Sean Hannity

And... And... Wait.

is to live in a world where iran has a nuclear weapon the path forward has been given to them and now it's a matter of whether or not they're going to take it and the president was very very clear he would lead the effort to stop them from ever achieving that nuclear weapon and that would mean that statement was obvious in terms of that he would use military force to destroy those facilities we have the capacity obviously to do it but back to this question

is to live in a world where iran has a nuclear weapon the path forward has been given to them and now it's a matter of whether or not they're going to take it and the president was very very clear he would lead the effort to stop them from ever achieving that nuclear weapon and that would mean that statement was obvious in terms of that he would use military force to destroy those facilities we have the capacity obviously to do it but back to this question

is to live in a world where iran has a nuclear weapon the path forward has been given to them and now it's a matter of whether or not they're going to take it and the president was very very clear he would lead the effort to stop them from ever achieving that nuclear weapon and that would mean that statement was obvious in terms of that he would use military force to destroy those facilities we have the capacity obviously to do it but back to this question

Would we need American inspectors and American scientists to shut it down? And would that have to be part of the deal? And anywhere, anyplace, anytime, American inspectors, would they have to agree to that in your mind?

Would we need American inspectors and American scientists to shut it down? And would that have to be part of the deal? And anywhere, anyplace, anytime, American inspectors, would they have to agree to that in your mind?

Would we need American inspectors and American scientists to shut it down? And would that have to be part of the deal? And anywhere, anyplace, anytime, American inspectors, would they have to agree to that in your mind?

Can you take a moral stand and condemn that?

Can you take a moral stand and condemn that?

Can you take a moral stand and condemn that?

I'm not asking you to condemn the system. Taylor, do you condemn people that call for assassination?

I'm not asking you to condemn the system. Taylor, do you condemn people that call for assassination?

I'm not asking you to condemn the system. Taylor, do you condemn people that call for assassination?

These are signs of an unhealthy... You want to put a rationalization. I am saying anybody that wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican or a father or a husband. That is a simple truth that anyone with a heart would easily say on national TV that you're having a hard time with.

These are signs of an unhealthy... You want to put a rationalization. I am saying anybody that wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican or a father or a husband. That is a simple truth that anyone with a heart would easily say on national TV that you're having a hard time with.

These are signs of an unhealthy... You want to put a rationalization. I am saying anybody that wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican or a father or a husband. That is a simple truth that anyone with a heart would easily say on national TV that you're having a hard time with.

Number two, we'd have open flows of trade and capital. So basically the unfettered free trade agenda. And then number three, the third leg of it was Pax Americana. We'd deploy American troops all over the world to defend this consensus because they'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. I think all three pillars have been refuted.

Number two, we'd have open flows of trade and capital. So basically the unfettered free trade agenda. And then number three, the third leg of it was Pax Americana. We'd deploy American troops all over the world to defend this consensus because they'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. I think all three pillars have been refuted.

Number two, we'd have open flows of trade and capital. So basically the unfettered free trade agenda. And then number three, the third leg of it was Pax Americana. We'd deploy American troops all over the world to defend this consensus because they'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. I think all three pillars have been refuted.

And the person who has represented the shift in this consensus to, I'd say, a new agenda of economic nationalism and geopolitical nationalism is Donald Trump. When you have a bipartisan consensus that included both Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats around these three pillars of globalism, And then I'd say the country turns against that. That's not gonna be a smooth process.