Focus on Immigration - 1.9 - The Sean Hannity Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
the Sean Hannity Radio show podcast. Let me just say,
I think Dick and I agree with what Chuck Grassley
just said. When was the last time that happened? We
need to take care of these doctor kids, and we
all agree on that. Of the American public agrees on that.

(00:22):
With all due respect, Bob and Mike uh and lindsay Uh,
there are some things that you're proposing. They're going to
be very controversial and will be an impediment to agreement.
But you're gonna negotiate test things. You're gonna sit down
and you're gonna say, listen, we can't agree here. We
will give you half of that. We're gonna You're gonna negotiation.
Comprehensive means comprehensive. We're not talking about now, we're talking

(00:45):
about we aren't. We are talking about comprehensive because you
want to go there, It's okay, because you're not that
far a president. Many of the things that are mentioned
ought to be a part of the negotiations regarding comprehensive immigration.
If you want to take it this step further, you
may I'm gonna have to relax, you think they complicated
and you may delay docus of what I don't want
to do that you said at the outset we need

(01:06):
to phase this. I think the first phase is a
Chuck and Stinny and I have mentioned others as well.
We have a deadline looming and a lot of lives
hanging that we can agree on some very fundamental and
important things together on border security, on chain, on the
future of diversity, visas comprehensive though I worked on it
for six months with Michael Bennett and UH, a number

(01:28):
of bombinandez Uh and Schumer and the Caine and Jeff Lake,
and it took us six months to put it together.
We don't have six months for the DOCU. Well, you
give mentioned a number of factors that are going to
be controversial, as Stintys Mitchon, I think you're gonna negotia

(01:48):
and maybe we'll agree, and maybe we won't. I mean,
you know, it's possible we're not gonna agree with you,
and it's possible way, but there should be no reason
for us not to get this done. And Chuck, I
will say when this group comes a hopefully with an agreement,
this group and others from the Senate from the House
comes back with an agreement. I'm signing it. I mean
I will be signing it. I'm not going to say,

(02:09):
oh gee, I want to start with that. I'll be
signing it because I have a lot of confidence in
the people in this room that you're gonna come up
with something really good. Senator, would you like to say
something that that was Steenny Hoyer? This was one of
the most fascinating. Now, don't don't don't take me the
wrong way here, or there's things said in this meeting
that you know, literally, you know, are making me angry

(02:33):
about what is being presented and what they're talking about here.
But in terms of fascinating transparency of actual meetings of substance,
it was pretty historic because we don't usually get to
sit on and on those meetings. And I actually made
it as I was watching it today, I said, you

(02:54):
know what, I'm gonna run this in full in the
next hour and then we'll be talking about it later
in the program. But um, it was a discussion about immigration,
and it was a discussion about Dhaka, and it was
a discussion about chain migration, and it was a discussion
about the border wall, and actually I think the person
that came out looking the best on the Republican side

(03:14):
was the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who went on
and on about we need security, we need border security,
which means it's part of leadership. It kind of took
me a little bit by surprise. Wasn't expecting that. At
least the part that I heard. I didn't hear all
of it, but the part that I was paying attention
to because I'm prepping for the show. Um. And but this,

(03:35):
this is my problem with all of this is that
at the end of the day, what bothers me is
any time you make a deal with Democrats. And by
the way, the President was talking to Chuck Grassley, not
Chuck Schumer. Schumer wasn't in the room for this particular media.
Stanny Hoyer was in there, I thought. Also the House
Homeland Security Secretary. She was phenomenal today and her comments

(03:55):
talking about the need for border security and ending chain
migration and of all the other safety measures. But this
goes back to a simple argument that I always make,
and that is, you always get the spending increases of government,
and then as part of a quote comprehensive deal, you
always get the tax cuts promise later down the line,
you never get the tax cuts. New Congress is never

(04:16):
abide by the promises that they make. Now, we've been
promised going back to two thousand and six that we're
gonna have border security, and that doesn't happen time and
time again. So my answer to all of this is,
if you build the wall, expeditiously, fund it fully, get
it moving, then you can talk about any other topic

(04:39):
you want to talk about. But I'm not buying that
it's gonna happen down the road. And I do believe
that the President is committed to building the wall and
and building border security and stopping Shain migration, and I
think he's committed to Kate Steinley's law, which the House
had passed, and all of these things that we talk
about all of the time. Out the President has been

(05:01):
reiterating over and over again that we need this border wall,
and it's about eighteen billion dollars and he's requested the
full eighteen billion dollars, roughly one cent for every twenty
spent by the federal government for now, and that's not
a lot of money. And Dick Durbin, who sat next
to the president, you know, was very angry at the
President's negotiating stats outrageous the White House would undercut months

(05:24):
of bipartisan efforts by again trying to put its entire
wish list of hardline anti immigrant bills plus an additional
eighteen billion dollars in wall funding, on the back of
these young illegal immigrants that that well, they're not young anymore.
You know, they're in their twenties. And you know, as
part of any deal, I gotta believe there's gonna be

(05:45):
some vetting that takes place. He can't mention vetting because
if you mentioned vetting to anybody, you know, making sure
that these people have America's best interest at heart, and
that America, you know, in future immigration that we get
to pick and choose who gets to come in this country,
and we can choose the best and brightest and greatest
that are gonna contribute the most of society, which is
what most other countries now do. If you look at

(06:07):
Australia New Zealand, you want to get in, it's gonna
cost your boatload of money investing in in some type
of economic uh endeavor that that benefits the people of
New Zealand and Australia you know, they have amazing immigration
policies too. And in Australia, if you're on a boat
and you're making about to hit shore, they're not even

(06:28):
gonna let you hit the shore. They're gonna pack you
full of food, water, medicine supplies, and if you're really sick,
they'll take you to a hospital out of the country.
But then you're going back to where you came from.
And I don't think it's mean. And by the way,
that's Mexico's policies. If you're coming from Nicaragua Orl Salvador,
Central America. You know the fact that we want to

(06:48):
know who's coming into this country does not make us
bad people. Because we open the doors fully and completely,
everybody would want to come in here. And I don't
blame people for wanting to leave, you know, broken down,
dilapidated communities and countries where you know you have narco terrorism,
you know, leading a particular town and shaking people down

(07:08):
for pennies, you know, every single day, poor people, and
you don't think that happens that happens in places like
El Salvador every day. So the President, I think is
right in what he's asking for. Building the border wall.
He put out a seven page document which was delivered
to both Senators and UH congressmen from Homeland Security. This

(07:31):
was last Friday, including heightened rules for unaccompanied miners arriving
in the country, limits on chain migration, eighteen billion dollars
for the wall, also increases for enforcement against immigrants who
will legally overstay their visas, punishing cities who take on
sanctuary city policies to thwart federal enforcement of immigration laws.
All that is is aiding and abetting, frankly lawbreaking by

(07:54):
states and towns and municipalities. Anyway, and then you've got
the Democrats say, well, President Trump has said he may
need a good government shutdown to get this wall. Durban said,
with this demand, he seems to be heading in that direction.
I know, I could care less about a government shutdown.
Shut the government down. It's not like we're gonna save
any money because key employees is what they say, are

(08:16):
essential employees. They still stay in work. Congress will stay
and work. The military is on standby, they're working, you know.
The only people then the people that end up being
furloughed for whatever period of time, they end up getting
back pay every time. Anyway, It's not like it's it's
gonna impact anybody's life here in America. I can tell

(08:37):
you that for a fact. It's just a threat that
they all use and they have this unnatural fear of
all of this. You know, what are we gonna do
about California now that it's a sanctuary state. You know
what changed here is you know the bill in California
passed by the State of California. Now it's law in
California as of January one. It literally limits the cooperation

(09:02):
between California state local officials and federal immigration enforcement. In
other words, the state of California is aiding and abetting
in the committing of a crime and they're not following,
you know, federal law. Now, I can't imagine that Jerry
Brown's gonna get arrested or anybody state or local official
is gonna get arrested. But if they're not gonna follow laws,

(09:23):
then why is it that they get federal money at
that particular point? And I think a showdown needs to happen,
and happen now. States can't just pick and choose what
laws they're gonna follow on which laws they're not gonna follow.
It's called the California Values Act SP sent a bill
fifty four, and uh, you can inquire about an individual's

(09:44):
immigration status. You can't detain someone on a hold request
from the federal government somebody. Oh, We've had instance after
instance where people look at the Kate Steinley case is
one of them, where you know, you have a hold
request from the federal government and local authorities don't abide
by it and they let somebody off the hook to

(10:04):
go free. Well, we've had instances where people literally have
died because of those policies. You know, the unless there's
a felony warrant or the person has been convicted of
one of the crimes specifically listed in the legislation. Otherwise
they let them go free. In California, you can't arrest
someone for civil immigration warrants alone. You know, you can't

(10:25):
deputize as immigration agents, meaning people in California can't be deputized.
You can't participate in border patrol activities. I guess that
means if you know a bunch of people walking across
the border, you can't arrest them. And it's like, okay,
what do we know about those people? You know, the
twelve trips I made down to the border. I did
see gang members. I found out later the people that

(10:48):
were arrested they happen to be part of a gang.
I've been to the drug warehouses. I've seen the tunnels
and the efforts that go into bringing people, you know,
drug trafficking, human trafficking. It's all happening in California. You
can't participate in a joint task force with the federal
government if the purpose is immigration enforcement. You can't notify

(11:08):
the federal government of someone's release or transfer to federal
custody at all unless there's a federal warrant of the
person has been convicted of one of the crimes listed
in the bill. You know, with no exceptions. Agencies are
barred for asking about their status, detaining on a whold request,
participating in arrest based on civil immigration warrants, placing officers

(11:29):
under supervision of federal immigration agencies, deputizing them, using ice
agents as interpreters for law enforcement, or participating in border patrol.
And the only provisions that they allow is providing information
regarding an inmates release date from county jail unless information
is available to the public and the person has been
convicted of certain crimes or transferring someone ice. You can't

(11:52):
do that either. It's unbelievable and I'm just trying to
understand it all. What's the point here? Eight nine for one,
Shawn is a toll free telephone number if you want
to be a part of the program here anyway, it's
the you know, and I'll play when we get back,
or we just played for you. The Democrats of Ultra
will play it later. At the bottom of the era.

