sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. we leave you from kyoto, truly one of the most beautiful cities in the world. we meeting with the president at the end of the week. see you tomorrow. ♪ >> sean: and welcome to "hannity." tonight, we start with a fox news alert to robert mueller set to text by, it can all backfire as we predicted yesterday, ami democrats, the media mob, i will explain in my monologue coming up. wait until you see lawrence in the streets of miami. also, gregg jarrett with his top nine questions for robert mueller, straight ahead. but first, big breaking news tonight exposed and even more anti-trump bias inside deep state. we have the story, the rest of the media mob they will ignore, as usual, as they continue to cling, like a lifeblood to their lives, their conspiracy theories. i told you this was all coming, that it was one of the missing pieces to the entire puzzle. we now have new documents

obtained today by the american center for law and justice, now reported on by "the hill"'s john solomon come under viable evidence of anti-trunk bias from top obama administration officials come in this case, the former u.s. ambassador to the united nations peered under obama, samantha power. proof of sheer political panic about what was the incoming trump administration back in 2016, a frenzy of activity. remember, samantha power is at the center of what was a drastic and shocking, and frankly troubling, increase in the unmasking by top obama officials in 2016 of trump transition members, and yes, people in the general public. a 350% increase unmasking the names, the identities, of americans, and these requests, including hundreds -- the u.n. ambassador? why was the u.n. ambassador unmasking anybody?

she did not have regular intelligence gathering and spuds abilities. why? for example, when an american is speaking speaking to a foreigner, and the american is not up to any nefarious activities, why would the procedure, the process, the minimization, why was i not being followed? usually when they write an a report, they don't say who? when you unmask the identity, why did they do that, what political reason? it appears because they hate donald trump i didn't try to hide it. whatever happened in this country to civil rights, civil liberties, right to privacy, miranda rights, a cornerstone of our constitutional republic? we already know they spied repeatedly on the trump campaign, we know they committed premeditated fraud on a fisa court to spy on and hurt a presidential candidate so he would lose, then president-elect, and then president, all based on political, bought and paid for, russian lies that they could not verify, but they lied and said

they did, and tried to use those lies as the basis to rig and later undo an election. exposing americans identities when they spy on them without a warrant? that is abuse of power. that is a direct threat to all americans' civil liberties. for example, in a 2016 email from obama's u.n. ambassador on an official government account, powers rights to the artistic director of the public theater in new york, saying "explain our political system in a way that will fleetingly make it seem rational, though maybe not after trump and sanders win new hampshire," showing a clear animus, hatred for the then-candidate. it gets worse, emails also show apparent efforts to undercut the incoming administration using the media. in the late 2016 email response to univision's jorge ramos, about an exit interview, power responded "if we do something,

we will make it good. ptsd in retreat, trump has vanquished it." other messages show efforts to use government speeches and efforts to promote the trump-russia collusion conspiracy, undercut trump policy agenda items. we reached out to samantha power for a comment, haven't heard back. i would think maybe she is smarter than comey, clapper, brandon, may be exercising her right to remain silent. we'll have more on this in my monologue in just a moment, but first come here to explain a lot more, "the hill"'s john solomon, part of breaking the story, this freedom of information act request from the acl jay come also talked to jay sekulow. john, timmy, we go back, just like executive order 12333, where we know there was a frenzy of activity last weeks to impose on the new administration, rules of the obama administration did not impose on themselves, the sharing of raw, signal intelligence with 17 agencies,

and not three. and now this particular case, 350% increase in unmasking of american citizens? in one year? 2016, an election year? why? >> well, samantha powers is a big reason why because it was her authority to use to justify those unmaskings, but remember, congress has been not able to solve this riddle. she doesn't know whether it was her staff are other people who did the unmaskings in her name here that shows a looseness in the system, a disregard for american privacy that should concern us all, but i think at the heart, jay sekulow's group did such a great job fighting the 2-your lawsuit to get the records where you see three things geared one, a clear animus against trump. no prohibition about expressing politics or engaging in politics under government email, the same thing we saw with strzok and page. but here is the more troubling thing, you see in the november november 9th to meg janney were 20th period, when the president

