June 18, 2025 • 29 mins
Congressman Patrick Harrigan of North Carolina’s 10th district, is a West Point grad and Special Operations Green Beret, he is a Member of House Armed services committee and the “For Country” caucus, and today gives us his take on the war in the Middle East, and the steps that should come next.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information overload.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All right, News Roundup and Information Overload Hour eight hundred
and ninety four one, Shawn our number if you want
to be a part of the program. In a minute,
we're going to be joined by Congressman Patrick Harrigan of
North Carolina, their tenth district. And something he said caught
my attention. He's West Point grad Special Ops green Beret,
member of the House Armed Services Committee and the for
(00:28):
the Country Caucus, and he actually wrote something that I
saw that that just stood out to me, and he said,
regime change by force does not work. We've seen the
physical cost in our national debt and real cost in
American lives. Too many politicians in Washington beat the drums
of war without ever carrying its burden. But I want
(00:50):
to run over this with you. Was it wrong when
Donald Trump using the Trump Doctor, as I call it.
Was it wrong for him to defeat the caliphate? Isis
that built up under Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
No, it was absolutely not wrong for and.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
The way he did it. He did it without kicking
indoors or watching men with lots of life to live die,
or explaining to mothers why their kids weren't coming home
because he is implementing the next generation of weaponry which
reduces the need for boots on the ground and the
risk to American troops' lives.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
Right, That's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
No, I think President Trump has successfully navigated situations like
the one we're dealing with incredibly well throughout his entire
first term, and has lowered the temperature of international conflict
during the first five months of his second term. I mean,
he's done an unbelievable job up to this point, and
I can't think of a better leader to have at
(01:50):
the Helm than President Trump, someone that I would trust
to make these very difficult decisions that he's probably got
to make in the next forty eight hours.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
And I'm betting that you agree with me and his
decision to take out Solomani on the tarmac. I mean,
we were following Solomoni according to report some people I
spoke to that know, we're up to two straight weeks.
We had him fully identified in our sites. They watched
them get on and identified him getting on that commercial airliner.
(02:19):
They waited for everybody to disembark, and then when he
was on the tarmac, they took him out. I think
that was the right decision. I assume you agree with that.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Too, absolutely I do. There's no question that that changed
the paradigm of Iran's leadership's decision making from that point
moving forward towards the United States. And that's what President
Trump has been known for. He'll put all options out
on the table and he'll end up choosing a course
(02:48):
of action that nobody was anticipating, and ultimately that's advantage
to the United States of America, no question about it.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Shot and you would agree that taking out Big Daddy
and associates was also the right decision. So so far
we're one hundred percent in alignment. I want to make
sure we are.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Yes, we sure are, There's no question about that.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So to me, the Trump doctrine isn't as some are
identifying it as isolationism, which I think is naive and
can lead to catastrophic results down the road. And in
this case, we have to factor in as it relates
to Iran, the number one state sponsor of terror that
has also killed many Americans around the globe, from the
(03:31):
Cobar Towers to Beirut, to Iraq and other places as well.
That has threatened to wipe Israel and America off the map,
that has threatened to get missiles big enough to hit
the continental US. We have a window of opportunity here
where their missile defense systems are completely obliterated, where Israel
(03:52):
owns the skies over the entire country, where Israel has
taken out two of their big nuclear sites, and the
one remaining site probably needs US assistants and bunker buster bombs.
And I think it is very much in keeping with
the Trump doctrine to go in there eliminate that threat,
because otherwise the world will be held hostage from my perspective,
(04:15):
and you can tell me if you disagree, and at
that point, then protect our assets in the region. It's
not without danger. Every military action has a high degree
of danger with it. I don't mitigate that at all,
and I don't underestimate the danger that some people will
be in harm's way as a result of any military action. However,
(04:40):
I do believe as commander in chief, if he makes
that decision, and I believe he probably will, because I
don't think this window of opportunity will stay open long.
I think it would be the right choice to forever
destroy any hope that the Iranians have of a nuclear weapon.
I'm not in the business. I don't think Donald Trump
(05:00):
was in the business of regime change. Now, if the
Israelis that have been hit with hundreds of thousands of
missiles decide that they want to take out their refineries
and take out their electric grid and go after the
Supreme Leader, that, as far as I'm concerned, that's their choice.
They deserve to make that choice after what is after
what the Iranians have done to them.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
You and I hold absolutely no disagreement in our perspective. Sean,
and I think that what I've became concerned about over
the last couple of days is some of my colleagues
in the House and the Senate, as this situation has unfolded,
rapidly ushered in a conversation about needing a regime change
in Iran. And I think that wherever we look in
(05:42):
our nation's last twenty five years of history, whether it's
the Global War on Terror, whether it's the Color revolutions
that we sponsored, whether it's any intervention that America played
a role in in the Middle East to perpetuate the
concept of regime change, those have been fundamentally unsuccessful, and
when you break it, you buy it. You can't just
(06:02):
go in and break this thing and let it spiral
completely out of control. That does not seem like it's
in our greatest strategic interest, and so I just want
to be very cautious about what's something.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Have you heard President Trump ever mentioned regime change? The
only mention he made of the Supreme Leader is that
he knows where he is and that he's not taking
him out, even though he could take him out yet.
I mean, obviously he's saying it's an option down the
road if needed. But I've not heard the President or
(06:34):
I've never heard the Trump doctor never talk about regime change.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Me neither, And my comments were not directed towards the president.
My comments are directed towards many of my colleagues. So
I've seen on mainstream media across primetime over the last
couple of nights, and that is where my concern lies,
and that potentially moving in and impacting the decision making
of the president eventually. But no, I don't think that
(06:58):
President Trump's in tension is regime change. I think what
he's doing is he's laying all options on the table
and saying look, if you if we wanted you dead Iopola,
you would be dead. That fundamentally changes is decision making,
limitations and constraints for ultimately. What I think President Trump
(07:20):
is trying to do is provide as many diplomatic off
ramps as possible to come to a peaceful resolution here.