(12:13):
All these democrats, they all supported building a border wall
under Barack Obama not that long ago. It takes your
breath away, the level of hypocrisy. If Trump supports it,
bad Obama supports it. Good talk about politicizing something, all right,
as we roll along Sean Hannity Show. You know, with
all the coverage of the Michael wolf book, you know,

(12:36):
and hasn't been covered, I mean, I think it's now
in it's the client phase very quickly. Is how many
people have disputed what is in this book? And it's
like and even Michael Wolfe admitting himself, oh if it's
what was the words that he used? It was actually miraculous,

(12:57):
you know, he won one one he predicted was the
end of the Trump president. If it's rings true, then
it is true. That was his latest comment. You have tapes?
Are you going to release the tapes? Now? I'm gonna
do you know, I have what every journalists I worked
like like every journalist, I have tapes, I have notes.
You're questioning it. Why not produce the evidence, because because
that's not what what I'm not. I'm not in your business.

(13:21):
My evidence is the book. Read the book if it
makes sense to you, if it strikes a quif it
rings true, it is true. If it rings true, it
is true. And I'll just I'll use my case in
and point and just say this. Now, I was on
a plane with Michael going down to Roger ELL's funeral.

(13:43):
He writes about it in a book, and then he
brings up other issues involving me. He knows how to
get in contact with me, and he says, somebody said
this about you, and it's just not true. Now if
he can just because it rings true doesn't make it true.
All he had to do is pick up the phone
and say, Sean, by the way, I want to ask

(14:04):
you someone so said such and such, what is your response?
And I would have given him the truth. But it's
not just me, you know. Mark Berman disputes that he
was even at the fourth season. He's the national reporter
for the Washington Post. I saw Maggie Haberman not too
happy with the way she was presented in the book.
Stephen Miller disputes claims in the book. Sarah Sanders disputes

(14:26):
claims in the book. The President obviously disputes claims in
the book. Gary Cohne disputes even wrote an email that's
in the book. I disputed, you know, certain points of
the book. Mike Pompeo disputed claims in the book. McConnell's
a disputed claims in the book. Tom Barack disputed uh
that he called Trump stupid and a wind tour of

(14:49):
al and a wind pour. You know, every once in
a while, if I go to the U s open,
she's always sitting there with her glasses on in the dark.
It's pretty hilarious. And the glasses over her whole face
pretty funny. Once I said hello to or Mere Mortals,
it must be whatever anyway. Tony Blair disputes numerous accounts

(15:13):
in the book. Melania Trump, Laura Ingram, and the list
goes on. And then there's certain things in the book
that are provably false. You know if if he's claiming
in the book, well, Trump didn't even know who John
Bayner was, And you go back and look at Trump's
Twitter and there are at least five separate references to

(15:34):
John Bayner, and he played golf with John Bayner, loser
that he is, then I guess there's not a problem
O the way. Painter is full of crap too. He
lied about me. What is wrong with these people? I
don't wait. Well, Fox is gonna be all over this
immigrant Yeah, I'm gonna be over. I want the border built,

(15:55):
the border wall built, like everybody else, and I don't
want to hear a lot of talk of out and
a quick break right back your calls, e Shan. People
who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens,
and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as
people who entered the US legally. President's decision to end
DACA was heartless and it was brainless. When we use

(16:18):
phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the
American people that their government is not serious about combating
illegal immigration. Hundreds, hundreds of thousands of families will be
ripped apart. If you don't think it's illegal, you're not
gonna say it. I think it is illegal and wrong.
Ends of thousands of American businesses will lose hard working employees.

(16:39):
And the argument them as the president is Americans don't
want to do the work. Wait, just can't find American
workers to do the work. But the president that is
a crock in many instances, it's just not true. In
my view, from decision to end the doctor program was

(17:00):
eight hundred thousand young people. Is the cruelest and most
ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country.
I cannot think of one single act which is ugly
and more cruel. We've got to do several things, and
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants. People have

(17:21):
to stop employing illegal immigrants. Come up to Westchester, go
to Suffolk and Nasau County. Stand in the street corners
in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're gonna see loads of
people waiting to get picked up to go do yard
work and construction work and domestic work. You know, Idy,
this is not a problem that the people who were
coming into the country are solely responsible for the becoming.

(17:44):
If we didn't put them to work. My proposal will
keep families together, and it will include a path to
citizen check. The number of immigrants added to the labor
force every year is of a magnitude not seen in
this country for over a century. If this huge influx
of mostly low skilled workers provide some benefits to the
economy as a whole, it also threads to depress further

(18:06):
the wages of blue collar Americans and put strains on
an already overburdened safety net. Immigrants aren't the principal reason
wages haven't gone up. There are those in the immigrants
rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply
provide those who are illegally with legal status, or at
least ignore the laws on the books and put an

(18:27):
end to deportation until we have better laws. But I
believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.
It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally
that there will be no repercussions for such a decision,
and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.
These are students, their teachers, their doctors, their lawyers, their

(18:53):
Americans in every way, but on paper, those who enter
the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the
rule of law. Uh, and they are showing disregard for
those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow
people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked,

(19:15):
and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently,
and lawfully to become immigrants. Real reform means establishing a
responsible pathway to earn citizenship. All right, twenty three till
the top of the hour. What you hear there is
every single second that they just changed their minds, Like
what's wrong with them? It's like, you know, we'll we'll

(19:38):
have this position today, we'll have this. But you know
what it's that is the typical politician putting their finger
in the air and saying, which way is the wind
blowing today? And that's gonna be my position on this.
And now the Democrats that are speaking out so loudly
against building the wall and the president is holding up

(20:00):
gonna build the wall. We're gonna play this. I mean,
it was a fascinating exchange. One other observation, and and
you'll hear this in the in the next hour as
they sat there for straight minutes talking and it was real.
It was a real discussion. It wasn't your typical Washington
speak discussion. And they knew the cameras were rolling. The

(20:24):
fact that they let the cameras continue to roll as
a good thing. And by the way, Donald Trump didn't
look crazy, it didn't sound crazy, it didn't sound like
it's unhinged, it didn't sound impatient. There was no angst
or anger on either side. So Stenny Hoyer got a
little heated. But short of that, I mean, you know,

(20:46):
this entire narrative got blown out of the water right there.
And then that we've been hearing on the Amendment. You
know this, Alan dersho Wo had said on the TV
show last night, that is not what the Amendment was
designed for. Designed if a president is incapacitated, if a

(21:06):
president has a stroke, if a president is going under
the knife and campy and it's not going to be
available to make decisions, and the power temporarily would then
move to the vice president. That's the only clarification that
that was ever all about. But it doesn't matter in
the minds of people on the left. So now, for

(21:29):
forty five minutes, all these Democrats that are constantly attacking
the president. Well, there they were, you know, sitting there
having a discussion with them. The answer simple, by the way,
and the answer is secure the border. First, the only
thing the amendment did was take away the ambiguous wording
of Article two, Section one, Clause six of the Constitution

(21:51):
didn't expressly state whether the vice president becomes the president
or acting president if a president dies or resigns, or
is removed for office or otherwise unable to discharge the
powers of the presidency. Clearly, the president was in command
as he always is. Just who he is that they
don't like, and that's their problem. But what you just

(22:13):
heard there, Democrats now pretending that the president's intention to
build a border wall is absolutely around the bend, bonkers
and racist to boot, Well, I guess they were all
racist and beyond the bend themselves for years, because you'd
hardly know it, because the same Democrats supported building the
border wall as part of the proposed immigration deal under Obama.

(22:36):
That was five years ago. The entire Senate Democratic Caucus
voted to build hundreds of miles of fencing along the
US Mexico border. That was the Border Security Economic Opportunity
and Immigration Modernization Act called for the deployment of an
additional seven hundred miles of fencing in technology along the

(22:57):
Mexico border, the same area that the Trump border wall
would cover, and the plan devoted forty billion over a
decade to border enforcement measures that would double the number
of border agents. On the other side, the bill made
a host of visa reforms and offered a path to
legal status for some illegal immigrants. So you know they're

(23:19):
they're the ones that have changed their minds on all
of this and all President Trump did say today or
in the meeting, you know, after initially seeming open. If
you hear this in the beginning, he said, whoa, whoa,
whoa slow down when he's answering Diane Feinstein. Trump clarified
his position, telling the meeting, you need the wall. But

(23:41):
I say you need the wall first, because you're never
gonna get the wall built if you if you make
any if you acquiesce in any way to what the
Democrats want first. When reporters asked Trump later in the
meeting if he would agree to a DOCCA deal without
the wall, the President said, you need the wall, and
he's stuck up for that position. As some of you

(24:02):
are gonna be angry that he's doing anything with DACA,
and I fully completely understand it, but I'm gonna tell
you what the absolute truth on that is. Is, just
like health care, when push came to shove, we learned
a hundred Republican congressmen had no intention ever of repealing
and replacing Obamacare, none. And then we had Senators that

(24:25):
voted in for just a clean repeal of Obamacare, and
seven of them when they could have actually gotten it
done in seventeen, they absolutely didn't do it. They had
no intention of ever doing it. Well, I can tell
you there are too many Republicans that want the DOCCA
fix and that's just the reality. So you can say, well,

