you can get frostbite in less than 20 minutes. so if you are harvey weinstein, don't go outside with your bathrobe open. that's it for us. david webb gross hosting "hannity" tonight. >> david: thank you, mark. welcome to the special edition of "hannity," the trump agenda. i am david webb in for sean tonight. president trump with bias. we'll talk about that in a moment. the president tweeting earlier today, "wow at "fox & friends," dossier is bogus. clinton campaign, dnc funded dossier, fbi cannot, after all this time, verify claims of russia-trump collusion, and they used this crooked hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the trump campaign. president trump's tweet appears to be in reaction to reports that during his closed-door congressional testimony, fbi
director, or deputy directorur andrew mccabe failed to specify which portion of the dossier the fbi claims to have corroborated. there is also a report that mccabe plans to retire in 2018 amid mounting criticism from congress. constitutional law expert alan dershowitz weighing in on the scandal, saying that maybe mccabe should have recused himself from any clinton-related investigations, given his conflict of interest. watch this. >> first of all, everybody tells me who knows mccabe and has worked in the fbi, he's a very decent guy and was an excellent deputy director. having said that, he should have recused himself immediately from any investigation involving hillary clinton because of his wife's connection to hillary clinton. when you are investigating a presidential candidate, whether it be hillary clinton or president trump, you have to be caesar's wife, above reproach, you have to make sure, not only there are no conflicts, but there are no perceived conflicts. not only is there no bias, but there is no perception of bias.
he did not pass that test. >> david: and in other big news, "the washington post" reporting that house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes is talking with other republican lawmakers about writing a report next year that would expose alleged -- i say alleged -- fbi corruption. also, tonight, a stunning report from "politico". james baker, the fbi's top lawyer, was in contact with a liberal journalist from "mother jones." and he did this in the weeks before the outlet broke the very first news story about then existence of the anti-trump dossier. joining us with reaction, national spokesman andnd conservative pundit, my friend niger innis, fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett, and "daily caller" reporter kerry pickett. all friends. great to see you here. i will go to you, first on this, gregg. let's talk about the dossier. put a pause on the politics and
look at what you would do within the process of vetting information given to the fbi, this dossier, before you would put it to use. >> look, the fbi receives a lot of fake documents all the time, it is up to them to vet it. you can't use it in a court of law unless you have verified its authenticity, confirmed its contents. if the fbi used this dossier in an affidavit to spy on the trump associates, that's a fraud on the court, that's a crime. but you back up several months and apparently this dossier was also used to launch the trump-russia investigation. and they apparently did little or nothing in the way of verifying its contents. so, think about this. funded by hillary clinton's campaign and the democratic national committee -- which, by the way, it is a crime under the
federal election campaign act. they use this document to then spy and launch an investigation on hillary clinton's political opponent. it's beyond the pale of criminal negligence. and some of the people who did this, including perhaps comey, mccabe, james baker, peter strzok, and others, should be held accountable, criminally, if appropriate. >> david: all right, gregg, you are talking about the legal aspect in the process is important. kerry, the process on the hill is a little different. you are down there every day talking to the congressmen and senators. so the political aspect of this comes into play. given what gregg just said, given that comey admitted that he leaked information, which also is an issue that you have talked about before, gregg, what about the dossier and the use oh this in the congressional point of view? >> well, what's interesting here, david, is that any time i have gone to the hill and spoke
to the lawmakers that are leading these investigations, whether in the senate or on the house side, you've had democrats, for example, who have been preparing almost for -- and they will never say this publicly -- but they have been preparing for what could be an impeachment. anytime i have gone up to them and asked, what about the conflict of interest here? what about the podesta group? what about the issue that the dossier is not verified? the answers have been, "i haven't heard about that yet" or "that's not important." on the republican side, however, you go up to them and say what about the donald trump jr. emails and so on and so forth, they have been more on the defensive, looking to say, what, can they do to defend donald trump to make sure that he doesn't get impeached. remember, how did this start? this started out with, oh, my goodness, the russians meddled in our election. we have come so far from this. >> david: that is the hill view, the legal view.
