Gingrich: Americans should be frightened by unmasking

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," September 21, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Continue Reading Below

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Welcome to "Hannity." This is a Fox News Alert.

Top Obama administration officials are now at the very center of a shocking surveillance scandal. It should terrify every single American who values their privacy, their freedom and constitutional rights, Fox News tonight reporting that former ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power made hundreds of unmasking requests in the build-up to the 2016 election, get this, averaging nearly one request per working day in what was a frantic effort to uncover the names of American citizens whose communications were literally being surveilled by our own government.

Now, this comes on the heels of another troubling discovery this week. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was wiretapped by the federal government before and after the 2016 election. And now former director of national intelligence James Clapper -- he is now admitting that President Trump himself may have been incidentally surveilled.

Here's the deal. Tonight, we will break down these unbelievable new developments, of course, the mainstream media refuses to cover. Also tonight, we'll examine a two-tiered justice system in this country. It needs to be exposed. It needs to be stopped. And we're going to call out every single person and institution. We need investigations. This is tonight's very important constitutional "Opening Monologue."

So for over 70 years, the U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations -- well, they've has been the face of American diplomacy. But under the Obama administration, Samantha Power appears to have taken on a much different, much more sinister role.

Continue Reading Below

According to brand-new Fox News reports, Samantha Power had made hundreds of requests to unmask the identities of Americans whose conversations were captured by the federal foreign intelligence reporting -- get this -- exceeding 260 requests just in the election year of 2016 alone.

Sources are now telling Fox News that Samantha Power also, quote, "even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump's inauguration." According to this report, the sheer volume of unmasking requests from the former U.N. ambassador is unprecedented.

Now, sadly, with Samantha Power making these requests nearly every single working day in 2016, we must ask the question. Was she weaponizing the tools of intelligence and using the intel community to spy on an opposition party during the 2016 presidential election?

And that's not the only shocking report we have tonight. Just this week, we did learn that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort -- he was wiretapped by federal investigators through a secret FISA court order before and after the 2016 presidential election, including -- get this -- possible communications with the president were picked up.

Now, earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal, they published an article. It was entitled, "Did Obama know about Comey surveillance?" Now, the piece openly speculates that high-ranking officials inside the Obama White House and President Obama himself may have been briefed on the FISA surveillance.

Now, unbelievably, in March of this year, former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper -- he said there was no FISA warrant. You may remember this.


JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time as a candidate or against his campaign.

CHUCK TODD, MODERATOR: There is no FISA court order.

CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

MODERATOR: Of anything at Trump Tower.



HANNITY: Hang on! Isn't this guy -- wasn't he once suspected of lying to Congress?

Also remember this, Paul Manafort was wiretapped at Trump Tower, according to these reports. But guess what? Clapper is now singing a very different tune, admitting that communications from Trump himself -- all right, then a candidate, and then of course the president-elect -- may have been captured by the surveillance! Watch what he said last night.


DON LEMON, CNN: Is it possible the president was picked up in a conversation with Paul Manafort?

CLAPPER: It's certainly conceivable.


HANNITY: Now, we'll have more on this later tonight. Jay Sekulow and Sharyl Attkisson -- remember, she was spied on also.

But first here, the American people have been lied to. You've been lied to repeatedly. And nobody on the left, no one in the mainstream media seems to care.

Now, let's talk about the Russia collusion investigation for a minute. Now, it's become very evident that Mueller and his team are hell-bent -- in my opinion -- they want to indict Paul Manafort and possibly even retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn. Mueller is on a witch hunt, and by the way, the media is helping him every day build this into a feeding frenzy.

This week, The Washington Post -- you know, they have so many false reports -- they reported on an email exchange between Manafort and a Russian billionaire, where Manafort actually offered to give the businessman briefings related to the campaign, the 2016 campaign. Now, a Manafort spokesman called the email exchange innocuous, and when you read the words of the actual exchange, he's right.