(24:46):
the president's changing his position. I don't think he's changing
it at all. I think the President actually wants the
wall built, and he wants it built and is going
to make it a part of the deal and get
the thing built. The other impressive person in that meeting,
I felt was the new Department of Homeland Securities secretary.
She was amazing in this meeting, and she was standing
up for the President's principals there. But you need the

(25:09):
wall I say you need the wall first. I need
security first before you do anything. But this flipping and
flopping is unbelievable. Um, So we're gonna run this meeting
in the next hour. And now one other thing we've
got to follow, and that's John Solomon and Sarah Carter
breaking more noose. By the way, Kristin Nielsen is the

(25:29):
Homeland Security Secretary. Now it took over for General Kelly.
But anyway, they broke an article last night about FBI
agents and their text messages, and now congressional probe into
these new leaks. You know, there are hundred of these
emails between Peter Struck. Peter Struck is the guy that
interviewed Michael Flynn. He was at the heart of the

(25:50):
email server investigation. Peter Struck is the one that wrote
the exoneration with Jim Comey before the investigation. He was
there to interview Hillary Clint. He's in the middle of everything.
And now we got more of these emails and it's
now leading a Republican House and Senate committees investigating whether
leaders of the Russian counterintelligence investigation had contacts with the

(26:12):
news media that resulted in them leaking to the news media.
Now this is all prompted in part by messages between
Struck and his uh I guess girlfriend or mistress Lisa Page,
whatever you want to call it. Anyway, So there's a
part of these new exchanges. And in a series of

(26:33):
texts that were released just before election Day sixteen, they
knew in advance about a Wall Street Journal article. Article
is out, but hidden beyond a behind a pay wall,
so you can't read it. Lisa Page texted Struck Wall
Street Journal, Boy, that was fast. Article is out? Boy,
that was fast. That sounds like they knew the article
was coming. That means they leaked for the article. Anyway.

(26:56):
There are a whole bunch of these text messages and
then they try to cover up. Well, I can act
like I got it on Google Alert. They're saying this way,
people won't suspect us. Anyway. Struck played a key role
in the early Russia election meddling probe, and he was
the one that constructed the the exoneration of Hillary before
the investigation. Lisa Page was the was serving as the

(27:20):
lawyer that advised the FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. That's problematic.
Now they want to know about these media contacts, and
they want to be able to prove these media contacts.
But anyway, UM, there's now twenty seven specific leak investigations
going on. One of them needs to be about General
Flynn because we know that he was surveiled and unmasked

(27:42):
and then raw intelligence was leaked against him. And on
top of that, we've got FBI contacts with the media.
You know, I think at all ends of this at
just reeks of them trying to control the narrative in
this country, especially as it relates to their narrative to her.
The president remember struck in page hate Donald Trump, and

(28:04):
that raises questions why he's up to his eyeballs and
the exoneration of Hillary and going after Donald Trump on
everything possible. Anyway, there's more information about the case. Member.
There was a former FBI director, James Comey, was on
his watch that the Russia case began, and uh he
had previously testified he didn't authorize or engage in leaking,
but then he leaked as soon as he got out

(28:25):
of office, and this whole thing goes on. Andrew Weisman
apparently we're now learning too that he had contact with
the media. We're gonna learn more about that incoming days,
and in a deal with the FBI Director Christopher Ray
and the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Is why he
was in Paul Ryan's office begging last week not to
have to go through all of this stuff. Justice officials

(28:46):
have promised to provide the Intelligence Committee of information about
Weissman's contacts. That's the guy that that literally put tens
of thousands of of Anderson Accounting employees out of work
at a nine oh Supreme Court decision against him overthrown
in his obstruction case. There and in the Enron case,
have put four meryal executives in jail for a year,

(29:07):
and that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit. Anyway, one
string of messages, five days before the election day November
Page wrote struck that the counter intelligence agent Anyway to
the Washington Post about a timeline of the Hillary Clinton
email investigation, and Page mentions a conversation that she had
just had with the FBI chief of staff and openly

(29:28):
expressed concern that the information about Hillary's timeline the FBI
timeline was too specific for comfort. Of course, she wants
to protect Hillary. That was the whole reason they exonerated
Hillary without investigating Hillary. A few days earlier, Struck a
texted page about another new article, suggesting it was anti FBI,

(29:48):
and m Page texted that she'd seen the article. Makes
me feel way less bad about throwing him under the
bus to the forthcoming CF article. See if I'm assuming
is Clinton foundation article? What article did that turn out
to be? We need to find out. And then we
have other exchanges, you know, like congressional investigators want to

(30:09):
now question Struck about what he meant by saying, you know,
a tiny bit from us? What does that mean about
an article having a tiny bit from them? Meaning struck
in page? And the worst part of this whole thing
is that that struck in page. We're tracking down information,
including the address, the spouse, the spouse's job, other employees,

(30:31):
their kids, their parents, names and homes. Why are FBI
agents looking at a New York Times reporters family. I
think we may have there's an addressed to their addresses too.
What are they planning on intimidating the spoort idiot? They
call him a schlub. Then they go on to say
about Trump, but the new Trump hotel in d C. All,
there's one place I never want to stay in I

(30:53):
hope it fails horribly, and then they go, if that
doesn't prove that they're so anti Trump, then they attacked
the New York Poll Post. Then they attack Krick Swallas,
my colleague at Fox, and then they attacked viciously my
former colleague, Megan Kelly. Pretty amazing. Now Sarah Carter is
gonna weigh in on this at the top of the
five o'clock hour, or she'll join us when we come back.

(31:14):
We're gonna play what was going on in this, well,
I guess extemporaneous meeting that was picked up by cameras
on immigration. It's pretty fascinating, all right, So this impromptu,
oh I don't know if it was so impromptu anyway,
the President invited over Democratic and Republican leaders to talk
about immigration. We're gonna play it in full, and you

(31:35):
gotta listen to the president's comments. It's a moment there
you're thinking, oh no, and he's losing it, and then
he did recover and there's gonna be things you don't like.
We'll discuss that and Sarah Carter coming up straight a
hut an hour to Sean Hannity Show. Fascinating meeting took
place with the President, Democrats, Senators, congressman all on immigration.
This was a phenomenal exchange and I think you're gonna

(31:57):
enjoy it. My perspective, the answer is to cure the border. First. Listen,
I am very much reliant on the people in this room.
I know most of the people on both sides, have
a lot of respect for the people on both sides,
and my what I approve is going to be very
much reliant on what the people in this room come
to me with. I have great confidence and that if

(32:18):
they come to me with things that I'm not in
love with, I'm going to do it because I respect them.
The President about that for the President Operati, yeah, it's
faced too. I think comprehensive will be faced too. I
think I really agree with Dick. I think we get
the one thing done and then we go into comprehensive
the following day, and I think it will happen. March

(32:39):
five thousand a day will lose doctor protection. Nine hundred
of them are members of the U. S. Military. Twenty
thou of them are school teachers in my state of
Illinois and city of Chicago. There are twenty five of
them in medical school who can't apply for a residency
if they lose their doctor status. So lives are hanging
in the balance of our job done. We've got the

(33:01):
time to do it. In a matter of days, literally
of days, we can come together and reach an agreement.
And when that happens, I think good things will happen
in other places. Then we'll see some progress here in motion.
Aglu than take very much agree to good time. Would
you like to say something, Tom Cut thank you for
your vice all here and I'm glad to be here
with Democrats and House members as well. Um. You know,

(33:24):
I think on this issue there's a lack of trust
and has been for many years, lack of trust between
Republicans and Democrats. Lack of trust among Republicans may most
fundamentally a lack of trust between the American people UH
and our elect leaders and non delivering a solution for many,
many years about some of these problems. UH. And I
hope that this meeting will be the beginning of building

(33:46):
trust between our parties between the chambers, because I know
for fact all the Republicans around the table are committed
to finding a solution, and I believe all the Democrats
are as well. So I think this is a good
first step in building the trust. We need a good bill, Mr. President,
that will achieve the objectives that you stated, providing legal
protection for the doctor population while also securing our border

(34:07):
and any chain migration and diversitive lottery. Thank you for
the invitation. President, Thank you very much for having us
down here. UM. I agree with Tom Cotton that the
American public and very frustrated with us. One of the
reasons they're frustrated with us because we continue to couple
things on which we have large agreement with things on

(34:28):
which we do not agree. This is a perfect example
of that. Uh of the American people in the most
recent poll are for ensuring, as you have said, uh,
not providing for data protected kids to go to a

(34:48):
place that they don't know, they didn't grow up in
and it's not their home. They're Americans. They don't have
a piece of paper that says they're Americans, but they're Americans.
And it seems to me, Ms President, if we're going
to move ahead in a constructive way that we take
that on which we agree passing, the American public will

(35:08):
be pleased with all of us if we do that.
Just as in September. You recall we did UH the
extension of a CR, no drama. We were all for it. UH.
You four leaders met, we came to an agreement, and
we passed that CR. In my view, we can pass.

(35:32):
We can pass UH the protection in the What I
understand your position is procedurally it was not done correctly.
You then, as Dick has said, challenged us pass it
correctly if it's put on the floor, and Mr President,
I believe it will have the overwhelming majority in both

(35:52):
the House and Senator Graham thinks it will have a
substantial majority in the United States Senate as well. That
I think is the first step TOM to creating some
degree of confidence. Democrats are for security at the borders.
I want to state that emphatically. There's not a Democrat
that is not for having security borders. There are obviously differences, however,

(36:17):
Mr President, and how you affect that. You just indicated
that yourself, and you indicated this would be a first step,
and then we continue to talk as we're talking today
about how we best secure the border. There are differences
of opinion and within your party, within our party, so
I would urge that we move forward on protecting the

(36:40):
DACA UH protected individuals, young young people, young adults, as
you pointed out in one of your statements, who are
productive parts of our community, that we protect them and
get that done. And then, because I think everybody around
the table, as you pointed out, it is for security,
and then the issue is going to be do we
best affect that border security? So I would urge us

(37:03):
to move as as UH Senator Durbin has urges moved
on the doctor students. As a matter of fact, the speaker,
I think today but maybe yesterday, said we need to
solve the docta issue, and we need to solve it
in a way that is permanent, not temporary. And I
agree with him on that issue. And interestingly, when you
say that, President Obama when he signed the executive order,

(37:26):
actually said he doesn't have the right to do this,
and so you do have to go through Congress and
you do have to make it permisi. Whether he does,
whether he doesn't, let's assume he doesn't. You said it, UH,
and that was a temporary stopcat. I don't think we
want that. I think we want to have a permanent
solution to this, and I think everybody in this room
feels that way very strongly. What happened, Mr President, I
think is that the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill.

