stay Safe, a Physician's Guide to Survive Coronavirus.

(05:44):
You know, knowing what we know now and knowing that
what they know that knew then I got to be honest.

Speaker 3 (05:52):
Doctor. I'm very angry.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
I feel like I will never ever trust any health
official again. And then you have a doctor Redfield, Robert Redfield,
former CDC director warning about a twenty five to fifty
percent mortality rate if in fact this human human to
human transmission of bird fluid. I'm like, great, here we go,

(06:15):
and he says the next pandemic is right around the corner.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
So I just don't trust him. What have you learned?

Speaker 5 (06:22):
Well, Sean, it's great to be on here, and I
appreciate you playing some of my clips. Look at the
only gave me seven minutes. I needed probably ten or eleven,
and I was racing obviously, But let me finish. At
the risk of making you angry or Sean, I want
to finish the conclusion of what they kept from us
and what would have happened if they had not kept it.

(06:44):
What they kept from us was that two clinical features
of the virus were engineered into it. Those are asymptomatic
transmission where you don't have a fever, you don't have sweats,
and that sort of thing. So that's number one, and
rapid human to human transmission. Every frontline doctor in the
world who thought who was hearing about a new virus

(07:06):
jumping from an animal in a market is going to think, Okay,
it's bad for that patient in the room. I'm about
to go into but I'm not going to worry about
human to human spread. They knew that in January, and
they didn't tell the frontline doctors. Now, I believe ninety
eight percent of the one million people who died in
America should not have died. And I get that number
very specifically. Taiwan, which has six percent of their population

(07:30):
in China any given days, so they're pretty alert to
this sort of thing, started mitigations for asymptomatic transmission and
human human transfer in December twenty nineteen, and he had
two percent of the desk we did on a population
adjusted basis, So we have almost a million people who
died because the people that knew this virus had these

(07:51):
two properties did not tell the frontline doctors.

Speaker 2 (07:55):
What would they have told them that would have made
them different, that would have resulted in a different outcome.

Speaker 5 (08:02):
Sean, they would have done what Taiwan did very simple,
is a very small inconvenience. They would have boarded every
plane from Wuhan. They would have taken you know, walked
up and down the aisle with it. You know, a
temperature that doesn't touch your forehead, Take your temperature. It's
got a fever, you're going to quarantine for two weeks,
and then they would contact trace all the people on
the airplanes that prevented it from going into Taiwan for

(08:24):
all of twenty twenty. That would have prevented it from
going into the US. Remember when when when I mean,
and President Trump is not a doctor, he has to
depend on the people he who taught, he talks to,
and doctor Poache was one of those. But had he
listened to someone who understood these facts like the Taiwanese
doctors did, we could have we would have a million people,

(08:44):
a million of our loved ones still alive.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
I mean, what you're telling me is frightening. How telling
was it that China understood what we were they were
dealing with, because and it got very interesting to me,
because if you lived in Wuhan Province and you wanted
to travel to any other part of China, you were
not allowed. However, if you were in Wuhan Province and
you wanted to travel anywhere else in the world, you

(09:08):
were permitted to go. And they purposely allowed the spread
of this. They knew what was happening in Wuhan. I know,
people what relatives in Wuhan that told me they all
knew what was happening in Wuhan. They knew people were
dropping dead left and right, and yet they allowed these
people to travel around the globe, but they wouldn't let
them travel within China.

Speaker 5 (09:30):
Yeah, I got contacted by the State Department because I
published a paper where I did this statistical announce that
would showed that the subway line next to the Wuhan
Institute Virology was the same line that went to the
international airport, and you can go all over the world
in twelve hours before you have any symptoms from that airport.
And someone, you know, they called my secretary and they said, hey,

(09:50):
can you come in and help us, because this is
really interesting information you have, and no one else has
done this before.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
It's pretty unbelievable what you've learned here. Let me fast
forward for a second and then I'll go back to
COVID because the former CDC director Redfield said some very
alarming things that I don't think many people are paying
attention to. Now, we've been watching these incidents of bird
flu or avian flu and animals dying around the country,

(10:19):
and we now see transmission among one group of animals
to another group of animals, And what he said that
really scared me is he predicts this will be the
next big pandemic and it'll be far worse than COVID.
And he predicted a mortality rate that twenty five to
fifty percent of the population will likely die if human

(10:42):
to human transmission happens. And then he went on to
describe that for human to human transmission to happen, there
need to be five amino acid receptors that would allow
for that to happen. He says, the problem is they've
already identified with those amino acid receptors are and I'm

(11:05):
probably not saying this as medically pure as you would,
so forgive me. I'm a layman, and that they identified
those back in twenty twelve in a lab, which scares
the living hell out of me. So are we now
facing is he telling us the truth or is he
lying to us?