was preparing to take over, and overt effort by samantha power, her inner circle, to use the wheels of government to try to thwart or shame donald trump. they are talking about turning his immigration policies against him, doing an interview with 60 minutes, giving a speech at a ceremony to try to call attention to the differences with trump's policies. they are acting like a campaign -- and even have oppo research operation going, pulling trump's clips and saying hey, we can use this in a speech. the final act that ambassador power does, she gives a speech three days from the end of the obama administration, and it is designed to portray donald trump as soft on russia. we know that is not true given the sanctions now imposed on russia, but the whole effort of building the russian narrative on the way out of the door, thwarting the president, harming his reputation, it is all being done and it is being done at taxpayer expense. >> sean: you broke the story with sara carter in march of 2017. we talked at length about this, but this is about american

citizens. to have a 350% increase in unmaskings in one year, an election year, a year we know an investigation was rigged, that there was a premeditated fraud committed on fisa courts to spy on the campaign, spying overseas against a presidential candidate, then spying on a presidential -- a president-elect, and spying on a president. now it seems to take on greater and greater significance every day. >> yeah, and i think for the investigators who worked this were to go or three years, these emails raising new question: was her motive and the unmasking to harm trump? was her bias against trump part of the motive for her and her staff to do these unmaskings? we don't know that answer. we should give her the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete, but there is clear evidence of bias and anti-trump sentiment, and just we ask of strzok and page and the answers we got there, we need to know whether the state department that specifically the u.n. ambassador allowed this bias to result in

the unmaskings of names. >> sean: all right, john solomon, investigative reporter, also of executive vice president of "the hill" there thank you for being with us. if you combine these revelations about -- again, a u.n. ambassador, why would she have any need to unmask anybody? well, you combine this with all of that, and what we just revealed days ago about what was a total overhaul of the u.s. intel gathering and sharing in the final days of the obama administration, an executive order 12333, well, a mad scramble, days before trump is inaugurated and urgency to get this done, something they had never done in the last eight years, klapper's dni using the executive order to expand the sharing of raw signal intelligence from three agencies to 17, why would the outgoing and administration want to impose these new standards on an incoming administration with an urgency and intensity, the boss wants and needs this done? why weren't they impose on themselves for eight years? vastly expanding this access of

important, raw intelligence that needs to be kept on a need-to-know basis. why was it then meant to be harder to trace the information, harder to weed out leakers, hold anybody accountable, that perhaps missed misuse that powd authority? you see what is going on here? the obama deep state cabal, they didn't expect trump to win, undercutting the trump administration from all angles before they even walked in the door, unmasking, and expanding of sharing this raw signal intelligence, coordination with the media mob, and then, of course, using a bought and paid for russian dossier that can't be verified, that its own author doesn't stand by, yeah, to spy on the president, the president-elect, and of course, the presidential candidate in the beginning. rather working with the incoming putin, obama officials were doing everything they could to undermine it. here now with reaction come at the heart of breaking both of these big stories, the attorney for the president, chairman for

the american center for law and justice, they are the ones who got this information through the foia request, jay sekulow. and sadly, he has had to do legal work for me on more than one occasion, and i am probably his worst client, but i'm just guessing. good to see you, jay. >> hey, sean. you are a great client. >> sean: let's go to the very heart of this. we talked about 12333, that's a big deal. >> yep. >> sean: that ought to be on a need-to-know basis only. the intelligence gathering that we have, those tools are so powerful. one. number two, where talking about civil liberties of every american. now unmasking american citizens that have done nothing wrong for no reason, we have standards and procedures that are supposed to be strictly followed. how do you justify a 350% increase, or a u.n. ambassador requesting such? >> you can't, because here's what is happening. look, the pieces are starting to come together, so we now know that cross fire hurricane, the initial investigation was ongoing back in 2016. we also know that during the