now turning to niger innis, our friend in of las vegas. but the media has been carrying this. gregg's point about the legalal aspect of this, we've talked about the process here more than i have seen on most media, andeg gregg explained that. kerry looked at the hill. what about the media's handling of this? >> the establishment media, outside of fox news, which wee don't consider to be establishment, has been egregious in their silence. "the washington post" has this on the masthead, "democracy dies in darkness." actually, democracy died in darkness with the creation ofac this dossier. for these never trumpers out there on these left-wing folk that hate trump and suffer from trump derangement syndrome, i just want them to think about this hypothetical analogy. it's 2008, we all jump into a time machine. it's 2008 and the john mccain for president campaign prepares a dossier using a former british
spy and using intelligence gathered on senator obama by israeli intelligence. that information, that dossier, is passed off to the bush justice department and/or fbi, and they use this dossier to not only wiretap senator obama, but to launch an investigation on senator obama. the outrage would be deafening. they would be calling for john mccain to not only be impeached, but be given the death penalty. the deafening silence by the establishment media, and the fact that it's more than deafening silence, they are actually going along with the talking points on supposed russian collusion, based on a dossier and their entire case is built on a house of cards. >> david: we'll stay on the facts here, gregg. let me go back to you on this. who can be charged?
in the end, whether it's the scenario that niger used, or more to the reality of what's happening now. you talk about how you cannot produce fraudulent documents to a court or a judge could hold you in contempt. who can be charged in the scenario? >> you can start with the people who appear to have exonerated hillary clinton for political purposes. that would be obstruction of justice.pl if that involved peter strzok, who apparently changed the critical wording in the exoneration statement, you might also include mccabe as well as james baker. we just don't know.io congress needs to get to the bottom of it. wish there were a second special counsel to investigate clinton, comey, lynch, mccabe, baker, strzok --- >> david: bruce ohr, who worked for fusion, his wife. you've got andrew weissmann. there's a cacophony of problems here.
>> which is exactly why you neep a second special counsel. i'm not sure that jeff sessions at the department of justice, with so many obama holdovers still there, is capable of actually conducting a fair, objective, neutral investigation. i think there needs to be a second special counsel. there is more than enough reason and evidence to demand one. >> david: all right, kerry, before -- we don't need thene constitution explained anymore to the audience about what it takes for impeachment. but we are talking about charges, potential charges, or an idea of who could be charged, and back to washington, d.c., and impeachment, and the.c politics of this, we are ending a year and starting a new year. is this going to change for the democrats in washington? >> as far as the special counsel being called , right now you already have members of congress calling for an investigation into the
corruption right now in the doj, into the fbi, looking to purge the problems going on over at the fbi. so i just can't see a special counsel or second special counsel being called right now. >> except the problem is, you can't investigate yourself.w. the fbi is part of the department of justice, and if the corruption extended to the department of justice, with so many people there, you can't trust them to investigate themselves, which is why i have long argued for a second special counsel. and in fact, members of the house judiciary committee have sent a letter to the attorney general demanding a second special counsel just for this. >> darrell issa has called for it, as well. >> david: let's bring niger back in. niger, big gamble for the democrats. you are hearing your fellow panelists talk about this legal perspective, political perspective. but if they were to go to a special counsel and, given they ig's reports that have come out, do you think a special counsel
brings us there or does it prolong and delay the process and the constant back and forth partisan politics? which, by the way -- >> if you have a choice of firing robert mueller and ending that special counsel as opposed to bringing on a second special counsel, i lean heavily towards bringing on the second special counsel. look, mueller and the democrats are not going to stop with this investigation. a person recently said, i forget who it was, they said, it is merely just the beginningn of -- or the end of the beginning. so i think what mueller's investigation is going to continue, it's going to go long past 2018. i think you need a select and distinct special counsel that can examine the corruption a within the fbi and examine how hillary clinton partisans, democrat partisans, refuse to investigate her email and her emails being hacked by foreign
entities. i mean, talk about collusion and the fact that they did nothing to the clinton campaign and to hillary clinton herself except for, you know, smack her on the wrist. that needs to be investigated. o as well, i think is the most egregious, what we have all been talking about, which is active collaboration, it seems, between a presidential campaign of one party, a sitting government in power, presidency in power, to wiretap a presidential candidate.e. i mean, my god, i think that's a little bit bigger than even breaking into a hotel room in watergate. >> david: we are going to around the table on this one for about 30 seconds each. gregg, to you, whether it's wiretapping, what is potentially who could be charged, when it comes to a special counsel, is there anything that can be done prior to that?