Speaker 5 (11:23):
Sean, you have it exactly right. I mean, you're welcome
to work in my lab anytime you want. So what
he is saying is he is combining two different things
which haven't happened yet. But what he's saying is that
the reason that the Obama administration shut down this kind
of research in twenty twelve because the scientists in the
Netherlands and one in Wisconsin got the crazy idea of

(11:44):
seeing it they could make this deadly virus airborne transmissible,
so if you got it by direct contact with animals,
you'd get sick. But it wasn't airborne at that point
in time, and they showed that there was only four
men ways he mean ass it away from doing that,
the world treaked out. We shut down the skin of
function research, but behind the scenes, doctors Cowins and Fauci

(12:06):
were working the working system. Working system. They wrote a
three inches of paper. They dropped it on President Trump's
desk in May of twenty seventeen and saying, hey, we've
got this under control. We know how to do this
gain of function research. Please sign and then end this moratorium.
And they were going to do it with either president
and that's what started the process May twenty seventeen, and

(12:29):
then we had a coronavirus outbreak.

Speaker 2 (12:31):
Well, let me ask you, is this where Fauci's comment
that he made in twenty twelve comes into play, because
if you recall he said in twenty twelve that he
supported gain and function research even if it resulted in
a worldwide pandemic, which I find, you know, spectacularly ignorant
and dangerous.

Speaker 5 (12:53):
Sean, your listeners need to realize that what you said
is exactly true. It's slightly worse than that. So the
head of all of doctor Collins, the hen of the
head of all of the infectious disease group, doctor Fauci,
wrote a joint opinion basically saying, even if we have
a pandemic, this research is worth it.

Speaker 1 (13:12):
I walked in.

Speaker 5 (13:13):
I don't do this kind of research, but I walked
into it about three years ago, and I looked at
three hundred papers in this field, and I can say
categorically there is no medically useful advance that has come
out of this gain of function research. None.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
The only thing that's going to come out of it,
it seems, is, you know, mutated viruses in a lab
that end up killing people. Do you believe that doctor
or Robert Redfield is correct that if in fact, if
in fact there's human to human transmission of bird flu

(13:47):
in our future, that it could result in twenty five
to fifty percent of our population dying. And do you
believe we're close to another pandemic?

Speaker 5 (13:57):
Well, I hope we're not close, but he is at right,
he's a very good virologist. So I've done a study
to say if we look at four essential things in society,
So that is an energy transportation, So how do we
get our gasoline? How do we get our energy? Food transportation,
how do we get food to the grocery stores? Police
and fire? How do we keep people you know, chaos away?

(14:19):
And medical? So you look at those four and you
say what percent of the people there that stay home
from how many people in each of those four together
have to stay home from work or be killed by
a virus to shut down our culture? And it's fifteen
percent by all the math exercises I can do.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
All right, quick break, Welcome back, more with doctor Stephen
Quay testified before Congress yesterday and his op ed in
the Wall Street Journal Science closes in on COVID's origins.
In other words, we've been lied to. Well, have more
on the other side as we continue. All right, I
have a quick question or two for doctor Stephen Quay.
He testified before Congress yesterday. He wrote the book Stay Safe,

(15:01):
A Physician's Guide to Survive Coronavirus, and his testimony Yesterday
featured in large part how science has now closed in
on COVID's origins and yeah, the Wuhan virology lab looks
like the culprit. Gee, what a shocker. But we continue
with doctor Stephen quite what's the average person supposed to

(15:21):
take away from this? I mean, I can't tell you
how many people that ended up getting the JAB and
taking the shot, even though again at the time it
was experimental. I mean, it was emergency authorization use of
these vaccines. I've interviewed doctor Robert Malone, who created the

(15:44):
technology so that mRNA virus I'm sorry Mr A vaccines
could even be created, and he felt he was very
clear that the technology had not been perfected. And he said,
with that said, considering the death rate for older people,
people with co morbidities, and pre existing conditions, he would

(16:05):
support it for older people or people with co morbidities,
only not for not for young kids. The way they
ended up using it by.