Manafort has been very open about his past international business dealings. So it wouldn't be a shocking revelation that he would have routine contact with a businessman. How are things going in the campaign? Wow. It could have been as innocent as that. Do we believe that you're innocent until proven guilty in this country? You wouldn't know it by watching the mainstream media.

Then the report even goes on to admit that there's zero evidence that these briefings even ever took place. That's what they're reporting. So what you have here in my opinion is contact, it's not collusion. And until evidence is provided, you have to assume that it was just contact.

Then you have retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Now, he has served his country with honor and distinction in the U.S. Army for over three decades. Does he deserve the presumption of innocence?

Now, he has been subjected to unmasking. He has even had his private phone conversations with a Russian diplomat -- well, that was leaked to the press. And that is a felony. That is a crime. That is a violation of the Espionage Act. In fact, it's the only crime we know for sure that was committed in the 11 months about talking about this. And as I've said multiple times on this program, if there is actual proof, hard evidence of collusion, please show us. We will report it right here on this program.

Here's another interesting fact we learned this week. Fox News also reporting that Mueller's team interviewed the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who happens to be the guy that appointed Robert Mueller. He's his boss. About what? The Russia investigation. Can anybody say conflict of interest? And remember Comey leaked to The New York Times for the purpose of his friend Mueller to become the special counsel.

Here's why all of this matters. It has now become evident, now more than ever, that in America, we have a two-tiered justice system in this country. You, the American people -- you are being fed garbage, lies, half-truths on a daily basis. You are being betrayed by these institutions that are supposed to protect you and be honorable, and in the case of the Justice Department, carry out the rule of law. You should be disgusted. I am. There are real crimes with real evidence of real collusion that is being ignored by the media, Robert Mueller, and even at this point, the Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

For example, an investigation needs to be opened into this unmasking and leaking intelligence scandal. Why was Samantha Power, the U.N. representative, unmasking all the names of these people leading up to the election, nearly one a day? Well, was it politically motivated? Seems to me like it's a very good possibility. Was she weaponizing intelligence in an election year to go after an opposition candidate?

And then you have former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice. And according to other reports, she also was responsible for rampant unmasking requests in 2016, including the identities of multiple Trump officials, senior officials.

And then you've got Ben Rhodes, close former aide to President Obama. And according to more reports, the House Intelligence Committee is looking to his requests for unmasking Americans. Then, of course -- you want real crimes? Look at the Clintons. Hillary actually committed felonies, real crimes, and was directly involved in serious scandals. Where are these investigations? Like when she and her aides -- oh, they destroyed State Department emails? That would be a crime. They were subpoenaed at the time. Then acid washed and BleachBit the servers and then cell phones smashed with hammers? That sounds like obstruction.

Don't forget she signed off -- you want a Russia collusion story? -- on a deal that gave up to 20 percent of America's uranium to a Russian company that donated up to $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, the people involved in that deal? Anyone hear the words bribery, paid to play?

And who can forget the time Bill Clinton secretly meets with the attorney general at the time, Loretta Lynch, on an airport tarmac only days before the FBI's conclusion of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's server. Why isn't that being investigated? Where's the outrage in the media in this country?

What about the investigation into the DNC server hack, and why didn't the DNC -- why wouldn't they hand over their computers that got hacked to the FBI and why did the FBI let them get away with it? And according to Comey's testimony, the bureau was only given access to forensic forms because the DNC would rather hire other people.

And speaking of DNC emails, if you're so concerned about Russia collusion and you want the truth, why haven't you reached out to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks? He knows where it came from, and he says it wasn't Russia, and he told me back in January it was not a state party as the source of the email hack. They're not speaking to Julian Assange.

And speaking of Mueller, what about his conflicts of interest? Eight of the 60 members on Mueller's team made political donations to Obama, Clinton and Democrats? And that only the start of it. Mueller, Comey, best friends? And as Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett continues to point out, that relationship could be a violation of two laws.