course of the campaign, there was spying on the campaign. and that was activity that was done to people involved in the campaign. that issue is being resolved -- investigated right now. then we have, you mentioned 12333, that comes in january of 2018, were all of a sudden, after eight years, the administration, with the days left in its administration, they changed the intelligence sharing information so that it goes to more people. harder to trace, more opportunities for getting information out, not appropriately, by the way. and that takes place. again, eight years under the previous administration, they don't change a paired with weeks to go, they do care that you have the unmasking issue. this is all related. this comes in the fall of 2017, going about that time period. and here's what you have -- the unmaskings were going on before that, but we've got the emails after the election from some at samantha power. they were in political panic. that is what this was. you have to put all of these issues together to realize what

was going on here. and then the president of the united states, before he was sworn in, you've got samantha power saying notwithstanding this, we are still -- this is an email to "60 minutes." we are reeling here as you might imagine. notwithstanding, this has given a greater sense of urgency to get our work done in the last few months. 70 good, long days left. they're not coordinated with the incoming and administration here, they are rigging the system against the administration that is coming in. no matter what political party you are, that should concern you, because you've got a transition going on in government, in our system, it is smooth, it is free, that's the way it works. but here was being not only manipulated and tainted, but the rules were being changed, then taking it a step further. then you have come on top of this, the fisa warrants were going on. we may well see those -- that information soon. by the way, sean, we're just now going through all of these documents. we've got a lot more to go through. but it is putting a pattern in place so you know exactly what is going on. what is the end result here?

sabotaging the administration before it got in place, and once it got in place, being able to basically surveil that administration, and then of course you have the strzok and page insurance policy, james comey, the faith dossier, bruce ohr, peter strzok emails, and then you have the whole situation with james comey leaking a memo that he wrote on a conversation he purportedly had with the president of the united states. he weeks that to a friend of his to go to the press so that a special counsel was appointed, and guess what? a special counsel appointed, two and a half years later, what do we have? no collusion, no obstruction, a $40 million bill, and now we are going to see testimony in the next couple of weeks. so that is what you have. so what is this? there was no obstruction, no collusion, there was no illegal conduct, no violation of the law. what happened here was a set up from the beginning. >> sean: jay sekulow, we're looking at pictures, by the way, the president. he has landed in anchorage, alaska, on his way to g20, and

beating the military. let me -- we're going to have gregg jarrett and top nine questions that need to be asked of robert mueller. let me ask you that question. there are some very, very tough questions that will be asked of him by the republicans on these committees. and i don't think that the democrats and the media mob are going to get -- they didn't get the result they expected, they are not going to get out of this hearing what they think they're going to get it. it's going to be, as i think, another boomerang. >> they have already lowered the expectations of what they are going to see coming solid from the statement of members of congress today. here's what's interesting here and i'm glad gregg has got 9. i got 5 for the first i would ask is why did you know and conclude there was no collusion, conspiracy with the russians on the trump campaign? and when was that period of time? it's going to be early on here but you kept this investigation going for what reason? was in entrapment, intent to cause a problem when you knew the basis upon which you were

appointed, there was no, as peter strzok said, they're there. i would also like to know this beard what you do the evidence that peter strzok gathered for, say, 60 months while he was working on this case. how did you allow his phone to be wiped clean, not inventoried, not cataloged, that was where the text messages were. how do you allow that to happen? how do you allow it to get reassigned to someone else? and on what legal basis did you decide, as the special counsel, that your job was to exonerate? that your standard of innocence here was not beyond a reasonable doubt to prove guilt, but rather, he would not be able to exonerate. who gave you that authority? so i have a lot of questions beard i'm sure gregg has come too, and i'm sure members of congress will have tough questions. doing all right, jay sekulow, counsel for the president, and chief counsel for the american federal law and justice. thanks for being with us. joining us now, and a member of the house intelligence many, devin nunes come along with fox news contributor, former republican congressman, trey gowdy is with us. guys, good to see you. at death then, i begin with you

it's interesting, we kind of have to sometimes pull back a little bit to start at the beginning. all of this could have been prevented if people listened to your warnings and your admonitions and your articles in early 2014, warning that the hostile regina of vladimir putin, the hostile actors of russia, would be doing this very thing. nobody did anything to stop that from happening. >> sean, and i thought jay sekulow did a great job of running through the american public and the viewers, everything that is starting to come together now hear this a step that trey and i worked on for two years until he left us and went and joined fox. and now wrote a book. i'm not faulting him for that. but this is all the pieces of the puzzle starting to come together. that was how i knew from the beginning that this was all a hoax, was because the obama administration had not only ignored what the republicans in