Speaker 5 (16:13):
The end, that's that's absolutely what. That's one hundred percent
consistently with data that began to emerge in February twenty twenty,
where an eighty four thousand patients study in China showed
nobody under twenty died, Nobody under thirty got seriously sick,
and the death didn't start until fifty to sixty. And
as you say, Sean, it's exactly co morbidity. So you've

(16:35):
got cancer, you've got heart disease. Yes, and then above
seventy and above was where all of the deaths were,
and we should have treated it accordingly instead of this
one size fits all for the whole country. Again, my
after action analysis was that Cyr's COVID two was different
at the county level, and we have a county level
health system. We should have treated it that way. We

(16:57):
were shutting down. We shutting down half of TISAS when
there were no cases because the ASSEL line up and
down New York was full of cases.

Speaker 2 (17:05):
Bottom line is, don't ever trust the government on issues
of molving health. That's my takeaway. Sad, but it's it's
my takeaway. I think we were lied to on a
very high level. Anyway, doctor Quay, we appreciate you being
with us, my friend.

Speaker 5 (17:18):
Thank you, Thank you. Sean.

Speaker 6 (17:20):
Take care eight.

Speaker 3 (17:21):
Hundred ninety four one.

Speaker 2 (17:23):
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program,
let's say hi to Matt is in Michigan, boy, Michigan
is an important state in what one hundred and thirty
eight days?

Speaker 3 (17:33):
How are you, Matt? Glad you called?

Speaker 1 (17:36):
Thank you, Thank you for taking my call. Not only
that it's about one hundred and thirty eight degrees too
right now, but which is strange for Michigan.

Speaker 5 (17:47):
I was.

Speaker 1 (17:49):
I've tried reading up over, you know, as much as
I could on security clearances and that, and I can't
seem to find out who has the authority to strip
security clearances. Like if let's say Trump takes over, which
he's going to win, well, he has the ability to

(18:10):
strip those fifty one people that shine that document, strip
them of all their security clearances.

Speaker 2 (18:18):
You know, you would think that the fact that every
one of those fifty one former Intel officials, and I
believe you're correct in your analysis that they do have
security clearance to some level. I would think the fact
that they without any information at all, without any examination
of the laptop in question, that they would go forward

(18:41):
and tell the American people with such certainty, in a
unified voice, something that turns out to be completely false
and not true. And the lead up to an election
because Tony Wink and Blincoln organized them to do so
in unison. If that's not election interference, I don't know
what is. And I think that that should be disqualifying

(19:03):
in terms of a security clearance and frankly much more.

Speaker 3 (19:07):
I mean, if you're going.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
To create such a deception to the American people and
uproot a presidential election that way and try and impact
it with a lie that way, I think there should
be some consequences for that. My own personal view, yeah.

Speaker 1 (19:25):
Were on mine too, But the thing that I keep
running into is they don't clarify as long as there
part of the government in some capacity. I guess they
could be could work for Northrop or something like that
that they have security clearance, And I just I've been
trying to find out whether Trump will be able to

(19:47):
do that and day one strip them of it.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
I think that the odds would probably be pretty high.
I mean, there was a big article that came out
how the left is preparing to stop Donald Trump and
use the worts and sue the administration and stop the
entire Trump agenda. They're just going to try and harass
him out of the box from day one. But I
don't think it's going to stop him. He might recall

(20:11):
he had a hard time getting the monies that would
be necessary to build the border wall, and he figured
out a way to get around it and do it
and do it legally, and lo and behold, his policies
were effective. And I think that's why. You know, I'm
looking at some of these polls and I see there's
a disparity between how President Trump is doing versus how

(20:33):
some of these Senate and congressional races are going. And
by strong advice to anybody is, don't send Donald Trump
there alone. Elect as many Republicans in the House as possible,
give him the biggest majority you can in the Senate,
so that we could actually turn things around, and we
can get rid of defund dismantled no bail laws. We

(20:54):
can go back to the stay in Mexico policy. He
can finish the wall. I mean, there's so much that
needs to be done immigration wise. He was talking yesterday
about building, you know, an iron dome the likes of
which this country and the world have never seen before,
to protect us against any future threats of any hostile regime.
I like that idea a lot. I think it's smart.

