Exclusive: Dick Cheney warns against Iran nuke deal on 'Hannity'

close

Video

Exclusive: Dick Cheney warns against Iran nuke deal

Former vice president weighs in on dangers of agreement on 'Hannity'

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," July 14, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Welcome to "Hannity." A nuclear deal has been reached with Iran, and the Obama administration -- they're taking a victory lap. But the prime minister of Israel -- he warned that this deal is a massive mistake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The bottom line of this very bad deal is exactly what Iran's President Rouhani said today. The international community is removing the sanctions and Iran is keeping its nuclear program.

Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction. We will always defend ourselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Now, Israel has reason to worry, and so should you. Now, after a lot of tough talk, the Obama administration moved the goalposts significantly. Administration officials told you, the American people, repeatedly that arms embargoes would not be softened as part of any nuclear deal. You may remember this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: There's an arms embargo against Iran. Would the U.S. be supportive of an idea possibly allowing Iran to...

MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN: To my knowledge, we are certainly not supportive of flouting any sort of restrictions on Iran or other countries providing arms. We believe these restrictions are in place for a reason, because Iran has done things that have necessitated them being in place.

ERNEST MONIZ, SECRETARY OF ENERGY: Things like arms embargoes, ballistic missile sanctions -- those stay in place, strictly focused on the nuclear issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Well, apparently not. According to reports, we now learn, quote, "the nuclear accord states that five years from now, Iran will, in fact, be able to buy and sell conventional arms on the international market. And in eight years, it will be allowed to do the same with ballistic missiles."

And that's not all. Just three months ago, an Obama adviser strongly emphasized Iranian nuclear site inspections. You may remember this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN RHODES, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: First of all, under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Now, today, of course, the administration is singing a much different tune, with a senior official telling The Jerusalem Post, quote, "We don't think that anytime, anywhere inspections are feasible. It's just not something that happens anywhere in the world."

Even President Obama himself had some pretty tough words regarding a specific Iranian nuclear facility. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We know that they don't need to have an underground fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Once again today, we learned those remarks were meaningless.  And the Associated Press reported, quote, "Iran committed to convert its Fordow enrichment site dug deep into a mountainside and thought impervious to air attack into a research center."

Remember, this nuclear deal was one that was struck with one of the leading state sponsors of terror, and of course, a country whose supreme leader routinely calls for the annihilation of Jews, Israel and the United States.

Here with reaction for the first time, former vice president of the United States Dick Cheney.

Mr. Vice President, a day that will live in infamy? Your thoughts.

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: I can't help but just shake my head at, Sean, at what we're seeing here. We've seen a repetition of the same kind of operation with respect to other issues.

The one thing that really disturbed me was when he said we have, quote, "stopped" the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That's a lie.  That's just the fact of the matter is that the situation we've got when Iran ends up with a nuclear weapons, that is bound to lead others in the region to protect themselves, and in effect, to acquire their own capability.

I think that was one of the biggest problems we had when we were in office that we were concerned about was nuclear proliferation. We'd seen the Iraqis in '81 with a nuclear reactor. The Israelis took it out. In '91, they had a second program. We took it out in Desert Storm. When we took down Saddam Hussein in '03, Gadhafi gave up his nuclear materials.  And that let us wrap up A.Q. Khan, et cetera, et cetera. There's a long history there.

What Obama has done is, in effect, sanctioned the acquisition by Iran of nuclear capability. And it can be a few years down the road. It doesn't make any difference. It's a matter of months until we're going to see a situation where other people feel they have to defend themselves by acquiring their own capability. And that will, in fact, I think put us closer to use -- actual use of nuclear weapons than we've been at any time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.

HANNITY: You know, I guess you could really put the Obama seal on these nuclear weapons because I think now it's pretty much inevitable.

Here's what's so bad about the deal -- anytime, anywhere -- apparently, they have to give 24 days notice. Wouldn't that allow Iranians enough time to adapt and hide whatever they're really doing at these facilities? Isn't that enough time for them to adjust and really just do whatever they want the whole time?

CHENEY: It certainly is. You also start with a proposition, Sean, frankly, I don't think we know everything there is to know about the nuclear program in Iran. Fact of the matter is, our capabilities have never been perfect in terms of being able to read other nations and what they were doing.