the house were telling them to do and our concerns we were raising about russia, they weren't even willing to spend the money we were giving them. >> sean: you know, trey gowdy, you kind of impressed me a little bit. a guy that used to be a prosecutor. i watched you, you have had a lot of good moments when you drill down into somebody, and usually gets pretty hot for that person, because you base things on facts. i want to ask you, one of the main questions you think are unanswered by robert mueller? i watched you on benghazi and other moments, you are a prosecutor that has never lost a case. what would you ask him, what needs to be answered? >> well, sean, thank you very much for having me on. i want to think in terms of buckets. i frankly would start, keep in mind, devin and jimmy and radcliffe only have 5 minutes, you have to be very strategic with a narrow goal appeared start with bias. you got rid of peter strzok because he wanted clint into win and trump to lose, yet he hired people who wanted clinton to win

and trump to lose. the how much bias are you willing to put up with? you fired strzok but hired a bunch of prosecutors that felt the same way. number two, somebody needs to ask about this legal issue, if you can resist an unlawful arrest. can you resist and on predicated investigation? which forces us two to go to the origins of this russia investigation, and how much time did he spend cycling through that? then i would go to what did you find? no collusion, no criminal collusion, despite two years. what did you not find? an indictable offense for obstruction of justice. and this is a category -- i would encourage you devin and jimmy to think about this -- what did you not bother to look for? just got through talking about something on the power and other people in the american government that may have wanted to influence either an election or the administration. we spent two years focused on whether a foreign country was going to influence or interfere with our election. mueller, did you look at our own

government? did you look at what our own people were doing to maybe put their finger on the scale? did you interview christopher steele? do you know which russians were feeding dirt to the american electorate via the dnc? do you interview glenn simpson? did you interview jim comey about why he leaked those memos? so there are five categories, bias, the legal issues, what did you find, what did you not find, and importantly, what did you not even bother to look for? >> sean: that's a great point. let's go to these new developments based on the foia request granted the aclj, devin nunes, and that would be samantha power, 350% increase of unmasking in 2016. that seems excessive to me. my understanding of surveillance and unmasking of american citizens, there are very strict guidelines. and when an american is identified in a phone call with perhaps somebody we are to be surveilling, they are not involved in any nefarious activity, we practice something called minimization. if the report is written up, the

american is not identified. but we do know, unmasking were rare, and then we had this increase in activity. how does that tie in to everything you investigated as a relates to the so-called collusion that never occurred? but when you factor it in to a rigged investigation to hillary, in my opinion, and of course, a pretty premeditated fraud on the fisa court, that seems problematic. >> you have probably the two best possible guests you can have on for this question, becae who uncovered through sources that these unmaskings had occurred. so we ran an unmasking investigation. trey is the right guy to have on tonight because he is the one who interviewed samantha power. what is just unexplainable in all of this -- how on earth could you unmask as many people? it was hundreds and hundreds of unmaskings. so what i said from the very

first day, when i brief the republicans on the committee, what i couldn't make any sense of is why there were so many unmaskings of trump transition officials during the transition time period. and then later, what we know and can get into specifics of it, but there were pieces of that intelligence that was leaked. that's not explainable, and mueller should have to answer that, too, did he ever look into all of those leaks? >> sean: if we lose trey gowdy trey gowdy, you are an attorney, our constitution is the basis, the foundation of our rule of law. equal justice under the law, equal application of our laws, very, very important concepts and principles. and more importantly, i think if we don't protect the civil liberties, these tools of intelligence can spy on every single word ever stated by anyone american. these are powerful but necessary tools, and we entrust, i believe, the best intelligence

people in the country -- 99% of them -- with these powerful tools to protect us. but if they are turned on the american people or they abuse these powers and they ignore civil liberties and miranda rights in the proper procedures to obtain a warrant where they would have a right to listen to a conversation, what is the danger? >> well, devin tried to get some reforms and we did reauthorization come a guy you might've heard named schiff from california insisted those were reforms not be part of the authorization for the unmasking request, if memory serves me, devin, the day of the inauguration. you have 30 minutes left, their service to the country, and they are making an unmasking request? here is what i will lose a little bit of patience -- devin did a great job -- but we have the head of the cia, the head of the dni, the head of the nsa, if we have unmasking questions, we shouldn't have to go to the hill with jay sekulow to get the