is there anything that the inspector general can do within the fbi or the whistle-blower issue, which is on the table, to actually bring this out? >> the inspector general can only make findings, which can turn into a referral for prosecution, but generally they don't do it. the problem with the ig is they are rather toothless, always has been, it's a historical fact. what you need is a prosecutor. again, i don't think there are people that i would have confidence in the department ofd justice to ferret out criminality among themselves. >> david: so kerry, is there anyone on both sides, sitting down there in d.c., that youou hear from, that you say, you know what, they would lead a straightforward investigation? finding the facts, as gregg talks about? >> as far as i can see right now, they are simply looking to circle the wagons, their own parties, in this case,
republicans looking to protect trump democrats looking to go after trump. that's going on right now. >> david: all right, we've got to pause it there. but never pause for our friends, niger innis in las vegas, gregg jarrett here in the studio, and kerry pickett. great to see you guys. thank you. >> thank you, happy new year, folks. >> david: we are starting off on the day right after christmas right into the tough news. coming up, president trump is having a very successful year in office but you wouldn't know what if you only listened to liberal, mainstream media. we will show you some of the most extreme and i do mean extreme examples of liberal media bias. stay with us as the special edition of "hannity" continues. ♪ ti my name is jeff sheldon,
and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier so now, we're ready, bring on t.
shipstation. the number one ch of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get two months free. running a small business is demanding. and that's why small business owners need more. like internet that's up to the challenge. the gig-speed network from comcast business gives you more. with speeds up to 20 times faster than the average. that means powering more devices, more video conferencing, and more downloads in seconds, not minutes. get fast internet and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more per month. comcast is building america's largest gig-speed network to give small businesses more. call 1-800-501-6000 today.
♪ ♪ >> david: and welcome back to this special edition of "hannity." you know, 2017 has been a very productive year for president trump, capped off this month after he signed that massive, historic tax cut into law. of course, tax reform is not the president's only major accomplishment. he successfully appointed a qualified originalist to the supreme court. he has rolled back dozens of obama era regulations. he's cleared the way for completion of the keystone xl pipeline. and so much more. but if you watch the mainstream media, you'd probably have a very different and a skewed picture of the trump presidency. let's take a look at some of the worst moments -- yeah, i said
worst moments -- over the past year. >> i have a whole lot to say about this president's increasing erratic behavior of the past week or so. >> we have an archie bunker in chief who is disrespecting american indians, making classless jokes on the podium. >> is this president trying to impersonate hugo chavez? erdogan? vladimir putin? >> apparently the president gets two stoops. everyone else around the table gets one and no word if there were sprinkles. >> at the dessert course, he gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie. instead of the single scoop for everyone else.is >> he gains weight, according to sources, he doesn't trust people around him, he's withdrawing, not a good picture. >> he's a racist. okay? he came proverbially as close as you could possibly come to shouting at a rally the n word. that's what he did down there. >> donald trump, again, being a
schmuck. >> he looked like a thug, he looked like a goon. a a you look at the handshake, look at this. just what a thug. >> and you have somebody inside the white house that the "new york daily news" says is mentally unfit, that people close to him say is mentally unfit, that people close to him during the campaign told me had early stages of dementia. >> david: i mean, amazing. what you saw is not just a mirage. in fact, according to a study from the media research center, 91% of trump related coverage from abc, cbs, and nbc's evening newscasts has been negative. and despite all of this, the trump agenda is moving forward and an obamacare repeal and replace, well, that could be next. joining us now, republican strategist noelle nikpour, fox news contributors ellen ratner and deneen borelli. ladies, great to see you all. a very belated merry christmas
to you. >> thank you, david. >> david: i got to tell you something, ellen, i'm going to go to you first on this, we've done a lot of analysis on this over the years. where was the policy disagreement with donald trump in what we just played for the audience? >> well, first of all, i think that you are not showing what he tweeted out when he goes after people. i think that, you know, he isop supporting the economy, but a lot of those rules and regulations and policies were under barack obama, and i think that you were not talking at all about our standing in the world community. i know you think these people say terrible things but they probably said -- the right-wing probably said terrible things about barack obama, too. >> david: my question is, where was the policy disagreement in there? i've watched a ton of this.to you and i know this.