Then you have Comey -- he may have broken the law, drafting memos on government computers, removing those documents from the FBI. Comey admitted under oath that he has his friend leak the contents of the memos to The New York Times in hopes that a special counsel would be appointed. And it was.

And we can't forget about Comey testifying that Loretta Lynch pressured him to call the investigation a matter. And he took the talking points as his own. Where's the investigation into possible Ukrainian election interference? Politico reports back in January, "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire: Kiev officials scrambling to make amends with president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton." Wow!

There also needs to be investigations into the disturbing amount of deep state leaks. Senate report, almost a leak a day in the beginning of the Trump presidency. That's insanity, and it's illegal!

So it's becoming a clear and present danger not only to the president but to people around him, but to the country, to the Constitution, to the rights -- our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Really? Where's the DOJ? When are they going to crack down on these leaks? Anybody care about Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her former IT staffer and that scandal? Where's the special counsel there? Why did the former DNC chair keep him on the payroll? He had double-billed with everything else we just laid out here.

This is the danger. It is clearly in America today a two-tiered justice system, and that's sad, that's real, that's scary. How can we believe in equal justice under the law? This is now becoming beyond a constitutional crisis, in my opinion.

Joining us now, New York Times best-selling author of "Understanding Trump," former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He also has a new on- line course called Defending America.

I know it's long. I know it's drawn out. But everything I said is true.


HANNITY: I -- you're laughing.

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FMR. HOUSE SPEAKER, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: Well, no, I'm just saying, look, the reason it has to be long is we have never, ever in American history had as many different scandalous behaviors by a president and his team as we are now learning from Barack Obama and his team. This is an amazing -- excuse me -- when I look at what Samantha Power was doing, by itself, that's unbelievable. Why does the U.N. ambassador have to unmask anybody?

And my number one goal in this conversation is to get across that the House and the Senate have to open up serious, in-depth investigations. They need to bring Powers (sic) in under oath and go through every single unmasking. Why did you ask for this? What did you do with the information? What was the purpose of doing it? Who else knew about it? And then they got to do the same thing with Rice and they got to do the same thing with Attorney General Lynch and they got to go right down the list.

And ultimately, I think, they're going to have to ask President Obama, Did all of this occur and you didn't know it? Do you truly want us to believe that the IRS, the FBI, the Justice Department, the NSA, the State Department, the CIA -- all of these were being used for illegal purposes and you as president didn't notice it? I think it's astonishing.

I think you're exactly right to take this length of time to introduce it because it's amazing how the elite media is avoiding bringing the dots together and painting the picture. And they should be terrified. I mean, every reporter in the country should be frightened of the idea of the executive branch of this government, as powerful as it is, suddenly becoming lawless and deciding it's going to target individuals and go after people.

HANNITY: Mr. Speaker, it's 24/7. Everybody wants Paul Manafort indicted. It's, like, they want Paul -- but they really want the president. For them, Paul Manafort is just collateral damage. Here's the issue that really bothers me. You're right about the Republicans. You're right these investigations -- they're not happening, though. The deputy attorney general didn't appoint a special counsel here. I don't know what the attorney general is doing, Jeff Sessions.

But there is to me a sense of -- OK, if we're going to go after Paul Manafort and you're going to go after a 30-year career military person like General Flynn, maybe you need to go after everybody else because the evidence against Hillary alone, the questions about unmasking and surveillance leaks alone render a threat to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, and I don't see it!

GINGRICH: Well, look, I'm with you. I don't -- I mean, Attorney General Sessions did not recuse himself from any of the things we're now discussing. He could instruct the FBI to open up a case. But at the same time, I would say to the House and Senate -- and both parties, by the way - - I mean, when you start seeing the power of the FBI or the power of the CIA being suborned for political reasons, you know, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you ought to be frightened about the future of freedom in America because we build very powerful institutions to defend us from foreign enemies and to defend us from criminals, and if those institutions start being corrupted, we are in deep trouble as a country.