answers. these are people we put in position. devin, you want to be able to pick up the phone and find out what happened with this increase in unmasking requests. >> sean: all right, gentlemen, great job to both of you. you are peeled away that onion every day. thank you. when we come back, alan dershowitz said democrats will regret calling mueller to testify. he's back with sara carter, gregg jarrett, and later, instability of the left reaches new lows. we'll tell you what happened to eric trump, how he was spit on while eating dinner at a restaurant -- really?y? music music of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice." tickets not available now or ever.

at "progressive on ice." [ text notification now that you have] new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles with softer, bouncier gel waves, you'll move over 10% more than before. dr. scholl's. born to move.

♪ >> sean: all right, the predictable media mob kicking into overdrive, the molar media circus has already begun, but as professor alan dershowitz points out, mueller should not tell congress anything that is not in

his report. and the warnings are already coming in, this could really backfire. fox news, our analyst and fred gregg jarrett, author of "the russia hoax," he says serious qe believed mueller would face, tht he needs to face, like how did he not investigate hillary's campaign over the phony russian dossier? what about strzok and page and their blatant bias? why pick a team a partisan democrats, even hillary's attorney -- not one republican? and was any evidence in the phony, anti-trump dossier was verified before the fisa warrant was renewed? and what about, by the way, that would be hillary's vice a warrant, conflicts of interest, mueller close to comey, why didn't mueller honor the bedrock principle of presumptions of innocence, equal justice, things like this? and lastly, when the special counsel met with trump for the job to replace james comey, isn't it true that mueller discussed the reason why trump fired comey?

gregg jarrett was told they did discuss it, meaning mueller was a witness in his own case. required to disqualify himself get here with reaction to all of us, fox news contributor sara carter, author of "the number one best seller, the russia hoax, author of the year forward to the published mueller report, alan dershowitz. powerful questions, i summed them up, but you have a lot more detail. >> the most important question was the last one, may 16th, 2016, mueller interviewing to replace comey, isn't it true that you discussed with the president in the oval office, two witnesses they are, the reasons why the president fired james comey? if the answer is yes, we did discuss it, that means under the regulations, mueller was required to disqualify himself and say i can't take the job because he's a witness in his own case. you can't be a prosecutor and a chief witness simultaneously.

so that's very important. but at the top of the list, as you saw, the most important thing is, how could you investigate russian collusion and interference in the election without investigating how hillary clinton's campaign and the dnc paid for russian disinformation and fed it to the media and the fbi to influence the election? i mean, it's just astonishing to me that they are just a passing reference to the dossier in mueller's 448 pages. >> sean: you know, professor, civil liberties are important, gregg raises a good question. he investigated pharaoh violations, a broad mandate, and he did investigate, let's see, taxi medallions and loan applications, decades-old taxes that weren't paid -- by the way, pay your taxes and don't lie on a loan application, dumb idea. with all of that said, how do you then miss the dossier issue? how do you then miss lying to a

fisa court judge to take away the civil liberties of not only one individual, but spy on a presidential campaign in a multitude of ways, including lying and obtaining a fisa warrant under premeditated, false pretenses, committing fraud because you were warned completely that it was unverifiable? >> well, the irony is that all of the questions the democrats want to ask him, he's not entitled to answer. he can't answer any questions involving the investigation of president trump or his campaign, because that was the essence of the report. they decided there was no case for prosecution, and justice department regulations and traditions say that's it, you decided not to prosecute, don't do what comey did. don't talk about might have been, say that she was sloppy with her use of the emails, and don't say that president trump might have, b, c, d, you've already said it. the irony is the questions the republicans want to ask about

