Inside Job - 12.15 - The Sean Hannity Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So, like many of you, I used to suffer from insomnia.
No matter what I did, I just couldn't get a
perfect night's sleep. Well, then I met Mike Lindel, the
inventor of my Pillow. He got me fitted from my
very own my pillow, and it's changed my life. I
fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now you
can to just go to my Pillow dot com or
call eight hundred four six seven nineteen sixty two use

(00:23):
the promo code Sewn to take advantage of Mike's two
for one offer. Now my pillow was made right here
in the USA, has a sixty day unconditional money back
guarantee end day ten year warranty. And by the way,
you can even wash it and dry it. Just go
to my pillow dot com or call eight hundred four
or six seven nineteen sixty two promo code Shawn to
get Mike's special too for one offer. Let not your

(00:45):
heart be troubled. You are listening to the Sean Hannity
Radio Show podcast and as we roll along eight one show,
I had to do something. I had to tweet out
something from my buddy Bow. Make sure it went through
properly on my Twitter account, because if I made a mistake,
it's going to be the end of the world end
that I did something horrible. I think I messed it up.
Can you fix it for me? Do you mind? Glad
you are with us? All right? The left is gone

(01:09):
Ape Sugar, they just got nuts and uh, the sore
loser left. So it's not gonna work with a recount
that failed miserably. Oh, I gotta tell you. Oh, Julian
Assange is on the program today. He's been saying no
the Russians. Will somebody call Lindsey Graham's office tell him
the idiot to listen to the second hour of the

(01:31):
program today when Julian Assange is on because he might
learn something. Did the tweak go out the right way?
Did you check it out? Is it all good? Is
everything okay? Did I do something stupid? You haven't even
checked yet? Great? Very quick? You sipping your coffee in
there with Irish whiskey, and I know what's going on
at Christmas party in there. I see what's happening. I
see the party never ended, and that you know you

(01:51):
just hung all. You know, that's the best way you
can cope today. I get what's going on. I see
it anyway, So he got sore in lub So we
have Juliana's on sore losers celebrities. Now they go from
Russian hackey. Now let's just try and influence the election.
The electors led by Member Martin Sheen, Republican members of
the Electoral College, this message is for you. As you know,

(02:14):
our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the
American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to
ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is
to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications. An
eminent degree, someone who is highly qualified for the job.

(02:35):
The Electoral College was created specifically to prevent an unfit
candidate from becoming president. There are five hundred and thirty
eight members of the Electoral College. You and just thirty
six other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference by
voting your conscience on December nineteenth, and thereby shaping the
future of our nation. I'm not asking you to vote

(02:57):
for Hilly Counton. I'm not asking you to vote for
hill every Clinton. I'm not asking to vote for Hillary Clinton.
As you know the Constitution gives electors the right to
vote for any eligible person, any eligible person, no matter
which party they belong to, but it should certainly be
someone you consider especially competent, especially competent to serve as
President of the United States of America. By voting your conscience,

(03:21):
you and other brave Republican electors can give the House
of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for
the presidency. I stand with you. I stand with you.
I stand with you. I stand with you in support
and solidarity with Conservatives, Independents, and liberals and all citizens

(03:42):
of the United States. The American people trust that your
voice speaks for us all, and that you you will
make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you
by Alexander Hamilton's himself. What is evident is that Donald
Trump lacks more than the qualifications should be president. He
lacks the necessary stability and clearly the respect for the

(04:04):
constitution of our great nation. You have position, the authority
and the opportunity to go down in the books as
an American hero who changed the course of history. And
you have my respect. You have my respect. You have
my respect for your patriotism and service to the American people,

(04:24):
unite for America. All right, that is just the beginning. Now,
my first observation is, all of a sudden, the Constitution
actually means something to the radical left, you know. And
when they mentioned Hamilton, I'm thinking, oh, I know what
that is. They went and saw the play in Broadway

(04:45):
or somewhere else. So now they think it, actually it's
really good, cool to to to quote him. I thought
it was. I thought this was an outdated racist document
put together by a bunch of racists. Oh, all of
a sudden, the Constitution matters and let's all work together. Conservatives. Oh,
the same people that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic? Is homophobic?

(05:07):
You want to work with them? Or is it that
you just want to manipulate them anyway you can. You know,
by the way, what some of these people, there's way
too many injections. I don't know what these people out
in Hollywood do with these doctors. Oh my gosh. Anyway,
if the election gets thrown to the House, they can
only choose among the top three vote getters. So who

(05:28):
do you think is gonna win? And if Elector changes
his vote, well he'll have the respect of Martin Sheen
and uh that's about it, and maybe some of the
hardcore Hollywood left that don't like them anyway. So you
got the sore loser, big celebrities, star studded video ps A,
Debra Messing, Martin Sheen, and a bunch of people. Moby,

(05:50):
I don't even know who half for these people are.
I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary, say several
of the stars. By voting your conscience, you and other
brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the
option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency. The
video ends with them telling electors they should they would

(06:12):
earn their respect by performing this service to the American people. Now,
they wouldn't earn the respect of anybody they would. What
they're trying here is a coup deta. Basically, they want
to overthrow the will of the people and they want
to wrap their arms around the Constitution. Meanwhile, they stood
idly by the last eight years as we have a

(06:33):
president that stomped on the Constitution and the rule of
law ruled by executive FIAT unconstitutional executive orders that had
no respect for the Constitution. We didn't hear a peep
out of these people. So this is now the long
shot bid to block Trump headed to the Electoral College
on Monday. It's not gonna happen. But the sad part

(06:54):
of this is, as we've been chronicling here on this program,
we have electors all around the country being harassed, you know,
barrage of emails, phone calls, threats, even death threats in
an attempt to block Trump from being voted in his
president by the Electoral College on Monday. The bullying is
so overwhelming that in one case, this woman literally the

(07:17):
tech devices. You know, they're now having such difficulty they
can't even walk out of their own house. You know.
Grandmother woke up Wednesday morning emails demanding she not carry
out her legal duty to vote for the president elect.
And they just keep coming and coming and coming. They say.
Her answer is, in her case, she's doing a mass delete.

(07:38):
So much for serving your country and and going on
behalf of those people that voted in in your state
and performing the duty and making the commitment and following
up on the commitment you made to the people. And
then you've got everybody right up to their eyeballs, and
this including Clinton and Obama supporters, you know, you've got
the Center for American Progress. Their their focus like a

(08:00):
laser beam on this so called nonprofit John Podesta lead.
And they're providing Democrats with the centralized resource to oppose
the president's moves, starting with his cabinet positions. Listen, they're
gonna try. And I've witnessed this before. I was there
when New King Ridge was elected in ninety four. I
followed his speakership closely and by Christmas after the November election,

(08:25):
he was the ging rich that stole Christmas. He was
the guy that broke tiny Tim's crutch. He was the
guy that was going to take food and water out
of the mouths of grandmothers. All of these arguments and
now being made. Why do you think I was mocking
those that said there's gonna be a war on old
people beginning in January? You know, So you got all
the electors being harassed. Then you've got people like Keith Oberman.

(08:50):
Imagine when Obama was elected in Oh wait, if I
tweeted out, you treacherous Russian whore at real Donald Trump,
the White House and all of us have been after
you for for this for months and we will get you. Really,
what does that mean, is that a threat? You treacherous,

(09:13):
you treacherous Russian whore at real? Donald Trump, the White
House and all of us have been after you for
this for months and we will get you. Well, what
does that mean? And that's, by the way, some of
the more mild things that he says. Michael Moore, Donald
Trump is gonna get us killed, he said, as he

(09:34):
posted an essay on his personal Facebook page criticizing the
president elect. Most of us would agree the job. And
then he starts talking about, well, he's not getting his
presidential daily briefing, which, by the way, he says, he
just doesn't want the repetitive briefing. He said, he wants
all new information to come to him on a daily basis.
He also has a vice president elect who's doing that

(09:55):
duty every day as well. It's not like it's not happening,
he says. He gets it when I need it, as
long as it's not repetitive. In other words, if it's
the same briefing every day, he's saying, I'm letting Mike
Penns handle it and update me if anything is important.
I mean, so anyway, it's um. You know, they don't care.
They're just angry then you've got On Wednesday, yesterday, the

(10:17):
President elect added three more high profile c e o s,
you know, Pepsi CEO and Uber CEO and Tesla CBO
to this big meeting they had with all these other people. Facebook,
by the way, is gonna label news fake news, real news?
Who gets to decide certain For example, is it news

(10:38):
if CNN slips the questions to Hillary before a debate?
Is it news if CNN is asking the d n
C for questions for Donald Trump? Is it news if
the New York Times or Political writes something and then
they allow the Democrats an opportunity to edit it before
they send it out publicly. Or is that base sickly

(11:00):
just to wink it a nod in a corrupt system
that they've designed with each other. Anyway, when the PEPSI
CEO you know, got to the board and got to
discuss some things, she started saying, my employees were all
crying after Trump won. It sounds like Martha Radits you
got a California professor in hiding after he told their

(11:23):
students that Donald Trump's election was an act of terrorism.
An act of terrorism. Amy Schumer, the comedian yes, relation
to Chucky Schumer calls on women to march and protest
against Donald Trump, just like Michael Moore's calling for disruption
at the inauguration. Anyway, she said January, I'll be there.