i watch this daily. i am fine with policy disagreements. i don't like the ad hominem attacks. >> i don't either, actually. believe it or not, i think that when you attack somebody and you say the kinds of things that are said, that's not appropriate. there's plenty that i disagree with president trump about and it has to do with policy. >> david: all right, so, noelle, let's bring you in on this. you are a republican strategist. from the strategy point, does this help the democrats, and if so, how?wi this constant left wing barrage on trump's character, ad hominem attacks, rather than pointing out policy failures. when i just read a list of accomplishments that are campaign promises he made, he kept, whether you agree to disagree with them, anyone out there, he has kept his promise. >> right. you know what? they just will not let president trump have a victory lap. no matter what.
you know what, trump really did do, what he said is what he fulfilled. he fulfilled promises. unlike what president obama did, which is, hemp got healthce through but it was riddled with low enrollment. you couldn't keep your own doctor, and now the premium increases is what we are dealing with. and president trump, when and president trump, when he came through on creating jobs, you can check that off. t he's about to put money in middle-class american pockets. you can check that off. so he's fulfilling his promises and what he gets from mainstream media is constant negative,ro constant negative. and i think that's a lot of the reason why donald trump has to tweet so he can get his own message out there because it has been negated so much for mainstream media. >> david: all right, deneen borelli is here in the studio with me. deneen, i asked noelle about how this helps the democrats. on the other side, the he republicans, and the republican messaging, the president's
successes, there have been a number of successes. they are not the sexy stories, they don't get the headlines, the tweets. i agree with the ellen, the back-and-forth off policy is not healthy. but where do the republicans take this next? how do they tout changes in gdp, expansion of the economy? how do they do this effectively and sell it even to the underserved communities, no matter what ethnicity they are? >> the republicans need to do that. they need to take that messageer out there to americans, to all americans. i think it's great when president trump goes out and does a rally for the people, making that face time with americans, because americans want to hear from the president and they want to know what's going on, the agenda, and he is delivering on his promises. that is what the media does not like. the media cannot control president trump. he is able to go around them, he has called them out how many times, numerous times, fake news, very fake news, because the media refuses to talk aboutm
his accomplishments that he has been able to make in one year and that is going to help turn americans lives around, from tax cuts, lower regulations, these are the issues, the policies that he ran on, that he talked about and how it's going to be america first and the forgotten men and women. that is what he is putting first. >> david: so, let's go back to ellen ratner. ellen, you've been in the media business a long time. you and i have watched and analyzed campaigns, and we are looking at what is coming ahead and what they can use. what can the left use effectively, if the economy continues to expand, third quarter, over 3.3% growth. the markets had highs. home mortgage interest growing, 18 year highs. constant changes and all on the upswing since the president was elected and since he was installed. >> well, first of all, i think that we have to look over the
long term and see if his l policies really work and number two, i think we have to look, for instance, at obamacare, which he wants to get rid of. even though they had less advertising and less time to enroll, over 8 million people enrolled this time. the fact is, obama policies are still working, and people might not like that, you might not like it, but the facts are the facts. >> david: well, here's a fact for you, ellen. over 80% of the people paying the obamacare penalty make under $50,000. that is irs data. by rolling that back, combined with the doubling of theul standard deductions for people in lower income brackets, they get to keep a larger portion of their money. they don't get hit with a tax. and to be fair, the republicans now have to deal with affordability and other issues to help the insurance industry and health care providers provide a better rate. so that's the obamacare working
when premiums are going up 200%, 300% almost in arizona. when there are rate hikes requested for next year by insurance companies, started as low as 25, up to 60%. how are those policies going to be -- how are they going to use them, as democrats, when people look at the reality of what they pay? >> well, i think we are going te see how it does play out and whether people really do get health insurance coverage or not. and that's going to see. we are going to see why in congress do they want to help people with their premiums, because they know that it's a very popular program. >> david: well, popularity is to judged by the politics. noelle, quick 15 seconds. do the democrats have a case to make next year? >> here is what i think. 1 how can they be critical if they weren't part of the process? and i really resent the fact of the democrats are very upset about a lot of the policies that we are getting through, or trump