Usually, we have historically underestimated the nuclear efforts of others. And I think this is a situation where we don't have the kind of access we need to be able to get in and know what is going on from a covert standpoint.

They've had covert programs in the past, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that they have things under way now that we don't know about.

HANNITY: Yes, well, I think that's probably true.

You know, as the prime minister pointed out, Bibi Netanyahu, when he made his statements -- he said the world is a much more dangerous place than it was. And he pointed out that, as you look at the Iranians here, they've never kept any deal that they've ever made. It makes the world less safe.

Do you think that countries like Saudi Arabia, et cetera, are now going to move forward with their own nuclear programs?

CHENEY: I'd be surprised if they didn't. I think the fact of the matter is that once you get to the situation where you've got Iran with its threats to everybody else, its continued efforts to undermine and destabilize other governments in the region, I don't think there's any question that there are going to be others in the area, a lot of them friends of ours, who feel they have no choice.

They can no longer trust the United States, for example. They've stood by and watched as Obama has gone through all kinds of statements that turned out not to be true. And the notion at this point they can rely upon the United States for protection or for coverage by an expanded U.S. military capability isn't credible anymore.

For one thing, we haven't kept our word to them in the past.  Secondly, we're dramatically reducing our own capabilities. Obama keeps talking about getting rid of all nuclear weapons. He's already significantly reduced our capabilities there. This last week, he announced a 40,000-man reduction in the United States Army.

He's not a man of his word. He's not a man who could be trusted. And I think our allies who find their very survival at question here, there isn't any way they're going to rely upon Barack Obama for safety and security. They're going to get their own.

HANNITY: Mr. Vice President, four days ago, they were chanting "Death to America." They did this all throughout the negotiations, which to me is obscene that you would continue to negotiate with people that are either burning your flag or chanting "Death to America."

Here's just one of these incidents that occurred. This one was in March.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI, SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

CROWD: CHANTING.

KHAMENEI: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: That's their supreme leader, chanting, leading a chant "Death to America."  Of course, he says, "Death to Israel" also.

During these negotiations, they said the destruction of Israel is non- negotiable. I have video of them. You know, even four days ago, they were burning, you know, the American flag, the Israeli flag. They have done this many, many times. This was just, you know, this past weekend.

So my question to you is, why do you think this president -- how do you analyze his trust level with them? Why does he trust them? Because I don't.

CHENEY: I certainly don't. One interesting thing in the agreement today. This is the last sentence of the first paragraph. It says, "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."

Now who the heck believes that? It's just beyond me -- I try to understand what it is Barack Obama thinks he's achieving here, why he looks at the world in different light than anybody else does, but he clearly does not understand or chooses to ignore reality. And that's going to cost us dearly as a nation, and it clearly has put us in a position where our capacity of influence in that part of the world has been dramatically undermined.

We are not only clearing the way for Iran to have nuclear weapons, we're going to send them about $140 billion in cash, lift the sanctions.  They'll be able to be more aggressive than they've ever been with respect to Quds Force. The agreement itself raises the sanctions, eliminates the sanctions on the Quds Force and on the IRGC.

One of the interesting things is, the Quds Force was sanctioned originally for terrorist activity. You go back and look at the Treasury Department press release when it was done in about '07, it was because of their support, material support for terrorism in the form of the Taliban.  Didn't have anything to do with the nuclear program. But they are now being taken from the sanctions list as part of this overall agreement, which supposedly doesn't deal with terror.

No, it just provides a heck of a lot of money for the world's leading terrorist organization to go out and do more of what they've done in the past.

HANNITY: You know, Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, actually analyzed the money -- because they're going to be getting up to, what, $150 billion. Iran is $300 billion to $400 billion economy, $150 billion infusion, he points out, cash into their coffers, would be like giving $8 trillion to this country, just to show the magnitude of the amount of money we're giving them, which I'm sure, as the leading sponsor -- state sponsor of terror, they'll continue to use in that arena. Wouldn't you expect?

CHENEY: I would certainly think so. And if we look at their track record over the years -- I saw one piece today that estimates that the Iranians were responsible through proxies, the death of about 1,000 Americans in the last 10 years, using their proxies, Quds force and others, in order to attack our people overseas.

I cannot -- you asked the key question, Sean, and that is what the hell is the president thinking of when he thinks this is a great deal. And I frankly -- I simply do not understand. I haven't met anybody who can explain it to me.