HANNITY: I've lost faiths in all these institutions. Add (ph) the media to the list. Have you?

GINGRICH: I'm -- I -- I -- yes, the truth is, we're in one of the great crises in American history. And I think it's got to start -- the one place you could imagine right this minute aggressively digging into this is the Congress. I cannot understand why the Republicans in the House and Senate are not being dramatically more aggressive. I mean, they're being handed story after story after story that proves that there was something really sick in the Obama administration. And just General Clapper, who I've known for years and I've respected for years -- just his behavior over the last year is absolutely beyond me.

And he ought to be brought back in and they ought to go through step by step. And I noticed that he worded things very carefully. If you go back to the part you played...

HANNITY: Yes, he did.

GINGRICH: Nobody in his particular institution. But I think that was, in effect, functionally not being honest.

HANNITY: It sounded very Clintonian. Mr. Speaker, we got a lot more to get to. We need to talk to you next about health care straight ahead.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." So the GOP effort to finally repeal and replace, or at least on some level "Obama care" continues. Senator Lindsey Graham -- he stopped by my radio show yesterday to talk about the latest health care bill amendment. Take a listen to this.


HANNITY: Rand Paul was on yesterday. His biggest complaints are this. It doesn't repeal "Obama care" and the taxes stay. Is that true?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: No, not completely. We repeal the individual mandate and employer mandate, which are the heart and soul of "Obama care."

GINGRICH: That's big. And Planned Parenthood is defunded.

GRAHAM: They're taken out at the federal level. Yes, that's defunded. The money goes to the CHIPs program, which gives it high protection in terms of the pro-life community. We repeal the medical device tax. We take the other taxes and we block grant them. Under ObamaCare, four states get 40 percent of the money. (INAUDIBLE) California, Massachusetts and Maryland, they['re very high-cost Medicaid blue states. So Kentucky's governor's on board because he believes he can do a better job with the money than "Obama care" does for Kentucky. The president's on board because this truly is draining the swamp. It is a repeal and replace.


HANNITY: All right, back with us, former speaker of the House, FOX News contributor Newt Gingrich is with us. All right, Mr. Speaker, it's not pure federalism, but as conservatives, we -- I think governors -- legislators, state legislators, are going to be more responsible to the people in their state than the federal government, and I think they'll get a lot more bang for their buck. In principle, I like it. There's a few things I want to make sure happens. California is going bankrupt now. When they misappropriate their -- misappropriate their money, they can't come back hat in hand begging all these red states that came up with great innovative ideas and manage the money well and say, Give us more, we screwed it up. I'm afraid that'll happen.

GINGRICH: Well, they'll try. Look, the whole secret to the blue states is how much money they get and why they don't like the new formula. The new formula gradually moves towards every state getting per person the same amount of money. Now, if you're New York or you're California, you think it's a terrible idea because you want all the extra money. The fact is, a lot of states are going to do very innovative things. Some of them are going to break through. Others will copy the ones that are succeeding.

That's how America is supposed to work. We spent the last 40 years trying to build a national system with national rules and national bureaucrats. It hasn't worked. I think this is a very clever step in the right direction, and I really do give both Graham and Cassidy credit for having had the courage to out -- and frankly, Rick Santorum, former senator who's worked with them to develop this. I think it's a very good step in the right direction. I hope they can get the votes to pass it next week.

HANNITY: I hope so. I still want to see some of the language, as I'm sure you probably do. And I think everybody needs to see the language so we know exactly what we're getting into. There's always those Washington, D.C., swamp surprises that the public finds out later. We don't need to pass the bill to find out what's in it, which I know you would agree with.

Here's the thing. We've got four senators we're watching very closely. One is Lindsey Graham's best friend, John McCain. What's he going to do? What's Lisa Murkowski, what's Susan Collins going to do? You know, what are some of these other senators going to do?