But obviously the enemy gets a vote, and if President
Trump decides that it is in the best strategic interest
of the United States of America, it's the only option
available to us to make sure that there's not a
nuclear armed Iran that we need to take action from
(07:42):
thirty thousand feet I'd be supportive of him.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
I would have preferred that the Iranians go along with
the presidents you offer for peace. But I also agree
with the President's understanding of evil in our time and
that nuclear armed Iran is not a threat that the
world can withstand because they're radicalism married to weapons of
(08:09):
mass destruction like this, to me, could result in a
modern day holocaust. Do you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I think certainly that it is an existential threat to
Israel and with a rand support of terror.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
What about what about the US? I mean, they've said
they want to come after the US too. And you've
got to imagine as in the out years, that they're
going to have, you know, the missile capability to reach
the continental US.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
From the intelligence that I have seen, Sean, we are
a far ways away from that happening. I think Israel
is much more directly impacted by any potential decision that
Iran decides to make in the near future, and that
provides US operational space to make decisions in the future,
because I think we always want to take as limited
(08:58):
approach as we possibly can, because these decisions have incredible
second and third order impacts or are strategic around the globe.
And that's all I want people to be cautious about.
Let me just put it in perspective, Sean. Six days ago,
we were talking about Iran coming to a nuclear deal,
and we were talking about China being our greatest strategic
(09:21):
threat in the world, and some you know, a third
of Congress thinks that it's Russia. I think you and
I don't believe that, uh.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
By far, by far, China are top geopolitical fault, not
even close.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
And fast forward six days and we're talking about regime change.
Some people are talking about regime change.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
I'm not talking about it. I've not heard Donald Trump
talk about it. I'm not even we had Lindsay Graham on.
He's not talking about regime change.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I think that there have been many, many representatives and
senators that have talked about regime change over the last
couple of days, and I think that we'd be wise
to not have those discussions. But we ask that.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
I think the president's stated position they can't have a
nuclear weapon, is it? That's it?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah, me too, I'm one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
All right, quick break, We'll come right back and we
will continue on the other side with North Carolina. Congressman
Patrick Harrigan is with us eight hundred and nine four one.
Shawn is on number. If you want to be a
part of the program, the Dems want to stand on
this step saying terrible songs and cursing out Trump.
Speaker 4 (10:29):
You know you have one guy over this shout.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Ever A wonder if these people ever go to work
me too. Throughout this is the Sean Hannity Show. Florida
just legalized gold and silver. Yep, my new home state,
the Free State of Florida, has made it legal to
use gold and silver as money. Now. Governor DeSantis explained
it all by saying, this is our ability to give
(10:54):
you the financial freedom to be able to protect yourself
against the declining value of the dollar. This is exactly
why I partnered with a top precious metals company myself.
If you want to learn more about how gold and
silver can help protect your money, if you want to
inform yourself, do your due diligence, reach out to my
(11:14):
partners at Gold Call. They're a great company. I'm a customer.
They've helped me out tremendously. Check them out on the
web hannitigold dot com or call no obligation eight five
five eight one five gold get their free twenty twenty
five gold and silver kit. You'll also learn about their
unlimited bonus silver offer. That's eight five five eight one
(11:35):
five gold or Hannitigold dot com. That's Hannitigold dot com.
We continue now. Congressman Patrick Harrigan is from North Carolina
and their tenth district. Look. I think as a natural
occurrence of taking out the if we were to take
(11:56):
out the nuclear capability, and if the Israelis, if the
Israelis say, you know what, they want to forever remove
this threat, they're funding proxy wars and I've been to
Israel many times. I've been to towns that have been
hit with ten thousand rockets in ten years. One town,
one little town, baby town where kids can't play outside.
(12:19):
I've seen the rockets, I've seen the iron doma action.
I've been there during conflict, and I could just tell
you right now this is their everyday reality. And the
people that have been fomenting this never ending terror campaign
and funding it and supporting it has been around now.
The Israelis have a lot more to factor, you know,
(12:40):
they have a lot more consideration in this than I
think we do. If the Israelis decide that it's time
for regime change, be careful always what's on the other
side of that, because you never know. Although I don't
know how you can get much worse than what we
got than this, you know, insane Islamic califate, convert or
die theocracy. But I think if they Israelis decide that
(13:03):
they want to incapacitate any ability for this country to
make money or even have be able to power their
own people or offer power to their own people, I
have no problem with the Israeli doing what they deem necessary.
After what's happened to them.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
I absolutely agree with that. I think that that would
be fully within their prerogative and their right to provide
for their own self defense. You're going to find no
argument for me there, Sean, I think when it comes
to what America should do in terms of its strategic interest,
certainly there is a component of America's strategic interest, a
significant component of ours, that is and should always be
(13:40):
supportive of Israel as our greatest ally in the Middle East.
I don't think that's under question. But if we can
resolve this situation by providing, as President Trump has provided,
continue diplomatic off ramps to even where we could get
that proverbial settlement on the courthouse steps prior to prior
to trial, that would absolutely be a preferable outcome given
(14:06):
the certain.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Do you really believe that's a possibility, considering that would
mean that the Iranians the next day have to allow anywhere,
any place, anytime, inspections and the complete dismantling of their
entire nuclear program, and Americans being the lead supervisors and
(14:29):
on the ground watching that. I don't ever see that happening.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
I think we should always leave the possibility for that
to happen open and the way that you craft that situation, Sean,
is you allow Israel to continue doing what it's doing,
because at some point it comes down to the existential
survival of a regime that fundamentally changes their thought paradigm
and how they approach the negotiation process to coming to
(14:55):
a deal. I think that there's a low probability of
that happening, but I certainly don't think that we should
be locked in to any one particular course of action.