HANNITY: I have yet to meet anybody that can, as well.

Do you see a new emerging coalition, potentially Israel, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis -- that they may align together because they see this as a clear and present danger to their own existence?  Because I can see that happening. Your thoughts.

CHENEY: Well, I saw evidence of that the last time I was in the region. It's been a couple of years ago now, but I visited with a lot of old friends going back 25 years to Desert Storm. And whether it was Israel or Jordan or Egypt, the Saudis, the Emirates, they all had a similar concern.

Their number one concern was Iran. Number two was they were concerned about the United States and our misguided policies. But they were much closer to one another on the issues of the day than I'd ever seen them in the past. So I think it may, in fact, lead them in that direction.

But if you're Israeli and you look at the situation and you see a development that may drive others to seek nuclear weapons, obviously, you've dramatically changed Israel's security situation. They may pay a terrible price for what Barack Obama has done here today.

HANNITY: All right, Mr. Vice President, thank you for being with us.  We appreciate your time.

CHENEY: Thank you, Sean.

HANNITY: Coming up, continuing coverage of the Iran nuclear deal.  Plus, what about Americans being held hostage by this rogue regime in Tehran? Why wasn't their release negotiated as part of the deal? We'll check in with "the great one," Mark Levin. Later, Mark Steyn weighs in.

Also, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul -- he's taking on sanctuary cities. And he's here to explain that and more tonight as "Hannity" continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." A nuclear deal has been reached with Iran, but it doesn't mean that we should forget that this rogue regime -- what they have done in the past to Americans and people in the Middle East.

Now, back in 2010, Iran reportedly paid the Taliban $1,000 for every American soldier that they killed. Plus, three Americans -- they're still being held captive in Iran. One is missing. So why wasn't their release negotiated as part of the deal?

My next guest calls the nuclear agreement, quote, "absolutely disgraceful" and claims the president is delusional to think that he has stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Joining me now, Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes. It's even worse than that. We're almost paying them, Stephen, to build their nuclear weapons, build their infrastructure, their terrorist infrastructure. They keep their centrifuges. These inspections are phony with 24 days notice.  There's no -- weapons embargoes are going to be lifted. We are now creating -- we're marrying up a rogue regime, the number one state sponsor of terror, with nuclear weapons.

How bad -- I don't even think you could write a worse deal! Your thoughts.

STEPHEN HAYES, WEEKLY STANDARD, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: No, you really can't. I mean, what was interesting is we knew, based on the parameters of the deal that you and I have discussed before, that this was going to be a bad deal. I guess I'm surprised, I'm struck by the fact that when you get into the details of the deal, it's actually worse than we would have thought.

I mean, the arms embargo on conventional weapons sort of comes out of nowhere to be a part of this deal. You have sanctions relief ultimately for Kasim Suleimani, the head of the -- of Iran's Quds Force, which was responsible for more than 1,000 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade by supplying these EFPs to Shi'ite militias working in Iraq, also supplying weapons to terrorists in Afghanistan.

You know, the idea that he would ever see any kind of sanctions relief, whether nuclear related or terror related, is a total disgrace.  And it's really shocking that this was in this deal.

HANNITY: It's beyond shocking. All right, Stephen Hayes, thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it.

HANNITY: Nationally syndicated radio talk show host -- I call him "the great one" -- Mark Levin. Mark, your reaction to this deal.

MARK LEVIN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: My reaction is that Barack Obama has now planted the seeds of World War 3. And one day, World War 3's going to break out right here because of his actions today.

To arm up the Iranians regime, this terrorist regime in Tehran -- you know, Obama likes to say that Reagan and Kennedy negotiated with the Soviets. The Soviets had nukes. Iran does not have nukes. But thanks to him and Kerry and the other ideologues and lightweights that surround him, they're going to get nukes.

And this is where World War 3, in my view, is going to start. And he has sealed the fate -- the adults who are listening to this program, your children and grandchildren -- he has made the world so much more dangerous as a result of what he's done.

These inspections are phony! There are no real sanctions! The Iranians can't be trusted! They have demonstrated that time and time again, no less than the United Nations has told us! The Russians and the Chinese are thrilled by this because we're going to be bogged down for decades!

This is a complete disaster. Now, let me -- let me tell you what the national -- the worldwide threat assessment of the United States intelligence community under this president said in 2013. Tehran has made technical progress in a number of areas, including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors and ballistic missiles from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons.