all of the issues that you and gregg have mentioned, are completely appropriate. because they are not in the report. and they are entitled to ask why isn't it in the report? why did you pick these people to be in the investigation? what about the fisa warrants? what about the steele dossier? anything that is not in the report -- >> sean: professor, you are very clear, he does not have the right to say i want to answer that, either. >> no, he can't say he won't answer that. he is under subpoena, and if the republicans asking that question, even though he is in the minority, he has to answer. he refuses to answer it, they won't vote to have him in contempt because the democrats have a majority, but he is obligated as a lawyer and officer of the court to answer any questions, he is under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. i'm a democrat, i hate to see the democrats shoot themselves in the foot, but they box themselves in -- >> sean: who would've thought that they would come. sean hannity and professor

dershowitz, we agree on so much about israel and the middle east, et cetera, we really do. but we are really fighting for, let's see, oh, civil liberties? you can't unmask american citizens without a warrant? you can't commit a fraud on a fisa court? >> let me tell you what else you can't do. you can't have prosecutors going in front of congress and explaining why they didn't prosecute the average american. if you have the african-american businessman under investigation and he is not prosecuted, congress and i was trying to establish a precedent whereby they can call a prosecutor and say, oh, you didn't charge him, why not? what about this evidence? tell us about the other evidence. it undercuts the perception of innocence, undercuts the traditions of the justice department, and it undercuts the rule of law. today, it's the republicans that are victims. tomorrow, if the democrats bear the day after tomorrow it is you and me. any american can be subject to this in the democrats establish a precedent allowing a prosecutor to testify about why

he didn't charge somebody with a crime. >> sean: you know, i know the media mob, schiff, who we know it -- by the way, we have him on tape colluding with russians to get dirt on donald trump. we actually have the tape. we have those pictures. i know you like that, professor. but sara, as we go over this, professor and gregg are raising the best points. republicans are salivating now to get him in that chair. >> oh, they are. lawmakers have informed me that they are looking forward to interviewing and speaking with robert mueller. i think one question that is vitally important, and gregg and alan both brought it up, it is the fact, why didn't he expand -- because he had the latitude, he had the latitude to look into all things rush out. why didn't he look into the people that christopher steele allegedly got this information from? which was russians, according to

christopher steele. a larger part is the dossier, with his information, planted by the russians. so the question that i would have is mr. mueller, did you add all look into the other side? christopher steele contact -- by the way, christopher steele is a foreign spy -- did you look into those contacts with russians that he had that help feed the information into this false dossier? that's going to be significantly important beard >> sean: all right, great job all of you. civil liberties matter, our constitution matters. not getting warrants on people, that's a violating civil liberties, plain and simple. a slam-dunk case. thank you all. when we come back, our own lawrence jones, wow, goes to miami and speaking with people about the radical new democratic party. wait until you hear what they told him. also later, the left stooping to even newer lows. eric trump's literally eating dinner last night at a restaurant in chicago, spit on, in the face.

really? straight ahead. ♪ carvana is six years old this year and is the fastest growing place to buy a car in the nation. it's because we have thousands of people working hard to make our customers' experiences the best. it's because we have tens of thousands of cars ready to be delivered to your doorstep. and it's why hundreds of thousands of happy customers have ditched the dealership and bought their car online, earning us an average 4.7 stars in the process. so if you didn't know about us before, you do now. we're carvana, and we want to give you the car buying experience you deserve. calyou're gonna love this.rs. new coppertone sport clear. not thick, not hot, not messy, just clear, cool, protected. coppertone sport clear. proven to protect.

they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

♪ >> sean: all right, so the radical, extreme, democratic socialists are facing off in their first debate in miami, and we sent our own lawrence jones -- this guy has more courage than anybody i know -- to ask the attendees about the democratic agenda. this is entertaining. take a look. >> democratic socialist versus socialism. where do you stand on this? >> i think the word socialism has been hijacked because we are democrats. and we are americans. >> a democratic socialist? that's very interesting. >> that is what bernie calls himself. >> i'm not a burning supporter, so i wouldn't know how to answer your question. >> the democrats are wanting the government to pay for everything. we want us all to work and pay