GINGRICH: Well, my sense is that they have a better chance of getting Lisa Murkowski's vote on this than they did earlier. And here's one of the points I'd make to conservatives. There may be some horse-trading here at the last minute to get the last vote. This is not a perfect bill. There's not going to be a perfect bill. This is so much better than "Obama care." It is such an important step in the right direction.

You know, I would say to all my conservative friends, try to find a way to vote yes, not try to find a way to vote no because I think you have to do it in the context of the real world, and the real world is the collapsing "Obama care" system, which is leaving more and more counties with either one insurance company or no insurance companies. So I think in terms of the average American, this is a very useful, very positive step in the right direction. And I have glimmerings that they may actually pull this together.

HANNITY: All right, Mr. Speaker, appreciate you being with us. That course you have is up on for people if they want to take a look at it about national defense. Good to see you, sir.

And when we come back, you don't want to miss Sharyl Attkisson. Guess what? Obama spied on her. She and Jay Sekulow straight ahead.


JACKIE IBANEZ, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from America's news headquarters I'm Jackie Ibanez in New York.

A race against time in central Mexico following Tuesday's deadly 7.1 earthquake. Rescuers frantically searching for victims who might still be alive under massive heaps of rubble, the worst site of death and destruction in Mexico City. At least 273 people killed.

Another grim scene in Puerto Rico in the wake of hurricane Maria. It could be months before full power is restored there. The tragedy compounded by catastrophic flooding and roads of destroyed homes.

And North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is calling President Trump deranged. Kim goes on to say that the president will, quote, "pay dearly" for his combative speech at the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday. South Korean media meantime reports that they North is also threatening to test a hydrogen bomb. A diplomat from Pyongyang says it could be the most powerful detonation of a H-bomb in the Pacific.

I'm Jackie Ibanez. Now back to "Hannity."

HANNITY: All right, so the Obama administration, their spying scandal continues to grow. Yesterday Sharyl Attkisson wrote an op- ed in The Hill entitled "It looks like Obama did spy on Trump just as he apparently did me." As we told you earlier in the program, sources telling Fox News the former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power was unmasking Americans almost one a day.

Joining us now with reaction is the author of "The Smear," the host of "Full Measure," Sharyl Attkisson, and from the American for Law and Justice and President Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow. Sharyl, I just want to hand it to you because you are right, it did happen. This unmasking at a level we never even imagined before. I want people to hear your story because this is so important.

SHARYL ATTKISSON, ANCHOR, "FULL MEASURE": Mine began before we heard about what the government had done to the Associated Press and FOX News, before Edward Snowden. I had intel sources come to me and suggest that I was likely being monitored by the intel community or by certain actors in the Obama administration because of the stories I was doing.

Long story short, some people in the intel community helped me because they thought this was so egregious, had forensics done on my computers, multiples computers from CBS and my personal computers, and three independent exams have seen and proven forensics that they used government proprietary software to monitor my keystrokes, planted confidential classified documents in my computer, watched much of what I was doing, exfiltrated files, listened in on my audio. We have dates, times, and methods for a lot of this as well as government owned IP addresses found in my computer.

HANNITY: Jay Sekulow, this is not the country that I know with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. That sounds to me like the weaponizing of the tools of intelligence to attack people they don't like or political opponents.

JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Well, we know that was in fact what happened. So let's be clear about a couple things. Our friend James Rosen, what happened the Sharyl, what happened to others, the idea that you would utilize the intelligence community to spy on your enemies domestically -- again, it's not only outrageous but it's illegal. Couple that with the fact, and we now know this, the unmasking that was going on.

And by the way, the U.N. ambassador Samantha Power unmasking basically almost a person a day and especially picked up towards the end of their political run, if you will, at the end of their term, President Obama's term -- ask yourself this question. Why did they decide at that point to quickly start unmasking -- and that means, by the way, we are talking about American citizens as well that are being unmasked by the U.N. ambassador. She served on the National Security Council. Well, that's great, but the fact is this unmasking which was supposed to not have taken place often, was supposed to utilize minimization techniques, apparently these were advisory rules for the previous administration rather than the actual rules of law that apply. And I think the tragedy in all of this is the American people are the ones that pay the consequence.