Those ICBMs -- do you know Sean, they weren't even on the table? They didn't even discuss them? They said these technical advances strengthen our assessment that Iran has scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons.

Now, we were told a few years ago, really, they needed nuclear power to heat their homes in the middle of the desert. Now, we know that's phony. This whole thing is phony!

What's happened now is Obama has surrendered there, he's surrendered in Cuba, he's surrendered with the Russians, he's surrendered in the South China Sea! Meanwhile, he's hollowing out the United States military! This is a complete and utter disaster, and America is in incredible danger as a result of this deal!

HANNITY: Well, so is Israel, as the prime minister of Israel mentioned earlier. Let me talk about what Republicans might be able to do because they were -- showed weakness in this deal, as well, because they negotiated away, Mark, their constitutional authority. And they agreed to this 30-day, 60-day and the president saying that this is not a treaty.

What is your reaction to how they have handled it and what options they may have available to them at this point?

LEVIN: Well, we're going to have a conga line of Senate Republicans and House Republicans decrying this deal, when they knew this deal was going to be a disaster from the leaks from the Iranians, if anybody. And what they did is they surrendered their treaty power under the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, to Obama.

So now, rather than needing two thirds of the senators present to ratify a treaty, all Obama needs is one third of the senators because he said in his speech today he's going to veto any changes that may come, any challenges that may come.

The reason the treaty provision is in the Constitution -- Alexander Hamilton made it clear. It cannot be left to one man or one administration to engage the nation in such a historic and important and broad-based global agreements without more than one man and one administration opining on it!

Obama is disgusted by our system of government! He wants nothing to do with Congress! And Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham and all the rest of them surrendered this power to Obama! They knew better! The only Churchill who voted against this, the only United Senator who stood up and voted no -- one! -- was Tom Cotton. That was it!

HANNITY: Let me ask you this last question because I think this is important. So Republicans caved. They wouldn't use their constitutional authority and the power of the purse as it relates to repealing and replacing "Obama care." They wouldn't use the power of the purse when it came to the president's illegal, unconstitutional executive action on immigration. They gave up their power as it relates to treaties, the constitutional authority they have.

So what good are they at this point? They seem timid, weak, no spine, no backbone, no principles. If they won't stand up on these issues, what are they going to stand up for?

LEVIN: They're not going to stand up for anything. Need a new Republican Party. Reagan said it in the '70s. The same people who fought Reagan and didn't want him to be president are the same people we're dealing with right now. They're busy attacking conservatives. They're busy attacking their base. I've never seen such disgraceful conduct.

The Republican Party, as it sits today, has no purpose. It doesn't even stop Obama. Do you know Obama in over six-and-a-half years has had to veto only four bills? That's a historic low! Do you know why, Sean?  Because whatever bills the Republicans send to Obama, he likes them! He signs them!

They're funding every bit of ObamaCare. They're funding every bit of amnesty. They are raising the debt ceiling. They are working behind the scenes with Obama, and he with them.

HANNITY: All right...

LEVIN: And still it's not enough.

HANNITY: By the way...

LEVIN: The Republican Party needs new leadership, conservative leadership, or this is going to continue!

HANNITY: I agree. I see your new book by -- over your shoulder there. And I got my first copy. It's coming out in August, "Plunder and Deceit." "Great one," Mark Levin, thank you for being with us. Appreciate it.

Coming up, Mark Steyn -- he weighs in on the disastrous nuclear deal.

And why hasn't the president voiced outrage over Kathryn Steinle's murder? Well, he had no problem weighing in on the other deaths that made national news.

And later, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul explains why he introduced legislation to now crack down on sanctuary cities. We'll also get his take on this Iranian deal and more as we continue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace.

OBAMA: This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure.

CHAMBERLAIN: We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo- German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

OBAMA: The peaceful resolution of conflict leads to more immigration into the global economy, more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.

CHAMBERLAIN: We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute (ph) to assure the peace of Europe.

OBAMA: Today's announcement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more helpful -- more hopeful world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Peace with honor, peace in our time. Remember that, September 30th, 1938? Of course, the president sounding very similar today. Neville Chamberlain, of course. And is this analogy appropriate?