You've always got to leave room for what the adversary
can choose to do, and hopefully they make the right decision,
and if they don't, as President Trump has said, we
will have to deal with them the other way.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
It looks like more and more that the other way
looks like the only option that's going to be left remaining. However,
I do want to put emphasis on something you're warning
people about. There's no military option, even owning the skies
of Iran that is risk free. And we do have
bases and we have troops in the region. We also
(15:37):
have shipping lanes that could be sabotaged. There is great
risk in any such thing. So I would only say
that our prayers are with our brave men and women
in the military, and our commander in chief and our
allies in Israel, and that this situation, which has become
untenable by this sick, twisted, evil regime, come to a
(16:01):
as successful an end with the least amount of damage
and carnage and death as possible. But they but they've
made their choice as of now, so it would be
on them. Thank you for your service, Congressman. You're a
good man. God bless you, and and I think you
gave us a lot of insight. We really do appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Always great to be with you, Sean, God blessed.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
I don't know if you saw this, Linda. The hard
hitting ABC Disney News show the view a big fight
over what to do with I wrong list. The Iranians
literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don't hear
the basic human.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
Listen here, let's not let's not do that.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Let's not do that because if we start with that,
we had we have been known in this country to
tie gay folks.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
To the where but where the Iran just black people?
So is it not even the same?
Speaker 4 (16:56):
I couldn't.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
That's not what you mean, is say it is the same.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
Murdering someone for their difference is not good. Whoever does
it's not good. So that's why I said you you
weren't saying what you What I heard was not what
you meant.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
I think it's very different to live in the United
States in twenty twenty five than it is to live
in an You're not for everybody, not if you're black.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
Guys don't go to tron do not.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Why do I get a headache every time we play this?
Can we stop monitoring? Who monitors this show? For my
for this show? Who got who? Who gets burdened with
that task of having to watch that show every day? Linda?
Who has to watch that show? Who do you make
watch the show?
Speaker 6 (17:45):
Because I couldn't tell you that was me, so you
have to watch it. I don't pay you enough money
to watch that show, you know. I can't never pay
you enough money to watch that show.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
It's horrible, horrible show.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
And the fact that she for one second thinks that
comparing the people that are hanging from cranes in the
middle of Tehran is equivalent to her hosting a national
morning show on ABC, ma'am just inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
You think they're just out of their minds. That's all
there is to it.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
But it's actually really offensive. It's really offensive if you
talk to these young women who are kept as slaves,
some as young as the age of eight to nine,
married off to men that they are old enough to
be their grandfathers. And she's equating.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
That, Oh, I have no words. It just doesn't worth
my time. Eight hundred and nine four one shown on number.
You want to be a part of the program, Let's
say hi to Aaron in California, the United Socialist Utopia. Aaron,
how are you.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
I'm doing well. How are you today?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
I'm good, sir. What's on your mind?
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Well? I wanted to follow up with a caller that
you had yesterday. Was young man. I think he's out
of Sacramento, living in his car, couldn't afford a place.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
To live, yes, sir, And he's just got divorced or
he's separated from his wife and he as a kid.
He works full time. He works on garage doors, which,
by the way, is something in neat. I know, because
my garage door breaks constantly. It's infuriating.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Well so, and I commend him on working full time.
The issue and what I heard led into a couple
of different issues for me. Number one, some of the
advice that I heard was we need to work more,
need to get another job. I don't know if you
know this, but California dictates child support based off of
gross income. So the more he works and the more
money he makes, the more child support he's going to
(19:43):
end up paying.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Well, look, there's only two ways that I can think
of if you if you want to get out of
financial trouble, and I've been there is Number one, spend
as little as possible. And number two is bring in
more income. And even if a percentage of that income
is going to support your child or or espousal support
(20:06):
or whatever the deal is that you've you made with
your ex, it's you're still going to come out with
more money.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
Well, the issue, the issue ultimately is California itself. We
live in a state where it is just not economically
feasible for people making money under forty grand And I'm
going to give you some examples. Number one, I mean,
we have unelected boards like to see California Public Utilies
Commission that just gave pg PG it's sixth rate increase
(20:37):
this year. We have the California Air Resource board unelected
board that just is raising our gas tax again coming
up July. First, we have our health insurance. My health
insurance mine quadrupled in twenty twenty four. My son, he's five.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
His health Maybe if they didn't spend, you know, tens
and tens of billions of dollars on legal immigrants in
your state, you'd be better off. But go ahead, I
hear you.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
I didn't. I vote read And one of the things
that I wanted to talk about was that forty percent
of California is read and and what California needs to do,
and I think what Public Republican Party needs to do
is start kind of packaging up this up to kind
of the more moderate in the Independent because this guy
who's making this money, he just can't afford to live here.
(21:26):
And and this goes to in another issue.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Look, look, I've been in this position. Let me let
me explain something to you. I've lived paycheck to paycheck.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
I live paycheck to paycheck, so I live paycheck.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Okay, you're living paycheck. And by the way, it sucks,
it really does. And that's why I offered to help
the guy out yesterday because I want to see him
get on his feet. I want him to have a
place where he can bring his son. And I understand, however,
I'm just giving the advice I practiced myself, and I
worked out deals with my landlord, you know, to cut
(22:00):
the lawn and paint the house and hang wallpaper and
do chores and clean out an old barn that was
a mess, and do all sorts of things, you know,
just to make my rink go down. And I had
a great landlord that was very accommodating and had a
lot of work that I could do. And it was
it worked out, you know, pretty well for me. And
then I worked as much over time as I could.