is getting through, when they did not participate and they don't want to participate in the process. when we come up on health care and we are going to do that,p they need to have a seat at a table or they can't complain the next time around. >> david: deneen, real quick. are the democrats going to play ball with the republicans or ise it going to be chuck schumerar crying and pelosi beating them up with armageddon?ep >> unfortunately, republicans did not rip up obamacare fromin the roots and now they own it. the left will clearly blame republicans for the failures that are to come as we have seen the rates have gone up, people have lost their health insurance, or they just can't afford it. republicans will be blamed for it and the democrats will just sit back and watch. they did not help on tax reform. >> david: the republicans better sell success well, that is what i have to say on that. ladies, thank you so much. up next on the special editionav of "hannity," the trump administration and ambassador nikki haley doing a great job at the u.n. they are taking an ax to the united nations operation budgetk
achoo! (snap) achoo! (snap) achoo! achoo! (snap) (snap) achoo! achoo! feel a cold coming on? zicam cold remedy nasal swabs shorten colds with a snap, and reduce symptom severity by 45%. shorten your cold with a snap, with zicam. ♪ >> david: welcome back to a special edition of "hannity," president trump's america first agenda in full effect. get this.
after the united nations, after the united states negotiated a $285 million cut to the united nations' bloated budget, of course, this comes as president trump and u.s. ambassador nikki haleyat blasted -- and i mean blasted -- the u.n. general assembly for holding a vote to rebuke the united states' decision to movec in israel, to jerusalem. watch this. >> the united states will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the general assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. we will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the united nations. and we will remember it when so many countries come calling onne us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit. >> the united states, the people
that live here, are great citizens. they love this country. they are tired of this country being taken advantage of and we are not going to be taking advantage of any longer anyin longer. >> david: by the way, as an added note, guatemala now announcing that they will move their embassy into jerusalem, as well. so i wonder when the vote is coming up in the u.n. on that. in the wake of their anti-israel, anti-american positions, and with the u.s. contributing more, and i say more, to the u.n.'s budget than any other nation, should the trump administration take even more financial steps to put them on notice? joining us now, former f united states ambassador to the united nations, and fox news contributor john bolton., as well as c.o.o. of the east-west institute and a retired u.s. naval officer, dr. bill parker. author of a great book on my shelf that i read. "guaranteeing america's safety into the 21st century." you two have been at work doing
this job, first, to you, ambassador bolton. great to see you again. i know where you stand on this but i want to hear it from you. i think i know where you stand on this. what is it really and what does it mean? >> this particular cut was baked in the cake before the jerusales vote. certainly it's worthwhile to get the budget lower even by that amount. but i think it provides the trump administration with an excellent pivot point to look at the larger question of what elements of the u.n. system are functioning successfully and q what are not. and to move away from the system of international taxation and effect that we are under now, as you say, we say 22% of the regular budget, 28% of the even larger peacekeeping budget. and just decide that we are going to contribute voluntarily to what we think works and either substantially reduced or zero out of those programs and
offices that we don't think work. now this would be like a tsunami through the u.n. system. but if we could carry through with it, it would actually make it more efficient and more effective. >> david: now there is an ambassador i know, he might have been on this show, he may even be here right now, dr. parker, he says that sometimes inn diplomacy, your choices aren't that good. i'm using the cleaned up version of this. do you think this sends a signal to the united nations? >> the united nations is a very important body. there is no doubt about that. very important. but at the end of the day, efficiency and effectiveness matters, and the reality is, as ambassador bolton just pointed out, 22% of that total funding came from united states, 9% came from japan, and 8% came from china and the rest are much smaller. j so to say that we need to get more efficient and more effective i think is spot on. we do need to take a good, hard look at that but we also