Joining us, co-author of "Climate Change: The Facts," Mark Steyn, is with us. Is that a good analogy?

MARK STEYN, CO-AUTHOR, "CLIMATE CHANGE: THE FACTS": I think, actually, that's rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain, Sean. He got the central question of the 1930s wrong, but he was an honorable man who believed he was acting in the interests of his country and the British empire which he loved.

When Churchill became prime minister, he kept Chamberlain on and had him chair the war cabinet in his absence. And Churchill wept over Neville Chamberlain's funeral casket and claimed he was an honorable man who just happened to be wrong.

I don't think you can say that about Obama. I think what Obama did is significantly worse than what Neville Chamberlain did. I don't think, in effect, Obama was negotiating on behalf of the United States.

I think what happened at these talks is that he and the Iranians were, in a sense, negotiating together to anoint Iran as the regional power in the Middle East and to facilitate Iran's reentry -- the biggest planetary sponsor of terrorism -- to facilitate its reentry into the global community. That's what Obama was there doing.

HANNITY: In the last century, Mark, we lost 100 million souls. If you look at more mass murder, America defeating terrorism and communism and fascism and Nazism and Tojo's Japan, et cetera, look at man's inhumanity to man just in World War II with Nazi German. This president seems incapable of recognizing evil. The number one state sponsor of terror. These are people that are fighting one proxy war, sworn to the destruction of the Israel and the United States, and the president makes the deal. It's almost like there's a missing chip here. What is the missing chip?

STEYN: Well, I think that's the other difference between Obama and chamberlain. The horrors of what Germany did were not known to Neville Chamberlain. And in a sense the appeasers of the 1930s did so because of the horrors of the First World War and the lost generation, and they didn't want that to happen again. And it's because we know they got it wrong that history won't give us the same opt-out card because we should have known better because it had happened before.

I think what Obama gets here, I think it does come back to his classic Marxist worldview in which he sees America as the problem on the world's stage. And if you look at everything he did, he's done, Sean, then what he did with Iran fits into that context. I mean, whether you look at missile defense in eastern Europe where he takes the side of Russia over U.S. allies like Poland and the Czech Republic, if you look at little things like the Falklands Islands where he takes the side of Argentina over United States allies like the United Kingdom. And in the Middle East he has taken the side of Iran over U.S. allies like the Sunni monarchies and Israel, because his central view is that America and American power is the problem in the world, and, therefore, American allies are part of that problem.

And, therefore, what he does is in a sense withdraw from the world, and enhance the position of the enemies of American allies. That's what he's done in the Middle East, and it won't be confined to the Middle East.  It will spread beyond that.

HANNITY: Let me shift gears and ask you about the rise of Donald Trump and the president. He's been quick to weigh in on Trayvon Martin, on Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, but silence is deafening as it relates to this 32-year-old woman Kathryn Steinle. What do you make of immigration now and its impact on the presidential campaign and Trump's surge?

STEYN: Well, you should never ask a legal immigrant about what he makes of this fetishization of the political class of the illegal immigrants, Sean, because I'll tell you something, one day all of us legal immigrants who paid all the fee and did all the paperwork and went through the system are going to have one almighty class action suit against the United States government to ask for our money back.

It's quite disgraceful. The murderer of Kate Steinle is a career criminal who paid no price for his criminality. If you're a foreigner and you commit one little rinky-dink nothing little crime in America in 1964, 1958, 1943, they wouldn't let you set foot in this country again. There's like aging hippies in Canada who possess a couple of ounces of marijuana in 1964 and can't set foot in this country ever.

My old boss, Conrad Black, he used to run "The Chicago Sun Times" and a bunch of other newspapers. He committed a white caller crime no one can actually explain in the English language, and the Supreme Court threw out 19 of the 20 charges. He can't set foot in the United States.

But a violent career criminal, federal, state, and local officials collude with to let him have the run of this country and prey on Americans.  And that's why Donald Trump has risen, because what happened to Kate Steinle, anyone who reads the local newspaper and looks at whacky little hit-and-run accidents that appear in the paper on Monday morning knows these kind of crimes go on every weekend all over the map.

HANNITY: Real quick, yes or no, can Trump win this nomination?

STEYN: I don't know whether he can win the nomination. But if he keeps talking about this issue, in a sense he can win on this particular issue and put this issue in there.

HANNITY: All right, Mark Steyn, good to see you. Thank you.