(37:50):
As you know, we did not consider it in the House,
so we didn't reach those issues. Very frankly, on border security,
Mr McCall, the chairman of the committee, reported out a
unanimal UH security UH solution, which which we then included
in the bill that we UH filed on comprehensive immigration reform.

(38:11):
So I think we can reach agreement. Well, I also
think that after we do DACA, and I really believe
we should be able to be successful. I really think
we should look in terms of your permanent solution and
to the whole situation with immigration. I think a lot
of people in this room would agree to that also,
But we'll do it in steps, and most people agree
with that. I think that will do the steps. Even
new said let's do this and then we go phase two. Kevin,

(38:34):
what would you like to say? Well, first, I want
to thank you for bringing everybody together. You got the Senate,
you got the House, You've got both parties, and I
like the exchange of ideas, and I think everybody has
a point here. The one thing I don't want to
have happened. Here is what I saw in the past.
There were former bills that were passed on border security
years ago that never got finished, their immigration bills passed.

(38:56):
That we're right back at the table with the same problem.
Let's make a commitment to each one, and most importantly
to the American people, that when we get done and
come to an agreement, that we're not back at this
problem three or four years from that. That's why, yes,
we've got to do doc and I agree with you,
But if we do not do something with the security,

(39:17):
if we do not do something with the chain migration,
we are fooling each other that we solved the problem.
You know how difficult this issue is. So let's collectively
we're here at the table together. I'll be the first
one to tell you we're all going to have to
give a little, and I'll be the first one willing to.

(39:37):
But let's solve the problem. But let's not tell the
American public at the end that it's solved when it's not. Well.
I think a good starting point would be Bob Goodlack,
who has done a bill, and I understand you're ready
to submit it, and you're going to take that and
you'll submit and they'll negotiate in UH Congress of the House,
and then it goes through the Senate and they'll negotiate.

(39:59):
Both were prob like an n Democrat, but it could
be a good way of starting now if anyone has
an idea different from that, but I think starting in
the House, starting at the House might be good. You're ready.
I think you're ready to go here. I would like
to add the words of merit into any bill that's submitted,
because I think we should have merit based immigration like
they have in Canada, like they have an Australia, so

(40:20):
we have people coming in that have a great track
record as opposed to as opposed to what we're doing now.
To be honest with you, but I think merit based
should be absolutely added to any bill, even if it
has to do with DOCTA. That would be added to
the things I said. I think it would be popular.
I think I can tell you the American public very
much once that it's going to address DOCCA in a

(40:42):
permanent way, not a temporary, short term thing. We're going
to address the border enforcement and security and the wall.
We're going to address UH and Mr mccallough bill. We're
going to address interior enforcement, but not everything that the
administration had on its list. We're going to address chain migration.

(41:04):
We're gonna end the visa lottery program. We're gonna address
sanctuary cities and Kate's Law. We think it is a
good bill that will both address the two things our
speaker told told us right after you made your decision,
which is, we have to address the problem we have
with the DOCCA kids being in limbo, as Dick Durbin
described it, and I agree with that, but we also

(41:26):
have to make sure this does not happen again. And
Dick here and the Democrats are gonna have a lot
of things that they're not going to agree. You're gonna
talk to us about it. I just felt that this
is something it was long overdue. You'd have a meeting
and you'd say this is what one wants, what haven mean?
And this this has been going on for years, and
I just you know, at a certain point, maybe I'll
just lock the doors and I won't let anybody until

(41:48):
until they come and agree. Michael, do you have something
to say about the VID encounters or seven terms? I've
been trying to get this worse here for seven terms
in Congress. I think this is a bipartisan this year.
I think podka is a by Parson issue. We have
an opportunity, I think before is to get this done
for the American people. When it comes to chain migration

(42:08):
and the lottery system. We saw two recent terror attacks
in New York that we're the result of this I
think failed immigration policy. We'd like to see that fixed
for the American people. Along with this. Bob talked about
the sanctuary cities for you. You and I talked about
this extensively. So we think our bill, our House bill,

(42:30):
will be a good starting ground for this negotiation. And
I to want to commend you for bringing everybody together.
I think, well, we don't want to see happen is
for the these conditions for DOCTA to occur again. We
want to get security done so we don't have to
deal with this problem five more years down the road.
So thank you serving. But there's so many points of

(42:51):
agreement and a lot of its common sense, and I
really think we're going to come out very well. David
prod you have something to say, so we am insservation.
Is that three times in the last eleven years, well
intentioned people, some of whom are in this room, attempted
to do what we're starting to try to do today,
and we fail. And I think the difference is is
there Mission Creek ended up in an effort that became

(43:15):
too comprehensive, And so today my encouragement for all of
us is to do what Dick has been trying to
do and talks about repeatedly, and that is to limit
the scope of this. And I like the idea that
both sides how pressure to solve the DOCA issue. But
I think the bigger issue here is not just the
DOCA issue, but what can we do to start the
path to the steps that solve this immigration problem for

(43:36):
several reasons, their social issues, their political issues, and their
economic issues about our workforce that have to be addressed.
But limiting this to the legal immigration side and combining
the balance between various solutions on DOCCA dreamers, if that
gets into conversation as well as border security and shame migration,
I think there in lie is the balance of a

(43:56):
good deal that can be done. And I don't think
I agree with Dick. I don't think it comes well
and get it done. If we just locked ourselves in
the room and made it happen. President, I just have
one comment. Senator German mentioned that lives are hanging in
the balance as we come up on the January nineteenth deadline.
The lives that are hanging the balance on those of
our military that are needing the equipment and the funding
and everything they need in order to keep us safe.

(44:17):
And we should not be playing politics on this issue
to stop our military from getting the funding that they need.
I think we have the right people in the room
to solve this issue. The deadline is marsh five. Let's
roll up our sleeves and work together on this. But
those who need us right now before the January nineteen
deadline is our military, and let's not play politics with that.
Let's give them what they need to keep us saying

(44:37):
would agree with it. We're going to go right back
to this happening just before we came on the air today.
I want you to hear this on the other side
of it. We also have some analysis and Sarah Carter
and we'll get your calls in one. Shawn is our number.
All right, we pick up this unprecedented meeting with the president,
Democratic leaders that was all on camera and obviously about immigration.

(44:59):
No no, no Democrats that don't want to make sure
that the military is funded properly UM and over the
last four years, we had an agreement between Mr Ryan
and Senator Murray speaking Ryan and that we would we
understand that our military is critically important, but we also
understand that our domestic issues, whether it's education, whether it's healthcare,

(45:21):
whether it's the environment, whether it's transportation and infrastructure, they're
important as well. And both the defense and non defense
signs of the budget are hurt when you have a
cr because they cannot plan and they cannot let contracts
if they don't have any money to do so. So
that very frankly I think uh MS MCSALI is correct.

(45:45):
But what we ought to have done over the last
six months, UH, particularly when we did the September and
we gave ninety days, is to reach some agreement on
what the caps are going to be. The Murray Ryan
agreements were parody. We believe that's very important so we
can get to where we should get uh and want

(46:06):
to get there, but we ought to have an agreement
based upon what the last two attending. We do have
to take politics out of the military. We need that military.
All the other things we talked about, We're not going
to be here because we don't have the right military.
And we need our military and we need it stronger
than ever before, and we're ready to do it. But
we have to take politics out of the military. Yes,

(46:26):
Gun President, I do want to thank you for getting
us together. You made the point last week when Republicans
were meeting with you that why are we continuing to
have these meetings just among ourselves? From what we need
to do to get to a solution is to meet
as we are today, as you assisted, on a black
partisan basis. But part of my job is to count
votes in the Senate, and as you know, we hosted

(46:49):
this the leadership that Camp David this weekend. Um, I
believe both the Speaker and Majority Leader McConnell made crystal
clear that they would not they would not proceed with
the bill and the floor the Senate for the House
unless it had your support, unless you would sign it.