(22:21):
But I was also single, and then I lived beneath
my means. I couldn't even afford to go to McDonald's
at that point in my life. It was it was
too much of a luxury. At that point in my life.
I would make a meat loaf for the week and
that would be what I ate all week. And you know,
I make I make a mean meat loaf by way.
But the only way to get ahead is you're gonna
(22:41):
have to work more hours, make more money, and find
ways to bring in more income and spend less money.
It's not easy to do. I'm not saying any of
it's easy. When my car broke, I had a two
hundred dollars a condoline van at one point, which was
my work truck. It was breaking all the time. I
had to fix it all the time. I had a
three hundred and fifty dollars Ford Maverick nineteen seventy one.
(23:04):
I used to fix that myself. I mean, I just
you have to find a way otherwise you're going to
live in your car. I don't want this guy living
in his car.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Point is that we in California are living paycheck to paycheck.
I heard an ad on your this radio.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
What's he going to He can't leave his kid behind.
He's not going to leave the state and go to
a better state.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
California voters need to just start voting for different policies
so that we can afford to live here. Policies that
allow for home building, policies that allow for companies like
PGN and CALAM to not just keep jacking our utility
cor right, Policies that lead for our health insurance to
start coming down the more money.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Here's here's the problem. People that are sick and tired
of the burdensome taxation regulation, intrusion into their lives, More
and more of them that would be more likely to
vote read like you have left your state. I left
New York for a variety of reasons, not the least
(24:05):
of which of what you're describing.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
So again, my point is is that simply making more money.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
You don't want to hear any of my solutions. You're
saying to me that I gave this guy bad advice
and simply making more money isn't gonna help. Well, it's
not gonna hurt you.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Dinna drive up his healthcare costs and he's gonna pay
more child support. California needs to start fixing this from
the inside out. And that's what I'm saying, is.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
That, listen, maybe he just needs one of the ways
I learned to make money, and it started. This is
when I began to start to save is I learned
how to paint houses inside and out, interior exterior, hang wallpaper,
and lay tile, and I got good. I wasn't good
at it, I was actually great at it. I had
(24:50):
a great eye for finish work, and I would work.
I'd start at seven in the morning and I'd finish
at ten at night, and I'd go get up the
next day and do it again. And I work Saturdays
and I work Sundays. I'm not missing his point, Linda
just said in my ear, you're missing. I'm not missing
his point that he's saying that if you don't, if
you do these things, it's still not going to work
in California. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
Of your net income when you back in the day.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
I think I think if I may, and I very
rarely do this, and I think you know that. You
guys are actually agreeing. You're just not saying it the
same way. The caller is explaining that while what you
did was out of a good heart and kindness, it's
not going to help him in the long run because
no matter how much money he makes, unless he's a
multi millionaire in California, it will not be enough.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
It is to do what he needs to do right now.
This is not a livable incoming in California. You're right,
but then follow the rest of my advice. You've got
to bring in more money, right, to.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Bring in more monday and money, and under.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Current county benefit rules, you get screwed. That's what he's saying, okay,
but you're still going to have more money after you
pay your child support. Even if they take away health
care benefits for a period of time, you're still going
to have more money in your pocket. If you work
another twenty hours a week, you will still and you
pay your child support, whatever your spous will support, You're
(26:14):
still gonna end up with another, you know, four hundred
bucks a week, which is significant if you're in that situation.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
In my view, that net four hundred How do you
make an additional four hundred bucks a week net when
you're already working full time?
Speaker 2 (26:30):
He's working. He's told to me he works forty hours
a week. Okay, I used to work eighty hours a week.
By the way, I still work eighty hours a week.
If your truth be told, I work a full week.
I don't stop. Linda, how many times do you get
text from me at four in the morning.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
All the time, every day?
Speaker 2 (26:51):
And how many times do you get texts about stories
all weekend and ideas for the weekend all the time?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
I just say your thought, I'm.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Sorry, sir.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
California does not incentivize people to work harder, because if
this guy make works harder and makes more money. His
health care costs through medical are going to.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Double a triple, correct, And you know what, and then
you paint somebody's house, I'll paint threat room in your house.
They give you two hundred dollars cash. And I'm not
telling people to break the law.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Okay, what I'm saying is California itself the policy.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
You're saying to just give up because you won't net
any any money at all, both if you if you
do it, I agree with your principle. I'm not disagreeing.
They make it, they disincentivize you. However, if I'm going
to have another two hundred dollars a week and working hard,
I'll still take it. I'd rather have the money and
(27:47):
have a place for my child in his situation than
any other consideration. Living in your car with a young
child is not an option for me. Does that make sense.
Speaker 4 (28:00):
To spend time with your kid? Working eighty hours a week,
you're gonna be spending our childcare was sixteen hundred a month,
So okay, sir, So your solution is go work eighty
hours a week. Okay, So now you've got a baby.
What do you do with your baby and your kid? Well?
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Yeah, he's not seeing the baby now because if he's
living in a car, there's not a judge in the
country that's gonna let this guy see his kid or
let the kids stay with him.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
So he goes.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
You might as well get You might as well work hard,
get an apartment, at least see him on the weekends,
maybe Sundays. Maybe that's all the time, and he'll have
with the child. It's it's not there's nothing ideal about
this situation, and government makes it worse. I can see
your point at the highest level. All right, I wish
I had more time. I mean, I feel, I really
feel for this guy, which is why I want to
(28:42):
give him at least a start in the hopes that
maybe he'll be able to get a little, you know,
clean studio apartment, a place when he's free he can
see his child. Quick break right back, will continue, right,
that's gonna wrap things up for today. Hannity Tonight nine
Eastern on the Fox News Channel, full complete coverage of
(29:03):
the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. What will President
Trump do? Will he take out this one remaining nuclear site?