need to realize how importantze the united nations as to the overall body of the globe. >> david: ambassador bolton, as i mentioned, guatemala now, they are announcing, and other nations are indicating they may do this, and moving theirre embassies to jerusalem. is there another story here? have you discerned anything from this? >> the government of israel has been working on this for sometime, and i'm sure they are going to try to take advantage of it. i think other countries may make that decision, as well. i think the president's biggest problem, having recognized jerusalem as the capital of israel, his biggest problem in moving the u.s. embassy is going to be at the u.s. state department, where they just don't like this idea one little bit. and i think the president is a real estate executive, he knows how to get things built. my advice to him would be to move forward, select a site, do the planning, and start turning dirt as soon as possible. that, in effect, i think would really induce other countries to look at moving in to usbl jerusalem, which is where all of them would be, without
prejudice to the ultimate outcome of the peace negotiation. >> david: on the other side of this, dr. parker, turkey has announced that they are also going to move their consulate, i believe is what they call it, tn jerusalem. and this is their connection to palestine. does this indicate anything about the geopolitical or the regional political issues? >> it indicates that this is a complex environment and it's not going to get any easier anytime soon. when you look at the sunni-shia issues around the globe, when you look at what is going on ina the middle east, that is not going to change. the complexities are there and you are going to continue to see countries decide whether or not they want to move their embassies to jerusalem or they want to keep them in other places. >> david: all right, gentlemen, let's bring this together because, another issue on the table, north korea. that has been -- we have seen a sea change in years, decades long policy, at least since the '90s in how we deal with north korea. first to you, ambassador bolton. russia now saying, and this came
out of the news this morning, they are willing to be the broker of a deal between u.s. and north korea. but from the historical track, what do we see and where are we now with north korea? could russia play a role?, >> no, i think it would be a waste of oxygen. we have negotiated with north korea for 25 years. they have committed on at least four separate and distinct occasions to give up their c nuclear weapons program. they have lied every time they have made that commitment. there is in play no evidence that in year 26 the north koreans are going to do this any differently. in fact, we have got tonight a very interesting comparison. reuters has a story that says china's statistics showed no oil exported to north korea last month. but we have papers published in the south korean press overnight showing at least 30 examples of ship to ship transfers of oil between chinese and north koreas vessels during the last couple
of months. so this is something that we have been played by the north koreans, played by the chinese for a long time. i think we are still waiting for china to do something dramatic. but if it doesn't, we are faced with some very, very unpleasant choices. unless you are prepared to see north korea with nuclear weapons. >> david: all right, so, dr. parker, you have been involved in this some degree, you have traveled a great deal to brief others and talk about this issue. walk us through the scenario of where we are now and what we should do or not do. >> this is a complex environment in the backyard of china, of south korea, of japan, and a when you look at those three countries, and what they are dealing with right now, if they do nothing, if we do nothing, ag a globe, and we allowed north korea to maintain their nuclear weapons program and advance them to the point that they are close
to right now, what you are going to end up with is likely a nuclear south korea, a nuclear japan, and therefore, a concerned china that increases their nuclear capability and their defense capability. but it gets better. i gets better because then, iran sees that north korea "got away with it" and what you end up with is a potential of nuclear weapons in and around the gulf, as well. if that happens, you are going to end up losing control of that material and that is a very complicated problem. we haven't even talked about finances and issues of the impact on the economy yet. >> david: before we get to that, south korea's view of this, specifically south korea. where are we with them and where do they stand? >> south korea is interesting because before you can talk about the unified korea, you have to talk about a unified south korea. to talk about a unifiedd south korea, you have to ask the question of whether or not you want to unify that peninsula and whether or not you want wmd within south korea itself.