(47:10):
So that's uh. I think the picture that we need
to be looking through, the lens we need to be
looking through is not only what could we agree to
among ourselves on a bipartisan basis, but what will you
sign into law? Because we all want to get to
a solution here, and we'd realizing clock it's ticking. But
I think that for me frames the issue about as
well as I can't thank you very well, said all right,

(47:31):
we're gonna take a break here, we'll have more of
this unbelievable exchange. Wow, I thought Donald Trump was crazy
and dement it. Uh no, he's actually extraordinarily bright and smart.
And it came through loud and clear, and we pick
up this unprecedented meeting with the President and Democratic leaders
that was all on camera, and obviously about immigration. This

(47:52):
is a point where Stenny Hoyer and the President had uh, well,
more than a little disagreement. You know. One of the
reasons I'm here, uck so importantly is exactly that. I mean,
normally you wouldn't have a president coming to this meeting. Normally, frankly,
you have Democrats Republicans, and maybe nothing would get done.
Uh you know, our system lends itself to not getting
things done. And I hear so much about ear marks,

(48:16):
the old earmark system, how there was a great friendliness
when you had earmarks, but of course they had other
problems with air marks. But maybe all of you should
start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks
because this system, and I'm there with you, because this sense,
this system really lends itself to not getting along. It
lends itself to hostility and anger, and they hate the

(48:39):
Republicans and they hate the Democrats. And you know, in
the old days of earmarks, you can say what you
want about certain presidents and others where they all talked
about they went out to dinner at night and they
all got along and they passed bills. That was an
earmark system. And maybe we should think about it, and
we have to put better controls because it got a
little bit out of hand. But maybe that brings people together,

(49:00):
because our system right now, the way it's set up,
will never bring people together. Now. I think we're gonna
get this done DOCTA. I think we're gonna get I
hope we're going to get infrastructure done in the same way.
But I think you should look at a form of earmarks.
I see Lindsay nodding very happily. Yes. And a lot
of the pros are saying that if you want to
get along, and if you want to get this country

(49:22):
really rolling again, you have to look at a different form,
because this is obviously out of control, the levels of hatred.
And I'm not talking about Trump. I'm talking you go
back throughout the eight years of Obama, and you go
before that, the animosity and the hatred between Republicans and Democrats.
I mean, I remember when I used to go out

(49:42):
in Washington and not see Democrats having dinner with Republicans
and they were best friends and everybody got along. You
don't see that too much anymore. I a older respect,
you really don't see that. It was the last time
you took a Republican that what are you? Guys? You
still have to have dinner, but the only ones, but
you don't see it. So maybe, and very importantly, totally
different from this meeting, because we're gonna get DOCTA done.

(50:04):
I hope we're gonna get DOCTA done, and we're gonna
all try very hard, but maybe you should start bringing
back a concept of earmarks. It's gonna bring you together.
You're gonna do it, honestly, you're gonna get rid of
the problems that the other system had, and it did
have some problems, but one thing it did is it
brought everyone together. And this country has to be brought together.

(50:24):
We can usually get bipartisan agreement when the other guy was.
I think it's a very important thing because our system
is designed right now that everybody should hit each other,
and we can't have that. You know, we have a
great country. We have a country that's doing very well,
uh in many respects. We're just hitting a new high

(50:44):
on the stock market again, and that means jobs. I
look at the stock I don't look at the stocks.
I look at the jobs. I look at the four
oh one case. I look at what's happening where police
come up to me and they say, thank you, you
make you're making me look like the financial genius, literally
meaning about them and their wives. I thought that was possible, right.
You know, the country, the country is doing well in

(51:05):
so many ways, but there's such divisiveness, such divisions in
its ten years. I don't think I've seen a better
chance to get it done than I do right now
because of you. John's right, I'm not gonna support a
bill if you don't support it. I've had my head
beat out a bunch. I'm still standing. Um. Lindsay Graham,
Ney ste Lindsey, go manage your name every name you
want to give to me, It's been assigned to me,

(51:27):
and I'm still standing. The people of South Carolina want
to resolve how could I get elected. I've been for
a pathway to citizenship for eleven million people because I
have no animosity towards them. I don't want crooks, I
don't want bad embres I want to get a merit
based immigration system to make sure we can succeed in
the twenty first century. I'm willing to be more than
fair to the eleven million. I just don't want to

(51:47):
do this every twenty years now. We made a decision
as president not to do it comprehensively. I think that's
a smart decision, but a hard decision. We've passed three
comprehensive bills out of the Senate with over sixty five votes.
They go to the House and die. And I'm not
being disparaging into my House colleagues. This is stuff politics.
If you're a Republican House member turning on the radio

(52:09):
to my Democratic friends, thanks for coming to resist. Movement
hates this guy. They don't want him to be successful
at all. You turn on Fox News and I can
hear the drum beat coming right wing radio and TV
talk show host are gonna beat the crap out of
us because it's gonna be amnesty all over again. I
don't know if the Republican and Democratic Party can define love,

(52:30):
but I think what we can do is do what
the American people want us to do. Of the Trump
voters support a pathway to citizenship for the doctor kids.
If you have strong borders, you have created an opportunity
to hear Mr President, and you need to close the
deal thiculus. You know, it's very interesting because I do

(52:53):
have people that are it's just to use a very
common term, very far right and very far left. Uh,
they're very unhappy about what we're doing. But I really
don't believe they have to be, because I really think
this sells itself. And you know, when you talk about
comprehensive immigration reform, which is where I would like to
get to eventually, if we do the right bill here,

(53:16):
we are not very far away. You know, we've done
most of it. If you want to know the truth, Dick,
If we do this properly, dot do, you're not so
far away from comprehensive immigration reform. And if you want
to take it that further step I'll take the heat.
I don't care. I don't care. I'll take all the
heat you want to give me. And I'll take the
heat of both the Democrats and the Republicans. My whole
life has been heat. I like heat in a certain way,

(53:39):
but I will. I mean, you are somewhat more traditional
politicians than two or a half years ago. I was
never thinking in terms of politics. Now I'm a politician.
You people have been doing it, many of you, all
your lives. I'll take all the heat you want. But
you are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform.
And if you wanted to go that final step, I

(54:00):
think you should do it. And if you want to
study earmarks to bring us all together so we all
get together and do something, I think you should study it. Chuck,
you do something to said. I'd like to talk about
the reality of the whole situation and take off from
what Corner and Graham have said of the necessity of
you working with us, and you're doing that by having

(54:21):
this meeting and other meetings as well. But we've always
talked in the United States Senate about the necessity of
getting sixty votes, and that's pretty darn tough, but if
we would write a bill that you don't like and
you veto it, we're talking about a sixty seven vote
threshold two thirds in the United States Senate. So that's
the reality of negotiating in good faith and getting something

(54:44):
you can sign. The second reality is the March fifth
date that's coming up, because if we don't do some
good faith negotiation and make process progress and get a
bill on the floor of the United States Senate, our
leaders and to have to bring up either the House
bill or the bill that some of us is introduced

(55:05):
in the United States Senate and we're going to have
a vote on and those people that don't want to
vote to legalize docker kids are are are going to
have to explain why that they haven't wanted to protect
the vulnerable people that we're all here talking about. We're
talking about everything except doing something for the Docket kids.

(55:25):
You know, I would vote for a path to citizenship,
which isn't very easy for me, but I would do
it just as an effort. But there's certain things that
you've got we've got a guarantee that we're going to
do that that's going to be brought up. I really
believe that will be brought up as part of what
we're talking about at some point. It's an incentive for
people to do a good job. If you want to

(55:45):
know that, that whole path is an incentive for people.
And they're not all kids. I mean, you know we
were used to talk about kids are not really kids.
You have a thirty years old in some cases. But
it would be an incentive for people to work on
do a good job. So you know, that could very
well be brought up the bow legalizing people here that
didn't break the law because their parents who broke the

(56:07):
law brought them here. And we ought to be talking
about what we can do for the people that had
no fault of their own and get the job done
and not worry about a lot of other things that
we're involved in. And that means that we've got to
make sure that we tell the American people when we're
taking this step, that we're doing something that all the
people agreed to. You know, Mr President, let me just say,

(56:29):
I think Dick and I agree with what Chuck Grassling
just said. I believe when was the last time that happened.
We need to take care of these doctor kids, and
we all agree on that of the American public agrees
on that. With all due respect, Bob and Mike UH
and lindsay Uh, there are some things that you're proposing.

(56:51):
They're going to be very controversial and will be an
impediment to agreement. But you're gonna negotiate those things. You're
gonna sit down, You're gonna say, listen, we can't agree here.
We we'll give you half of that. We're gonna gether
to negotiation. Comprehensive means comprehension. We're not talking about doctor now,
we're talking about we aren't. We are talking about comprehensive.
But if you want to go there, it's okay, because
you're not that far a president. Many of the things

(57:12):
that are mentioned ought to be a part of the
negotiations regarding comprehensive immigration with If you want to take
it this step further, you may I'm gonna have to
rely on you think, which is you may complicated and
you may delay DOCTA somewhat. I don't want to do that.
When you said at the outset we need to phase this,
I think the first phase is with Chuck and Stanny
and I have mentioned others as well. We have a

(57:33):
deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging that we
can agree on some very fundamental and important things together
on border security, on chain, on the future of diversity,
visas comprehensive. Though I worked on it for six months
with Michael Bennett and UH, a number of Bombinendez, UH
and Schumer and McCain and Jeff Flake, and it took

(57:55):
us six months to put it together. We don't have
six months for the doctor. Were ConA a number of
factors that are trying to be controversial as to negotiate.
Take you gonna negotia and maybe we'll agree, and maybe
we will. I mean, you know it's possible we're not
going to agree with you, and it's possible way, but

(58:15):
there should be no reason for us not to get
this done. And Chuck, I will say, when this group
comes back, hopefully with an agreement, this group and others
from the Senate, from the House comes back with an agreement,
I'm signing it. I mean I will be signing it.
I'm not going to say, oh gee, I want this,
sorry what that I'll be signing again because I have
a lot of confidence in the people in this room
that you're gonna come up with something really good. All right,

(58:38):
we'll take a quick break. We'll come back. We have
Sarah Carter at the top of the hour. Your call
is coming up in so much more right here on
the Sean Hannity Show. A right, this is the last
segment this unprecedented meeting that was caught on well. I
guess it was designed to be on cameras. The Senate
and House leadership debating immigration with the President, all for
for all eyes to see. We'll have more coverage on

(59:00):
us tonight on Hannity and Sarah Corner at the top
of the hour. Straight ahead. I think we have a
great group of people to sit down and get this done.
I'd love not to build the wall, but you need
the wall. And I will tell you this. The Ice
officers and the Border patrol agents I had them just recently.
They say, if you don't have the wall, you know
in certain areas obviously that aren't protected by nature, if

(59:22):
you don't have the wall, you cannot have security. Just
can't have it. It doesn't work. And part of the
probably have his walls and fences that we currently have
are in very bad shape. They're broken. We have to
get them. People, they say if you don't have the wall.
You know in certain areas obviously that aren't protected by nature,
if you don't have the wall, you cannot have security.