our fair share, and it is all about fair share. that's the difference, right there. >> what about the green new deal? there've been several proposals put out there. do you feel like it is realistic, when it comes to passing? >> absolutely. i think our future depends on something like this, and we all have to care about it. it's important. >> i think 25 years overdue. i think we spoke about this 25 years ago. i rub her when i in high school, and this was a big deal. we knew it was a problem, and we ignored it. >> not one democrat voted for it. why is that? >> because it hasn't been fully vetted, and these kind of ideas take a while. >> sean: president trump tweeting from air force one about the radical democrats. and there debate. "boring." [laughs] turning is not from the debate is lawrence jones, author of the brand-new book "swamp wars," our

friend, jeff lloyd. all right, lawrence, special correspondent, you are out with the people, got all of that love, i saw the behind-the-scenes glimpse, the hugs, the self he is, the love, i mean, you know, jeff and i are pretty jealous of that, we're just saying. do they like the green new deal? do they like everything free? do they not recognize that we had a disastrous economy under obama, and these guys want to go further left even then him? >> yeah, i think you kind of described, an identity crisis. i think you have candidates that don't quite understand where america is going, back in the past election, and so they feel like they need this radical approach. but when you talk with people in the streets, although they want this change, when you get into the details of policy, they don't know what's in it. they don't think it can be passed by the green deal, for

example, it was put up to a vote, not one democrat voted for it. so are these just fantasies? okay, are they something to get past, or the something to pander to a base? >> sean: you know, jeff, you caught this trump wave very, very early with your best-selling book. you examine it now in a little bit of a rearview mirror, although we have a long way to go, but 6 million new jobs, 6 million americans now off of food stamps. the opposite of obama in terms of 13 million americans added over eight years the food stamps, 8 million more in poverty, failed economic policies. you know, we now have the best job conditions since 1969 versus the lowest labor participation rate since the '70s and the worst recovery since the '40s and the biden-obama years. and as dramatic, what has happened. conservatism, when applied, works. cutting taxes, and in bureaucracy, energy

independence, all of the promises the presidents made is now bearing a lot of fruit. >> absolutely, it is, sean. joe biden likes to say that he is from scranton. well all i can tell you is right here in pennsylvania, where i live, and hiring signs are all over the place. the economy is booming. people are really, really engaged here. at a trump valley here the night he announced in florida, i was invited to a rally, to a small gathering at a local tavern here in, and people were really pumped, really excited. and you look at the election returns from 2016, he did, you know, two, three, four, five, six points better than other republican nominees in the past. >> sean: you know, i would watch you on fake news cnn before they can do, and i would watch -- it would be 15 to 1, and i would be texting you, how do you deal with this? axelrod, van jones, no one

agrees with you, unless you got lucky and kayleigh mcenany happen to be there. he preferred being in that environment, or with me on lawrence jones? i'm just curious. >> [laughs] oh, i love you and lawrence. i mean come on gotten to know lawrence beard he is, indeed, a lovable guy. >> sean: let me just tell you, don't out in public with lawrence, because if you do, all of the attention is on lawrence peered all of the selfies are for lawrence beard all of the hugs are for lawrence. all of the vote goes to lawrenc lawrence. >> that's fine, i didn't see a lot of that on cnn. >> sean: all right, guys, lawrence, thank you, jeff, congrats on the book. when we come back, this is sickening. eric trump having dinner at a restaurant in chicago, spit in the faced by one of the employees? only one of the latest examples of extreme hatred, instability , this brought rage of the democrats. tammy bruce, matt gaetz next. my experience with usaa has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family

and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org

♪ >> sean: all right, the radical, anti-trump left, they're hitting new lows paid last night while out for dinner in chicago, the son of the president, eric trump, was spit on by a worker in a restaurant in his wife, lara trump was on "the story of martha maccallum close" tonight, and a switch had to say. >> unprovoked, this woman came up to them, literally spit in his face and had nasty things to say to him. he played it so calm and so cool, did not press charges against this woman, which i think a lot of people would have done, but it probably would have been very hard for me to remain calm in that situation. >> this is the new normal for the left, and it is acceptable r some reason, whenever you are fighting on the side of the democrats, to do things like this. i can't imagine this ever happening to chelsea clinton, sasha and malia obama, this is

disgusting. >> sean: now, this is just the latest instance of trump associates being maliciously berated and harassed. just take a look at a few other examples. >> i was asked to leave a restaurant this weekend where i attempted to have dinner with my family. my husband and i quietly left and went home peered i was asked to leave because i work for president trump. >> homeland security secretary kristin nielsen is in a mexican restaurant come of all places. [bleep]. shame on you paired >> shame! shame! >> why are you separating families? >> i am -- back up. >> believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! >> sean: we've seen this time and time again, starting in the beginning. oh, yeah, i dream an awful lot about blowing up the white house. really, madonna?