HANNITY: So if Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and again, in the case of Samantha Power, unmasking a person a day, when does that become the role of U.N. ambassador? That's beyond bizarre and that's unprecedented and that raises questions this was all political. But here's my question. With all the nonstop chatter in the media about Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. It's clear they have now got a big target on Paul Manafort, for example. But then you have got all those people unmasking, surveillance, intelligence leaking, a crime. You've got all of Hillary Clinton's felonies. We've been over this many, many times. They've you've got a leak in a day. Then you've got Mueller and Rosenstein and Comey. Where is the congress? Where is the special counsel. What is the attorney general doing here? And shouldn't he be playing a big role in investigating what seems to be real crimes and maybe constitutional violations like in the case of Sharyl?

SEKULOW: Look, I think that, first of all, they may be doing that. Sean, if it was done properly and there is an investigation going on, we would not know that. So I would hope that the whole aspect of the leaking scandal that is taking place now for months and months and months including conversations that the president had with foreign leaders -- this is not something that should be tolerated in any administration no matter what your political leaning is. This is just, frankly, illegal again and outrageous. But we know that it was taking place.

So what we are hopeful is that there is actually an investigation going on. I don't know this for a fact. Speculation on my part. I don't have any independent knowledge of it, but you necessarily would not. So you would not necessarily know that there was. So you can be hopeful that there is in fact an ongoing investigation and that this aspect of leaking national security matters will stop.

HANNITY: Sharyl, I've had good people in the intelligence community that told me I was unmasked. I've never been able to corroborate that. I have no idea if that's ever happened. I'm watching what happened to you, and you can give dates and times. What recourse as a citizen with constitutional rights do you have because you can prove your case?

ATTKISSON: Not much. The only reason I can prove it is because I had help from people inside the Obama intel community that thought this was so egregious they gave me the tools that I wouldn't normally have had to find this information forensically. I have a 2.5-year-old lawsuit. There's a hearing tomorrow, in fact, against the Department of Justice which the current Department of Justice continues to fight rather than directing them to tell the truth, follow the law, and get us the facts. They are continuing to fight this in federal court.

That's the only recourse and most people can't do that. It's very expensive and time-consuming. It's very hard to sue the government. You have to go through a lot of processes and get permission. It's almost insurmountable.

HANNITY: We will continue our investigation. Thank you both. Wow. Scary. Lou Dobbs is next.



TRUMP: The order enhances the treasury department's authorities to target any individual or entity that conducts significant trade in goods, services, or technology with North Korea. And I'm very proud to tell you that, as you may have just heard moments ago, China -- their central bank -- has told their other banks, it's a massive banking system, to immediately stop doing business with North Korea.


HANNITY: That was the president earlier today announcing a new executive order on North Korea. Joining us now with his reaction, FOX Business anchor -- number one in business for how many years?



HANNITY: Lou Dobbs. The president had a huge success today, and that is that he got the Chinese to do something we wanted them to do, and that is, now they are involved.

DOBBS: They're involved and they are doing something substantive and real, and no one can simply dismiss what this president again has achieved diplomatically, and that is to have these Chinese banks bring down the hammer on any flow of capital to North Korea or from North Korea. It's immensely important.

HANNITY: They've been starving their own people for years.

DOBBS: Absolutely.

HANNITY: We read a story this week about the persecution and murder that Kim Jong-un is doing against its own people. Now that China and banks halt business, and now that the president is also calling on other nations to do the same, how much pressure does this put on North Korea? Does that stop him?