(11:46):
She said, who's coming with me? What's the march for?
Nothing's happened yet, although by the one I expect that
a lot of executive orders will have been repealed. Um,
you know, vanity are angry white Trump voters wanted submissive
Russian women. Oh, let's insult Melania Trump again. Let's go

(12:08):
after her. You got forty six more electors signing on
to a letter demanding the putin Trump intelligence briefing. Not
that it matters, but even Loretto Lens says there's no
evidence that Russia interfered with the U S election, none whatsoever.
Never mind that Ed Klein is reporting that the FBI
director James Comey told Trump the Russians did not influence

(12:29):
the election. Politico ended up having to fire a reporter
after an obscene tweet about Donald and Ivanka Trump. I
mean it just you can't believe half this stuff. Two
thirds of Americans say Russian hacking made no difference, didn't
make a difference, and it did not make a difference,
not one. Lindsey Graham is lying to the American people.

(12:52):
There's no evidence whatsoever, none, that the Russians were involved
in this in any way, shape, matter of form. One
of the reasons we're having Julian Assan John Julian told
me in prior interviews the Russians were not involved. And
if you want to get things a little bit more interesting,
there was a story in the Daily Mail that talks

(13:13):
about the ex British Ambassador to you Uzbekistan, an associate
of Assange, who told the Daily Mail that he flew
to Washington, d c. To pick up the emails in
the case of Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. He claims
he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded area near
American University with one of the email sources and the

(13:34):
leakers motivation was discussed at the corruption in the Clinton
Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field
against Bernie Sanders, and that the source had legal access
to the information and that the documents came from inside leaks,
not from anybody hacking anywhere. Whoopsie Daisy, Well, he can't

(13:55):
have that. That doesn't go with our narrative. In any
way shape, matter of form. You know. Well, sorry, but
where does the truth? Now? Let me tell you this,
and it is true. The Daily Call Up points out
that the FBI and Justice Department still going after the
Clinton email server. But let me just say this, if
we have no new information. The only reason they're elevating

(14:19):
this story because it's the same information we had before
the election. We're only doing it for one reason. While
the recount didn't work, now we're gonna try simultaneous path.
We're gonna delegitimize Trump by claiming the Russians hacked and
there's no evidence to back it up. As the Director
of National Intelligence has said, as the FBI director has said,

(14:41):
let's not listen to them, Let's listen to the c
i A political side of the c i A. The
same people that told us a spontaneous demonstration occurred in Benghazi,
and a bunch of spontaneous demonstrators just decided in the
moment they didn't plan it, that not terrorists, that they
were gonna pop out of their pockets mortars and RPGs
and fire it at the compound. Because that's what the

(15:03):
CIA concluded, and that's the false talking point narrative they advanced,
and they did it to help Hillary Clinton advance her lie.
I'm not saying CIA operatives are all this way, but
certainly there are some people in Langley that did that.
I don't know who they are, but they never spent
any time talking to the people on the ground of Benghazi.
These are fascinating times we're living in. So was it

(15:26):
a handoff in the woods near American University or was
it Vladimir Putin? And why would Obama change from saying
you can't influence our elections to well, we've got to
investigate and John Podesta and all their big money people
and now doing it to d legitimized Trump. As I
witnessed in ninety four with New Gingrich, the destruction of

(15:48):
New began on day one, the same thing is happening
with Donald Trump. They want to destroy him and make
him fail, and that means not fulfill the promises he
made the campaign trail. Now, I assume that I know
the media establishments already against them. The Democratic establishment is
against him, and in short order, my prediction is this

(16:10):
that Republican establishment they'll turn on them too, because they're
not gonna like any drain the swamp or term limit legislation,
or taking away power from them to spend the money
that they've been spending like drunken sailors with no offense
to drunken sailors in the last ten years. You didn't
need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from

(16:33):
malicious Russian cyber activity. The president elect didn't call it
into question. He called on Russia to hack his opponent.
He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton, So he
certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this
activity was coming down on the less several weeks of
the election, we're focused on a discussion of emails that
had been hacked and leaked by the Russians. These were

(16:57):
emails from the d n C and John Podesta, uh,
not from the RNC and Steve Bannon. It was the
president elect who, over the course of the campaign indicated
that he thought that President Putin was a strong leader.
It was the president elect who indicated the potential that
he would withdraw from some of our critically important NATO commitments. Now,

(17:18):
what's also true, and this goes to something that we
discussed in the in the briefing on Monday, there's ample
evidence that was known long before the election, and even
in most cases long before October, about the Trump campaign
in Russia, everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on
Russia to hack his opponent. It might be an indication

(17:38):
that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever
facts or sources he was he had available to him,
that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a
negative impact on his opponent's campaign. That's why he was
encouraging them to keep doing it. All right, that's Josh
Ernest now until the top of the hour of the

(17:59):
proper agandha's for Barack Obama at the White House podium.
So again today he is saying Trump has inside knowledge
of hacking, in spite of no evidence. He is saying
that Trump was involved basically in the hacking, that he
encouraged it. Ernest, my my buddy Rowan Scarborough wrote me and

(18:21):
and he said, Josh Jarness would not be doing this
without Obama's seal of approval. And he's right. So you
have an outgoing president and I told you this a
long time ago. He's not He will not have the
class of a George W. Bush. He will not be
able to help himself. His rigid, radical ideology will drive

(18:45):
him to be a constant critic of the incoming President Trump.
That's why I did the whole They're not your friends monologue.
They're not, and neither is Ryan, and neither is McConnell.
And you just did not gonna be your friends. I
only like you while you're popular. As soon as you're
a little less popular, then they're gonna dump you overboard

(19:06):
as quickly as possible and try and destroy you. So
this is what's happening now. This is where it gets
even more interesting. The former chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee, our old friend Peter King of Long Island,
is accusing the CIA of quote conducting a disinformation campaign
against Trump, slamming the intelligence community Wednesday for forcing the

(19:30):
cancelation of the planned House Intelligence Committee briefing on alleged
Russian interference in the U. S. Election. I'll tell you why.
I think they canceled it. And I think it's pretty
obvious because they know that every Congressman is gonna say, well,
we knew all of this, there's nothing new here. Why
did you change the conclusion on the same information that
you had before the election. So they don't want to

(19:52):
be embarrassed and exposed as having a political arm within
the CIA, within our intelligence community. I want to be
perfectly clear here. I love our intelligence community. We need intelligence.
A lot of brave people work for the CIA, A
lot of people are putting their lives on the line
for their country. But there is a political arm within
the CIA that was on display during Benghazi. As I've

(20:14):
been telling you. He said all we've heard from the
intelligence community over the last several months, as they could
not say there was any attempt to undermine Hillary and
helped Trump. King told Fox News anyway, says it violates
every protocol. It's almost as if people in the intelligence
community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president
elect of the United States. It's absolutely disgraceful. And if

(20:37):
they're not doing it, then it must be someone in
the House or the Senate who's leaking false information and
there should be a full investigation into this. This is
all true, and now we know that James called me.
The FBI director said Russia had no him put into this,
which is why we're going to interview Julian Assang at
the top of the hour. Very smart man Julian Assang

(20:58):
whether you like him, just like him. I know he's
contra virsial. I've said a number of times he's done
America a favor. He's pointed out, we have no cyber
security as a government as a people number one and
number two, how corrupt your government is deep to its
fundamental core anyway, So apparently, also the Washington Examiner points

(21:19):
out this whole, this whole stonewalling of Congress. You know
why is this happening because now the House Intelligence Agency,
their committee chairman rebuking the intelligence agencies today and yesterday
for their refusal to grant a briefing request on cyber
attacks during the U s presidential election. Well, why would
that be One, because they might be laughed out of

(21:41):
the room. Two, they might be exposed as politicizing intelligence
to help Hillary and the Democrats undermine Donald Trump. The
incoming president, Devin Nuvit Nunez of California, said it's unacceptable
for the intelligence community directors that they would not fulfill
the House Intelligence Committees request to be brief tomorrow and

(22:02):
the cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign. The
legislative branches constitutionally vested with oversight responsibility of executive branch agencies,
which are obligated to comply with our requests. The Committee
is vigorously looking into reports of cyber attacks during the
election campaign, and in particular, we want to clarify press

(22:25):
reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it
is not shared with us. That was it the White
House that altered the assessment of the information that we
all had before the election, that the FBI contradicts, that
the Director of National Intelligence contradicts. The Committee is deeply
concerned that the intransience in sharing intelligence with Congress can

(22:48):
now enable the manipulation of intelligence from political purposes. That's
exactly what's happening, exactly, it's so transparent. We've got some
other news here. The reversal of this horrible Iranian deal
apparently has already begun. The Obama administration's disastrous deal is
being relegated now, just like Obamacare to the ash heap

(23:10):
of history. It's like executive amnesty will be relegated. Similarly,
Congress passed new sanctions on Iran last month by a
veto proof margin. Today their implementation begins. All over the
objections of our appeaser in chief Barack Obama. Iran is
making threats and they're doing some saber rattling and trying