(59:43):
Just can't have it. It It doesn't work. And part of
the probably have his walls and fences that we currently
have are in very bad shape. They're broken. We have
to get them fixed or rebuild. But you know, you
you speak to the agents, and I spoke to all
of them. I spoke, I lived with. They endorsed me
for president, which they've never done before. The Border patrol

(01:00:03):
agents and ICE they both endorsed Trump and they never
did that before. And I have a great relationship with them.
They say, sir, without the wall, security doesn't work. We're
all wasting time. Now, that doesn't mean two thousand miles
of wall, because you just don't need that because of nature,
because the mountains and rivers and lots of other things.
But we need a certain portion of that border to

(01:00:26):
have the wall. If we don't have it, you can
never have security. You can never stop that portion of
drugs that comes through that area. Yes, it comes through
plains and lots of other ways and chips, but a
lot of it comes through the southern border. You can
never fix the situation without additional wall, and we have
to fix existing wall that we already have. No. I

(01:00:52):
think a clean DOCTA bill to me is a DOCTA bill,
but we take care of the eight hundred thousand people.
They're actually not necessarily young people. Everyone talks about young
you know, they can be forty years old, forty one
years old, but they're also sixteen years old. But I
think to me, a clean bill is a bill of DOCTA.
We take care of them, and we also take care
of security. That's very important. And I think the Democrats

(01:01:15):
want security too. I mean, we started off with Steenny
saying we want security. Also everybody wants security, and then
we can go to comprehensive later on, and maybe that
is a longer subject and a bigger subject, and I
think we can get that done too, but we'll get
it done at a later day. Yes, ma'am, go ahead.
That's the President and I'm senator. He wrote it from Hawaiians,

(01:01:36):
the only immigrants serving in the United States Senate right now,
I would like nothing better than for us to get
to comprehensive immigration reformed. By what I'm hearing around the
table right now is a commitment to resolving the doctor
situation because there is a sense of urgency. Now you
have put it out there that that you want eighteen
million dollars for a while, or else there will be

(01:01:58):
no DOCTA. Is that still your Yeah, I can build
it for less. By the way, I must tell you,
I'm looking at these prices. Somebody said forty two billion.
This is like the aircraft carrier and started off at
a billion and a half and it's now an eighteen billion.
Now we can do it for us. We can do
a great job. We can do a great wall. But
you need the wall. And I'm now getting involved. I'd

(01:02:20):
like to build under budget. Okay, I'd like to go
under budget ahead of schedule. There's no reason for seven years. Also,
I heard the other day. Please don't do that to
me seven years. We can build the wall in one year,
and we can build it for much less money than
what they're talking about, and any excess funds and we'll

(01:02:40):
have a lot of whether it's a woman rink or
whether it's any I build under budget and I built
ahead of schedule. There is no reason to ever mention
seven years. Again, police, I heard that. I said I
said I wanted to come out with a major news
conference tom yesterday. Now they can go up quickly, it
can go up effectively, and we can fix a lot
of the areas right now that are really satisfactory if

(01:03:01):
we renovate those walls in those Mueller immediately concluded the
Mr Structor no longer participate in the investigation, and he
was removed from the team the same day. Did Mr
Mueller take appropriate action in this case? Yes, he did.
Thank you. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you
said that you would only fire Special Counsel Mueller for
good cause and that you had not seen any yet.

(01:03:24):
Several months have passed since then. Have you seen good
costs to fire Special Counsel Muller? No? Thank you. If
you were ordered today to fire Mr Mueller, what would
you do? So I've explained previously, I would follow the
regulation if there were good cause, I would act. If
there were no good cause, I would not, And you
have seen no good cause so far. Correct? And the

(01:03:44):
Special Counsel has hired at least eight attorneys who have
direct connections to both the to either the Obama or
Clinton campaigns. Don't you think that creates an appearance of impropriety,
and I'm not saying what you think they can do
their jobs. Don't you think it creates an appearance of impropriety.
I suppose the time of the gentleman has expired, the

(01:04:05):
witnesses permitted to answer the question. I do not believe.
I'm not aware of any impropriety. We do have regulations
of special counsels subject to all the departments rules UH
and subject to oversight by the Department, including the Inspector General,
and not aware of any violation of those rules by
the special counsel employee. So you don't think it creates
the appearance of impropriety. Appearance is to some extent in

(01:04:27):
the eye of the beholder. We apply the Department's rules
and regulations and making determinations, and we do have career
ethics advisors who provide US counsel about them. All right, news,
round up information, overload our eight nine for one, Shawn,
if you want to be a part of the program,
We'll get to your calls in a minute. Rob Rosenstein,
no good cause to fire Muller, and just there's no

(01:04:47):
appearance of impropriety. And I don't believe a word of this,
especially in light of the new developments that I was
telling you about last night and News Broken by both
Sarah Carter investigative reporter, Fox News analyst uh and also
by John Solomon, and it just gets into more of
the the details about how absolutely corrupt the whole thing

(01:05:10):
has been from the get go. We now have Struck members,
Peter Struck and his well, I guess his mistress, the
lawyer for the FBI, Lisa Page. Peter Struck was involved
in every single solitary aspect involving every case. He interviewed
General Flynt. He was there rewriting the exoneration before the

(01:05:32):
investigation with Jim Comey. He was the one that interviewed
Hillary Clinton, but he had already written the exoneration with
of course James Colemey. So what was the point at
that point. Anyway, Now these new emails that's back and
forth between Peter Struck and his mistress Lisa Page, all
the articles out they got, they talk about and then

(01:05:53):
it's hidden behind a paywall so you can't read it.
Page texted Struck Wall Street Journal boy that was fat asked, well,
you know if it's articles out, well, that means they
knew the article was coming. That means they leaked the article. Well,
what exactly did they leak? And is what they did
legal in a lot of ways, And it goes, I

(01:06:14):
can act like I do. It's I have to tell everybody,
and now I can act like I do every other
article that hits Google news Alert. Seriously, when they hear
about the article, they're worried about. Oh, they don't want
their fingerprints on this. Remember page served as the lawyer
advising the FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. And then as
you go on to read about a lot more of this, again,

(01:06:37):
there's nine thousand texts, we've only got a few hundred
of these. Now we find out that, you know, the
leaks in February, the intercept of General Flynn, et cetera,
FBI contacts with the media. A lot of this could
be improper, and it's certainly designed to influence the public
perception about what is going on here. Why did they

(01:06:57):
leak on Flynn? Wasn't that information, you know, raw intelligence?
And isn't that a violation of law? You know? Don't
these leaks create a false narrative? You know, it's there's
so much to all of this, and not the least
of which, as you've got Andrew Weissman, we're going to
find out more about him in the coming days, and
so much more that Sarah Carter has been able to find.

(01:07:19):
How are you I'm doing great, Sean, Thank you. I
think I was struck mostly by listening uh to Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosen's kind of saying, you know, he
didn't find any issuance of impropriety. You know, when it
comes to more so than Muehler. I understand that there's
some legal ramifications there that he has. He wants to

(01:07:40):
follow the law to the t and those regulations to t.
But when it comes to impropriety, I certainly think that
the evidence is overwhelming. Yeah. I think, well, let's go
through what appears to be these FBI agents and their
text messages. Now there's we have congressional probes that are
going to begin into this about the possible news leaks. Oh,

(01:08:00):
you don't call me leaked. You know, Struck was involved
in the exoneration before investigation of Hillary. You know, he
was up to his eyeballs. He was there at the
interview of Michael Flynn, General Flynn, and of course Flynn
now has pled guilty to lying to the FBI. When
I look at these things, I'm I'm reading these things
that I'm thinking, Uh, it sounds like they leaked an
awful lot. I mean, it appears so. I mean, and

(01:08:23):
this is the reason why you know, Trey Gaudy and others,
uh Nunnis as well want to look into this House
Intelligence Committee. I mean from the very beginning, I think
their pervy as far as investigations, was going to include
an investigation into leaking. I think this just adds more
fuel to the fire where they're looking at this and saying, Okay,

(01:08:44):
wait a minute, we now have to have answers from
Peter Struck, We need answers from Lisa Page. We need
to find out what they were talking about here when
they were talking about the Wall Street Journal, when they
were talking about the Washington Post and these stories, and
whether or not they gave information without without any authorization

(01:09:04):
to these news agencies. And that's going to be a
really important part of all of this. Also, when you
think about Michael Flynn, and I think a lot of
people don't realize this, It's not just about leaking information
that maybe is related to a case or something related
to uh that they wanted out from the FBI. This
information that was leased on Michael Flynn was considered highly

(01:09:26):
classified information. I mean that information. Just accessing it and
sharing it with somebody else is a crime and it's
a felony. And so that really was a big, big
part of what they're looking at right here. And I
know that the i G is also looking at that.
The Inspector General. Yeah, well, when are we getting that
Inspector General's report when I you know, look at another

(01:09:47):
instance here when they're talking specifically about you know, tipping
people off here. You know, I mean, I'm really stunned
at what I'm reading in all of this, and you know,
suggesting that the whole thing is just a tiny bit
from us that means they were leaking. What does that
mean if they're leaking, and what did they leak? And
what does that mean in terms of the law. Well,

(01:10:10):
it's certainly going to mean that they are going to
be questioned. I know talking to sources today, talking to
sources today that people within the FBI over the past
months have been questioned about leaks coming out of the FBI.
So one thing we know for sure, there is a
suspicion that a number of the leaks that went to
the media came from the Bureau, possibly from higher level

(01:10:31):
officials at the Bureau. There have been a number of
people within the Bureau that have already been polygraphed and
questioned about leaks. And remember, there's twenty seven leaks right
now being investigated by the Department of Justice. That is
tripled the amount of the last three years. That is
a lot of leaks, and there are a lot of
people that are really concerned about what's going to come

(01:10:52):
out because they are going to be caught red handed.
We also know that there was instances where they were
looking into General Council James Bayer, and he's no longer
in that position at the FBI. What was what was
his involvement was their leaking? What was he leaking, um
if if he was at all. So they're going to
be looking at a lot of high level players here,
including Andrew mccape. Now, if you look at Peter struct Sean,

(01:11:16):
Peter Struck not only interviewed Flynn, he was very involved
in Hillary Clinton and with her interviews and with the
whole case. So they're gonna want to take a look
at that. What I'd like to know is why the
House committees that are investigating this haven't interviewed the other
FBI agents who were with Peter Struck on that interview
with Flynn. Why haven't they interviewed or such a big point.