(21:17):
He's also been talking about restoring law and order, and
fixing biden inflation, and also restoring America's place in the world,
which is to be the leader of the free world
and the leader and the cause for liberty and freedom
around the world without getting, you know, caught up in
the quagmire of every foreign conflict. And he supports Israel's

(21:40):
right to win their own war against radical Islamic terrorism.

Speaker 3 (21:44):
You know, he.

Speaker 2 (21:45):
Believes that there can be, you know, a better way
than America fighting a proxy war against Russia and putin
the way that Joe Biden has been doing it with
hundreds of billions of dollars. And I agree with them
on all of these issues. So I think there's a
lot that he can do. I hope that answers your question.

(22:05):
Susan in Miami. What's up, Susan? How are you w
io D what's going on?

Speaker 6 (22:12):
Hi?

Speaker 7 (22:12):
Sean, Welcome to Florida.

Speaker 3 (22:13):
I love being in Florida. It's my new home. How
are you.

Speaker 7 (22:17):
I'm okay, listen. I wanted to talk to you about
how the media because Trump certainly can't do it in
either kind of attorneys anymore with the gag order and
the newest ruling, you know, denying him. You know, to
be able to speak with this Pellic court is outrageous.
But anyway they can't, you know, they can't help themselves.

(22:39):
In other words, so media has the only one that's
going to have to be able to come to their rescue,
and that is, how can we bring some truthful evidence
forward that didn't come out at the trial? You know,
some of these witnesses that were not heard. Castiano got heard,
but he got cut off.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
We'd I'stelliah, look, I think the American people have it.
I mean, look, we've got a debate just coming up
in eight short days. We got to focus on that first.
Then there'll be the July eleventh sentencing, and it's gonna
be what it's gonna be. We have an abusively biased
and prejudiced judge and a prosecutor. I mean, you have

(23:22):
a first time offender, a classy felony and it's gonna
be appealed. And you know, but would this judge be
capable of putting him in jail? I think he probably
would be. My guess is he'll sentence him to jail pending,
you know, an appeal. I do believe that these convictions
will be overturned on appeal. But it's a shame that
a case like this could ever be brought in a

(23:42):
country like ours.

Speaker 3 (23:43):
It's awful.

Speaker 7 (23:45):
Well, I mean that's going to take too long entirely,
you know. In the meantime, I mean, can't we do something,
you know, to bring some of the truth to life
that the trial did not show?

Speaker 1 (23:57):
The media?

Speaker 7 (23:57):
Can't we hit a panlt some of these witnesses that
were supposed to be witnesses that were good for Trump
that never got to be heard.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
I mean, Bob Costells have been all over Fox News.
I had on the former FBC chair that was supposed
to testify in the case, but the testimony was going
to be so limited by this judge that you know,
it became pointless. We've already had him on and he
said no laws were broken. So I mean we tried
to We've been trying to do all of that. I

(24:27):
just think that the fact that the left and the
media mob, can we what, yeah.

Speaker 7 (24:33):
Can we pretend you to have them on, you know,
like sort of like we you know, all of that
has been forgotten about drop. Meantime, Biden is spending fifty
million dollars, you know, fastering all over the media that
Trump is a convicted criminal.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
You know, I'm not worried about this case having that
big an impact or any impact at all on Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (24:57):
I'm just not.

Speaker 2 (24:58):
I think I think the American people and the polls
bear this out.

Speaker 3 (25:03):
See this for what it is that this was.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
A sham trial, you know, an eight year old case,
a simple non disclosure agreement, which is legal, that was
labeled a legal expense and not even deducted from their taxes.
It's a shame. I mean, this is what the weaponization
of justice in America is. This is what a dual
justice system looks like. This is what lawfare is. This

(25:29):
is what Democrats have resorted to. They can't run on it.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
And they certainly don't like it if you dare to
point out the obvious truth that Joe Biden is not
strong enough. He's weak and frail in a cognitive mess
and cannot do the job as president.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
So this is what they're stuck with.