(23:31):
to cancel the nuclear that if they cancel the nuclear deal,
if new they will they will cancel it. If new
sanctions are past they make good on that threat. Well
that's a guarantee that will. You know that what I
predicted what happen is gonna happen. They'll get nuclear weapons.
So stupid. They already have the money, the ransom money. Unbelievable. Uh. Anyway,

(23:54):
let's get to our phones here. Some of you have
been very patient. Tom and California. Tom, Hi, how are
you were? Glad you all? Hey, Sean, real real quick.
Josh Ernest is trying to trying to tie Trump to
the Russian hacking by a flippant remark that he made
during the debate about Russia, given the Hillary's emails to
the press, if we use that logic. A couple of

(24:18):
weeks before the before the election, Obama was talking to
some blogger about voting and he he made an off
the off hand and remark about, uh, illegal voting. It
was yes, but it was a no, you know, it
was it was kind of it was kind of a

(24:38):
flippant remark. But but if if, if we want to
tie Trump to the Russians, then we have to try
tie Obama to illegal immigrants voting. Well, I think that's
a good point. And we know illegal immigrants voter. I
don't know how many, but this has been chronicled just
you know, go talk to people like John fund and
it's just I live in California. I know it. Course

(25:00):
it's happened. I don't know how many, but if one happens,
it's one too many. Anyway, let's get to our phones,
Josh and Kansas. What's up, Josh, John, thanks for taking
the call. I love your show, love what you do.
I'll be real brief and quick. I just want to
talk about the hypocrisy, uh, you know that we live
in today. Uh you know, the Democrats are so quick

(25:22):
to talk about how you know, the Russian supposedly influenced
you know, the election, and that's the only reason Trump
got uh, you know, nominated, and that's the only reason one. Well,
they're so quick to forget that they cheated Bernie out
of a you know, a fair process to be it's
the Democratic nominee. They're so quick to erase all the
memories of you know, people having the information that you know,
they cheated Bernie out of a fair process is crazy. Well,

(25:44):
it's great that you say that, because this whole Daily
Mail article about Julian Ossan's friend and associate and the
guy that works at Wiki Leagues, the former British ambassador
to Uzbekistan saying that the Wiki League's emails came from
the Clinton campaign from a disgusted, de amocratic whistleblower for
the very specific reason that you're talking about, and that

(26:05):
is that you know that that all this information about
Podesta's emails were handed off at a Woodedier area near
American University, and that those the motivation of the leaker
was discussed at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and
tilting the primary election playing field against Bernie, and the
source apparently had legal access to the information that the

(26:26):
documents came from inside. Yeah, you're right. And by the way,
did they care about the media clothing with Hillary Josh?
You know? And it's just so funny because I mean,
it's just accusations. It's accusations after accusations. You have the
FBI directors saying as nonsense and they don't care it's
like they're doing everything they can to be uh, to
get to the point of, Okay, you know what, he's

(26:47):
gonna become our president. Let's give him the respect that he,
you know, deserves. But it's just they don't want to
do that. And I don't remember when Obama. I was
so frustrated when Obama got elected. You know, I'm in
a conservative state, but even even then, so like when
he got when he got elected, I don't remember it
being like this. I don't remember when people were crying
and going in Hillary and saying, oh my goodness, where

(27:08):
you know, we're we're doomed. I don't remember any of that.
It's just it's so sticks stickening. You know. My friends,
people I talked to, they just they cannot come to
their senses. They're just you know, they want to cry
about it and make excuses, and it's just it's stickening.
What did and I appreciate the call. What did wiki
leaks do? Now, remember we're gonna have Juliana San John
at the top of the next hour. What did wiki

(27:30):
leaks do? Okay, they exposed how corrupt America's media is,
every big network, every major newspaper, How they colluded with
the Clinton campaign. It exposed how they cheated to help
Bernie to beat Bernie Sanders. It exposed racism within the

(27:51):
Democratic National Committee, and sexism within the Democratic National Committee,
anti Semitism within the Democratic National Committee. They exposed all
of that. It exposed just how deeply corrupt and what
a liar Hillary Clinton is, which we can argue we
already knew that, but it confirmed it was at a
deeper level. Now, I would argue with you that if

(28:13):
this for about and I'll ask Julian in the next hour,
if it was about Donald Trump, would have done the
same thing, because I suspect the answers yes. And I
also will tell you this that you know, in many
ways he's he's the modern day Woodward and Bernstein. There's
they've not been wicked, leaks, has not been wrong in

(28:35):
ten years, a perfect track record. And Julian Assan says, now,
we didn't get it from them, We didn't get it
from any state, we didn't get it from Russia. So
what evidence does you know, Lindsey Graham, the idiot, you know,
what is he sighting except that he hates Trump like

(28:56):
McCain hates Trump like case at cates Trump like the
Bush just hate Trump. I mean, I'll just be honest here.
The only people doing this are people that have always
hated Trump and wanted to undermine and sabotage them. Anyway,
Wiki leaks did what Woodward and Bernstein did. They exposed
a level of corruption and government. That's what they did.

(29:18):
I've been saying, where is where are the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC,
Where where are the Woodward and Bernstein's of this age?
Martha Rabbit's crying on TV for crying out loud, all
the Hollywood stars they saw Hamilton's. Now they're quoting Hamilton's
and they saw the play, and now they're quoting him

(29:39):
and the Constitution that Obama stomped on all these years
as a means of telling electors to not go for Trump.
By the way, you don't think we need extreme vetting.
A thousand Muslims in London streets chanting Allaho ak bar,
demanding an Islamic caliphate really pretty interesting when Donald Trump

(30:01):
talks about extreme ben you want to invite those people here.
By the way, you gotta give the t s a credit.
They confiscated a big Teddy bear. Anyway, given the detailed
backstory about he's homeless and hungry and now in order
to remind us that everything is bad. But agents and
Los Angeles confiscated a giant Teddy bear and posted a
photo of the poor guy on Instagram, and they gave

(30:23):
him a depressing backstory. I don't know what's happening. By
the way, fake news. You hear about this New York
City college student who claimed to be a victim of
a hate crime because she's a Muslim. Everybody raced out
to see that was Trump supporters. Trump supporters. She made
it up. Whoopsie Daisy. Another guy faked KKK crime and abduction,

(30:47):
you know, looking to blame President elect Trump supporters for
a hate crime. Well, he confessed to the police. He
fabricated his incident as well. Whoopsie Daisy. Fake news all
over the place. Uh anyway, So yeah, I don't know
what to tell you. We're gonna have Julian Assange at
the top of the next NIP. There's a lot of

(31:07):
information just put aside, maybe preconceived notion, any prejudice you
might have. I want you to listen to Julian Assange.
Number one, he hacked into the d d NASA at
the age of sixteen. The guy is brilliant. The guy,
for not being an American citizen, knows more about American
politics than journalists. Listen to what he has to say

(31:31):
and then decide do you believe Obama, Josh Ernest, Hillary Clinton,
and the left and the media. What do you believe
Julian Assans. That's your assignment for the next hour as well.
Let Julian Osans talk here on this program on like
other shows where they try and beat him up and
not let him get a word in edgewise. Mediaphi where

(31:53):
for the five and about U nine major publications in
the United States are biased in favor of higuant. John Kerry,
the Secretary of State, and some other US officials and
the Hillary Clinton campaign kept putting forth propaganda to say

(32:16):
that our publications revealing various forms of corruption and scandal
within Hillary Clinton's network was in fact interference in the
United States electoral process. But this has not interference in
the electoral process. This is the definition of the electoral

(32:37):
process is for media organizations and in fact everyone to
publish the truth and their opinion about what is occurring.
There cannot be a free and informed election unless people
are free to inform. You accuse the present America of

(32:59):
supporting Hillary Clinton. You said, the American liberal press has
falling all over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton. They're erecting
a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone's
next as soon as she wins the election, which she
is almost certainly going to do. What did you mean
by that? What I meant is this kind of you know,
the Democrats always speaking about how terrible McCarthyism was, and

(33:23):
there were and it was in many ways, but at
least the USSR actually existed then, and there were actually
Russian influenced campaigns in the United States which were serious.
What we're seeing now is Hillary Clinton and her campaign
trying to whip up and neo McCarthys hysteria where she
claims or she claims that effectively Donald Trump is an

(33:45):
agent to the Russians, that Wikilis is an agent to
the Russians, and where her campaign has also implied that
Jill Stein, the Greens leader, is a Russian agent, and
that they intercept another US publication effectively Russian agents. So
what we have yet we have look objectively, we have
the ruling party's preferred successor running around calling the opposition leader,

(34:07):
in fact, multiple opposition leaders and the critical press foreign agents.
By the way, isn't it isn't that the very probable
terrible climate to permit, and what kind of press climate
is going to exist afterwards, especially if Clinton is elected.
It will be perceived to be a validation of that hysteria,
and so the press afterwards will be cracked down upon,

(34:28):
and online publishers and people on social media. It will
lead to a very harsh climate where the First Amendment
will be very significantly eroded. The Clinton campaign has said
that Russia is behind all of this. He says the
Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for
wiki leaks and it's emails. The Clinton camp has been

(34:50):
able to project that kind of neo McCarthy's hysteria that
Russia is responsible for everything hithery. Clinton stated multiple times
falsely the seventeen uous intelligence agencies had assess that Russia
was the source of our publications. Okay, uh, that's false.
We can say that the Russian government is not the source. Yes,

(35:13):
we have been publishing for ten years. In that ten years,
we've published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several
thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong,
all right. That was Julian Assange and numerous interviews that
he had, of course with Wiki Leaks, and Julian joins
us now our newsmaker line, Julian, welcome back to the program.
Thank you for being with us. I know you follow

(35:34):
the news closely. I know you see the narrative. Now
there is a big bruhahab in the United States. The
same media, by the way, that Wiki Leaks exposed as
colluding with Hillary Clinton's campaign with near hysteria getting up
to the president and John Podesta with Hillary's campaign claiming
over and over and over again that it's clear the

(35:55):
CIA says so even though there's no new evidence whatsoever
that we didn't have prior to the election, and that
the FBI contradicts, and James Clapper, the National Director of Intelligence,
contradicts that in fact, the Russians tried to influence and
the elections and and this hacked information came from them,
And you're saying that is outrightly false, that's a falsehood.