We'll get full coverage with New Gingrich his take. Horace
Cooper Tonight, also Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, Horace Cooper and
Tommy larn Nine Eastern Hannity and Fox will see you tonight.
(29:24):
Back here tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information overload.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All right, News Roundup and Information Overload Hour eight hundred
and ninety four one, Shawn our number if you want
to be a part of the program. In a minute,
we're going to be joined by Congressman Patrick Harrigan of
North Carolina, their tenth district. And something he said caught
my attention. He's West Point grad Special Ops green Beret,
member of the House Armed Services Committee and the for
(00:28):
the Country Caucus, and he actually wrote something that I
saw that that just stood out to me, and he said,
regime change by force does not work. We've seen the
physical cost in our national debt and real cost in
American lives. Too many politicians in Washington beat the drums
of war without ever carrying its burden. But I want
(00:50):
to run over this with you. Was it wrong when
Donald Trump using the Trump Doctor, as I call it.
Was it wrong for him to defeat the caliphate? Isis
that built up under Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
No, it was absolutely not wrong for and.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
The way he did it. He did it without kicking
indoors or watching men with lots of life to live die,
or explaining to mothers why their kids weren't coming home
because he is implementing the next generation of weaponry which
reduces the need for boots on the ground and the
risk to American troops' lives.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
Right, That's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
No, I think President Trump has successfully navigated situations like
the one we're dealing with incredibly well throughout his entire
first term, and has lowered the temperature of international conflict
during the first five months of his second term. I mean,
he's done an unbelievable job up to this point, and
I can't think of a better leader to have at
(01:50):
the Helm than President Trump, someone that I would trust
to make these very difficult decisions that he's probably got
to make in the next forty eight hours.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
And I'm betting that you agree with me and his
decision to take out Solomani on the tarmac. I mean,
we were following Solomoni according to report some people I
spoke to that know, we're up to two straight weeks.
We had him fully identified in our sites. They watched
them get on and identified him getting on that commercial airliner.
(02:19):
They waited for everybody to disembark, and then when he
was on the tarmac, they took him out. I think
that was the right decision. I assume you agree with that.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Too, absolutely I do. There's no question that that changed
the paradigm of Iran's leadership's decision making from that point
moving forward towards the United States. And that's what President
Trump has been known for. He'll put all options out
on the table and he'll end up choosing a course
(02:48):
of action that nobody was anticipating, and ultimately that's advantage
to the United States of America, no question about it.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Shot and you would agree that taking out Big Daddy
and associates was also the right decision. So so far
we're one hundred percent in alignment. I want to make
sure we are.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Yes, we sure are, There's no question about that.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
So to me, the Trump doctrine isn't as some are
identifying it as isolationism, which I think is naive and
can lead to catastrophic results down the road. And in
this case, we have to factor in as it relates
to Iran, the number one state sponsor of terror that
has also killed many Americans around the globe, from the
(03:31):
Cobar Towers to Beirut, to Iraq and other places as well.
That has threatened to wipe Israel and America off the map,
that has threatened to get missiles big enough to hit
the continental US. We have a window of opportunity here
where their missile defense systems are completely obliterated, where Israel
(03:52):
owns the skies over the entire country, where Israel has
taken out two of their big nuclear sites, and the
one remaining site probably needs US assistants and bunker buster bombs.
And I think it is very much in keeping with
the Trump doctrine to go in there eliminate that threat,
because otherwise the world will be held hostage from my perspective,
(04:15):
and you can tell me if you disagree, and at
that point, then protect our assets in the region. It's
not without danger. Every military action has a high degree
of danger with it. I don't mitigate that at all,
and I don't underestimate the danger that some people will
be in harm's way as a result of any military action. However,
(04:40):
I do believe as commander in chief, if he makes
that decision, and I believe he probably will, because I
don't think this window of opportunity will stay open long.
I think it would be the right choice to forever
destroy any hope that the Iranians have of a nuclear weapon.
I'm not in the business. I don't think Donald Trump
(05:00):
was in the business of regime change. Now, if the
Israelis that have been hit with hundreds of thousands of
missiles decide that they want to take out their refineries
and take out their electric grid and go after the
Supreme Leader, that, as far as I'm concerned, that's their choice.
They deserve to make that choice after what is after
what the Iranians have done to them.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
You and I hold absolutely no disagreement in our perspective. Sean,
and I think that what I've became concerned about over
the last couple of days is some of my colleagues
in the House and the Senate, as this situation has unfolded,
rapidly ushered in a conversation about needing a regime change
in Iran. And I think that wherever we look in
(05:42):
our nation's last twenty five years of history, whether it's
the Global War on Terror, whether it's the Color revolutions
that we sponsored, whether it's any intervention that America played
a role in in the Middle East to perpetuate the
concept of regime change, those have been fundamentally unsuccessful, and
when you break it, you buy it. You can't just
(06:02):
go in and break this thing and let it spiral
completely out of control. That does not seem like it's
in our greatest strategic interest, and so I just want
to be very cautious about what's something.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Have you heard President Trump ever mentioned regime change? The
only mention he made of the Supreme Leader is that
he knows where he is and that he's not taking
him out, even though he could take him out yet.
I mean, obviously he's saying it's an option down the
road if needed. But I've not heard the President or
(06:34):
I've never heard the Trump doctor never talk about regime change.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Me neither, And my comments were not directed towards the president.
My comments are directed towards many of my colleagues. So
I've seen on mainstream media across primetime over the last
couple of nights, and that is where my concern lies,
and that potentially moving in and impacting the decision making
of the president eventually. But no, I don't think that
(06:58):
President Trump's in tension is regime change. I think what
he's doing is he's laying all options on the table
and saying look, if you if we wanted you dead Iopola,
you would be dead. That fundamentally changes is decision making,
limitations and constraints for ultimately. What I think President Trump
(07:20):
is trying to do is provide as many diplomatic off
ramps as possible to come to a peaceful resolution here.