(01:11:39):
That's such a that's a massive point you're making. It
is a huge point, because then they're going to get
to the truth. Right, we know Peter Struts already been discredited.
So talk to the other person that was in that interview.
What were they thinking? What did they assess from that
interview with Michael Flynn that day? Talk to the other
people that I'd love to know, because we've already discredited Struck,

(01:12:02):
then there's only another person left. Well, it's it's that too.
And remember they took they took the email server investigation
away from the field offices and put it in a
special category that nobody else gets in the in the meantime,
and then the exoneration and even taking out the language
of gross negligence and taking out language that foreign entities
and foreign intelligence services had gotten ahold of this information.

(01:12:24):
What do you make of of Lisa Page, you know,
offering the legal advice specifically in the case of um
not Andrew Weissman, what's his name, McCabe, Andrew McCabe. Well,
he was because she's biased working for Andrew McCabe, right,
she was given him the legal advice and her role

(01:12:45):
is the legal advice. She was just under him. And
this is interesting news, and this will be something new
that I'm gonna throw out there that I haven't written
about yet. But allegedly, according to some of the sources
I spoke with earlier today and I was stunned and
I heard this, Andrew McCabe was actually talking to people
colleagues recently saying that he's been approached by the d

(01:13:07):
n C to possibly run for office in Virginia. So
after he's done. So I tell you this allegedly, I've
heard it from very credible sources, but we still have to,
you know, follow through and ask those questions. But if
that's the case, what is the level of feeling there
that they that they assume that none of this is

(01:13:28):
going to come out, that the investigation is just going
to disappear. Uh So, there there's a certain sense of,
as one source put it, narcissism involved here, where they
feel that they are untouchable and uh and so I
think that the investigation by the Inspector General is going
to be extremely important. I think that that is going

(01:13:48):
to reveal pretty much the answers that we need um
as far as what the leaks, where the leaks have
been coming from, how they've been, how they've evolved. Now.
I don't know what they're going to have the answer
to the Flynn leak, but it would be very interesting
to see if they do. I gotta ask you about
the the research into this New York Times reporter and

(01:14:09):
also what might be coming out about Andrew Weissman and
potential media contexts he's had. As we continue with the
investigative reporter, Fox News contributed Sarah Carter is with us.
I want to get to the part about this poor
New York Times guy and Peter Struck in Lisa Page
discussing at length about how they're looking into his background

(01:14:30):
and tracking down his work phone and taking shots at
at my colleague Chris Wallace, taking shots at my former
colleague Megan Kelly, you know, really personal, horrible attacks against
both of them. And but the more important part is
why are they looking up family names and members of reporters?
Well in an apparent attempt to track him down, it appears,

(01:14:53):
and not only were they trying to track him down
or maybe speech to him, it would be it would
be interesting to see how they respond to that, but
they're also making fun of him at the same time.
So it appears that both of them have a habit
of really putting people down. I don't think Chris Wallace
and Megan Kelly and Mattapuso and the rest of them
are the only ones. I mean, if you go through

(01:15:14):
the text messages that were released, it appears that both
Page and Struck had a habit of just bad mouthing
people in their text messages to each other. I've never
seen anything quite like that. It just seemed like everybody
they talked about they were they were definitely throwing shots
at So it's interesting because if you think about the
FBI and you think like she's tracking them down, and

(01:15:36):
in one point in the text messages, he warrens Page,
you know, don't don't use your you know, your office
phone because it could be you could be tagged. And
she's like, oops, I already did that, you know. So,
so it didn't seem like they were as concerned. And
remember this Sean. It go back to what was happening

(01:15:56):
during that time. Even at that point in time and
before the election, they all believed, they all believed that
Hillary Clinton would win. And even afterwards when we see
those text messages, you know, the insurance policy and and
that needs to be answered, uh, you know with McCabe's
and apparently Andy's insurance policy. We believe that's Andrew McCabe.

(01:16:18):
When you look at all of this, it felt that
they had a mission, that they believed they were on
a mission, and they even stated, you know, to save
the Republic from Trump. So when we go back to
Rod Rosenstein's statement that there was no impropriety here, I
find that just incredible and hard to believe when you
realize that Peter Struck was central to the investigations. Let

(01:16:40):
me ask you about Andrew Weissman, and apparently he had
contact with the news media last April. Now he's the
guy that was appointed. He was a Justice Department financial
fraud prosecutor that lost to the Supreme Court nine zero.
Tens of thousands of people lost their job at Anderson Accounting,
and four Meryal executives went to jail. In the end.
Wron case for a year and then that was overturned

(01:17:03):
by the Fifth Circuit. And you know why, another Democrat?
Why did Mueller appoint him is beyond any understanding I
have with his conflicts and his failed record. But more importantly,
did he talk to the media. It appears that he did,
and the Justice Department is right now researching records that
are related to those details. Some April two thousand seventeen
meeting that apparently, um the attorney Andrew Andrew Wiseman had

(01:17:28):
with a specific news organization. I believe I know what
that news organization is. I'm just trying to verify it
and they were discussing some particular issue. Now it's Andrew
Wiseman aided that news organization in verifying something that was
not meant to be public. He could be in really
big trouble. And I know this because I've talked to

(01:17:49):
people about this that are in the know. UM So
far he is still on the Special Council. He has
not been removed. UM so the investigation is still ongoing.
But as noon as they find something, or if they
do find something, uh, they will remove him from the
Special Council. And that's what I've been told all right,
Sarah Carter, We'll see on Hannity tonight with the very
latest on all of this. Thank you for being with us.

(01:18:12):
By the way, Steve Bannon now is out at Bright
Part that has been breaking. Will have the very latest
on all of that. Also, we'll get your calls in
at the bottom of the hour. One Shawn, if you
want to be a part of the program. We got
an incredible Hannity tonight nine star on the Fox News Channel.
Will tell you about that and your call straight ahead.
All right, so we do have some breaking news. Glad
you with us twenty five now until the top of

(01:18:33):
the hour. Steve Bannon now has stepped down from Bright
Part News Network, where he served as the executive chairman
since and Bannon said, I'm proud of what Bright Part
and its team is accomplished in so short a period
of time and building out a world class news platform. Um. Look,
obviously this is connected to everything that came out in

(01:18:54):
Michael Wolf's book. He waited a number of days to
clarify as related to Donald Trump Jr. And he used
the word uh traitorous and money laundering and uh, now
this has all come back to bidem I assume probably
Roy Moore's issue as comes into play at least with
some there. But we'll get the inside story, um, and
we'll have more on that tonight on Hannity nine Eastern.

(01:19:15):
I want to start here and play the immigration flip PLoP.
You're gonna hear from Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama, and it's amazing. It just proves how everything
is about the political climate in terms of positions they take.
People who enter the United States without our permission are
illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the

(01:19:35):
same as people who entered the US legally. President's decision
to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless. When
we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message
to the American people that their government is not serious
about combating illegal immigration. Hundreds hundreds of thousands of families
will be ripped apart. If you don't think it's illegal,

(01:19:56):
you're not gonna say it. I think it is illegal
and wrong, and of thousands of American businesses will lose
hard working employees. And the argument them as the President,
is Americans don't want to do the work way just
can't find American workers to do the work because the
president that is a cruck in many instances, it's just

(01:20:18):
not true in my view, from decision to end the
doctor program was some eight hundred thousand young people. Is
the cruelest and most ugly presidential act in the modern
history of this country. I cannot think of one single
act which is ugly and more cruel. We've got to

(01:20:41):
do several things, and I am, you know, adamantly against
illegal immigrants. People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. Come
up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and NASA County. Stand
in the street corners on in Brooklyn or the Bronx.
You're gonna see loads of people waiting to get picked
up to go do yard work and construction work and
domestic work. You know, ID this is not a problem

(01:21:05):
that the people who were coming into the country are
solely responsible for there coming if we didn't put them
to work. My proposal will keep families together, and it
will include a path to citizen chip. The number of
immigrants added to the labor force every year is of
a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.

(01:21:25):
If this huge influx of mostly low scale workers provide
some benefits to the economy as a whole, it also
threatens to depress further the wages of blue collar Americans
and put strains on an already overburdened safety net. Immigrants
aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up. There are
those in the immigrants rights community who have argued passionately
that we should simply provide those who are illegally with

(01:21:47):
legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the
books and put an end to deportation until we have
better laws. But I believe such an indiscriminate approach would
be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those
thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no
repercussions for such a decision, and this could lead to

(01:22:08):
a surge in more illegal immigration. These are students, their teachers,
their doctors, their lawyers, their Americans in every way, but
on paper, those who enter the country illegally and those
who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they
are showing disregard for those who are following the law.

(01:22:32):
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United
States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people
who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.
Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship.