(36:15):
Our source is not the Russian government. So in other words,
let me be clear, Russia did not give you the
podested documents or anything from the d n C. Can
you confirm whether or not you have information involving hacked
info from the r n C. H we received about
three pages information to do with the r n C

(36:38):
and Trump, but it was already public somewhere else, Okay.
So in other words, there was nothing significant. There was
nothing comparable to what happened. So what Ranks previous said
on NBC to Chuck Todd this weekend was true and
NBC had it wrong. Well, as far as as far
as you're aware of now, the c i A supposedly
says the Russians definitely tried to im once the U S. Election.

(37:01):
What is your thoughts on that? I think it's very interesting. Uh.
The key quote for US is from James Clapper on
the seventeenth of November. James Clapper is the head of
the d NI either he's the Director of National Intelligence
who oversees all seventeen U S intelligence agencies. Uh. And
so his statement is as far as the wiki leaks connection,

(37:24):
this is made to the House Intelligence Committee. As far
as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence is not strong and
we don't have a good insight into the sequencing of
the releases or when the data may have been provided.
We don't have good insight into that. So let me
let me for the sake of our audience, Julian, let
me play the exact quote. This is James Clapper, the
Director of National Intelligence, saying exactly what you did that

(37:47):
in fact the Russian government well to what he exactly
said that. In fact, he was very very clear in
saying that Wiki leaks connection with Russian hacking is not strong.
Is the wiki leaks UH connection? The evidence there is
not as strong, and we don't have good insight into

(38:10):
the sequencing of the releases or when when the data
may have been provided. We don't. We don't have as
good insight into that. So that confirms exactly what you're saying.
Can you answer whether or not there there's a report
out today, and there was a report out earlier this
week that in fact, they can trace back some leaks

(38:33):
to the Department of Homeland Security as it relates to
the state of Georgia. Do you know anything about those
I looked when the uh, Look, let's pull back a bit.
There's a deliberate attempt this week to consulate a whole
lot of different issues together. Uh, it seems to be

(38:56):
uh as a desire, an extremely dangerous and foolish desire
to flip members of the U S. Electoral College around
into getting up John Kasik or Hillary Clinton on the
It's foolish because it won't happen. It's dangerous because the

(39:19):
argument that it should happen can be used in four
years time or eight years time for a sitting government
that doesn't want to hand over power, and that's a
very dangerous thing. There there's Clinton aligned packs putting out
ads with lots of celebrities trying to push these electors
to do it. So how are they rhetorically going about it? Well,

(39:41):
there's our publications. It did make a significant influence during election.
Lots and lots of Americans took them up, read them,
analyzed them, forwarded them to each other. I was the
most discussed topic according to Facebook throughout October. Okay, but
then we have U S Intelligence saying they don't know
how we got our staff or when we got it,

(40:01):
and us saying we didn't get it from a state.
Then there's hacking of various systems that have occurred. Okay,
presumably to get intelligence. The Israelis do it, the Russians
do it, the Chinese do it, The French do it
every year and every election cycle to understand what policies are.
So it's no surprise at all that there's record of

(40:22):
Russians or others hacking a lot of these systems. Let
let me put the questions collection. Let me put us
a different way. The State of Georgia in the United States,
the Secretary of State there now confirms ten separate cyber
attacks on its network that we're all traced back to
the US Department of Homeland Security addresses. Do you know

(40:42):
anything about that. I don't know about this specific case,
but the state are hacking I do know about because
I followed it when it first came up in the
original FBI report. Um, Look, these are about election. Voter
registration systems, are not election not vote counting systems. Uh.
It seems to be just basic identity theft. If you

(41:02):
if you read what DHS said at the time, it
said that it looked like these were going to be
sold online in black markets. Really, is for the FSB
going to be selling voter registration records online in black markets? No,
of course, it's almost overwhelmingly likely that it is just
identity left. Let me ask the DHS attacks are concerned.

(41:25):
That could be a number of things. It could be
the DHS just testing security and then people using the
logs of those tests, or rather misusing them to try
and claim that there's been attempt at hacks of these systems.
While I certainly respect and by the way, it is
important to point out some of your history. When you
were sixteen years old, you did hack into NASA, you

(41:45):
did hack into the Department of Defense, and I believe
one other agency. Is that true. There's a number of
books saying that, So there's a pretty good chance that
might be true. Never been charged for that. I don't
like to keep it that way. Yeah, that's true. Maybe
the statute of limitations moved on. I said, I have
said that there are two things that America needs to
take from you in some of these other high private

(42:06):
profile cases. And one is there's proof positive that we
don't really have cybersecurity at a level we need for
for a country that is so actively involved in intelligence
and and influencing world events, etcetera. So you've done us
a favor because now we could fix the problem if
we so desired, but in all the years President Obama
has been in office, he did nothing to fix it.
The second thing that I think you you did for America,

(42:28):
which I think is very important, is you exposed how
corrupt our government is. And I'll get to that in
a second. Without revealing your sources, would it be fair
to say that the information as it relates to Wiki
leaks and John Podesta's emails came from within the United States?
To you, we have said it has not come from
a state party. We know where it came from originally,

(42:51):
of course it's John Podesta, It's from the d n C, etcetera.
There's been no claim that has been held up and
not even maintained anymore, that any of the information has
been modified or is fake. So you can't confirm or
deny if this information came from within the United States.
We're unhappy that we felt that we needed to even

(43:13):
say that it wasn't a state party. Normally we say
nothing at all, but we have a conflict of interest.
How we have an excellent reputation and strong interest in
protecting our sources, and so we're never saying anything about them,
never ruling anyone in or anyone out sometimes do it.
We don't like to do it. We have another interest,

(43:35):
which is maximizing the impact of our publications. Let me
ask you this that could you here here? In order
to order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications,
we've had to come out and say, no, it's not
a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way.
Pay attention to the content of the publication. So in
other words, when you say state party, wasn't another state

(43:56):
like Russia or or some other countries. Correct. Let me
ask you about were key leaks? And I think this
could shake up the political world? Is it true? An
email sent in July of this year that you have
that describes how funds could be diverted from the Clinton
campaign to the super packs of Jeb Bush, Carl Fierina,
and John Kasick specifically document number one oh seven eight

(44:18):
six four five and it reads j B C F
J K packs will be noticed noticeably silent for the
rest of the campaign. Each will receive a significant allowance
from advertising budget HRC. Hillary is in the loop and
talk to all three personally, eyes only. Is that a
legitimate I don't have that in front of me. We

(44:38):
have we have published nearly hundred thousand documents, So I
mean I have seen references to things like that. I
don't recall seeing an eyes only phrase. Do you recall
any quid pro quo as it relates to Senator Lindsey Graham,
that that he would get some assistance merely in other words,
when he ran for re election for the Senate? I
believe in I don't know de Graham is in the

(45:02):
Podesta emails. Yes, all right, well that's something that maybe
hopefully over time we'd be able to follow up on.
I have a I have so many more questions for you.
Let me let me ask you a couple of these. Um,
do you think the president knows as you do that
the source was not Russia for Wiki leaks? And I
think it's important to point out that for over ten years,
Wiki Leaks has never been proven wrong, not one single time.

(45:25):
Do you believe the president is purposefully advancing this for
political purposes to delegitimize Donald Trump? Do you it's clear?
It's clear too look at the statements by James Clapper.
He also made an earlier statement that, Um, the U. S.
Intelligence is not aware of when we received material or
how so it's pretty clear that, um, he must be

(45:45):
getting those briefings as well if the public is getting them. Um,
so there's a delivered attempt to conflate, but they see
some of the public is concerned. The only interesting that happened.
Thing that happened is that Wiki Leaks published a number
number of different types of nation the d n C publications,
John John Podestas and a variety of Clinton emails obtained

(46:07):
the Freedom Information Act. So that's what's interesting to the public.
By the way, it would not be the first time
the CIA was politicized. You might remember during the Benghazi case.
I actually spend time on this program talking to the
people that were there on the ground while the attack
was going on. The American people were told a very
different story that this was quote, a spontaneous demonstration related
to a YouTube video. And I just don't know many

(46:30):
demonstrations that are spontaneous where they happen to have in
their back pocket RPGs and mortar rounds which were fired
at the consulate and the compounds. That's false, uh, And
our publications show that Hillary Clinton knew it's false. There's
a letter from Hillary Clinton to Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Quinton's
uses an assumed name, Diane Reynolds, and that's the day

(46:53):
or the day to day or the day after the attack,
where she says, in fact, it was well, my point
was group the c i A advanced that false story
that it was a spontaneous demonstration when we now know
it was a terrorist attack, and they advanced it through
the CIA and language Langley. There were some people there
that were playing politics at the CIA, advancing a false

(47:15):
narrative story that we know as false. All right, Julian,
if he can just stay right there, we'll come back.
We'll continue more with Julian Assange and his insight as
the founder and director of Wiki Leagues and more as
the Sean Hannity Show continues. As we continue our interview
with Wiki League's founder and director Julian Osange, let me
ask you this. You never thought Donald Trump would win?