then, of course, and attack against elna 11-year-old kid, the son of the president to remember the beheading picture, kathy griffin? so many other instances, the attacks against melania trump, vicious, vile. attacks against ivanka, jared, dawn, the whole family. anyone who likes trump is attacked. don't forget, your smelly walmart people, irredeemable, deplorable us, probably cling to your god you believe in, you're living god, your guns, your bible, your religion. that is what they think of people that disagree with them. joining us now, fox news contributor tammy bruce, congressman matt gaetz. tammy, we start with you. that is assault, by the way. he would have every right, legally, except maybe in new york -- in new york, they have a you must retreat when people come after you lost, if you can believe it. that is assault. you have a right to defend yourself from assault.

>> that's also biological assault, right? there are things that can be conveyed with saliva, bodily fluids being put on someone. i would say, you know, when we think about -- and where mrs. trump noted that he didn't press charges, and that someone else maybe would have, i think it is important at this point, the reason these things continue is because there haven't been real repercussions. we do know, as an example, when the first lady sued against false newspaper reports, and won, those ended up stopping. when you've got the fake hate crimes and the police would arrest individuals for that, those also slowed down. when there is a reminder that there is a real world, then it ends. this young woman at that language, apparently from reports has been suspended, but imagine if she is willing to do that in public to the son of the president, what else is she willing to do to people that she doesn't like, having been encouraged by people like maxine

waters, democratic leadership, encouraging individuals to, in some fashion -- >> sean: get in their faces, follow them into stores. >> literally. that is what we have to worry about here. charges must be pressed, when possible. >> sean: you know, i know it is so hard if you are a public figure, i mean, they can pretty much say anything about you when you don't really -- we need to change the libel laws, in my view, in this country. they say it about matt all the time, it usually deserves it, i don't deserve -- i'm kidding, matt. think of this instance, they go after this 16-year-old kid, a trigger, a "make america great again" hat. and they run with a story for days and days, even over a week, in some cases. they are factually wrong. if they never made a call. they never ask a question. they were totally wrong. and the great news is, lynwood is a friend of mine, he is going to bludgeon these media companies, and they are going to

pay hundreds of millions of dollars. >> sean, this type of behavior from the left is why you really see the right winning elections and winning the culture war. i have a circumstance just a few weeks ago where someone threw a drink at me leaving a town hall meeting, and i am going to press charges, for precisely the reasons tammy laid out. if there are no consequences, then maybe it is me getting hit with a drink one time, but what if it is a member of my staff? what if instead of a drink it is acid or urine, or something else like that? i think it is a message we have to send, just as anyone else has a right to their views, we are not backing down from anybody. people that behave this way should face the consequences before a court. >> sean: i've got to leave it there. by the way, matt gaetz had a great monologue on my show, we were testing him out. good to see you. it recommendst custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move.

i felt completely helpless. trashed online, my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-866-8555.

-excuse me. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. ♪ >> sean: that's all the time we have left. remember, we will never be the rage and hate media mob. by the way, jim acosta pulled a

whopping 2,800 books. week two. let's say, 6800, mark levin, number one, five weeks in a row, the number one book on "the new york times" list, hundreds of thousands of books. laura ingraham is next. ♪ >> laura: i'm laura ingraham and we are full up here at the "the angle" tonight, a lot to get here tonight because in moments, the best of president trump's unbelievable speech to the faith and freedom coalition that i know you misser doing something else but we watched it, i think it was one of the best speeches he has ever given. i said that as i was watching it earlier, ralph reed will be here and he will tell us why this speech is setting the stage for evangelicals ahead of 2020. also tonight, jodi is here and