Coming up, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has now introduced legislation that would crack down on sanctuary cities. He is here coming up next to explain.

Later, the notorious drug kingpin known as El Chapo has escaped from a Mexican prison, and the country is now offering millions of dollars for his capture. How did this happen? We'll explain and more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." So following the uproar over the tragic death of the Kate Steinle at the hands of an illegal immigrant, 2016 GOP presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul has now introduced legislation intended to crack down on sanctuary cities. Joining us is now for background on this new bill is the author of "Taking a Stand, Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America," 2016 Republican presidential candidate Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Senator, how are you?

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.; PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Very good, Sean. Thanks for having me.         HANNITY: I read that Lamar Alexander and John Cornyn, your colleagues, today voted down an attempt to put this in the education bill.  Is that true?

PAUL: Well, I'm not aware of how they voted on it, but I do know that what we do need to do is we need to tell cities like San Francisco they have to obey the federal law. And immigration is a federal law. And states all the time obey this. If you're wanted to for shoplifting and you're held for shoplifting in Ohio but you committed murder in Michigan, Ohio never releases you and say go on your way. They release you to Michigan. It should be the same in San Francisco. If you're wanted for a petty crime but immigration wants you for another crime, when you're released you should go into federal jurisdiction or federal prison.

HANNITY: Yes, well, I'm reading, and this was on "Conservative Review," Republican leaders are blocking a vote on an amendment that would put an end to liberal cities thwarting federal immigration law. So you want to end -- we have 296 sanctuary cities. You want to put an end to it and they're blocking an attempt to do that. Why?

PAUL: Well, I think sometimes they just don't want to address facts that are out there. I'm not sure about this particular episode, but I do know that we will attempt to get a vote. That's now our amendment. It might be somebody else's amendment. But we're going to attempt to get a vote on this, and I think there's a good chance that we can pass it because it makes so much sense.

If someone is wanted for a federal crime and they're being held by a local jail, when the local jail releases them, they should be released into federal custody. And this is something President Obama changed, because it used to be that this was interpreted as being a mandatory hold on a prisoner, and President Obama through executive order and through executive interpretation has now said that it's voluntary.

But if you're wanted for a federal crime you should be held and not released to the general public. And it's a real tragedy that this young woman lost her life because people in San Francisco apparently don't care about whether or not they're releasing dangerous criminals into the public.

HANNITY: Did you see that the escaped Mexican drug lord El Chapo, that literally had his wife -- ordered his wife to give birth to their children in America so that they would be American citizens, so-called anchor babies. The AP reported on that today. When is the practice going to end?

PAUL: Well, we can't have a lawless nation. And that's sort of what we have now is a lawless border. And people have talked a lot about what immigration reform or security measures are necessary. Really what we need is an enforcer. We haven't had a Republican or a Democrat in the White House who is willing to enforce immigration laws. Just enforcing the laws on the books would improve things now. But we sort have a lawlessness when San Francisco thinks they can thumb their nose and not obey the federal law.

HANNITY: What is your reaction to this nuclear deal announced today?  And what do you think the Senate and the House can do to stop it, if anything?

PAUL: I've been very skeptical of the Iranians' intentions. And I think anything that leaves them with a sufficient nuclear capacity to enrich is a problem, and I think this agreement does that.

I've also said over time I think the sanctions, if there was going to be sanction relief, that it should be delayed until we see sufficient Iranian compliance.

And then the third thing about the agreement that bothers me is that it allows for sales of advance weapons like even ballistic missiles to Iran. I think it would be a huge mistake for the world to begin selling advanced weaponry to Iran again. So I won't be able to support the agreement because I it that doesn't address any of these things.

I did vote for the Corker bill, though, and I think it is sometimes mischaracterized. The Corker bill says that the agreement does have to come back and be voted on. The president objected to Corker's bill, and in the end it was passed and the president went along with it. But the bill does have to come back and be voted on. And so there will be a chance for all of us to agree or disagree.

HANNITY: But you didn't need the Corker bill. It's in the constitution. You're a libertarian. You're a constitutional conservative.  Why did you need that bill when it's in the constitution as the Senate -- needs two-third approval?