(47:36):
Why I didn't think he would win. I thought he
had a much higher chance than what the polling was giving.
I'd gone through Brixit, Uh, and it's very similar case
in Brixit where you had a new nationalist feeling in
the country and disenfranchisement with existing elites. Uh. But there

(47:59):
was polling number of professional pulses coming up to Brexit, AH,
and they got it wrong because people misled the pulses
in two different ways AH. And to be frank to pulse,
some of the pulsars also wanted to be misled. But
so those people who are going to vote against Brexit

(48:19):
um um, so that they were going to vote for it,
and those people who are going to vote for it
said they're going to vote against it. The same thing happened,
it seems in the case of Donald Trump selection. So
why is that there was intense pressure in the United
States from the mainstream media to make people feel ashamed

(48:44):
of wanting to vote for Donald Trump and to make
them feel like that they had to vote for Hillary
Clinton even though they didn't want to. Actually, I think
it's this second case of of Hillary Clinton supporters falsely
tell polsters that they would vote for her and they're
not doing it. Um that made the difference in the election.

(49:05):
So I had assumed that these pollsters had seen the
Brexit situation and they'd taken that into account. They said
that they had taken it into account, and that was
not true. Now, very interestingly, I think that if the
polling had been accurate, donald Trump wouldn't have won. Interesting,

(49:29):
Now why do I say that, Well, Donald Hillary Clinton's
campaign outspent Donald Trump but almost two to one. If
the polling had been accurate, AH bankers and other cashed
up interests would have given Hillary Clinton another five billion
dollars and she would have blasted that and advertising everywhere.

(49:52):
But they didn't give her all that money because they
didn't perceive that there was a need to, because she
seemed that she was four or five points ahead in
the polls. So they got fooled by the polling and
therefore didn't spend the amount of money that they needed
to on the campaign and didn't recruit other resources to

(50:13):
recruit even more mainst media resources to beat up Trump
and to defend Quentin because they didn't think there was
a need to. Let me ask you, remember when the
New York Times was going full throttle with the story
about Donald Trump's taxes, which was stolen information at the time,
and and everybody in the media thought it was fair
and it was legitimate coverage, and they how they got

(50:35):
ahold of it was not an issue in any way.
You view yourself and you view wiki leaks the same way.
You view yourself as a journalist. Information came to you
and you disseminated that information because you felt the public
had a right to know. What is the difference between
what you and wiki leaks have done versus what the

(50:56):
New York Times and CNN does when they published Donald
Trump's taxes that were that were received illegally or received
There is a difference. Our stuff has more impact. Well,
that's okay, I kicked touche. I can't disagree with that

(51:17):
very good point. But but in other words, you do
view wiki leaks. One of the things in the in
the conversations that I've had with you, both on radio
and TV, is how important it is for you to
maintain a perfect record and not get anything wrong in
terms of the information that you acquire that you release.

(51:38):
You wanted to be right, and so far you've been
right every time. So I p abway have been right
for since we were founded a decade ago. Yeah, it's
a It's a very valuable thing to have a perfect record.
It's also a curse because we have to work so
hard to keep it understood. And my big fear ten
years ago, which you and I discussed the last time
you were on my radio show when I wanted to

(51:59):
arrest did, I said, because I felt you would release
potential information that would result in methods and people potentially dying.
Because there is so much in terms of covert operations,
people working undercover, you purposely choose not to publish that information. Correct. Well, yes,

(52:20):
if we're talking about Afghanistan, there were fifteen thousand documents
that we didn't didn't release because you thought people's lives
would be in jeopardy immediately, No, but we thought that
there was a reasonable possibility so that we wanted to
study the issue further. So we we didn't think that
people's lives would definitely be in jeopardy, but we weren't sure,

(52:43):
so we wanted to hold things back to we to
we understood it. Yeah, all right, I have a lot
more questions for you. Let me let me ask you
a few of these, because I think this is very
important for our audience to fully completely grasp and to understand. Um,
so you only had three pages on on there, r
n c Um. Do you think the media in the

(53:06):
US is trying to scapegoat you? And what message do
you have for them? Um? Don't they're increasingly not very important.
I think. I think Trump has even made this statement.
And there are a paper tiger in this election, and
the new publications on the internet one can get pretty

(53:29):
directly to the people. So there's old press are less important,
and the degree of bias they've been showing during the
electoral process. And it has come from both sides, but
I suppose particularly the liberal press, readers see that they
feel it, they don't like being lectured to, are told

(53:50):
what to do, and they rebel against it. I think
this is the other reason why Trump won that no
one's speaking about, which is that kind of hectoring ah
from the liberal media in the United States, and the
type of advertising that Hillary Clinton was putting out really
turns people off because it seemed like those people who
already had a lot of social power. Uh, we're telling

(54:13):
you what to do, and so you wanted to do
the opposite. How easy from your assessment as somebody that
has been involved that this most of his adult life. Now,
how how secure? If you're get to give a grade
of one to ten, ten being the most secure? How
secure is America's agencies, American government, America's secrets, Everything is

(54:38):
almost completely insecure out the computer systems have become so
complex that it is not possible to understand all the parts, uh,
let alone secure them. Is it is just impossible. So
and that goes for individuals as well as a government.
It goes goes for all of us. Yeah. Yeah, Do
you think there could be a separate operation within the

(55:00):
Russian government, separate and apart from the information you have
at wiki leaks? Okay, So this is interesting that there's
a there's a conflation between the three things. Wiki leaks
publications and I told you what James Clapper says about them,
but they don't. I can't see how the Russians transferred
them to US et cetera. That had the impact everyone's

(55:23):
talking about alleged hacks of the US voting system. You
just mentioned the DHS for example, and other publications appearing
on the internet that basically almost no one has heard of.
They didn't have any impact in the election. In fact,
might have had the opposite impact. In this last category,
there's a site called DC leaks and another and the

(55:47):
word press site run by a guy calling himself goose
Off two. Um, now, who were behind these We don't know?
Do you know these people? Uh? And there was a
couple of no and there was a couple of publications
also by The Hill and by Gorka Uh and the
Smoking Gun that claimed that their documents came from I

(56:11):
think from Goucifer maybe this DC Weeks. So those look
very much like that they're the Russians, but in some
ways they seem very amateur and that they look too
much like it. And so this is what far from
me to quote John Bolton, I think it should be
executed or something, but he has said correctly that if

(56:34):
something looks so much like that is meant to be
the Russians, then maybe someone wants you just think that's
that's such a good point. Let me ask you about
the Chris Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, an
associate of yours. He was quoted in The Daily Mail
that he flew to Washington, d C. For the emails.
He claimed he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded

(56:56):
area near American University with one of the email sources
and the leakers. Motivation was quote discussed at the corruption
of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary
election playing field against Bernie Sanders, and he said the
source had legal access to the information. The documents came
from inside leaks, not from hacks. Yeah, we don't comment
on sourcing. Craig Murray is a former UK ambastor. He

(57:19):
is a friend of mine. Uh, he is not authorized
to speak on behalf of you. Are you angry that
he gave this interview? I just don't want to go
anywhere in either. Okay, that's fine, Um, But can I
ask the question in a roundabout way without being annoying
I'm not trying to be annoying here. Is it much
more likely that would have happened versus the Russians? I

(57:43):
don't want to be drawn on this. Okay, that's too.
We have to protect our sources understuff. I can't be
drawn on it. Okay, let me When were you first
alerted that someone had hacked these documents of Podesta? That's
the interesting question. Uh, trying to cast my mind back.
They took a while to prepare, and so did the

(58:04):
d n C leagues. So to other publications, it's quite
a lot of work verifying them, formatting them, indexing them,
understanding them. Um. But for the same reason of making
it hard for authorities to track when our sources have
communicated with us. We don't like to mention precisely when
we've obtained things. So there really is no evidence at all,

(58:25):
and everyone's saying that the Russians has done this. Let
me ask you whether you mean you know in the
Manning case, uh, was that a Russian attempt at undermining
the Bush presidency with you know, war logs, giving Liberals
what they needed to erode in terms of the GOP
and support and paid maybe the way for Barack Obama
to win an election. Well, we were such sticklers for

(58:47):
this kind of thing. We've never said that, uh, Tilsey
Manning is one of our forces. At trial they have
said that they are. But even if someone is arrested
and convicted, and even if they were guilty, we still
don't say whether they're one of our sources or not.
Because someone INSI situation is under you can argue with