if you talk to government officials over there, many of them will say that you need a nuclear capability in order to execute a mutual assured destruction capability from south korea toward the north koreans. and japan would say the same thing. t >> david: all right, back tore you, ambassador. are we at a new potential cold war in modern form? >> i think we are at a critical point in terms of the 50 year effort to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction because if we fail to stop north korea, and they are very close to the ability to hit targets in the united states with thermonuclear weapons, then i think that effort will have crashed into complete failure, because it will just be north korea. they will sell these capabilities to anyone with hard currency, to iran, if they are not already doing work together on the nuclear side, thehe terrorist groups, if they can come up with the money, to other nuclear weapon states. then you're going to see this proliferation worldwide. it will be a much more dangeroun world. trump inherited this.
he didn't create the situation. but it will be on his watch that we either stop or do north korea are we face a real expansion of nuclear -- and actually biological and chemical weapons, as well, all around the world. >> david: dr. bill parker, coo at the eastwest institute. a great new book, "guaranteeing america's security and the 21st century." and ambassador bolton, you have been working hard to guarantee our security for many years. thank you both, gentlemen. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> david: coming up, the democrats are setting the stage to try and impeach president trump. yep, i said it. if they are successful in the 2018 midterm elections, can you imagine this is where they going to do? plus, you won't believe the new low that that left just hit. our panel reacts about this next on this special edition of "hannity." ♪ is next on this special edition of "hannity." ♪ usaa to me means
♪ >> i am friend to stand here with my friend, congressman ♪ >> i am proud to stand here with my friend, congressman gutierrez, other congresspeople, we will be here announcing that we are introducing articles of impeachment to removeg president trump from office. >> his motives and his actions are contemptible. and i will fight every day until he is impeached! impeach 45! >> i rise today, mr. speaker, to call for the impeachment of the
president of the united states of america. >> the president's decision to end daca was heartless and it was brainless. >> the president's fitness for office is something that has been called into question. i am very worried about his fitness. >> david: and welcome back to this special edition of "hannity." those were examples of democrats this past year questioning president trump's fitness for office, even calling for his impeachment, and it's not just democrats relentlessly going after the president, his agenda. liberals in the media have also reached another new low. in response to president trump's emphasis on saying "merry christmas," "newsweek" os christmas eve published an article entitled, "how trump and the nazis stole christmas to promote white nationalism." and listen to what cnn's don lemon recently says on the president's recent use of the
phrase "merry christmas." >> this is a line that we have heard from donald trump many, many times. this is dog whistle to the base because no one has ever stop saying merry christmas. >> david: i forgot to bring my dog whistle. i usually have that you blow on my show whenever i hear that phrase.av joining me now with reaction, so one of the late supreme court justice antonin scalia and coeditor of "the new york times" best selling book, "scalia speaks," chris fiscal year. alsoli joining us, fox news rado todd starnes, and author and attorney danielleho mclaughlin. danielle, i've got to go to you first on this. as an attorney, make an a case for impeachment ofn president trump. >> as you and i both know, david, it's a political process. not a legal process. >> david: but it requires a chargeable crime. here in the united states, it requires that. >> a high crime or a misdemeanor. it has become what the publicme
expects the level of proof that you would see in a criminal b offense, we need half of the house, two-thirds of the senateo even if the democrats take back the house in 2018, i think there's a pretty low chance that will happen. >> david: todd? the media has impeached him already, haven't they? i mean, don lemon, who i have known for years, says it's a dog whistle. again, you know, dogs are barking everywhere. >> let me say something about don lemon. and quite frankly, cnn. their entire network is a dog whistle for race baiting anti-trump bigots. i mean, it is 24/7. they really believe that merry christmas is a dog whistle. it makes me wonder what they think the words "ho ho ho" would be code for. i want to go to this idea that christmas is somehow inclusive. is that really true? you don't hear them talking about well, ramadan needs to be more inclusive. this really is not about inclusivity, david. this is about marginalizing christianity.
so one president trump said the words, we are going to start saying merry christmas again, what he was trying to tell people was, is that i understand the true meaning of christmas. jesus is the reason for the season. that was the message that the president was trying to convey. >> david: all right, chris, let's bring you in on this because your father, a strict constructionist, a man who stood for the constitution, defended the constitution, weighed in often on first amendment issuest on constitutional issues, you know, it's tough to say "what he say," but "scalia speaks," the son of scalia, your take on this? >> i'm not sure about the war of christmas, but in "scalia speaks," there are a number of speeches in which he expresses concerns about a narrowing space for public expression of religion.