DOBBS: I don't think it stops him. I do think that for the first time, think about this. For the first time an American president has succeeded in putting maximum economic pressure against North Korea because he believes he and Xi Jinping could actually work together to stop the monster that China has created over the course of the past 50 years. And that is where the responsibility lies, and China knows that the world is about to understand that fully in the month ahead.

HANNITY: What do you make at the hysterical media reaction, that they are more angry at the term "Rocket man" than they are the guy that is creating such destabilization, firing rockets over Japan, our ally, threatening Guam, our territory, and intercontinental ballistic missiles could hit New York City and Boston?

DOBBS: This shallowness of the ideological automatons that make up the far left of the Democratic Party, and I am talking about Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, I'm talking about the entire national security apparatus of the Obama administration, they are working harder to be an obstacle to the Trump administration, which has already achieved more with North Korea than presidents Bush, Clinton, or Obama. For them to engage in this publicly is simply to reveal to the American people what the American people are learning is just simply fatuous nonsense emanating from the mouths of these politicos of the left.

HANNITY: If this is not an abject lesson of bribery of dictators does not work, and I believe we will be in the same position a few years from now with Iran because that is not going to work either.

While I've got you here, I want to pick your economic mind for a minute and I want to talk about Graham-Cassidy. Here's the starting point which I'm trying to explain to people. When you have 100 Republicans that have no intention of keeping their word and seven senators have voted in 2015 to repeal but had intention to do it when it mattered, it puts everybody in a difficult spot. They did want to keep their word and repeal and replace Obamacare. As a conservative I love the idea of federalism. This is not pure federalism.

DOBBS: Amen, brother.

HANNITY: OK, love the idea. I want to see the bill first. But when California goes single-payer and they misappropriate the funds and they are out of money, they can't come back at hat in hand to Kentucky and all these red states whose governors will come up with creative solutions for health care. That's my fear.

DOBBS: I think your fears are absolutely justified. We are watching California, as you say, it is heading straight for not a train wreck, a train wreck over a cliff. It's economically impossible to achieve with what they are trying to do. Single-payer at the state level, they're an economy that is one of the largest --

HANNITY: It's 13.5 percent State income tax.

DOBBS: And they are the most taxed state in the use, and people are fleeing California, productive people, high net worth people. The idea of Graham-Cassidy is a good one.

HANNITY: Block grants.

DOBBS: Block grants, federalism, the Fifth Amendment, all of that is great to rally to.

HANNITY: Would you if you were a senator?


HANNITY: You would not.

DOBBS: Because as a senator I took seriously what the leadership of the Republican Party said when they took control of the Senate and the House. They are going to regular order, they're going to have committees.

HANNITY: Good to see her, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Great to see you, Sean.

HANNITY: When come back, "Hannity" shoot-out. Tomi Lahren and Jessica Tarlov, that's straight ahead.



MELANIA TRUMP, U.S. FIRST LADY: It demands our generation's moral integrity to take responsibility for what our children learn. We must turn our focus right now to the message and content they are exposed to on a daily basis through social media, the bullying, the experience online and in person.


HANNITY: That was the first lady, Melania Trump, speaking at the U.N. yesterday about cyber-bullying. So how did the left and liberals react? They attacked the first lady online. One person tweeted, "Just watched Melania Trump's speech. For some reason it made me think of the blueberry girl from "Willy Wonka," whatever that means. And during an interview Hillary Clinton even took a shot at the first lady for not doing enough. Really?

Joining us now, Fox News contributors Tomi Lahren and Jessica Tarlov. You know if this ever happened -- when we criticize Michelle Obama, conservatives, when she injected herself into politics and said for the first time in my adult life I am out of my country, the left went nuts. They made fun of Melania's shoes which she wears to the hurricane Harvey aftermath. Where is your side defending women here?

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Right here. There are a couple out there.

HANNITY: Hillary Clinton didn't.