(59:08):
under some kind of form of duress. Let me ask
you one last question. For those especially in the media
that will pick will pick up allegations at his trial
that um that he was working for the Russians, let
me ask you a question about your motivation, because in
a private conversation we once had without divulging the nature

(59:29):
of that conversation. You said to me, I am a journalist.
I I get information that you think the public needs
to know. You said to me, you have no interest
in information about private citizens, for example. That and that
you think what you have discovered exposes like for example,
I think if there were any good reporters in America,
they would have taken the Wiki leaks information that I

(59:51):
put up on a TV screen every night and I
read on my radio program on fifty stations every day,
and they would have taken the issue of how corrupt
our media is, how corrupt the Clintons were, and they
would have made this This would have been a case
bigger than Watergate. But for whatever reason, they've gone into
this mode where you're they don't claim you're a journalist,
that you're a trader, and that divulging this information was

(01:00:12):
only political. But I do believe it. If it was
a Republican they would have been praised, singing your praises
day and night. How do you what do you want
Americans to know about what your motives are? Well? Wiki
Thinks has been going for ten years. We specialize in
obtaining information which has been suppressed from the public that
is of political or historical importance, understanding it, analyzing it,

(01:00:34):
publishing it, protecting our sources, encouraging interaction with the public.
H and that educates everyone and they can decide how
they want to live their lives accordingly. And we've won
a lot of awards for that, a lot of journalism awards.
I've won the equivalent of the Pull of Surprise in
my own country Australia, the Walkley Award. Sure other journalists
have won the top journalism prize in the country three

(01:00:57):
three times in the case of Kristin Prapson. So we're
pretty good at this. We have a perfect record. Now,
I think you're pretty good. Have we have a pretty
big impact as you have seen. I think you had
a huge impact on this election and it makes it
angers Democrats. Would you have published the same thing if
it was about Donald Trump? Absolutely? Yeah, that And because

(01:01:19):
you know, if Donald Trump UH makes a lot of
enemies on on the inside UH in his time in office,
then he could he could well face the same thing
in four years time. By the way, that is the
best indication that this did not come from the Russians.
I don't think you meant to say that, but listen, Julian,
I do appreciate your time. I do think you had
an impact. But I do think you we got to

(01:01:41):
see a glimpse of how corrupt the nature the institutions
of American government and our political system are. It's actually
frightening to me. It is. It is frightening, I think.
I mean, I love our publications. They're so rich, and
you can get a very direct understanding of the power
networks that exists in d C and with the media

(01:02:01):
and so on. At the same time, yes, they're they're
disturbing that once you know what's going on, then you
can do something about it. And that was my argument
about why I think America owes you a debt of
gratitude for that and for the exposing exposing that we
have no cybersecurity. Julian, I've taken way too much of
your time. Thank you so much for being with us.
We really appreciate it. We hope you'll come on TV.
So thanks. I think it's important to note that on

(01:02:24):
election night, and we we had our guard up for this,
in our our cyber experts at DHS had we had
our crisis action team ready. Um on election night, we
did not see anything that amounted to altering ballot counts
or or degrading the ability to report election results or anything.
Nothing out of the ordinary, And there's always a certain

(01:02:45):
amount of noise that goes on out there, um and
so on election night itself, we did not see anything
that affected the ballot count. So I should ask in
in that context whether you can assure the country based
on what you saw that night in your analysis, since
that Russian hacking did not affect the outcome of the election,

(01:03:06):
are you confident of that? Well, we see no evidence
that hacking by any actor altered the ballot count or
any cyber actions that deprived people of voting. Now, what's
also true, and this goes to something that we've discussed
in the in the briefing on Monday. There's ample evidence
that was known long before the election, and even in

(01:03:28):
most cases long before October about the Trump campaign in Russia,
everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to
hack his opponent. It might be an indication that he
was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or
sources he was he had available to him, that Russia
was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact

(01:03:52):
on his opponent's campaign. That's why he was encouraging them
to keep doing it. Trevor, I think what everybody has
to reflect on is what is it about our political ecosystem?
What is it about the state of our democracy? Where
the leaks of what we're frankly not very interesting emails

(01:04:15):
that didn't have any explosive information in them, the result
was interesting ended up being an obsession and the fact
that the Russians were doing this was not an obsession,
This was not a secret. Running up to the election,
the President elect in UH in some of his political

(01:04:36):
events specifically said two, the Russians heck Hillary's emails so
that we can finally find out what's going on, and there,
you know, confirm our conspiracy theories. You had UH what
was very clear UH relationships between UH, members of the

(01:05:00):
president Alex campaign team and Russians and a professed UH
shared view on a bunch of issues. All right, there
you have follow up to our hour long interview in
the last hour with Julian Assange of Wiki Leaks joining
us now to discuss Rich Higgins, vice President Intelligence National

(01:05:23):
Security Program's former manager with the Department of Defense, Combating
Terrorism Technical Support Office and Irregular Warfare Support Program. Philip
Painey is a founding member of the Department of Homeland
Security and author of the books See Something, Say Nothing.
John Idonasi is the founder and CEO of vis Sense,
a computer scientist, former Navy seal who invented new capabilities

(01:05:46):
and Special Ops Community and Central intell for the Special
Ops community and Central Intelligence Agency. Guys, I'll start with you,
Rich Higgins, I mean, Julian Assange. Cannot be any more clear.
Russia did not do this. They do have a tenure track,
could of not getting anything wrong. Nobody has disputed the
information that they released. Um And then when I asked

(01:06:07):
Julian about Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan,
an associate of his, and what he told The Daily
Mail that he claimed he had a clandestine handoff in
a wooded area near American University with one of the
email sources. That the leaker's motivation was the disgust at
the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and tilting the primary
election against Bernie Sanders Uh, and that the source had

(01:06:29):
legal access to the information. I'm more inclined to believe
that story than anything that Obama, Hillary Podesta, the Democratic
Party is trying to feed us. Uh, and the CIA,
which we know is politicized issues in the past, especially
involving defending Hillary on Benghazi. Your thoughts, Sean in one
fell sloop. We've seen as as this administration has on

(01:06:52):
their way out the door, polluted Department of Poland Security,
polluted the Central Intelligence Agency, the legitimized the election. The
person with the most clear ties to the Russians that
I know about is actually John Podesta. And this is
a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I
don't know it is. Um. Nobody still knows what happened
to the d n C staff or murdered a couple

(01:07:14):
of months ago. So so you're talking about this guy Seth, right,
do you think that's Do you think that there is
a connection there? I have to tell you so, I
have no proof of that, but I mean we we
really given the Assoni statements, given the content of the information,
given Assangea's statements, to the legality of their uh, you know,
the person who actually had the access to the documents.

(01:07:35):
I mean, there's a there's a lot of stuff there
that makes me question, what's happening. Unbelievable. Philip, what's your
take on this, especially the track record of Wiki Leaks.
The track record is of Assange the clandestine handoff drop off,
which she did not want to discuss in any way
and says it was an unauthorized interview. Who do you
tend to believe here? And do you think that the

(01:07:56):
CIA may be playing politics because there's no new information
since the campaign, no new information that this is all
stuff they had before the election that we were all
aware of. Both the FBI and the Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper all say that they do not believe
that there is not evidence that there's a Wiki leaks
connection with Russia and the Russian hacking. Well, hello everyone,

(01:08:18):
Hello Sewn For me, this is deja vu all over again,
just leading to listening to the lead up interviews before
we started. These are the same individuals that shut down
cases that I worked on within the Department of Homeland
Security and Reading Secretary of State Brian Kemp's comments about
his inquiries into the hacking of the Georgia election computer,

(01:08:40):
he wrote that since contacking DHS with these concerns, we
have collaborated with the agency and provided extensive additional information,
and then j Johnson's response was not specific as to
the attacks intent or origin, despite the fact that many
questions remain unanswered. That sounds like a Hollywood scriptwriter for

(01:09:01):
what I went through. That's exactly the way they dealt
with me. Every time I brought up a concern about
national security. They would never answer the question directly. And
now we see it on a macro big screens scale.
And I also find it remarkable that for the first
time ever, I actually agreed with James Clapper that he

(01:09:21):
said there was no evidence that the Russians hacked the
campaign so in favor of Donald Trump. Because even are
as Rich alluded to, our entire intelligence infrastructure has been
has been corrupted and politically politicized so badly that our
right hand doesn't know what our left hand is doing. Well,
that is a perfect example of it. Yeah, right, I

(01:09:43):
thought after nine eleven, and you know, because you were
one of the founding members of the Department of Homeland Security,
I thought one of the things that we were going
to fix was our intelligence agencies communicating with each of us.
And you know, my argument is, we know the CIA
politicized the issue of Benghazi and and the false story
of a spontaneous attack. We know that they purposely never

(01:10:05):
talked to people on the ground that had information that
would be critical when they were editing the talking points,
but they went with the political narrative that this was
a spontaneous demonstration that was inspired by a YouTube video
and the people that were demonstrating just happened to have
mortars and RPGs in their back pocket, which is totally, incompletely, assinine,
impossible and insane. Sure, it is especially in light of