Speaker 2 (25:49):
And I think these other cases will find out very
soon whether on the immunity decision of the Supreme Court
and what impact that has that may actually you know, well,
that may destroy the Washington, DC case, the Fannie Willis
case is falling apart, and the case down in Florida
is falling apart. Is maybe the only one left. And

(26:11):
I am confident on appeal. I think Donald Trump, You're
going to see a reversal and hopefully Americans, hopefully Americans
will see what we see and they'll go out and
vote for them. And early voting begins in Pennsylvania in
eighty nine days. Pay attention anyway, I got to run, Susan.
I appreciate you being out there and appreciate your call.

(26:33):
Thank you, eight hundred and ninety four to one, Shawn
New Jersey, Tom Next, Sean Hannity Show.

Speaker 6 (26:38):
Hi, how you doing, Sean? Thanks for taking my call.
The reason I'm calling is I just can't understand why
Trump is hated so much. I was listening to w
l R yesterday morning and Joe Conti I called into
the morning's radio show and they were discussing Trump, and

(26:59):
all of a sudden, I think it was lend Uh
got so upset. He was incensed, and no matter what,
Joe came back and countered, countered, or you know, countered
answered what Lenn was saying. Uh, it just it just
got so so heated. I don't understand that. I really don't.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
Well, the good news is, is Joe conscious more than
capable of handling himself. Number two, poor Len Berman, I
don't know. I mean, he's lands pretty solidly left. He's
a nice person in real life.

Speaker 6 (27:31):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
But then you got Mark Simone to kind of counter
everything that maybe Len says in the morning right afterwards.
So you're getting a variety of opinions there.

Speaker 6 (27:39):
Okay, well you do you do? I mean, when I
come across it myself in my personal life, I choose
not to argue because I just don't feel like getting
aggravated about it. I really don't. And you know, I'm
sorry that these people are not not as informed as
as they should be.

Speaker 3 (27:57):
And I you know, just just listen.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
There are some people that just hate Trump. It's psychotic,
you know. Now, they're taking it. He's gonna put us
in camps and in prisons and take away our TV
shows and silence us. And I mean they're just unhinged.
You can't have a real conversation with those people.

Speaker 3 (28:18):
You just can't.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
And if you think you're gonna convince them to change
their mind, you know, don't waste your breath. However, there
are many Americans that will have an open mind. You know,
since the terror attacks on October the seventh, anti Semitism.
Look what's happening in the halls of Congress college campuses
around the country. It's awful, but it's Europe as well.
It's also places like Australia. That's gonna wrapping up at today.

(28:41):
Busy Hannity tonight, please say YOUDVR Monday through Friday, nine
eastern on the Fox News Channel. Never ever ever miss
an episode. We appreciate your watching anyway. We'll check in
with doctor Ronnie Jackson, Senator Tim Scott, Victor Davis Hansen,
Michael Waltz, or As Cooper, Larry Kudlow, and Joe Kansha,
the best media analyst out there, all coming up nine eastern.

(29:04):
We'll see you tonight. Set you a DVR back here tomorrow.
Thank you for making this show possible.

The Sean Hannity Show News

Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

1. Dateline NBC
2. Let's Be Clear with Shannen Doherty

2. Let's Be Clear with Shannen Doherty

Let’s Be Clear… a new podcast from Shannen Doherty. The actress will open up like never before in a live memoir. She will cover everything from her TV and film credits, to her Stage IV cancer battle, friendships, divorces and more. She will share her own personal stories, how she manages the lows all while celebrating the highs, and her hopes and dreams for the future. As Shannen says, it doesn’t matter how many times you fall, it’s about how you get back up. So, LET’S BE CLEAR… this is the truth and nothing but. Join Shannen Doherty each week. Let’s Be Clear, an iHeartRadio podcast.

3. The Dan Bongino Show

3. The Dan Bongino Show

He’s a former Secret Service Agent, former NYPD officer, and New York Times best-selling author. Join Dan Bongino each weekday as he tackles the hottest political issues, debunking both liberal and Republican establishment rhetoric.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.