TARLOV: The point that Hillary Clinton made was a policy point and I think that's completely sound. Don't pick on her outfit. It also was fabulous. But Melania Trump picking up cyber-bullying as her patron saint cause after what Donald Trump tweeted even just last weekend, right, the golf swing and the golf ball hitting Hillary in the back --

HANNITY: Really. Are you that humorless?

TARLOV: You really laughed at that? If that had been a conservative, if the golf ball had gone --

HANNITY: There's pictures about me. It's funny.

TARLOV: I laugh at you all the time on the Internet, for sure.


HANNITY: Tomi gets hit harder than me. Tomi, you just don't do what the left does. Conservatives wouldn't do it, and if they did do it, they'd be ridiculed and raked over the coals.

TOMI LAHREN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Here's my question for Jessica. Isn't it supposed to be a platform the left loves? We are talking about bullying, we're talking about cyber-bullying, we're talking about being an advocate for that. Melania Trump is coming out as something that's not partisan at all. This is just a human thing. But yet they attack her for what she's wearing. Again, where are the feminist? They never come out.

TARLOV: What do you mean? The feminists are everywhere. They are just not supporting Kellyanne Conway who advocates for policies that hurt women.

HANNITY: Stop it. Stop.


LAHREN: We are not talking about Kellyanne Conway. We are talking about Melania Trump.

TARLOV: Really? You think that if you advocate for an agenda that does not help women get better access to health care, that does not raise the minimum wage, that does not support maternity leave --


HANNITY: One at a time. Tomi?

LAHREN: We are talking about cyber-bullying. We're talking about Melania Trump advocating for an end cyber-bullying. But yet the left goes after her and they ridicule her. I don't see the feminists coming out saying, hey, leave a woman alone. Leave an empowered female alone. I don't see the feminists doing that. I don't.

TARLOV: I totally take your point. I think that Melania should not be ridiculed for taking the cause, certainly not ridiculed for her outfit. I was outraged when people went after Michelle Obama because she wore J. Crew. And Melania -- but the issue with her taking up cyber-bullying when her husband is the biggest cyber bully of them all is the problem. Why isn't she advocating for this at home?

HANNITY: Can I just say this. You attacked Kellyanne Conway.

TARLOV: I like Kellyanne.

HANNITY: For you to say she doesn't advocate for women, she is the first woman to ever win a national campaign as a campaign manager.

TARLOV: A campaign that was awful to women.

HANNITY: Because she's pro-life.

TARLOV: There are many Democrats that campaign as pro-life, Joe Biden is pro-life.

HANNITY: The point is, why are you attacking her?

TARLOV: I am attacking the agenda she supports.

HANNITY: Women who are strong and independent.

TARLOV: Listen, as I said, I like Kellyanne Conway a lot, I have great respect for what she achieved. There should have been more articles about what she accomplished. The issue is with the agenda that she and the Trump administration promote.

HANNITY: Tomi, what's anti-woman about Trump's agenda?

LAHREN: I think what's interesting is you've got President Trump who has empowered many women. Look at his press secretary, look at his White House communications director, look at his campaign manager, all women. He has empowered women. But no, the left, they like to forget that because he sent off some mean tweets. That's all they can think about. He doesn't actually think about the steps and the actions of President Trump, what's he done to actually advance women.

TARLOV: Please, Tomi.

HANNITY: Are you so sensitive, the people on the left? Did you ever hear the sticks and stones things? You know what, liberals are vicious to conservatives constantly.

TARLOV: I think both sides are vicious.

HANNITY: So call out your site appear

TARLOV: I call you out and I for liberals to attack on the basis of core policies and not poor fashion, even though I did like that outfit.

HANNITY: Thank you both. More "Hannity" next.


HANNITY: Unfortunately, that is all the time we have left this evening. Don't forget, starting Monday we are back to our old time slot, 9:00 p.m. eastern. There are liberals that do not want us to succeed, so we want your help.

Anyway, this show will always be fair and balanced, will never be the establishment, destroy-Trump media. Thank you for being without us. We'll see you back here tomorrow night.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.