(01:10:28):
what came out afterwards from the Defense Intelligence Agency's own
report that was concluded in August of that said that
the administration was shipping weapons from ben Ghazi to over
to Syria and backing the opposition groups which then morphed
into ISIS. And even though that information has been publicly
available for some time now, this administration just cheaps incessant,

(01:10:54):
incessantly repeating the same false mantra. It's a perfect example
of the misty disinformation campaign. We know what the truth is,
and yet they keep insisting that that's not what happened.
It's really quite remarkable. Well it's not, but when you
look at it through a political prism, though Phil and
I know you have to. You're such an innocent guy,

(01:11:14):
and you know, I know that you'd like to believe
the best in people. But in looking at it, viewing
it through a political prism, and you say, well, do
they want to delegitimize Donald Trump and his election? Then
then it begins to make a lot of sense, doesn't it. Yeah,
from a Machiavellian perspective, it's brilliant tactics. Machiavellian one oh one, absolutely, yes, right,
absolutely right down the line. Let me let me bring

(01:11:35):
in if I can for a second here, John Um,
what about this was interesting to me? And I did
ask I did ask Julian about this. The Georgias Secretary
of State, the State of Georgia confirmed ten separate cyber
attacks traced back to the U. S. Department of Homeland
Security addresses. When you couple that with the Wiki leaks
Craig Murray, guy who Julian did not want to talk about,

(01:11:56):
who says he was not authorized to talk, and this
handoff in the wooded area of the information that they
got from Podesta and it was all obtained legally. Do
you see any connection between these two at all? Or no?
I see I see connection in the trade craft and
let me just say thanks for having me on. We're
entering a whole new realm here, and it's a it's

(01:12:16):
a perfect storm where an individual can yield strategic power
through an Internet connection. And relative to the Georgia website attack,
it's very important understand unlike the other things that have
occurred in history and where news can sort of embellish
it unless your boots on the ground. This forensics associated
with every one of these attacks. They're digital forensics. Ten

(01:12:37):
separate attacks all originated from the same i P address
for all the listeners, let me just unpack what that means.
That means ten separate times all of the i P,
which is you know, think of it as a as
a post office box, all pointed to the same post
office box inside DHS, which is a static registration, which
means that is the home base for DHS Internet activity.

(01:13:00):
The only way for that to occur is somebody is
either spoofing the internet d h S I P address,
which means that DHS has now been hacked and it's unlikely,
or two, somebody inside DHS has proven the Georgia website
so vise forensic Sean are becoming increasingly important as part
of the narrative, and that's what we're missing in the

(01:13:21):
Secretary of State Camp isn't even able to get a clear,
coherent answer from the very institutions that you and I
rely on to protect our electrical grid. Wow, pretty powerful stuff.
How did you want to weigh in on that, Rich
and and more specifically, how is it how is it
possible that they're advancing this false narrative, the CIA, that
contradicts the FBI, that contradicts the Director of National Intelligence

(01:13:44):
that the media is running with. I mean, Julian Assans
just said, no, we only have three pages on the RNC.
We don't we didn't hack into them, and it really
wasn't relevant exactly what the FBI told Ryan's previous and
exactly what Ryan's previous told NBC that NBC refused to accept. Well,
I think yesterday, when you know the Congressman had asked

(01:14:05):
to be briefed by the intelligence community on what they
actually know, the intelligence agencies refused to do it. I mean,
that is a direct assault against the sovereign power of
Congress enumerated in the Constitution. And the thing that really
screens out to me is if this is a DHS
probe of a state voter registration role, for example, or
the identification of voters or seeing how you voted, and

(01:14:26):
we're having states rights sovereignty issues here, we have information
warfare issues with the narrative adherents. May I've got to say,
Congressman Pompeo and General Kelly have a lot of work
to do, a lot of work to do. What would
you advise them to do in what order? Well, right
off the top, I would say they need to prioritize
cyber for all the reasons Bill and John have enumerated here.
Um terrorist group, nation state actors, domestic political opponents are

(01:14:49):
all playing inside of this space, and we need to
take it seriously. I think for fifteen twenty years now
we've been nibbling around the edges on how serious a
threat this actually is. But this is a very signal,
difficant domain of security on both domestic and foreign policy
or impacted by it, and we need to make an
appropriate level of investment institutionally in dealing with it. Now, Rich,

(01:15:12):
I'm sorry, Phil Handy, let me ask you, Uh, we
had a thousand Muslims marching in Great Britain last night,
and they want the Caliphate advance there. And I want
to ask you, through the prism of everything that you
knew and all your hard work of accumulating names that
was deleted under the Obama administration, you know, how do
we build this back up? And have you been contacted

(01:15:33):
by anybody in the Trump transition team to go to
work for them, of any of you. Yes, we're having
background conversations and which are good indicators. What I'm looking
for is restoration of our capacity to do the job
that we took an oath to do. I have said publicly,
literally hundreds of times in the last few months as
I've traveled around the country that just let us do

(01:15:55):
our job and we can we can do it. We're
capable and restore the information. And also to see, by
the way, the creation of a Whistleblower Commission, to create
a safe pathway for individuals to come in and literally
lay information on the table in front of a panel
of experts and let us go through it, categorize it,
prioritize it, an archive it because it's very important. These

(01:16:18):
guys whistleblowers are forward artillery observers and they can call
in precise air strikes because they know exactly where the
targets are. And this information is historical, it's part of
the country's history and it needs to be archived. That's
one of the things I'd like to see. So yeah,
I'm willing to sign me up. We have had conversations

(01:16:38):
and all of this stuff is very predictable, meaning the
marches in the UK, the fact that now they found
out that the guy from the most recent attack in
Ohio had not been correctly bad. It's these kind of
things just keep going on over and over and over again.
It could have been in the information that Obama a
race that you would accumulated since founding the Department of

(01:16:59):
Homeland Security. But I hope you worked for the Trump administration. Rich,
I hope you get there. And John, I'm just getting
to know you. But you sound like a guy that
they could use to thank you all for being one
of the welcome than the last person, the last person
anyone would need is me. Who the hell needs me?
What do I know? Uh? What a fascinating day this
has been. U It's just amazing. Republican members of the
Electoral College, this message is for you, as you know,

(01:17:22):
our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the
American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to
ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is
to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications an
eminent degree someone who is highly qualified for the job.

(01:17:43):
The Electoral College was created specifically to prevent an unfit
candidate from becoming president. There are five hundred and thirty
eight members of the Electoral College. You and just thirty
six other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference by
voting your conscience on December nine, te and thereby shaping
the future of our nation. I'm not asking you to

(01:18:04):
vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to vote
for Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to vote for
Hillary Clinton. As you know, the Constitution gives electors the
right to vote for any eligible person, any eligible person,
no matter which party they belong to. But it should
certainly be someone you consider especially competent, especially competent to
serve as President of the United States of America. By

(01:18:27):
voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can
give the House of Representatives the option to select a
qualified candidate for the presidency. I stand with you. I
stand with you. I stand with you. I stand with
you in support and solidarity with Conservatives, independents, and liberals

(01:18:49):
and all citizens of the United States. The American people
trust that your voice speaks for us all, and that
you you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility
granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself. What is evident
is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to
be president. He lacks the necessary stability and clearly the

(01:19:11):
respect for the constitution of our great nation. You have position,
the authority and the opportunity to go down in the
books as an American hero who changed the course of history.
And you have my respect. You have my respect. You
have my respect for your patriotism and service to the
American people. Unite for America, Ladies and gentlemen, this is

(01:19:38):
your captain speaking. Welcome aboard Trump FL sixteen hundred with
NonStop service to Canada. We'd like to welcome all our
celebrity defectors, and we'll get you out of America just
as soon as the tower clears. As for takeoff, go
once we reach out prouising altitude flight attendance will pass
through the cabin, collecting your U S Citizenship renouncement forms
and serving complimentary beverages and disposable crying towels. And once

(01:19:59):
he read the drop shone, you'll be gutting Jenny exit
rampant the rear of the plane, where he'll take a
drash course on parachute folding and be Jennison. And surely
thereafter we'd like to thank you for choosing Trump Airline
and hope you have a soft landing, Buffy. Just last
week he confirmed the National Review that he's again considering
a run in twos sixteen. Who Donald brought you account?