But obviously the enemy gets a vote, and if President
Trump decides that it is in the best strategic interest
of the United States of America, it's the only option
available to us to make sure that there's not a
nuclear armed Iran that we need to take action from
(07:42):
thirty thousand feet I'd be supportive of him.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
I would have preferred that the Iranians go along with
the presidents you offer for peace. But I also agree
with the President's understanding of evil in our time and
that nuclear armed Iran is not a threat that the
world can withstand because they're radicalism married to weapons of
(08:09):
mass destruction like this, to me, could result in a
modern day holocaust. Do you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I think certainly that it is an existential threat to
Israel and with a rand support of terror.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
What about what about the US? I mean, they've said
they want to come after the US too. And you've
got to imagine as in the out years, that they're
going to have, you know, the missile capability to reach
the continental US.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
From the intelligence that I have seen, Sean, we are
a far ways away from that happening. I think Israel
is much more directly impacted by any potential decision that
Iran decides to make in the near future, and that
provides US operational space to make decisions in the future,
because I think we always want to take as limited
(08:58):
approach as we possibly can, because these decisions have incredible
second and third order impacts or are strategic around the globe.
And that's all I want people to be cautious about.
Let me just put it in perspective, Sean. Six days ago,
we were talking about Iran coming to a nuclear deal,
and we were talking about China being our greatest strategic
(09:21):
threat in the world, and some you know, a third
of Congress thinks that it's Russia. I think you and
I don't believe that, uh.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
By far, by far, China are top geopolitical fault, not
even close.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
And fast forward six days and we're talking about regime change.
Some people are talking about regime change.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
I'm not talking about it. I've not heard Donald Trump
talk about it. I'm not even we had Lindsay Graham on.
He's not talking about regime change.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I think that there have been many, many representatives and
senators that have talked about regime change over the last
couple of days, and I think that we'd be wise
to not have those discussions. But we ask that.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
I think the president's stated position they can't have a
nuclear weapon, is it? That's it?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah, me too, I'm one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
All right, quick break, We'll come right back and we
will continue on the other side with North Carolina. Congressman
Patrick Harrigan is with us eight hundred and nine four one.
Shawn is on number. If you want to be a
part of the program, the Dems want to stand on
this step saying terrible songs and cursing out Trump.
Speaker 4 (10:29):
You know you have one guy over this shout.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Ever A wonder if these people ever go to work
me too. Throughout this is the Sean Hannity Show. Florida
just legalized gold and silver. Yep, my new home state,
the Free State of Florida, has made it legal to
use gold and silver as money. Now. Governor DeSantis explained
it all by saying, this is our ability to give
(10:54):
you the financial freedom to be able to protect yourself
against the declining value of the dollar. This is exactly
why I partnered with a top precious metals company myself.
If you want to learn more about how gold and
silver can help protect your money, if you want to
inform yourself, do your due diligence, reach out to my
(11:14):
partners at Gold Call. They're a great company. I'm a customer.
They've helped me out tremendously. Check them out on the
web hannitigold dot com or call no obligation eight five
five eight one five gold get their free twenty twenty
five gold and silver kit. You'll also learn about their
unlimited bonus silver offer. That's eight five five eight one
(11:35):
five gold or Hannitigold dot com. That's Hannitigold dot com.
We continue now. Congressman Patrick Harrigan is from North Carolina
and their tenth district. Look. I think as a natural
occurrence of taking out the if we were to take
(11:56):
out the nuclear capability, and if the Israelis, if the
Israelis say, you know what, they want to forever remove
this threat, they're funding proxy wars and I've been to
Israel many times. I've been to towns that have been
hit with ten thousand rockets in ten years. One town,
one little town, baby town where kids can't play outside.
(12:19):
I've seen the rockets, I've seen the iron doma action.
I've been there during conflict, and I could just tell
you right now this is their everyday reality. And the
people that have been fomenting this never ending terror campaign
and funding it and supporting it has been around now.
The Israelis have a lot more to factor, you know,
(12:40):
they have a lot more consideration in this than I
think we do. If the Israelis decide that it's time
for regime change, be careful always what's on the other
side of that, because you never know. Although I don't
know how you can get much worse than what we
got than this, you know, insane Islamic califate, convert or
die theocracy. But I think if they Israelis decide that
(13:03):
they want to incapacitate any ability for this country to
make money or even have be able to power their
own people or offer power to their own people, I
have no problem with the Israeli doing what they deem necessary.
After what's happened to them.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
I absolutely agree with that. I think that that would
be fully within their prerogative and their right to provide
for their own self defense. You're going to find no
argument for me there, Sean, I think when it comes
to what America should do in terms of its strategic interest,
certainly there is a component of America's strategic interest, a
significant component of ours, that is and should always be
(13:40):
supportive of Israel as our greatest ally in the Middle East.
I don't think that's under question. But if we can
resolve this situation by providing, as President Trump has provided,
continue diplomatic off ramps to even where we could get
that proverbial settlement on the courthouse steps prior to prior
to trial, that would absolutely be a preferable outcome given
(14:06):
the certain.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Do you really believe that's a possibility, considering that would
mean that the Iranians the next day have to allow anywhere,
any place, anytime, inspections and the complete dismantling of their
entire nuclear program, and Americans being the lead supervisors and
(14:29):
on the ground watching that. I don't ever see that happening.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
I think we should always leave the possibility for that
to happen open and the way that you craft that situation, Sean,
is you allow Israel to continue doing what it's doing,
because at some point it comes down to the existential
survival of a regime that fundamentally changes their thought paradigm
and how they approach the negotiation process to coming to
(14:55):
a deal. I think that there's a low probability of
that happening, but I certainly don't think that we should
be locked in to any one particular course of action.