as my father said, he was an originalist, and he believed the onnstitution should be interpreted according to its usual public meaning and it was pretty clear to him that according to that original public meaning and tradition and early practices in america that it was totally okay for politicians and the people in the public square to make religious statements and expressions. and my father was concerned that that understanding was changingi and the room for public -- for expressions of religion in the public square was getting smaller and smaller, in no small part because the supreme court's own opinions with which he often disagreed on that front. >> david: danielle, looking at this from what chris just said, whether you like this speech or not, whether it's tweeted a certain way, or offensive to some, this is part of what makes america great., hate is protected speech, offensive speech or offense is not required. but that doesn't rise to impeachment of a president. it may be an impeachment of character according to some
who disagree with him. but the democrats are not making a good case here the way i see it. >> i know that you are a supporter of the president and for many people who are, this is just -- >> david: i'm a supporter of the constitution first. statements that violate the principles of which the constitution stands and exists and is written for, i think that's beneath, i would think it would be beneath our political, in this case, the president's opponents in washington. >> sure. the only speech that the president could get impeached for is obstruction of justice. if there was a conversation that he had to shut down an investigation associated with the russia investigation, that is speech that is not protected under the constitution. that is impeachable. >> david: todd, i love your podcast, by the way. you talk about this a lot. free speech, todd.po you and i have done it on my show, on your shows. i don't care what it is. i don't want to shut down anyone's right to do it, whether i agree or not.
is the left effectively shutting down free speech? did free speech die at berkeley in 2017? >> i think it did. we are in a very dangerous place in this country right now, david. the left says any speech we disagree with, we are going toay make that hate speech. i want to go back to this idea that the democrats are going to do whatever it takes to impeach the president. i believe that. we know that under the obama administration, they weaponized the internal revenue service, the weaponized the department of education ---- >> david: they investigated james rosen, cheryl atkinson, this was an administration and a government going after individuals. >> they went after billy graham, america's pastor, for crying out loud. so do i think it's possible that they may have weaponized the fbi in addition to all of that? absolutely i do. >> david: chris, back to you. i want to bring something into this, as a point of personal pride, that i got to meet your father a number of times. i think we have a picture of the
two of us together, the white house correspondents dinner. i think "scalia speaks," when the book came out, a great way to put his voice into the conversation, give you a few seconds here to talk about that. >> it's a collection of speeches that my father delivered over the course of his career. my coeditor, ed whelan, and i,el really wanted to make this interesting and accessible to really every american interested in the law or in my father, not just lawyers or legal scholars. there are plenty of speeches about the law but there are speeches about sports, hunting, about the values that americansg hold dear, about what makes an american, that it's about sharing certain values and beliefs in freedom and equality. so it's a really -- it gives the picture of my father as a man in full, not just a justice. >> david: chris, i got to stop you here because we are up against a hard break. thank you, danielle, todd.. great to see you. more of this special edition of
you won't see these folks at the post office. they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
♪ >> david: welcome back to "hannity." unfortunately that is all the time we have left this evening. don't forget to set your dvrs so you never miss an episode of "hannity." you can listen to my radio show monday through friday, 9:00 a.m. eastern on sirius xm patriot. that is channel 125. you can follow me on twitter, david webb.
tomorrow, you'll catch us on "outnumbered." katie pavlich, she's here, and she's filling in for laura ingraham. cheese filling in for laura ingraham. >> good to see you, david. i'm katie pavlich in for laura ingraham and this is "the ingraham angle" from new york. washington may be taking a holiday break for the news is not. we've got so much good stuff are you tonight. governor jerry brown is acting like the king of california, practically making up his own immigration law and pardoning val evans said to be deported. president trump is putting his money where his methods is slashing u.n. funding after that is great so will vote against the vote recognizing jerusalem as the capital of israel. a new report says what it is so hard to drain the d.c. swamp, with some bureaucrats set to make more money than the senators. we begin with a president launching a scathing new attack on twitter. he called the infamous russian dossier bogus and a pile of garbage. used by a tainted fbi