(01:22:53):
How political expedients he always kicks in. Uh, now, we'll
have a lot more on this. We played in in
the last hour, this long exchange, and oh we all
agree on DACA. Yeah, I'm I don't agree on DACA.
I agree on building the wall building, the wall building,
the wall building, the wall building, the wall building. At first,
that's what we need to do because you always get

(01:23:13):
the consideration, the amnesty. You never get the wall, You
never get the security, never get the end of chain migration.
You always get you know, I mean, I just it's frustrating.
Always get the spending increase, and then oh, in future
years out years will get the We'll get the tax cut.
I don't you never get the tax cut. You know,

(01:23:34):
this time it was different. So I think there's a
way to do this and do this right. But anyway,
it was the one thing that was interesting is the exchange.
Just from the standpoint these are all the people that
say he's crazy, Well, he seemed pretty smart, sober, engaged,
listening measured all the things that everybody in the media

(01:23:54):
says they want him to be. And you're never gonna
get any credit for that for this president. All right,
let's get to our busy telephones here as we say
hi to Patty Is in Las Vegas k Dawn Radio.
What's up, Patty? How are you glad you called? Happy
New Year? Happy New Year. I hope you had a
great holiday. Thank you. I think good. It's good to

(01:24:18):
have have time with family and then reboot the new year.
I'm a little frustrated. Um So in watching this, this
whole meeting, the thing that struck me was Trump was
actually treating it like it's the business that it is.
We have business in this country as far as immigration
that needs to be handled, and the priorities should be

(01:24:40):
the wall docta for for any representative to say, well,
we just need to talk about doctor and we'll work
with you on the wall later. Yeah, because you've been
the party of working with us, You've been the party
of resist. You you have no interest in working anything.
You want, what you want when you want it, and
then you're going to resist anything that we want. As

(01:25:01):
conservatives and Republicans, they are brought to the table. Now,
I think I think you're writing in a whole variety
of ways. I'm gonna tell you where this this capitulation
on DACCA is. I think the President is committed to
everything that he ran on, and he wants the wall
built and built. Finally, I actually have confidence this time
it's gonna happen. And he's asking for eighteen billion dollars

(01:25:23):
to build the seven miles of wall. And sadly it's
not our first rodeo. And the Democrats want their amnesty
in whatever form they can get it. Um. But but
here's the truth. It's a simple truth that Republicans that
say they want border security want DACA as bad as
the Democrats. The establishment wants data. I want security first,

(01:25:49):
and because I don't trust them, I'll never trust them anyway.
Appreciate you being with us. Let's say, hide next to
Buddy Is in Sun City in Florida. What's up, Buddy?
How are you? Happy New Year? Happy New Year? You Sean,
You're I've been looking at the last revel You're the
hard organist guy in America. Uh, it's I'm the luckiest guy.
Well that's amazing. I let you do. But look I

(01:26:10):
wanted to get you some information. I was trying to
get it to you last week when it happened. But
I was stationed in during Vietnam. I was stationed. I
went in sixty seven, got on seventy one, and I
was stationed and uh Tempo Air Base and uh In
in South Korea for about twelve months, the last tour
before I came home. But anyway, I learned a lot

(01:26:32):
about Korean culture, Asian culture, and I got to know
a lot of the special forces. There are the Korean
Special Forces, their Marines, a great guys, tough fighters. But anyway,
I remember when Nixon went to China in the mid
seventies and was sitting in the People's Hall and at
the big desk and uh everybody was aging how how

(01:26:53):
wonderful it was. And on the wall you saw a
Chinese flag and you saw an American flag. Well, the
Chinese flag is twice as big as the American flag.
And in Asia, that is a direct insult. That means
my enemy is meeting me at my at my choice
of places, and he has agreed that his to fly

(01:27:14):
a smaller flag, and that means he is acquiescing to me.
He is nothing compared to me, and I can tell
him what to do, and I'm basically the boss, and
they're just They're just a bunch of weasels come here
to meet us and and kiss our feet. Well, look,
when Trump tweeted that tweet last week, I like to
fell off the cats laughing. And I'm still laughing because

(01:27:34):
all the brilliant people in Washington and all the brilliant
people in the news media, they have no idea that
when this little weasel says I have a nuclear button
on my desk, and then Trump used Asian culture and
nobody picked up on that to tweet back that not
only do I have a button on my desk, but

(01:27:55):
my button is far bigger and far more powerful, and
my button work. That was a direct insult using Asian culture.
Let me tell you something, unless the President was willing
to fly a you know, see one thirty or numerous
c one thirty cargo planes with billions of dollars to

(01:28:16):
bow and kiss the ring and kiss the backside of
a murdering dictator, nothing that he ever says or does
is ever gonna be loved by the media. It's just
a fact. And you're you're exactly right. Bullies need to
be confronted. You know, they acted the same way when
Ronald Reagan said, well, bombing begins in five minutes, or

(01:28:39):
Mr Garberg trough tear down this wall or whatever you know,
and then they don't look at history. You don't look.
It's a good deal for the amrrying the people and
everyone will prevent them getting nuclear eppens now and your
bribery of dictators fails. Obama's deal with the Iranians is
going to be an uttered disc haven't heard a lot

(01:29:01):
about the student protesters lately. By the way, I don't
know why the media is not covering at all. It
seems like they don't want freedom, liberty, democracy to take
hold there. Anyway, Thank you for your um service to
your country. Thank you for calling, and thanks for checking in.
Will is in Chicago. Next on the Sean Hannity Show,
the answer, What's up? Will? How are you glad you called?
Thank Sehn? Happy New Year to you, Happy New Year.

(01:29:22):
So you know, listen, John, I just have a couple
of thoughts, and you tell me what you think, UM
regarding this whole Wolf book. You know, the number one
question I've been hearing on talk radio and even on
Fox News from your colleagues, is that why was this
guy allowed in the White House? Now, one thing we've
heard about President Trump repeatedly is the fake news media.
And what does he mean by that? He means that,
you know, the vast majority of the media cannot be trusted,

(01:29:44):
and I think that's very true. So what my question is,
why what this guy in there? I mean, Sean, I'm
gonna say this. I voted for the president and I
support it, but there's a problem with President Trump wanting
And I think it's not just him. I think it's
politicians are like, they want to be liked, But I
got news for you. They'll never like you. This news
media will never like you, never go They all like

(01:30:05):
Bannon for five seconds when he was trashing the President's
son and others. That's and then now they're back to
hating him because he stuck up for Donald Trump Jr. Absolutely,
And you don't, Sean. The other thing is is either way,
I don't suffer from that syndrome. I actually thrive on
the fact that they hate my guts. I like that part.

(01:30:25):
I don't. I don't care if they like me or not.
I'm not I don't have that that switch in my
head that needs to be liked by leftists. I know,
you know, and that's what sets you apart. But you know, Sean,
the president does have a little bit of an ego problem.
But what he needs to realize. I have three things
that I if the President wants to listen to me,
a cop, what do I know? But you know something,
I would say three things to him. Get behind the

(01:30:48):
desk in the Oval office and speak directly to the people,
don't tweet as much, and have at least three people
that you can rely on. Yeah, he's not going to
do that. Listen, I I I listen. It's all good advice.
I'm telling he's not gonna listen. Um, I know, but
with Sean an answer this one question of Sean. You
know they know very well that you know, outlets like CNN,

(01:31:10):
MSNBC in the dinosaur media, they're never going to cover
him fairly. So my question is, don't give him an interview.
I didn't think. I thought Steve looks I like Steve
Miller a lot. He's a really smart, smart guy, and
he's added so much to both the campaign and the
White House, and and he does his work quietly, and
he's not looking for you know, a lot of credit,
and he's serving the country and the president at the

(01:31:31):
same time. But I didn't think he was smart to
go on with Jake fake news Temper. I just didn't
think it was a smart move. And um, you know,
I mean look at Tamper. I mean he's so hyper politicized.
It's just it's like the number one, there's no audience,
and number two, what's the point there's it's so predictable
everything that's gonna happen. Um. Anyway, Well, the one thing

(01:31:53):
I'll add this to to what you're saying here. The
President did dispute that he gave access to Michael Wolfe um.
Mark Berman of National Reporter for the Washington Post disputed,
you know, the account in the book. Steve Miller disputed
the account in the book. Sarah Sanders disputed the accounts
in the book. Trump disputed the accounts in the book.

(01:32:14):
Gary Cohne disputes that he wrote an email. I disputed
things that were said about me in the book a
number of things. Mike Pompeo disputed it. McConnell's aid disputed it.
Tom Barrock of Fortune or he told Fortune that he
disputes what went on. Even Anna Wintour disputed it. The
Tony Blair disputed aspects of the book, many aspects. Melania

(01:32:37):
Trump disputed aspects of the book. I mean, you know,
and and we can prove that there's factual errors in
the book alre like not knowing who John Bayner will
He played golf with John Bayner and he tweeted about
John Bayner. So I think that answers that. All Right,
we got an incredible Hannity, the immigration battle, the data debate,

(01:32:57):
Trump the negotiator, an amazing displayed today. We're gonna play
a lot of that will also show you the Democratic
hypocrisy on the issue. Also, we have Fusion GPS. This
guy Glenn Simpson. His testimony has been released. Uh what
does it mean. We'll have the latest on Solomon and
Sarah Carter tonight. Also Greg Jared is back tonight, and

(01:33:18):
we have some new predictions of the media and their
new low. Lara Trump will check in with us tonight,
Larry Elder in Austin Goulsby, and of course the Hannity
Hotline and our video of the day nine Eastern on Hannity.
We'll see then back here tomorrow. Thanks for being with
us

All Episodes

Focus on Immigration - 1.9

Episode Transcript

The Sean Hannity Show News

Host

Sean Hannity

Popular Podcasts

United States of Kennedy

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Focus on Immigration - 1.9