You've always got to leave room for what the adversary
can choose to do, and hopefully they make the right decision,
and if they don't, as President Trump has said, we
will have to deal with them the other way.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
It looks like more and more that the other way
looks like the only option that's going to be left remaining. However,
I do want to put emphasis on something you're warning
people about. There's no military option, even owning the skies
of Iran that is risk free. And we do have
bases and we have troops in the region. We also
(15:37):
have shipping lanes that could be sabotaged. There is great
risk in any such thing. So I would only say
that our prayers are with our brave men and women
in the military, and our commander in chief and our
allies in Israel, and that this situation, which has become
untenable by this sick, twisted, evil regime, come to a
(16:01):
as successful an end with the least amount of damage
and carnage and death as possible. But they but they've
made their choice as of now, so it would be
on them. Thank you for your service, Congressman. You're a
good man. God bless you, and and I think you
gave us a lot of insight. We really do appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Always great to be with you, Sean, God blessed.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
I don't know if you saw this, Linda. The hard
hitting ABC Disney News show the view a big fight
over what to do with I wrong list. The Iranians
literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don't hear
the basic human.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
Listen here, let's not let's not do that.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
Let's not do that because if we start with that,
we had we have been known in this country to
tie gay folks.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
To the where but where the Iran just black people?
So is it not even the same?
Speaker 4 (16:56):
I couldn't.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
That's not what you mean, is say it is the same.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
Murdering someone for their difference is not good. Whoever does
it's not good. So that's why I said you you
weren't saying what you What I heard was not what
you meant.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
I think it's very different to live in the United
States in twenty twenty five than it is to live
in an You're not for everybody, not if you're black.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
Guys don't go to tron do not.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Why do I get a headache every time we play this?
Can we stop monitoring? Who monitors this show? For my
for this show? Who got who? Who gets burdened with
that task of having to watch that show every day? Linda?
Who has to watch that show? Who do you make
watch the show?
Speaker 6 (17:45):
Because I couldn't tell you that was me, so you
have to watch it. I don't pay you enough money
to watch that show, you know. I can't never pay
you enough money to watch that show.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
It's horrible, horrible show.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
And the fact that she for one second thinks that
comparing the people that are hanging from cranes in the
middle of Tehran is equivalent to her hosting a national
morning show on ABC, ma'am just inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
You think they're just out of their minds. That's all
there is to it.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
But it's actually really offensive. It's really offensive if you
talk to these young women who are kept as slaves,
some as young as the age of eight to nine,
married off to men that they are old enough to
be their grandfathers. And she's equating.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
That, Oh, I have no words. It just doesn't worth
my time. Eight hundred and nine four one shown on number.
You want to be a part of the program, Let's
say hi to Aaron in California, the United Socialist Utopia. Aaron,
how are you.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
I'm doing well. How are you today?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
I'm good, sir. What's on your mind?
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Well? I wanted to follow up with a caller that
you had yesterday. Was young man. I think he's out
of Sacramento, living in his car, couldn't afford a place.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
To live, yes, sir, And he's just got divorced or
he's separated from his wife and he as a kid.
He works full time. He works on garage doors, which,
by the way, is something in neat. I know, because
my garage door breaks constantly. It's infuriating.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Well so, and I commend him on working full time.
The issue and what I heard led into a couple
of different issues for me. Number one, some of the
advice that I heard was we need to work more,
need to get another job. I don't know if you
know this, but California dictates child support based off of
gross income. So the more he works and the more
money he makes, the more child support he's going to
(19:43):
end up paying.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Well, look, there's only two ways that I can think
of if you if you want to get out of
financial trouble, and I've been there is Number one, spend
as little as possible. And number two is bring in
more income. And even if a percentage of that income
is going to support your child or or espousal support
(20:06):
or whatever the deal is that you've you made with
your ex, it's you're still going to come out with
more money.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
Well, the issue, the issue ultimately is California itself. We
live in a state where it is just not economically
feasible for people making money under forty grand And I'm
going to give you some examples. Number one, I mean,
we have unelected boards like to see California Public Utilies
Commission that just gave pg PG it's sixth rate increase
(20:37):
this year. We have the California Air Resource board unelected
board that just is raising our gas tax again coming
up July. First, we have our health insurance. My health
insurance mine quadrupled in twenty twenty four. My son, he's five.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
His health Maybe if they didn't spend, you know, tens
and tens of billions of dollars on legal immigrants in
your state, you'd be better off. But go ahead, I
hear you.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
I didn't. I vote read And one of the things
that I wanted to talk about was that forty percent
of California is read and and what California needs to do,
and I think what Public Republican Party needs to do
is start kind of packaging up this up to kind
of the more moderate in the Independent because this guy
who's making this money, he just can't afford to live here.
(21:26):
And and this goes to in another issue.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Look, look, I've been in this position. Let me let
me explain something to you. I've lived paycheck to paycheck.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
I live paycheck to paycheck, so I live paycheck.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Okay, you're living paycheck. And by the way, it sucks,
it really does. And that's why I offered to help
the guy out yesterday because I want to see him
get on his feet. I want him to have a
place where he can bring his son. And I understand, however,
I'm just giving the advice I practiced myself, and I
worked out deals with my landlord, you know, to cut
(22:00):
the lawn and paint the house and hang wallpaper and
do chores and clean out an old barn that was
a mess, and do all sorts of things, you know,
just to make my rink go down. And I had
a great landlord that was very accommodating and had a
lot of work that I could do. And it was
it worked out, you know, pretty well for me. And
then I worked as much over time as I could.
(22:21):
But I was also single, and then I lived beneath
my means. I couldn't even afford to go to McDonald's
at that point in my life. It was it was
too much of a luxury. At that point in my life.