PAUL: Yes, but here's the problem. Let's say that I say it's a treaty. And I do agree that it's a treaty. So I'm with you. I think it's a treaty. But the president says it isn't a treaty. So what we is a --

HANNITY: Take him to court. Take it to court. Don't give him -- don't reduce --

PAUL: I know. But here's what happens. If we vote to say it's a treaty, the president then vetoes it, it would take two-thirds to override it. So really where we are with the Corker bill, it is going to take two- thirds to override the president's veto which is exactly the same scenario we would have with a treaty.

So I think Corker's bill is essentially the same as whether we vote on whether it's a treaty or not because we will have to overcome a presidential veto in either scenario. So I think they're essentially equivalent.

HANNITY: It seems to me that Congress is far too willing to cede power to the executive branch and I think it's going to come back and bite us.

PAUL: I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's the biggest problem facing our country is we've allowed the presidency to grow so strong and the Congress to grow so small, and that we have given up authority to the president. Without question it's the biggest problem we face in our country.

HANNITY: Let's see what the Democrats do here. A number of them have said they don't like the talking points on the bill. And when we get time to examine it more closely we'll see where they stand.

All right, Senator, good to see you. Thank you.

PAUL: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: Coming, a massive manhunt underway in Mexico after the notorious drug lord that is known as El Chapo escaped from prison. The country is offering millions as a reward for his capture. And why is he threatening Donald Trump? That and more straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, he remains at large after a daring escape from a Mexican high- security prison over the weekend. Reports say he is taunting the authorities, and the Mexican government is now offering $3.8 million for his capture.

Joining us now for analysis is Jan-Albert Hootsen. He is a contributor for FOX News Latino. He recently visited the prison where El Chapo was being detained. Also with us is Sylvia Longmire, contributing editor for Breitbart Texas, also a former California senior intelligence analyst on border and drug trafficking in the security. Welcome all of you.         Jan, let me start with you. Explain to me this particular individual. This is supposed to be the highest security prison they have.  How could this have happened?

JAN-ALBERT HOOTSEN, FOX NEWS LATINO CONTRIBUTOR: Well, so far, everyone's assuming that Chapo's escape was the result of internal corruption. If you look at the way he was able to escape, it's a one mile long tunnel that ended in a building that was suspiciously built apparently for the purpose of allowing him to escape.

Such an operation takes so much resources and so much manpower that it is almost impossible for him to have been able to execute it without help from the inside. And in fact, Mexico's interior secretary assumed as much in a recent statement that there will probably be people inside the prison that helped him out with the operation.

HANNITY: Sylvia, let me get your take on it. More importantly, he's threatening Donald Trump. Does Donald Trump have to worry?

SYLVIA LONGMIRE, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR FOR BREITBART TEXAS: Right now he probably doesn't have to worry. The Mexican Cartels and drug lords have a history of threatening, usually it's law enforcement or senior law enforcement agents, special agents for different law enforcement agencies generally that work along the border. And so far we haven't really seen any of those threats being carried out.

And something against a VIP like Donald Trump who probably has a decent amount of executive protection, it's probably just rhetoric to draw attention to them right now.

HANNITY: Let me ask you, everyone thinks that this one issue is a defining issue for the Latino vote in America. Do you agree with that?

LONGMIRE: As far as being a defining issue, I think it's much bigger than that. To bring down the entire Latino vote, and just to call it the Latino vote in general I think is a little overreaching because there are very specific segments within the Latino population of the United States that don't all necessarily vote the same way. So to say this is going to be a defining aspect of that I think is a little overreaching.

HANNITY: Mr. Hootsen?

HOOTSEN: I very much doubt it, because, first of all, these threats that were put against Donald Trump, it's almost impossible to ascertain whether they were real or not. So it's also almost impossible to ascertain whether there's any real danger. I don't think it's going to be of much difference.

HANNITY: All right, I want to thank you both for being with us.  We'll watch it very closely and we'll talk to Donald Trump on this program tomorrow night about it. Thank you all for being with us.

And coming up, we need your help. Why? Because our question of the day is next. It has to do with Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama.  That's straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." Time for tonight's "Question of the Day." So will history prove President Obama is actually worse than Neville Chamberlain? Just go to Facebook.com/SeanHannity, @SeanHannity on Twitter, let us know what you think.

That's all the time we have left for this evening. Don't forget, set your DVR so you never miss an episode, because we miss you. Thanks for being with us. We'll see you back here tomorrow night.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.