(01:20:27):
Plime check? Now on the half of this country which
does not want you to be president, which broadly won't
you to run. Donald Trump has been saying that he
will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising
since I just assumed he was running as a joke.
That people think that Donald Trump is a clown. Donald
Donald Trump is a clown, And I mean, does anybody

(01:20:48):
seriously think that Donald Trump is serious about running for president?
Donald Trump, you he's a clown. Which Republican candidate has
the best champce of winning the general election of the
declared ones. Right now, Donald Trump, president Obama will go

(01:21:11):
down as perhaps the worst president in the history of
the United States. Exclamation point at real Donald Trump, at
real Donald Trump. At least I will go down as
a president's Basically, this is the beginning of the end

(01:21:31):
for Trump, at the beginning of the end. The beginning
of the end is probably starting of the beginning of
the end for for Donald Trump. Donald, You're not gonna
be able to insult your way to the presidency. The
strongest person usually isn't the loudest one in the room.
So right now we have Hillary is about seventy five
or favorite. We have different persons. Hillary up by doubling

(01:21:53):
digits nationally, twelve points, four way race, Clon leading in Florida,
Culton leading in North Carolina, Clinton leading Ohio, but the
leading in Nevada. I could go on and on and on. Uh.
I continue to believe Mr Trump, Trump will not be president.
And so right now, Mr Trump, to answer your call
for political honesty, I just want to say, you're not

(01:22:15):
going to be president. All right. It's been fun, it's
been great. I love you, but come on, come on, bunny,
we are a major projection right now, Donald Trump will
take OHI projects Donald Trump will carry the state of Florida,

(01:22:36):
US win for Donald Trumpell Donald Trump, while we project
will win in Kentucky, with in Indiana with its eleven
electoral roads, West Virginia, Coloda, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama,
North Dakota out of its three electoral votes, and South
dakomaa Texas record song, Louisia, the state of Montana, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Wisconsin, Arizona,

(01:23:03):
Kansas six electoral votes, Nebraska and it's five electoral votes
and with its three votes. Sorry to keep you waiting,
complicated business. A lot of people have laughed at me
over the years. Now they're not laughing so much. I'll
tell you all right, tell you have it. I think
the funniest part of this is a group of these
Hollywood celebrities. Not that was so powerful. I mean, what

(01:23:24):
did Hillary Clinton do at the end of the campaign.
She brought in Beyonce and who's she married to again?
What's that guy's name? Jay Z? Cursing, dropping f bombs
and bombs every bomb possible, and that didn't work. Then
bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen. That didn't work. Let's bring in,
you know, people one step out of the Hollywood, you know,

(01:23:46):
Hall of Fame, which is like people like Martin she Anyway,
they're trying now to encourage electors in the Electoral College
to disregard their stage voting results and deny Trump the president.
We're not telling you to vote for Hillary anybody, but
anybody but him. Well, that's what elections are about. That's
what the American people decided, and that's what's going to happen.
I don't even know half of these people. I never messing.

(01:24:08):
I guess I know Richard Shift, you know who B. D.
Wong is. I have no idea who these people are. Anyway,
they don't want Trump to reach the magic number of
two seventy, and so they're trying to encourage, basically a
coup de talk. They prefer the United States not be
a democratic republic. They want a dictatorship and they want
to be able to decide and they want electors. Well,

(01:24:29):
at the end of the day, it's not gonna happen anyway.
But with that said, you know the fact that they
want to. So it's cry baby sore losers. I've never
seen it in my life like this, and the very
thing they all lectured Jnald Trump should never do. All right,
let's go to Shelly is in Nashville, Tennessee w l
a C. What's up, Shelly. How are you hi, Shelly?

(01:24:49):
I'm Shelly. Hi. Uh. I'm very excited to talk to her.
I loved listening to Julian Osan talking um. I loved
what he had to say. One of the things that
bothered me most about the last couple of days is
how everyone's been talking about how Russia may have hacked
and then turned this information over with the intent to

(01:25:11):
change the election. And yet the emails that no one
is disputing show that our own media was intentionally trying
to to change this election, and that's just considered normative.
They were intentionally handing um questions to Hillary early. They were,
you know that the fact that Russia might have had

(01:25:33):
a hand in it, but our own media did, and
that's okay. That just bothers me. Look, it should bother
you because the very thing they're acting all upset about
is the very thing they were actively involved in. You know,
that was part of my opening monologue the other night
on TV and saying Oh, now, all of a sudden,
Wiki leagues matters. All of a sudden, now hacking matters.

(01:25:53):
Never mind that certainty exists that five foreign intelligence agencies
have all of Hillary Clinton's emails, which would have made
her compromised or would have compromised her from day one,
and it didn't matter that. I mean, we've known about
wiki leaks over ten years now, over ten years. And
if they really cared, why didn't they stop it? Now?

(01:26:14):
If the information didn't change, why did Obama say everything
was fine, We couldn't nobody could impact our system even
if they wanted to. Well, why, why all of a
sudden the change when there's no new information except that
this is all political and this is all an effort
to delegitimize Donald Trump and his victory. And as I've

(01:26:34):
been saying, they're gonna spend the next number of months
and years trying to destroy this man. I've watched this
happened before I was there, when new King king Ridge
was elected Speaker of the House. I watched how in
five years within within minutes after winning, remember one, in
November of By December he was the ging Ridge that

(01:26:56):
stole Christmas. On the front cover of News week in time,
taking poor time Tim's crutch and breaking it. I mean,
so it's it's this is this is basically, you know,
standard operating procedure for Democrats. Just like every election Republicans
a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, blah blah blah, same thing.
It's a Republican wins. They try and tear him down

(01:27:17):
limb from limb, and I think in the case of Trump,
it's gonna be the media establishment, the democratic establishment, and
at some point down the line, the Republican establishment will
all will all pound on him and try and take
him down. That's it. The hell with what the people think.
Natalie is in California next on the Sean Hannity Show.
What's Up, Natalie? How are you? Um? Kind of along

(01:27:41):
the same lines. I've had a lot of people come
up to me and just discuss um their concerns that Hillary.
By the way, is this Natalie the one that I
know on Twitter? Natalie friend of the Friddle? Oh boy?
How are you? Did you fix your school problem? Um? Yes,

(01:28:02):
I wouldn't use those words, but it's gonna be okay, yes, okay,
So what's your question? Okay? Thanks? Um, I've had a
lot of people come up to me um actually at school,
um and and express concerns just with this election. And
I think that they think that Hillary is gonna somehow
swoop in at the last minute and take back the presidency.
And I've told them absolutely not, you know, but it's

(01:28:25):
difficult in this day and age, when when there is
a lot of social media and there's all this talk online. UM,
And I would I would argue that you would agree
that Trump is going to be elected president and it's
gonna be fine. But the point is, do you see
these ads being run and they're so clear about saying
conservatives first, and then they say liberals, and they they
include everybody. Would these ads be run if Hillary? If

(01:28:47):
Hillary had let's just flip the situation, you know, you
put you put Hillary as the president elect and Donald
Trump winning the popular vote, would they still be running
these ads, you know, claiming conservatives are on board with
is and liberals are on board with this. I don't
think that they would. So I don't think they would either.
I think it's so evident that this is politics. But look,

(01:29:08):
just take this for what it is. If if sore
loser recounts don't work. If Russian hacking doesn't work, well,
the lets to go out and we'll we'll influence the
electors anything we can do to delegitimize the victory of
Donald Trump, which they never saw coming and they can't
believe happened, and they can't they're just they're in a
state of shock and anger. It's sort of like, you know,

(01:29:30):
the stages of grief. What's the first, you know, you
go through, an angry stage, a denial stage you go through.
When you get to the angry stage, that's gonna be
the stage that lasts the longest. I don't think they
ever get to the acceptance stage unless Donald Trump so
fixes the economy and makes things so much better so
fast that it makes people's head spin that they have
to even liberals acknowledge that it worked. All right, Natalie,

(01:29:56):
appreciate it. Thank you all. Right, back to our busy
telephones here as we check in with Deborah's in New Mexico.
Deborra High, how are you glad you called hi, Sean Um.
I think that everybody is trying to influence the election,
just like you said, and we've heard in that clip,
they're all trying to influence it just like you said,
they're trying to influence now are electorals. Everybody's trying to

(01:30:19):
influence the election. But here's the issue. Wiki leaks, Julia
san is influencing. Maybe with the truth. That's what the
American people want. They want to make a good decision
when they go to that voting booth on the truth.
But what the media is doing is using this narrative
as a false narrative, as a smoke screen to take
our focus off of the lies. The fifth that they're

(01:30:40):
stealing our election with all of these illegal votes, the
dead votes, the multiple votes. That's that's the problem, and
that's where we need to be focusing. I totally agree
with you and we will. You know, if Julian Assans
had gone after Trump this way, he would be this
would be Watergate too, He'd be Woodward and Bernstein all

(01:31:01):
over again, all the President's men. Darlene Birmingham, Alabama, W
E R C. How are you? Uh? Darlen? And Glad
you called? I'm good son? How are you? I heard
you interviewing um Kevin yesterday? Was it? Ye Ken? Yeah?
About Let Let There Be Light as the name of
the movie that I'm the executive producer was filmed here
in Alabama, and I know you for bringing some work

(01:31:24):
here and it's a beautiful state and I appreciate it. Listen,
we thought long and hard about where we we We
really did. We spent a lot of time thinking about
where we need to film this and and we were
going to go to Georgia. We ended up going to
Alabama and it worked out really well, and everybody was
so helpful. We hired a lot of people down there,
and you know what, I was glad to be a

(01:31:45):
part of it. But more importantly, I think you'll love
the message this. Look, this isn't coming out until next November,
I know, but I think it's a message everyone needs
to here. And it's a message of faith, redemption, a
love story. It is, it is contemporary. I think it
will take on an emotional ride that I think you'll
find very meaningful. I hope you really like it. Thank
you very much, Okay, thank you. Eight nine for one.

(01:32:08):
Shawn is a Totprey telephone number.

All Episodes

Inside Job - 12.15

Episode Transcript

The Sean Hannity Show News

Host

Sean Hannity

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

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;}Inside Job - 12.15