I would make a meat loaf for the week and
that would be what I ate all week. And you know,
I make I make a mean meat loaf by way.
But the only way to get ahead is you're gonna
(22:41):
have to work more hours, make more money, and find
ways to bring in more income and spend less money.
It's not easy to do. I'm not saying any of
it's easy. When my car broke, I had a two
hundred dollars a condoline van at one point, which was
my work truck. It was breaking all the time. I
had to fix it all the time. I had a
three hundred and fifty dollars Ford Maverick nineteen seventy one.
(23:04):
I used to fix that myself. I mean, I just
you have to find a way otherwise you're going to
live in your car. I don't want this guy living
in his car.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Point is that we in California are living paycheck to paycheck.
I heard an ad on your this radio.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
What's he going to He can't leave his kid behind.
He's not going to leave the state and go to
a better state.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
California voters need to just start voting for different policies
so that we can afford to live here. Policies that
allow for home building, policies that allow for companies like
PGN and CALAM to not just keep jacking our utility
cor right, Policies that lead for our health insurance to
start coming down the more money.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Here's here's the problem. People that are sick and tired
of the burdensome taxation regulation, intrusion into their lives, More
and more of them that would be more likely to
vote read like you have left your state. I left
New York for a variety of reasons, not the least
(24:05):
of which of what you're describing.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
So again, my point is is that simply making more money.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
You don't want to hear any of my solutions. You're
saying to me that I gave this guy bad advice
and simply making more money isn't gonna help. Well, it's
not gonna hurt you.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Dinna drive up his healthcare costs and he's gonna pay
more child support. California needs to start fixing this from
the inside out. And that's what I'm saying, is.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
That, listen, maybe he just needs one of the ways
I learned to make money, and it started. This is
when I began to start to save is I learned
how to paint houses inside and out, interior exterior, hang wallpaper,
and lay tile, and I got good. I wasn't good
at it, I was actually great at it. I had
(24:50):
a great eye for finish work, and I would work.
I'd start at seven in the morning and I'd finish
at ten at night, and I'd go get up the
next day and do it again. And I work Saturdays
and I work Sundays. I'm not missing his point, Linda
just said in my ear, you're missing. I'm not missing
his point that he's saying that if you don't, if
you do these things, it's still not going to work
in California. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
Of your net income when you back in the day.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
I think I think if I may, and I very
rarely do this, and I think you know that. You
guys are actually agreeing. You're just not saying it the
same way. The caller is explaining that while what you
did was out of a good heart and kindness, it's
not going to help him in the long run because
no matter how much money he makes, unless he's a
multi millionaire in California, it will not be enough.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
It is to do what he needs to do right now.
This is not a livable incoming in California. You're right,
but then follow the rest of my advice. You've got
to bring in more money, right, to.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Bring in more monday and money, and under.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Current county benefit rules, you get screwed. That's what he's saying, okay,
but you're still going to have more money after you
pay your child support. Even if they take away health
care benefits for a period of time, you're still going
to have more money in your pocket. If you work
another twenty hours a week, you will still and you
pay your child support, whatever your spous will support, You're
(26:14):
still gonna end up with another, you know, four hundred
bucks a week, which is significant if you're in that situation.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
In my view, that net four hundred How do you
make an additional four hundred bucks a week net when
you're already working full time?
Speaker 2 (26:30):
He's working. He's told to me he works forty hours
a week. Okay, I used to work eighty hours a week.
By the way, I still work eighty hours a week.
If your truth be told, I work a full week.
I don't stop. Linda, how many times do you get
text from me at four in the morning.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
All the time, every day?
Speaker 2 (26:51):
And how many times do you get texts about stories
all weekend and ideas for the weekend all the time?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
I just say your thought, I'm.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Sorry, sir.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
California does not incentivize people to work harder, because if
this guy make works harder and makes more money. His
health care costs through medical are going to.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Double a triple, correct, And you know what, and then
you paint somebody's house, I'll paint threat room in your house.
They give you two hundred dollars cash. And I'm not
telling people to break the law.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Okay, what I'm saying is California itself the policy.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
You're saying to just give up because you won't net
any any money at all, both if you if you
do it, I agree with your principle. I'm not disagreeing.
They make it, they disincentivize you. However, if I'm going
to have another two hundred dollars a week and working hard,
I'll still take it. I'd rather have the money and
(27:47):
have a place for my child in his situation than
any other consideration. Living in your car with a young
child is not an option for me. Does that make sense.
Speaker 4 (28:00):
To spend time with your kid? Working eighty hours a week,
you're gonna be spending our childcare was sixteen hundred a month,
So okay, sir, So your solution is go work eighty
hours a week. Okay, So now you've got a baby.
What do you do with your baby and your kid? Well?
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Yeah, he's not seeing the baby now because if he's
living in a car, there's not a judge in the
country that's gonna let this guy see his kid or
let the kids stay with him.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
So he goes.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
You might as well get You might as well work hard,
get an apartment, at least see him on the weekends,
maybe Sundays. Maybe that's all the time, and he'll have
with the child. It's it's not there's nothing ideal about
this situation, and government makes it worse. I can see
your point at the highest level. All right, I wish
I had more time. I mean, I feel, I really
feel for this guy, which is why I want to
(28:42):
give him at least a start in the hopes that
maybe he'll be able to get a little, you know,
clean studio apartment, a place when he's free he can
see his child. Quick break right back, will continue, right,
that's gonna wrap things up for today. Hannity Tonight nine
Eastern on the Fox News Channel, full complete coverage of
(29:03):
the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. What will President
Trump do? Will he take out this one remaining nuclear site?
We'll get full coverage with New Gingrich his take. Horace
Cooper Tonight, also Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, Horace Cooper and
Tommy larn Nine Eastern Hannity and Fox will see you tonight.
(29:24):
Back here tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.